Which Commentary on Mark?

[Lorinda H. M. Hoover]

I'm about to begin a preaching series on Mark, and would like to add a commentary or two to my Accordance library to further my study and prep.  I don't have the budget to add an entire commentary series, so my choices are:

 

NIGTC by R.T. France

 

NICNT by William Lane

 

Pillar by James Edwards

 

WBC by Guelich and Evans

 

 

I'm a moderate progressive in the United Methodist tradition.  I'm familiar with Greek and value original language references and exegesis, but also looking for something that helps make what one of my NT professors called the "hermeneutical arch" that connects the text to modern day issues and struggles.   I have no more than $100 to spend; with the current sale that means I could do two commentaries (one for each area of interest/need), unless I opt for WBC (which I'm leery of given there are two different authors for the two volumes).

 

Suggestions from those familiar with these works?

 

 

[Helen Brown]

Have you looked at the ratings and reviews on BestCommentaries.com? It's an excellent resource, though sadly they use an advertising agency that is now owned by Logos.

[Fabian]

... though sadly they use an advertising agency that is now owned by Logos.

 

Unfortunately not all resources which are available in Accordance are tagged with "buy" in Accordance. So you have then look in the Accordance shop if this available for download. And there is also no word that you can get discounts in Accordance.

 

Greetings

 

Fabian

[John Fidel]

NIC, Pillar and NIGNT are all great commentaries. My listing is from most user friendly to most difficult (Greek fluency). None of them really bridge the text to application as well as the NIV Application Commentary does. Another option is the Baker Exegetical commentary that is in between Pillar and NIGNT in terms of requiring a working knowledge of Greek.

 

I can provide you some excerpts if you let me know what passage you would like to review. BTW they are all on the top of the Best Commentaries listing except for WBC.

Edited December 30, 2015 by John Fidel

[Emanuel Cardona]

I'm about to begin a preaching series on Mark, and would like to add a commentary or two to my Accordance library to further my study and prep.  I don't have the budget to add an entire commentary series, so my choices are:

 

NIGTC by R.T. France

 

NICNT by William Lane

 

Pillar by James Edwards

 

WBC by Guelich and Evans

 

 

I'm a moderate progressive in the United Methodist tradition.  I'm familiar with Greek and value original language references and exegesis, but also looking for something that helps make what one of my NT professors called the "hermeneutical arch" that connects the text to modern day issues and struggles.   I have no more than $100 to spend; with the current sale that means I could do two commentaries (one for each area of interest/need), unless I opt for WBC (which I'm leery of given there are two different authors for the two volumes).

 

Suggestions from those familiar with these works?

For what it's worth, D. A. Carson says the following in his New Testament Commentary Survey (2013):

 

“R. T. France … though it is on the Greek text, is nevertheless remarkably accessible and includes a healthy mix of history, theology, social context, even warmth.”

 

“William Lane … demands that the reader know Greek only while reading the footnotes; it was for a long time the standard evangelical commentary on Mark but is now somewhat dated.”

 

“James Edwards … is less daunting for those with little Greek, but is demonstrably the fruit of years of work in this Gospel.”

 

“Guelich (on 1:1-8:26) … is extraordinarily detailed, though sometimes incautiously speculative in its re-creation of the church circumstances Mark allegedly addresses.”

 

“Evans (on 8:27-16:20) … is stronger on technical issues than on the theology of the book.”

[rwrobinson88]

France is the most recent of the four. So, that will be the most up-to-date (i.e. taking into account all the other commentaries and what they've said but maybe not Edwards).

 

I think would encourage France's or Stein in the BECNT (which I'm not sure if that is available in Accordance individually...it also is newer).

 

Also, Strauss has the most recent in the ZECNT, but it's not available in Accordance, yet. Might want to check that out. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by RyanWRobinson

[Abram K-J]

Those are all good commentaries on Mark, though you'll have to do much of the work re: application. I'm not sure I understand Carson's "outdated" criticism. Lane is still really solid.

That said, I read the R.T. France commentary cover-to-cover (!!), and it's probably my favorite Bible commentary on any book of all time. Outstanding in just about every way I can think of. I'd start there.

[ukfraser]

Before this years sale of the sets in accordance, i had bought a few nivac volumes on kindle as they are not sold individually.

