Monday         3/8           Mark 2:23–3:6
Tuesday         3/9           Mark 3:7–19
Wednesday   3/10         Mark 3:20–30
Thursday       3/11          Mark 3:31–35
Friday             3/12         Luke 9-12
Sat-Sun          3/13-14    1 Chronicles 6–20

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for March 8-14, 2010.

Related posts:

1. Devotion Time: March 8-14, 2010
2. Devotion Time: March 1-7, 2010
3. Mark 2 Inductive Bible Study Sample

Bible Passages for March 8-14, 2010

Monday         3/8           Mark 2:23–3:6
Tuesday         3/9           Mark 3:7–19
Wednesday   3/10         Mark 3:20–30
Thursday       3/11          Mark 3:31–35
Friday             3/12         Luke 9-12
Sat-Sun          3/13-14    1 Chronicles 6–20

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Training Guide.

Click here to download the Inductive Bible Study Packet for March 8-14, 2010.

“For the Jews in the time of Jesus, the Sabbath was more than just a matter of obedience to rules.  Sabbath observance was regarded as a way to honor the holiness of Yahweh (Ex. 20:8-11; Deut. 5:12-15).  It also marked the joyful entry into sacred time, the time of the beginning before human work.  The Sabbath ‘was a sanctuary in time.’   It was also regarded as a sign of Israel’s sanctification among all the nations.  Its observance made Israel distinct as a nation, bolstered Jewish identity over against others, and served as a bulwark against assimilation to pagan culture.  For Jews in the Diaspora, keeping the Sabbath was a profession of faith, a national identity marker.”[1]

“The real danger of rigid legalism is that it can delude one into thinking that God is satisfied when one is a stickler for religious details, even if one is merciless to others…Devotion to principle can outweigh concern for individuals and can become deadly in more ways than one, as the ensuing plot against Jesus reveals.  Pascal said, ‘Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.’”[2]

Mark 3:11-12

“We must ask, ‘Why did Jesus so sternly bid them to remain silent?’ The reason was very simple and very compelling. Jesus was the Messiah, God’s anointed king; but his idea of Messiahship was quite different from the popular idea. He saw in Messiahship a way of service, of sacrifice and of love with a cross at the end of it. The popular idea of the Messiah was of a conquering king who, with his mighty armies, would blast the Romans and lead the Jews to world power. Therefore, if a rumour were to go out that the Messiah had arrived, the inevitable consequence would be rebellions and uprisings, especially in Galilee where the people were ever ready to follow a nationalist leader.  Jesus thought of Messiahship in terms of love; the people thought of Messiahship in terms of Jewish nationalism. Therefore, before there could be any proclamation of his Messiahship, Jesus had to educate the people into the true idea of what it meant. At this stage nothing but harm and trouble and disaster could come from the proclamation that the Messiah had arrived. It would have issued in nothing but useless war and bloodshed. First of all men had to learn the true conception of what the Messiah was; a premature announcement such as this could have wrecked Jesus’ whole mission.”^[3]

Mark 3:13-15

“The huge multitude is thinned as Jesus invites “those he wanted” to come with him.  This call creates a distinction between those who follow after him desperately seeking healing, those who are only caught up in the spectacle of these strange events, and those who are summoned to follow after him as disciples with a particular task.  Jesus “appointed twelve” out of this group who came to him.”[4]

Mark 3:14

“Mark stresses the disciples’ task of being “with [Jesus]”.  What does ‘being with’ Jesus entail? “Most important, it denotes the Twelve as the witnesses to his ministry, who have learned from him and are, qualified to pass on and authenticate the traditions about him…The task of being with Jesus is one that is harder than it might first appear.  The Twelve will have to learn that there is a difference between hanging around with Jesus and truly being with him.  The latter means that they must follow wherever he leads and share the toil of the ministry, the harassment of the crowds, and the same bitter draught of suffering.”[5]

Mark 3:14-15

“The list of the Twelve does not include “Levi, the son of Alphaeus” but does identify a second James as “son of Alphaeus”.  The epithet may have moved from one individual to the other.  A simpler explanation for the divergence in the two names would be to assume that both variants had become attached to traditional accounts of the calling of disciples prior to Mark’s use of these stories.”[6]

“Their companionship with him is to lead to service that benefits others.  They are not merely on the receiving end of this outbreak of power but are to become channels by which it touches others.”[7]

Mark 3:16-19

“The list of the names of the Twelve gives us scant clues as to their status, background, or religious training, but Jesus gives the first three striking nicknames.  Simon is given the name Peter (petros, meaning ‘rock’), and James and John, formerly introduced as the sons of Zebedee, are called the ‘Sons of Thunder.’  One can only speculate what occasioned these names or what they reveal about these men – their character, their faith, or their future roles? Judas comes last in the list and is identified as the betrayer, a name that the church, not Jesus bestowed on him.