 

I really, really, really don't like the kindle format but you may want to just get mark as it wont make a huge dent in your budget and every now and then there is a little gem in the text that sparks something and gets me thinking about application.

 

The mark volume is reasonable, wouldnt want it to be my only or primary commentary (wbc in my case) but really pleased it is in my library and am grateful for the earlier sale.

 

;o)

Edited December 30, 2015 by ukfraser

[Daniel Francis]

I am not familiar with the NIGTC but of the ones you mentioned the one most likely to give you good  "hermeneutical arch" seems to me to be Pillar. But I will add New Interpreter's Bible being my favourite, although only available as a set I find it worth it;s weight in Gold to me and offers the best "hermeneutical arch" in the reflections, in my mind...

 

 

 

THE KEY TO MARK (1:1)

 

Ancient writings normally begin either with a formal dedication describing the purpose of the book or with an opening line treating the first subject discussed.1 The formal introductions of the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts follow the former pattern. The Gospel of Mark begins in the latter way, “The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (1:1). If Mark intended his work to have a title, this is it. Like Genesis, Hosea, and the Gospel of John, the first word of Mark is simply “beginning.” Mark doubtlessly chooses it as a reminder of God’s activity in history: in the beginning God created the world; so, too, the age of the gospel is manifest when the Son of God becomes a human being in Jesus Christ. The Greek word translated “beginning,” archē, can incorporate two meanings: first in order of temporal sequence, or first in terms of origin or principle. It is the latter sense in which the term is here used, since Mark intends the whole Gospel, and not merely its opening part, to be incorporated by archē. “Beginning” thus identifies in the initial word of the Gospel the authority from whom the Gospel derives, God himself, the author and originator of all that is.2 Lohmeyer is correct in saying that “beginning” signals the “fulfillment of God’s everlasting word.”3 For Mark the introduction of Jesus is no less momentous than the creation of the world, for in Jesus a new creation is at hand.

The gospel of which Mark speaks is not a book, as it is for Matthew (1:1, “A record [Gk. biblos ] of the genealogy of Jesus Christ”). Rather, for Mark the gospel is the story of salvation in Jesus. The word for “gospel” (Gk. euangelion) literally means “good news.” In both the OT and in Greek literature euangelion was commonly used of reports of victory from the battlefield. When the Philistines defeated the troops of Saul on Mt. Gilboa, “they sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines to proclaim the news (euangelizesthai) … among the people” (1 Sam 31:9; see also 2 Sam 1:20; 18:19–20; 1 Chr 10:9). The messenger who brought the report was the deliverer of “good news” (2 Sam 4:10; 18:26). Among the Greeks the term was used likewise of victory in battle, as well as of other forms of good news. In 9 B.C., within a decade of Jesus’ birth, the birthday of Caesar Augustus (63 B.C.–A.D. 14) was hailed as euangelion (pl.). Since he was hailed as a god, Augustus’s “birthday signaled the beginning of Good News for the world.”4 In the Greco-Roman world the word always appears in the plural, meaning one good tiding among others; but in the NT euangelion appears only in the singular: the good news of God in Jesus Christ, beside which there is no other.5 The concept of “good news” was not limited to military and political victories, however. In the prophet Isaiah “good news” is transferred to the inbreaking of God’s final saving act when peace, good news, and release from oppression will be showered on God’s people (Isa 52:7; 61:1–3). For Mark, the advent of Jesus is the beginning of the fulfillment of the “good news” heralded by Isaiah.