“The Twelve are not called to sainthood or to sit on thrones, nor are they presented as ideal disciples, who serve as models for the readers.  The performance of these twelve men in Mark makes it clear that humans, being what they are, are free to make their own choices and frequently fail in their partnership with God.”[8]

Mark 3:21

“Jesus’ family intrudes to round him up, not to rally around him.  They are intent on silencing him, presumably to squelch any further unwanted attention from the populace or the authorities.  They may be spurred by the noble but misguided desire to protect him from danger or, less nobly, to salvage the family reputation.”[9]

Mark 3:22

BEELZEBUL* Epithet meaning “lord of the flies” or “lord of the manure pile,” referring to Satan. It was used against Jesus by his enemies (Mt 10:25, kjv “Beelzebub”; 12:24; Lk 11:15). See Baal-zebub.  Tyndale Bible Dictionary

Mark 3:22-27

“The parable is an allegory.  The strong one is Satan.  His house is his domain, the present world, which he seeks to hold secure.  His vessels are those hapless victims whom he has taken captive.  The stronger one is Jesus, who has come from God, invaded Satan’s stronghold, and bound him.”[10]

Mark 3:28-30

“This passage of the ‘unpardonable’ sin has caused much talk in the church and many to be paralyzed with fear that he might have committed it.  However, the problem is that Christians frequently seize on the negative aspect of this saying – one is ‘guilty of an eternal sin’ – and neglect the positive statement – ‘all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.’  The KJV translation, ‘is in danger of eternal damnation’ (3:29), certainly grabs one’s attention.  Since this passage has caused so many such unnecessary anguish, one wisely stresses that the love, grace, and patience of God are never exhausted by our abundant sinfulness.  “Whoever comes to me I will never drive away” (John 6:37).  The gospel proclaims that God forgives what may seem to us to be unforgivable.”[11]

“We must begin by remembering that Jesus could not have used the phrase the Holy Spirit in the full Christian sense of the term.  The Spirit in all his fullness did not come to men until Jesus had returned to his glory.  Jesus must have used the term in the Jewish sense of the term.  Now in Jewish thought the Holy Spirit had two great functions.  First he revealed God’s truth to men; second, he enabled men to recognize that truth when they saw it.  If he lives in the dark long enough he will lose the ability to see.  If he stays in bed long enough he will lose the power to walk.  If he refuses to do any serious study he will lose the power to study.  And if a man refuses the guidance of God’s Spirit often enough he will become in the end incapable of recognizing that truth when he sees it.  Consider the effect of Jesus on a man.  The very first effect is to make him see his own utter unworthiness in comparison with the beauty and the loveliness of the life of Jesus.  The result of that sense of unworthiness and the result of that stabbed heart is a heartfelt penitence, and penitence is the only condition of forgiveness.  But, if a man has got himself into such a state, by repeated refusals to listen to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, that he cannot see anything lovely in Jesus at all, then the sight of Jesus will not give him any sense of sin; because he has no sense of sin he cannot be penitent, and because he is not penitent he cannot be forgiven.”[12]

“Their sin is that, in the presence of God’s grace in action, they have not only rejected it but ascribed it to the devil.  They are set on calling the Spirit’s work the activity of Satan.  It may be that Jesus means that they have not yet reached this point of no return, and that he is warning them against hardening their current attitude into a permanent stance.  There is no forgiveness here because such an attitude is incapable of seeking it.”[13]

“If one understands the so-called unforgivable sin as deliberately scorning the power and forgiveness of God, one can perhaps help those in the church who become worried, or even terror-stricken, that they have committed some sin that is unpardonable.  That they even worry about it provides proof that they have not committed such a sin.”[14]

“[O]ne can perhaps suggest a simpler solution to this problematic text.  In reading the passage literally, we fail to understand Jesus’ use of hyperbole to underscore that rejecting or obstructing the work of the Holy Spirit is a terrible sin.  McNeile explains that serious (or defiant) sin was often spoken of as ‘unpardonable’ in the Old Testament (Num. 15:30-31, 1 Sam. 3:14, Isa. 22:14) and comments, ‘If the Lord spoke as a Jew to Jews and used the type of expression current in His day, and derived from the Old Testament, He meant, and would be understood to mean, no more than that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, by whose power He worked, was a terrible sin, – more terrible than blasphemy against man.”[15]

Mark 3:31-32

“Reference to Jesus’ brothers has caused embarrassment to those in the church who feel it inappropriate for the virgin Mother of the Savior.  ‘Cousins’ or ‘children of Joseph by another marriage’ have been suggested, but this is a most unnatural way of reading the text.  Mark means natural brother to Jesus, born by Mary.  The general absence of reference to Joseph suggests that he was by now dead.