If, as seems probable, Mark is the first evangelist, then he also inaugurates a new literary genre in applying the term “gospel” to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.6 For Mark, the gospel refers to the fulfillment of God’s reign and salvation in the fullness of time (Isa 52:7; 61:1). In the appearance of Jesus in Galilee, a new age has dawned that requires repentance and faith. Mark’s written record of Jesus’ life is itself called a Gospel, and thus this same Jesus who overcame the grave in the resurrection from the dead is now the living Lord who is at work in the church and world, calling people to faith in the gospel. In Mark’s understanding, therefore, the gospel is more than a set of truths, or even a set of beliefs. It is a person, “the gospel of Jesus Christ.”7 The kingdom that God inaugurates is bodily present in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus, whose name in Hebrew is a variant of “Yehoshua” (Eng. “Joshua”), meaning “God is salvation,” is defined in Mark’s prologue as the “Christ” and “Son of God.” (See the excursuses on Christ at 8:29 and on Son of God at 15:39.) Son of God is a more complete title for Jesus’ person and mission than is Messiah, and is Mark’s blue chip title for Jesus, the chief artery of the Gospel.8 “The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ the Son of God” (1:1) is the prologue, indeed the topic sentence, of Mark’s Gospel. It may even be considered the title of the Gospel, as long as it is not divorced from what follows, as the connection with John the Baptist in v. 2 evinces. In v. 1 Mark declares the essential content of the euangelion, the “good news.” The Gospel of Mark is thus not a mystery story in which readers must piece together clues here and there to discover its meaning; nor is it a pedestrian chronicle of dates and places without purpose or significance; nor is it reducible to a mere system of thought. Rather, from the outset Mark announces that the content of the gospel is the person of Jesus, who is the Christ and Son of God. It is a brief confession of faith, the meaning of which will unfold only as the reader follows Mark’s presentation of Jesus in the Gospel.

 

 

James R. Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002), 23–26.

 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

1 The opening words of Mark’s Gospel form a superscription which indicates the character of that which follows in Ch. 1:1–13. They emphasize that the good news concerning Jesus the Christ was inseparably bound up with the preparation provided by John the Baptist, whose ministry served to summon Jesus to the wilderness. Mark’s intention is grasped by reading verses 1–4 as a single sentence:the good news concerns Jesus the Christ, but it begins with the wilderness prophet John. The word “beginning” has biblical overtones which lend an awesome ring to the opening phrase, and serves to recall that it is God who initiates redemption on behalf of men. What Mark celebrates is not merely the prophetic activity of John the Baptist but the redemptive activity of God in providing salvation for men. The prophetic testimony cited in Ch. 1:2–3 finds its fulfilment both in the ministry of John and in the coming of Jesus into the wilderness. The emphasis thus falls upon the unity of God’s action in its historical unfolding; the whole complex of events from the appearance of John to the beginning of Jesus’ ministry is a single movement, the beginning of the gospel.

The term “gospel” or “evangel” was not a word first coined among the Christians. On the contrary, the concept was significant both in pagan and Jewish culture. Among the Romans it meant “joyful tidings” and was associated with the cult of the emperor, whose birthday, attainment to majority and accession to power were celebrated as festival occasions for the whole world. The reports of such festivals were called “evangels” in the inscriptions and papyri of the Imperial Age. A calendar inscription from about 9 B. C., found in Priene in Asia Minor, says of the emperor Octavian (Augustus):“the birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of joyful tidings which have been proclaimed on his account” (Inscr. Priene, 105, 40). This inscription is remarkably similar to Mark’s initial line and it clarifies the essential content of an evangel in the ancient world:an historical event which introduces a new situation for the world. In this perspective the Roman would understand Mark’s proclamation of Jesus the Messiah. Beginning with the inauguration of Jesus’ public ministry, Mark announces Jesus’ coming as an event that brings about a radically new state of affairs for mankind.

There is, however, another aspect to the meaning of “gospel.” Mark’s own understanding of what constituted “joyful tidings” drew heavily on the prophetic tradition of the Old Testament, as the twofold citation of Ch. 1:2–3 makes clear. The explicit reference to Isaiah indicates that the gospel receives its proper interpretation only in the light of the coming salvation promised in the prophetic word. Especially in Isaiah the Hebrew terms signifying “good news” concern the announcement of future salvation, or of the time of salvation. In this context to proclaim salvation on God’s authority is itself a creative act; in a sense it inaugurates the reality of which it speaks. This fact points up the difference between the biblical concept of joyful tidings and that found in the imperial cult. For the Roman an evangel was retrospective, a reflection of the joyous event which has already taken place. In the prophetic word there is a distinctively forward- looking eschatological perspective. The messenger of joy will announce the beginning of the time of salvation and thereby introduce it (cf. Isa. 52:7–10).

In keeping with this usage in Isaiah, Mark’s opening verses center attention both on the earliest apostolic preaching about “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,” and on the joyful tidings announced by Jesus himself (Ch. 1:14 f.). In the initial phrase of Mark’s Gospel and the summary of Jesus’ Galilean proclamation, the word “gospel” has not yet come to mean a written document. It refers to a living word of hope from the lips of an appointed messenger.