“A more difficult problem is how Mary who, according to the stories in early chapters of Luke and Matthew, had gone through such unforgettable experiences, should now be with those trying to take him home.  Such difficulties, however, arise only if one is determined not to let her be what she probably was, a simple Hebrew maid ‘engraced’ by God.  How could she understand all that was involved?  Why should she not have shared the view of those around her about who Jesus was, and be equally upset at the unexpected turn of events, with such crowds and teaching and healing and exorcisms, and the pretentious claims implied – and occasionally blurted out at the height of excitement or controversy – about who he was?  How could she have known that he would be in opposition, as it seemed clear he now was, to the religious leaders of the day whom she regarded with deep respect and awe?  This attitude, of itself, neither detracts from the authenticity of belief in a virgin birth, nor shows Mary as in any sense unworthy or out of character in her behavior.  Many mothers can no doubt identify with her, if at a lesser level, in the anxiety and disappointment when a son’s life does not go as expected.”[16]

“Just as the teachers of the law were blatantly hindering the work of God, the blood family of Jesus, though with best of intentions, came to him and tried to hinder him from doing the work of God.  Blasphemy against the Spirit is not just slandering the Spirit of God, which is easy to recognize; it also includes attempts to subvert the work of the Spirit of God, which is not so easy to recognize.  The reason it is harder to detect is because those who may be guilty of it are those closest to Jesus and those who have convinced themselves that they are acting with the best of intentions.”[17]

Mark 3:33-35

“What follows must have been almost crushing for her [Mary].  The crowd seems to take the side of Jesus’ family, and the implication is that Jesus will either go out to them or make room for them to come in (v.32).  In effect Jesus, as so often, in the words of T.W. Manson, stood normal human values on their heads.  A new situation has developed.  Stronger ties even than blood are now being forged.  In the perspective of the kingdom ‘the family’ consists of whoever does God’s will.  This is not a teaching to be cold to parents. But it is a warning that even so deep, precious, and basic a relationship as that of human family is superseded by the fellowship of the new family of God, which will continue into eternity.”[18]

“Jesus’ re-definition of the family may create problems for many individuals instead of providing answers.  The commitment to do the will of God may force some to make a wrenching choice between their biological family and God.”[19]

[2] Garland, David E., The NIV Application Commentary: Mark, p. 116

^[3] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

[4] David E. Garland, Mark (NIVAC; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing, 1996), p.128.

[5] D. Garland, p.129.

[6] Pheme Perkins, The Gospel of Mark (NIBC: Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), p.562.

[7] D. Garland, p.129.

[8] D. Garland, p.137-38.

[9] D. Garland, p.130.

[10] D. Garland, p.135.

[11] NIV Application Commentary, p.136

[12] Barclay, William.  The Gospel of Mark, p.79-80

[13] English, Donald.  Bible Speaks Today: Mark, p.89

[14] NIV Application Commentary, p.136

[15] McNeile, Alan Hugh.  The Gospel According to St. Matthew, p.179

[16] English, Donald.  Bible Speaks Today: Mark, p.90

[17] NIV Application Commentary, p.137

[18] English, Donald.  Bible Speaks Today: Mark, p.90

[19] NIV Application Commentary, p.146

Related posts:

1. HOT Spot: Hang Out Time (Weds 3/10)
2. Pastor Manny talks about Envy, “Why am I…?”
3. Pastor Manny Usain Bolt Kim

Come join us for this week’s H.O.T. Spot (hang out time). We’ll have lunch and fellowship together during your break between classes. You can bring your lunch and we’ll bring lots of food to share too! Come anytime between your break from 12-2pm and we’ll meet at the tables between the FAC & Union. If it rains or it’s too cold, look for us inside the Texas Union eating areas.

For those who are always in classes on Wednesday, next week we’ll be meeting on Thursday.

Date: Weds, 3/10
Time: 12-2pm (come anytime)
Location: Tables between FAC & Union

Related posts:

1. Office Hours With Pastor Manny and Sunny (Weds 3/10)
2. Spring Break: Multiply Your Talents!
3. Stressed? Take a ‘Halftime’ break with Koinonia!

“In the eyes of the teachers of the law, to presume to forgive sins is an arrogant affront to the majesty of God, which appropriately can be labeled blasphemy.  A priest could pronounce the forgiveness of sins on the basis of repentance, restitution, and sacrifice (Lev. 4; 5; 16; 17:11); but Jesus seems to be claiming that he is able to remit sins as if he were God.  To the theologically trained mind there can be only two possible inferences.  The presence of the kingdom of God, which Jesus has been speaking about, must usher in the forgiveness of sins.  Or they can conclude that this is “a conceited act of blasphemy” – something worthy of death (Lev. 24:16).”[1]

Mark 2:9-12

“He skirts the issue of blasphemy with a riddling question of his own, in effect saying, ‘Which is easier, to make a theological pronouncement about the forgiveness of sins or to provide empirical proof that the man’s sins have indeed been forgiven by virtue of his ability to get up and walk away?’ If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken.  That prophet has spoken presumptuously.  Do not be afraid of him (Deut 18:22).  To show the teachers of the law that his pronouncement of forgiveness is not just idle theological prattle, Jesus commands the paralytic to get up and walk so they may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth (2:10-11).  The word confirms that their alarm is not misplaced.  Jesus does presume to forgive sins on the basis of grace – something that a priest in the temple could not do, that even the law could not do.”[2]

Mark 2:14

“Matthew’s gospel tells of an almost identical story and identifies the tax collector as Matthew (Mt. 9:9-13).  Although Levi is not listed among the twelve apostles in Mark 3:13-19, the traditional view is that his given name was Levi and Matthew (‘gift of the Lord’) is his apostolic name. Levi was a tax collector under Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee.”[3]

“Levi enjoyed a coveted position among the tax collectors.  Capernaum was a key military center for Roman troops, as well as a thriving business community.  Several major highways intersected in Capernaum, with merchants passing through from as far away as Egypt to the south and Mesopotamia to the north.  Levi, a Jew, was appointed by the Romans to be the area’s tax collector.  He collected taxes from citizens as well as from merchants passing through town.  Tax collectors were expected to take a commission on the taxes they collected.  Most of them overcharged and vastly enriched themselves.  Tax collectors were despised by the Jews because of their reputation for cheating and their support of Rome.”[4]

“The down side of this lucrative position was that tax collectors were social outcasts.  They were denied the right to serve as witnesses or judges.  And perhaps worst of all, tax collectors, along with their family members, were excommunicated from the synagogue.

“With the exception of the social stigma associated with being a tax collector, Levi enjoyed a fairly comfortable lifestyle.  He had his share of friends as evidenced by the dinner he hosts (v.15).  He was financially secure and had a high paying job. Many of us might have liked the advantages enjoyed by Levi.  When Jesus called him, Levi’s world changed dramatically.  His life would be marked forever by the events of that day.  He immediately left his work, his financial dreams, and his well-padded position to follow Jesus.  Jesus made demands on Levi’s life, and Levi responded obediently.  Jesus also makes demands in our lives.  What has Jesus asked you to change?  If he were to visit with you, what would he ask you to leave behind to follow him?”[5]

“It can be argued that of all the disciples Levi gave up most.  He literally left all to follow Jesus.  Peter, Andrew, James and John could go back to the boats.  There were always fish to catch and always the old trade to which to return; but Levi burned his bridges completely.  With one action, in one moment of time, by one swift decision he had put himself out of his job forever.”[6]

Mark 2:16

“The Pharisees (meaning ‘the separated ones’) were a collection of factions consisting mostly of Torah-concerned laymen who sincerely sought to extend into the lives of ordinary Jews the concerns of ritual purity usually associated in the law with only the priest and the temple.  Their driving motivation was to fulfill God’s command: ‘Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy’ (Lev. 19:2).  They especially fastened on the purity rules that classified things, times, and persons according to different degrees of holiness and un-holiness.  It was essential to their sense of identity as Jews, a holy and separate people, to be able to know and determine what was permissible or proscribed, clean or unclean.  Their purity concerns magnified the agricultural rules and specified not only what might be eaten, but out of which vessel one might eat and with whom one might eat.  The upshot of their concern for holiness was their conviction that the sinner would be kept at arm’s length until disinfected by concrete repentance and the proper ceremonial rites. They saw themselves as righteous and everyone else as sinners. [7]

“In Levi’s house there gathered a crowd that Jesus could not reach in the synagogues.  The tax collectors and their family would have been excommunicated.  The term ‘sinners’ referred to the common people who were not learned in the law and did not abide by the rigid standards of the Pharisees.[8]