In Ch. 1:1 “gospel” is the technical term for Christian preaching, and the words which qualify it should be understood objectively, “the good news concerning Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Mark’s Gospel as a whole gives an interpretive account of the historical appearance of Jesus; it is concerned with his teaching far less than the other Gospels. Consistent with this “Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God” in verse 1 should be understood as the content of Christian proclamation. The superscription indicates that Mark’s primary concern is to delineate the historical content of the primitive Christian message of salvation. It also suggests the general plan of his work by anticipating the crucial points in the history he relates. The recognition that Jesus is the Messiah in Ch. 8:29 is the point of transition to the second half of the Gospel where Mark clarifies what it means for Jesus to be the Messiah. The climax is reached in Ch. 15:39 with the affirmation that Jesus is the Son of God. It is evident that the first line of Mark’s Gospel invites the reader to consider every aspect of the Gospel from a distinctly Christological perspective.

The primary reference in Ch. 1:1 is to the ministry of John and the fulfilment of the hope of Israel. This hope is distinctly eschatological in character; the forerunner announces the coming of the Messiah who introduces the new age of redemption promised through the prophets. For this reason the transition from Mark’s initial verse to the day of the Lord is not as abrupt as is sometimes supposed. The coming of John signaled both the beginning of the joyful tidings of salvation and the intrusion of the rule of God. --NICNT LANE

 

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

1 “The beginning” (ἀρχή has various nuances (BGD, sv; G. Delling, TDNT 1 [1964] 479–84). Its position in 1:1 is reminiscent of Gen 1:1 (LXX) and John 1:1. Yet the difference in content between “in the beginning” referring to a time prior to creation in John 1:1–2 and the “beginning of the gospel” quickly becomes evident. Thus the ἀρχήof 1:1; Gen 1:1 and John 1:1 have little in common apart from their location in the respective works.

“Beginning” can also mean more than the starting point implying a chronological when to which one can return by proceeding backwards or from which one begins (eg, 10:6; 13:19, cf. Marxsen, Mark, 41). It can also denote the “first things,” “elementary principles” or the “rudimentary elements” (BGD, sv; Wikgren, JBL 61 [1942] 16–19; eg, LXX Ps 110:10; Prov 1:7; 9:10; Sir 1:14). Consequently, the ἀρχήof the gospel could lexically signify the “starting point” or “outset” of the gospel as its “beginning,” or it could point to the “rudiments” of the gospel as comprising its ultimate “origin.” The meaning of ἀρχήultimately depends on the meaning of the qualifying phrase, “the gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God,” and the relationship of 1:1 to what follows.

“Of the gospel” (τοῦ εὐαγγελίου). A comparison with the other Gospels indicates that Mark alone uses the noun εύαγγέλιον in the absolute (1:15; 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; cf. Acts 15:7). Matthew follows Mark four times but always with a qualifier (“the gospel of the Kingdom”—4:23; 9:35; 24:14—and “this gospel”—26:13). Both Matthew (11:5// Luke 7:22) and Luke (10x, Acts 15x) use the verb εὐαγγείζειν, which is missing from Mark. The data appear to support Marxsen’s suggestion that Mark “has introduced the noun εὐαγγέλιον into the synoptic tradition” (Mark, 125). It remains to be seen in the discussion of the respective passages, however, whether or not these occurrences stem from Mark’s redaction or his tradition.

“The gospel of Jesus Messiah, Son of God” (1:1) represents what Schweizer has called the “theological accomplishment” of the evangelist (EvT 19 [1964] 339). Does, however, this “achievement” represent a novum? Was Mark the first to perceive Jesus’ earthly ministry as part of the “gospel”? Did Mark’s achievement consist in his setting forth in literary fashion what was already commonly accepted as inherent to the “gospel,” namely, the Christian message of salvation through Jesus Christ? In other words, does Mark’s “achievement” lie in the literary creation of the gospel genre by being the first to write out the gospel as understood and preached by the Church (so apparently Schweizer, EvT 19 [1964] 339) or does his “achievement” lie in his altering the content of the Church’s mission proclamation of Jesus’ death, resurrection and exaltation by setting it within Jesus’ earthly ministry (so apparently [vol. 34A, p. 9] Marxsen, Mark, 117–50)? The answer to this question lies in 1:1–15.

It has become common consensus that εὐαγγέλιον in 1:1 refers to at least the content of the literary work that follows. Drawing on other common mission terminology of his day, the evangelist makes reference to the “gospel” as the proclaimed message six times and designates his work as such at the outset. But in what sense is his work “the gospel”? Although it sets the stage for the development in the second century (eg, Justin, Apol. 66.3), “the gospel” of 1:1 can hardly be taken as intended merely to name a literary genre. Rather εὐαγγέλιον here also refers to the good news as proclaimed, though set forth here in written form. The clue to the evangelist’s intent lies in the genitive qualifier, “concerning Jesus Messiah.”

“Concerning Jesus Messiah.” The “gospel of Jesus Christ” can mean “the gospel concerning Jesus Christ” with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦbeing an objective genitive (eg, Klostermann, 3–4; Lane, 44 45; Pesch, 1:75; Schnackenburg, Orientierung, 322; Schweizer, 30–31; Taylor, 6) or the “gospel proclaimed by Jesus Christ” with Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦbeing a subjective genitive (eg, Cranfield, 35–36; Dautzenberg, BZ 21 [1977] 223–24; Schniewind, 44; Strecker, Jesus Christus, 535). Several have taken the construction to include both objective and subjective elements (eg, Anderson, 66–67; Ernst, 33; Friedrich, TDNT 2 [1964] 798; Gnilka, 1:43; Grundmann, 35; Marxsen, Mark, 131–33).

Of these three options, the last poses a grammatical difficulty, since one or the other emphasis has to dominate. The second generally results from the misplaced emphasis on 1:14 from which 1:1 has been interpreted rather than interpreting 1:14 in terms of 1:1 with the latter providing the redactional setting for the traditional reference of the former (see Comment on 1:14). The objective genitive not only corresponds with the use of εὐαγγέλιον in the Church’s mission but also with the other redactional uses of εὐαγγέλιον in Mark (8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9). Therefore, the ἐαγγέλιον is the message of “good news concerning Jesus Messiah” whose very content includes both the word and works of Jesus for Mark.

“Jesus Messiah.” Is Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦa proper name or a name and title? Once again the opinions vary between the former (Gnilka, 1:43; Grundmann, 35; Pesch, 1:76; Schnackenburg, Orientierung, 322; Taylor, 152) and the latter (Cranfield, 37; Dautzenberg, BZ 21 [1977] 229; Lamarche, NRT 92 [1970] 1033–34; Lane, 44). Certainly, the Pauline corpus demonstrates the common use of “Jesus Christ” as a proper name in the Church prior to the writing of the Gospels. And Mark 9:41 implies that “Christ” served as a name in Mark’s community, while 8:29; 12:35; 13:21; 14:61 and 15:32 show it maintained its function as a title. Yet “Jesus Christ” could hardly be interchangeable with “Jesus” in the Gospels. Luke’s Gospel only uses “Jesus” (c. 85x, cf. “Jesus Christ” in Acts c. 10x), while Matthew and Mark only use Ἰησοῦς Χριστός at the outset of their Gospels (cf. Matt 1:1, 18; John 1:17; 17:3) in contrast to their use of “Jesus” (Matthew c. 150x; Mark c. 80x, cf. John c. 17x).

One may at least say that Χριστός has not lost its messianic significance in the double name so that both Matthew and Mark deliberately choose to use the double name to introduce their Gospels about “Jesus Messiah” (cf. Acts 10:36; Rom 1:2–4). Furthermore, the title “Messiah” plays a pivotal role in 8:29 where Peter’s confession leads to the fourth major section (1:16–3:12; [vol. 34A, p. 10] 3:13–6:6; 6:7–8:26; 8:27–10:52; 11:1–16:8) of Mark’s Gospel. Therefore, “Jesus Messiah” more adequately renders Ἰσοῦ Χριστοῦ It is comparable to our use of “Lord Jesus” in which “Lord” as part of the double name connotes more than simply a proper name.