“A clear distinction was drawn between those who kept the law and those whom they called the ‘people of the land.’  By the orthodox it was forbidden to have anything to do with these people.  The strict law-keeper must have no fellowship with them at all.  By going to Levi’s house and sitting at his table and companying with his friends Jesus was defying the orthodox conventions of his day.”[9]

“In order to fully understand the shock that the Pharisees must have felt when they saw Jesus dining with tax collectors, we must understand the cultural significance of sharing a meal with someone.  As one commentator writes ‘It was an offer of peace, trust, brotherhood and forgiveness; in short, sharing a table meant sharing life.  …  Therefore, guests were selected very carefully.’”[10]

Mark 2:17

“The first half of Jesus’ response to their objection (v.17a) cites a common proverb, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician.’  The second half applies to the proverb of Jesus’ own ministry: he did not come for the righteous.  Jesus seeks out ‘sinners’.  This activity defines new meaning for the ‘coming of the Lord.’  The common expectation was that righteous who suffered oppression at the hands of the wicked would be delivered and their oppressors punished.  Jesus redefined the coming of God’s rule as the time of salvation, when people are freed from the power of Satan.  They are healed and their sins forgiven.”[11]

“As in the case of Zacchaeus, the Son of man came especially to seek and to save the lost ones (c.f. Luke 19:10).  His whole mission was directed towards the sinful, He did not mean that any were in truth righteous or well and thus without need of spiritual healing.  The point is that, without the primary pre-requisite of a sense of need, there could be no healing for them, for they were unwilling to come to Him, the sole source of healing, to seek it (c.f. John 5:40).”[12]

“Mark touches Christians on a sensitive spot with this story of Jesus going into table fellowship with Levi and his friends.  Christians do, after all, have a duty to uphold moral standards derived from their belief in God through Jesus.  It is natural, therefore, that the church defends such standards and the members embody them in their life style.  This sets clear boundaries to the extent to which we can mix easily with those whose life styles are very different from ours.  We quickly feel not only uneasy, but actually compromised.  What is more we sense that the atmosphere in such setting may be inimical to our spiritual growth.

“The example of Jesus is again our model.  He was sustained by his prayers to the Father, and in his fellowship with his disciples (despite their inadequacy).  From these, and his deep knowledge of the Scriptures, he drew sustenance to go into the most unlikely company and not only survive in it but actually win others to faith within it.  We are called neither recklessly to risk ourselves nor timidly to secure ourselves, but to find the point of life-giving tension between the two.  In that way our worship and fellowship have more point and our witness more depth.” [13]

Mark 2:18-20

“The Pharisees and the disciples of John engaged in ascetic practices that were designed to separate them from others who had not made religious piety the hallmark of their lives.  As apparent participants in this arena of religiosity, Jesus and his disciples are oddly uninterested in the same kinds of outward show of devoutness, which prompts the question in verse 18.  Imagining the context of the issue, the question becomes immediately misplaced and underscores the effect of Jesus’ arrival on earth.  Jesus evokes the image of a wedding celebration, an extended period of festivity sometimes lasting a week, and sweeps his hand around the room to widen the narrow view of the questioners at the joyous gathering in Levi’s house of so-called “sinners” who by responding to the invitation had suddenly found themselves in the company of Jesus.  Jesus’ willingness to share a meal, a very intimate activity, with these types of people was a proclamation that the careful boundaries that man-made religion had erected between the acceptable and the unacceptable people were demolished, that all people from all backgrounds and stereotype were welcome under the banner of God’s grace and that true holiness is not something to protect from contamination, but a life-giving, transforming power that can turn tax collectors and sinners into disciples.[14] How can one fast in the midst of such joy and celebration?  To emphasize his point, Jesus quotes proverbial sayings of everyday life in vv.21-22 that state straightforwardly: The new that Jesus brings is incompatible with the old.”[15]

“The question about fasting forces us to question the purposes of our religious rites and observances.  Fasting or any other religious discipline does not elicit God’s grace, forgiveness of sins, or acceptance.  Any renunciation of the pleasures of earthly life as an attempt to gain favor with God or to achieve eternal life is to be rejected.”[16]

Notice, however, that Jesus does not denounce the activity of fasting wholesale, rather he is responding to “the ideas associated to fasting that were incompatible with the coming kingdom of God.  Fasting was related to the fear of demons, and some thought that they could ward off demons by fasting.  Some used fasting as a meritorious act of self-renunciation, which ultimately was intended to impress or sway God in some way.  That is, one fasted to try to get God to bestow some good that he might otherwise withhold.  Some fasted to atone for sins or to avert further calamity from falling on the nation.”[17]