“The Son of God.” The Gospel’s focus lies clearly on the person “Jesus Messiah” who is further identified as the “Son of God,” a designation of great importance for Mark’s Gospel (see 1:11). Apart from the centurion’s confession of the crucified Messiah (15:32) as the “Son of God” (15:39), Jesus’ own death sentence by the Jewish leaders comes after his positive response to the high priest s question of whether he was the “Messiah, the Son of the Blessed” (14:61–64). This same combination of “Jesus Messiah” and “Son of God” occurs, perhaps more than coincidentally, along with the mention of the OT promise (cf. 1:2a) in Paul’s reference to the gospel at the outset of Rom 1:2–4.

“As written” (καθὼς γέγραπται). This formula (Fitzmyer, Essays, 8–9) has a direct counterpart in the Qumran literature (כאשר כתוב, kaʾăšer kat”b, eg, IQS 5.17; 8.14; CD 7.19; IVQFlor 1.12), a parallel in the LXX (2 Kgs 14:6; Dan 9:13 Theod), numerous parallels in Paul (Rom 14x; 1 Cor 1:31; 2:9; 2 Cor 8:15; 9:9), three in Luke-Acts (2:23; Acts 7:42; 15:15) and two other references in Mark (9:13, cf. 9:12 and Matt 17:12–13; 14:21// Matt 26:24, cf. Luke 22:22). With the exception of the variant reading in Dan 9:13, only Mark 9:13 and 14:21// Matt 26:24 stand without a specific quotation that follows.

Since in every other instance the formula refers to the preceding context and combines a subsequent quotation with the statement that immediately preceded, we can conclude that either Mark has redactionally added the formula in 1:2a in terms of the definitely redactional 1:1, or if the formula introduced the quotations of 1:2b–3 in the pre-Markan tradition, 1:2a must on syntactical grounds have had a different setting following another statement (perhaps 1:4; cf. Matt 3:1–3).

“By Isaiah the prophet” (ἐν τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ has caused difficulties, since the subsequent quotation consists of material from Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3. Some have solved the difficulty by attributing the non-Isaiah material to a later gloss (eg, Taylor, 153); others have considered it to be typical of a collection of testimonia consisting of thematically related texts without precision as to authorship (Fitzmyer, Essays, 62–63); still others have attributed the use of Isaiah to the preponderance of Isaiah’s role with reference to the coming messianic age (Grundmann, 36).

The actual key may lie in Mark’s redaction. By setting the subsequent citations at the outset and combining the Baptist materials (1:4–6, 7–8), the evangelist has constructed a section involving a parallel between the Baptist and Jesus: (a) 1:2b–3, God’s word of introduction, cf. 1:9–11; ( 1:4–6, a wilderness motif, cf. 1:12–13; and © 1:7–8, preaching, cf. 1:14–5. The “beginning of the gospel . . . written by Isaiah the prophet” would then become the complex of events of 1:2b–15 regarding both the Baptist and Jesus that fulfilled Isaiah’s promise (cf. John s appearance and role—Isa 40:3; Jesus’ appearance—Isa 42:1 and role—Isa 52:7; 61:1). Thus the “beginning of the gospel” (1:2b–15) transpires “as written by the prophet Isaiah.”

 

Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 8-10.

 

Explanation

 

Mark opens his Gospel in a manner similar to other hellenistic writings with a heading (1:1–3) for the introductory section (1:1–15) of his work. This heading designates the appearance of both John (1:4–8) and Jesus [vol. 34A, p. 12] (1:9–15) as the beginning of the gospel corresponding to the promises of Isaiah. The “beginning” of the gospel, therefore, refers specifically to the events of 1:4–15 that stand at the outset of the message of good news about the presence of the long-anticipated age of salvation.

Yet Mark’s usage of “gospel” in 1:1 stands in contrast with its previous NT usage. Whereas the “gospel” had come to signify the distinctive message of salvation proclaimed in the Church’s mission and based in the death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ (eg, Rom 1:2–4; 1 Cor 15:1–7; 1 Thess 1:5, 9–10) in contrast to “gospel” as used in Judaism and Hellenism, Mark’s usage includes Jesus’ earthly ministry “beginning” with John’s and Jesus’ respective appearances.

To this extent Mark’s Gospel amplifies the outline of Peter’s sermon to Cornelius in Acts 10:36–38 and indicates the broader scope of the Church’s preaching than simply the death, resurrection, and Parousia of Jesus Christ, supposedly characteristic of Paul’s writings. Furthermore, Mark by designating his written account as the “gospel” (1:1) broke with the traditional use of “gospel” to refer to the proclaimed message of the Church’s preaching. Thus the evangelist prepared the way for the Church’s later practice of calling the four similar Christian documents “Gospels.”

Mark qualifies the “gospel” as the “gospel concerning Jesus Messiah, Son of God.” But this gospel concerning Jesus Messiah includes by virtue of its content the gospel proclaimed by Jesus both in word and deed during his earthly ministry. Indeed, the gospel concerning Jesus Messiah (1:1) consists of Jesus’ preaching, teaching, and acts of mercy and healing that created conflict and led to his ultimate rejection in death.

In Mark, therefore, Jesus’ proclamation of the good news by word and deed in view of the Kingdom expectation of the OT promise (cf. 1:14–15) comes together with the Church’s proclamation of the good news with Jesus’ death, resurrection and return as the primary focus. Jesus’ coming and ministry fulfill the OT promise of the age of salvation typified especially by Isaiah but do so in the one who suffers rejection and death only to be vindicated by the resurrection to return in glory. The heart of the gospel, therefore, is Jesus Messiah, Son of God (cf. 1:11; 8:29; 14:61–64; 15:32, 39).

The composite citation of Exod 23:20; Mal 3:1; and Isa 40:3 in 1:2b–3 sets the stage for John’s and Jesus’ appearance against the background of redemptive history. Not only does God’s promise to his people during the exodus (Exod 20:23) find its expression in the promise to God’s people of a messenger to prepare the way for the age of salvation (Mal 3:1–2; 4:5–6), but both texts now combine with Isa 40:3 to identify the Baptist’s coming and ministry in the wilderness as the fulfillment of that promise for the coming of the “Lord.”

Isaiah’s promise of the coming of the Lord clearly applies to Jesus. Thus this “heading” includes events beyond the appearance and message of the Baptist. The beginning of the gospel according to Isaiah’s promise extends to the events that mark Jesus’ appearance (1:9–11, 12–13) and message (1:14–15). Mark 1:1–15, therefore, sketches the “beginning of the gospel about Jesus Messiah, Son of God, as written by Isaiah the prophet.”

 

Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, vol. 34A of Word Biblical Commentary. Accordance electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989), 11-12.

 

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

 

Mark 1:1, Introduction

 

COMMENTARY

 

The first sentence appears to serve as a title for the whole work as well as the introduction to the first episode. However, scholars disagree over whether such a sentence could stand by itself as the title of a book.55 Some interpreters prefer to treat this sentence as an introduction to the citation of Scripture that follows in vv. 2–3. Elsewhere Mark uses the word for “as” (καθώς kathōs) to attach a phrase to what comes before (4:33; 9:13; 11:6; 14:16, 21; 15:8). However, the citation does not clarify verse 1 but refers to John the Baptist. The opening word, “beginning” (ἈρχήArchē), may refer either to a temporal beginning or to the opening of the narrative. Those who treat the term as a temporal marker assume that the opening sentence refers to the introductory episode. The term gospel (εὐαγγέλιον euangelion) reappears in Mark 1:14–15. There, Jesus initiates his own preaching of the gospel message.56 Its claim to refer to the whole narrative that follows lies in the connection between the titles used for Jesus and what follows. Peter’s recognition that Jesus is “the Christ” constitutes the turning point in Mark (8:27–30).

The expression “Son of God,” which follows “Jesus Christ” in some manuscripts, is textually insecure.57 However, it represents the pivotal confession about Jesus in the Gospel (1:11; 9:7; 15:39). It may have been dropped in some manuscripts because it concludes a long line of abbreviations beginning with “gospel.” By the time Mark was written, “Christ” was so commonly used as a designation for Jesus that without further specification the word did not imply a particular dignity. Therefore, a title that expresses [Vol. 8, p. 528] Jesus’ unique dignity would be necessary to highlight the significance of the narrative to come. Thus the combination of “messiah” and “Son of God” (i.e., “Son of the Blessed One”) appears in the high priest’s question at Jesus’ trial (14:61).