Mark 2:21-22

The garment will tear when it is washed and the patch of new, stronger fabric shrinks.  Old wineskins already stretched to their limits and now inflexible will burst when the new wine expands.  The point is clear.  The new that Jesus brings is incompatible with the old.  He has not come to patch up an old system that does not match the revolutionary rule of God.  He is not simply a reformer of the old, but one who will transform it.  There can be no concession, no accommodations, and no compromises with the old.  Both will be ruined if they are combined.[18]

Mark 2:23-28

Walking through a field, Jesus’ disciples picked heads of grain and rubbed the kernels clean before eating them, an activity which was considered reaping which in turn was tantamount to work and the Pharisees are right there to point out this forbidden practice on the Sabbath, the commanded day of rest.  Jesus cites the Biblical precedent of King David taking it upon himself to eat the bread of the Presence, the most holy portion of the offering that was to be eaten only by the priests in a holy place.  “The Scripture tacitly sanctions his actions by not condemning him.  David was not just a hungry man, however.  He was to become the king of Israel, the ancestor of the Messiah, and a type of the King-Messiah.  His personal authority legitimated his actions.  If the strict regulations regarding the bread of the Presence could be set aside for David, who was fleeing for his life, how much more can holy regulations be set aside for Jesus and his companions, whom Mark presents as David’s Lord and who is in a situation of far greater urgency in proclaiming the coming of the kingdom of God.”[19]

[2] D. Garland, p.95.

[3] NIV Study Bible, study notes

[4] Life Application Study Bible, study notes.

[5] Life Application Bible Commentary, p.57

[6] Barclay, William, The Daily Study Bible Series, Gospel of Mark, p.54.

[7] Garland, David E., NIV Application Commentary, p.111.

[8] Life Application Bible Commentary, p.57

[9] Barclay, William, The Daily Study Bible Series, Gospel of Mark, p.56

[10] Guelich, Robert A., Word Biblical Commentary: Vol.34A, p.103.

[11] The New Interpreter’s Bible: Vol. VIII, p.552-553.

[12] Cole, R. Alan, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, p.124-125.

[13] Stott, John R. W.(NT series editor), The Bible speaks Today, p.70

[14] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.112.

[15] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.105.

[16] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.121

[17] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.114.

[18] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.105

[19] The NIV Application Commentary, Mark, David E. Garland, p.106-107.

It is clear that the ministry of John was mightily effective, for they flocked out to listen to him and to submit to his baptism. Why was it that John made an impact such as this upon his nation?

(i) He was a man who lived his message. Not only his words, but also his whole life was a protest. Three things about him marked the reality of his protest against contemporary life.

(a) There was the place in which he stayed—the wilderness. Between the centre of Judaea and the Dead Sea lies one of the most terrible deserts in the world. It is a limestone desert; it looks warped and twisted; it shimmers in the haze of the heat; the rock is hot and blistering and sounds hollow to the feet as if there was some vast furnace underneath; it moves out to the Dead Sea and then descends in dreadful and unscalable precipices down to the shore. In the Old Testament it is sometimes called Jeshimmon, which means The Devastation. John was no city-dweller. He was a man from the desert and from its solitudes and its desolations. He was a man who had given himself a chance to hear the voice of God.

(b) There were the clothes he wore—a garment woven of camel’s hair and a leather belt about his waist. So did Elijah (2 Kings 1:8). To look at the man was to be reminded, not of the fashionable orators of the day, but of the ancient prophets who lived close to the great simplicities and avoided the soft and effeminate luxuries which kill the soul.^[1]

—–

Many a man comes with a message which he himself denies. Many a man with a comfortable bank account preaches about not laying up treasures upon earth. Many a man extols the blessings of poverty from a comfortable home. But in the case of John, the man was the message, and because of that people listened.

(ii) His message was effective because he told people what in their heart of hearts they knew and brought them what in the depths of their souls they were waiting for.^[2]

———–

(iii) His message was effective because he was completely humble. His own verdict on himself was that he was not fit for the duty of a slave. Sandals were composed simply of leather soles fastened to the foot by straps passing through the toes. The roads were unsurfaced. In dry weather they were dust heaps; in wet weather rivers of mud. To remove the sandals was the work and office of a slave. John asked nothing for himself but everything for the Christ whom he proclaimed. The man’s obvious self-forgottenness, his patent yieldedness, his complete self-effacement, his utter lostness in his message compelled people to listen.

(iv) His message was effective because he pointed to something and someone beyond himself. He told men that his baptism drenched them in water, but one was coming who would drench them in the Holy Spirit; and while water could cleanse a man’s body, the Holy Spirit could cleanse his life and self and heart.^[3]

————–

Mark 1:9-11

To any thinking person the baptism of Jesus presents a problem. John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance, meant for those who were sorry for their sins and who wished to express their determination to have done with them. What had such a baptism to do with Jesus? Was he not the sinless one, and was not such a baptism unnecessary and quite irrelevant as far as he was concerned? For Jesus the baptism was four things.

(i) It was the moment of decision. For thirty years he had stayed in Nazareth. Faithfully he had done his day’s work and discharged his duties to his home. For long he must have been conscious that the time for him to go out had to come. He must have waited for a sign. The emergence of John was that sign. This, he saw, was the moment when he had to launch out upon his task.^[4]

(ii) It was the moment of identification. It is true that Jesus did not need to repent from sin; but here was a movement of the people back to God; and with that Godward movement he was determined to identify himself. A man might himself possess ease and comfort and wealth and still identify himself with a movement to bring better things to the downtrodden and the poor and the ill-housed and the over-worked and the underpaid. The really great identification is when a man identifies himself with a movement, not for his own sake, but for the sake of others.^[5]

————

(i)     The beasts were his companions. In the desert there roamed the leopard, the bear, the wild boar and the jackal. This is usually taken to be a vivid detail that adds to the grim terror of the scene. But perhaps it is not so. Perhaps this is a lovely thing, for perhaps it means that the beasts were Jesus’ friends. Amidst the dreams of the golden age when the Messiah would come, the Jews dreamed of a day when the enmity between man and the beasts would no longer exist. “I will make for you a covenant on that day with the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the creeping things of the ground.” (Hosea 2:18.) “The wolf shall dwell with the lamb and the leopard shall lie down with the kid. … The sucking child shall play over the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den; they shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain.” (Isaiah 11:6–9.) In later days St. Francis preached to the beasts; and it may be that here we have a first foretaste of the loveliness when man and the beasts shall be at peace^[6]

(ii) The angels were helping him. There are ever the divine reinforcements in the hour of trial. When Elisha and his servant were shut up in Dothan with their enemies pressing in upon them and no apparent way of escape, Elisha opened the young man’s eyes and all around he saw the horses and the chariots of fire which belonged to God. (2 Kings 6:17.) Jesus was not left to fight his battle alone—and neither are we. ^[7]

Mark 1:14-15

(ii) There is the word repent. Now repentance is not so easy as sometimes we think. The Greek word metanoia literally means a change of mind. We are very apt to confuse two things—sorrow for the consequences of sin and sorrow for sin. Many a man is desperately sorry because of the mess that sin has got him into, but he very well knows that, if he could be reasonably sure that he could escape the consequences, he would do the same thing again. It is not the sin that he hates; it is its consequences.

Real repentance means that a man has come, not only to be sorry for the consequences of his sin, but to hate sin itself. Long ago that wise old writer, Montaigne, wrote in his autobiography, “Children should be taught to hate vice for its own texture, so that they will not only avoid it in action, but abominate it in their hearts—that the very thought of it may disgust them whatever form it takes.” Repentance means that the man who was in love with sin comes to hate sin because of its exceeding sinfulness.

(iii) There is the word believe. “Believe,” says Jesus, “in the good news.” To believe in the good news simply means to take Jesus at his word, to believe that God is the kind of God that Jesus has told us about, to believe that God so loves the world that he will make any sacrifice to bring us back to himself, to believe that what sounds too good to be true is really true.^[8]

The words in v. 14—“after John was put in prison …”  Ominious words.  The world is not friendly to prophets.  Such a man of God, yet the response of his generation would be to ultimately do away with him.  Forshadows the fate that would eventually befall Jesus himself.  Froshadows the environment of persecution, hostility and rejection that will accompany all future christian witness—in the midst of the people who confess their sins, repent and get baptized, there are other powers at work which will attempt to thwart God’s work.

Kingdom of God – Jesus FIRST task was to preach the good news.  What’s the good news?  That the kingdom of God is near, and that people can enter into it by trusting that this is so, and repenting fo their sins.  What is KOG?  Man has been in rebellion against the rightful Lord and King of their lives—God, their creator and heavenly King.  They’ve done so by rejecting his authority in the form of moral rebellion and claiming personal autonomy. They’ve each set up their own little kingdom in which each man claims to be his own God, setting down his own rules, and affirming himself by himself, violating God’s boundaries, and refusing to acknowledge the one from whom life, and all good things have come.  This is about to be changed by God himself, as he comes close to rebellious man in the form of the Gospel of Jesus.  To repent means to enter into this kingdom of God—i.e., the place of God’s rule, when man yeilds the throneroom of his heart back to God.  God will not punish. This is the good news.  Amnesty is declared for the rebels, if they will lay down the weapons of their rebellion and come home.  Jesus comes to declare the message of this amnesty, and also to make the amnesty possible through his death on the cross.

(i)     We must notice what they were. They were simple folk. They did not come from the schools and the colleges; they were not drawn from the ecclesiastics or the aristocracy; they were neither learned nor wealthy. They were fishermen. That is to say, they were ordinary people. No one ever believed in the ordinary man as Jesus did.

…

It was as if Jesus said, “Give me twelve ordinary men and with them, if they will give themselves to me, I will change the world.” A man should never think so much of what he is as of what Jesus Christ can make him.

(iv) Lastly we must note what Jesus offered them. He offered them a task. He called them not to ease but to service. Someone has said that what every man needs is “something in which he can invest his life.” So Jesus called his men, not to a comfortable ease and not to a lethargic inactivity; he called them to a task in which they would have to spend themselves and burn themselves up, and, in the end, die for his sake and for the sake of their fellow men. He called them to a task wherein they could win something for themselves only by giving their all to him and to others.^[9]

(a) The synagogue was primarily a teaching institution. The synagogue service consisted of only three things—prayer, the reading of God’s word, and the exposition of it. There was no music, no singing and no sacrifice. It may be said that the Temple was the place of worship and sacrifice; the synagogue was the place of teaching and instruction. The synagogue was by far the more influential, for there was only one Temple. But the law laid it down that wherever there were ten Jewish families there must be a synagogue, and, therefore, wherever there was a colony of Jews, there was a synagogue. If a man had a new message to preach, the synagogue was the obvious place in which to preach it.^[10]

Mark 1:16–20

Mark gave only the briefest description of the events surrounding the call of Jesus’ disciples. Andrew and Peter had earlier contact with Jesus, according to Jn 1:35–42, and Peter’s call was more extended than Mark’s presentation of it, according to Lk 5:1–11. This does not undermine the historicity of Mark’s account; his narrative interest was not in the historical details but in the authority of Jesus. He was not concerned to tell us precisely how the disciples were called but rather that they were called and that they responded in complete submission to Jesus.^[11]

Mark 1:21–28
Authority over Demons

The account of the fishermen demonstrates the claims Jesus’ authority makes on his followers’ lives, but the verses that follow it demonstrate his authority over evil spirits (cf. 1:12–13). ..

The place that Jesus encounters his first demon may shock Mark’s readers: it is in a religious institution.^[12]

Mark 1:32–34.

The sabbath ended Saturday at sundown. Mark mentions that it was “after sunset” to let us know that the sabbath is over, because it would have violated the sabbath for anyone to have carried someone on the sabbath.^[13]

Three times we have seen Jesus healing people. First he healed in the synagogue; second, he healed in the house of his friends; and now he healed in the street. Jesus recognized the claim of everyone.^[14]

The people flocked to Jesus because they recognized in him a man who could do things. There were plenty who could talk and expound and lecture and preach; but here was one who dealt not only in words but also in actions. [i.e. actual life transformation … this is what the world hungers to see]

But there is the beginning of tragedy here. The crowds came, but they came because they wanted something out of Jesus. They did not come because they loved him; they did not come because they had caught a glimpse of some new vision; in the last analysis they wanted to use him. ^[15]

^[2] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (16–17). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[3] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (17–18). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[4] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (18–19). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[5] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (19–20). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[6] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (23–24). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[7] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (24). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[8] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (26). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[9] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (29). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[10] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (30). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[11] Cabal, T., Brand, C. O., Clendenen, E. R., Copan, P., Moreland, J., & Powell, D. (2007). The Apologetics Study Bible: Real Questions, Straight Answers, Stronger Faith (1468–1469). Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers.

^[12] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[13] Keener, C. S., & InterVarsity Press. (1993). The IVP Bible background commentary : New Testament. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.

^[14] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (39). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

^[15] The Gospel of Mark. 2000 (W. Barclay, lecturer in the University of Glasgow, Ed.). The Daily study Bible series, Rev. ed. (39–40). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press.

Related posts:

1. Course 101 Sign Up