Although modern readers associate the word gospel (NRSV “good news”) with written accounts of the life of Jesus, Mark probably uses the word in the sense of the Pauline epistles. There gospel refers to the oral preaching that Jesus is the source of salvation (cf. Rom 1:1, 9, 16; 2:16). Later, we learn that followers of Jesus must be ready to suffer for the sake of the gospel (Mark 8:35; 10:29; 13:10). This usage shows that the genitive “of Jesus Christ” indicates the one about whom the gospel speaks, not a record of Jesus’ preaching. Romans 1:1 describes the apostle as set apart for the “gospel of God,” and an elaborate creedal formula refers to the risen Lord as “Son of God” (Rom 1:3–4). The associations between the beginning of Mark and the Pauline use of “gospel” for the preached message about Jesus Christ captures the significance of oral testimony as the root of Christian faith.

Paul’s letters show that the designation “Christ” (a Greek rendering of the Aramaic for “anointed”) was commonly used with “Jesus” as a proper name (e.g., Rom 1:1). Thus many readers may not have recognized “Christ” as a title, implying that Jesus had a special dignity as God’s anointed agent. The Gospel will use “Christ” as a messianic title. It forms the content of Peter’s confession (8:29), where it represents an insight that distinguishes Jesus’ disciples from the popular opinions about Jesus.

“Son of God” occupies a special place in Mark’s presentation of Jesus. During the ministry of Jesus, God refers to Jesus as “beloved Son” (1:11; 9:7). Demons also acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God (3:11; 5:7), whose appearance marks the end of their hold on human beings. During the passion, Jesus accepts the title (14:62) and is acknowledged Son of God by the centurion who witnesses his death (15:39). Yet to an audience in that time, the expression “Son of God” would not suggest the incarnate divinity, which Christians came to associate with its use for Jesus. In Ps 2:7 (also 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 89:27) the expression belongs to royal terminology. The newly anointed king is declared God’s adopted son. Early Christians frequently used this psalm text as evidence for the exalted status of the risen Lord (cf. Heb 1:5; 5:5).

Although Mark does not quote Ps 2:7 directly, many exegetes think that he presumed his readers would fill out the expression “Son of God” with the allusions to this psalm. The descent of the Spirit and divine voice at Jesus’ baptism suggest anointing and divine adoption. However, other royal imagery in which Jesus is described as son of David or king of Israel surfaces only in the context of Jesus’ passion. Therefore, Mark does not assume that human beings confessed that Jesus was “Son of God” prior to the crucifixion. There it reflects a truth that is properly understood only when it is used of the crucified. Upon entering Jerusalem, Jesus heals a blind man who hails him as “Son of David” (10:47, 51). Jesus is executed on the false charge of claiming to be “king of Israel”—i.e., leader of an insurrectionist movement (15:6–32). The soldiers and crowds mock the lowly, crucified “king,” who cannot save himself. Exegetes are divided over whether Mark intends the reader to attach a new meaning to such royal terminology or to reject it as inadequate to understanding Jesus. The Markan apocalypse warns readers against following false “christs” who will arise during a time of turmoil and war and claim to lead the people in Jesus’ name (13:5, 21–22).58 Mark’s reluctance to use royal imagery for Jesus apart from the passion itself undercuts the plausibility of persons who might allege that they embody the messianic, royal authority of Jesus.

The use of the expression “Son of God” by demons suggests another context for understanding the expression. Greek-speaking readers unfamiliar with the Jewish context of “Son of God” might understand the expression in a more general sense to refer to an individual who possesses some form of divine power. Mythology contains stories of demigods and heroes, and popular tales of miracle workers and other extraordinary individuals assumed that such unusual traits bespeak a special relationship to the gods. No fixed set of traits is associated with such [Vol. 8, p. 529] figures in antiquity. Mark may have known a tradition of exorcism stories in which Jesus was addressed as “Son of God.” In that context, the expression merely indicates that Jesus possesses power superior to that of any of the demons. The fact that Mark composed the summary statement in 3:11 indicates that he was not uncomfortable with the inference that Jesus’ miracles are a function of his status as Son of God. However, that understanding does not form the basis of the believer’s confession that Jesus is Son of God. For the Gospel of Mark as a whole, emphasis on the miraculous power of Jesus is subordinated to the presentation of Jesus as the beloved Son of God who accomplishes God’s will on the cross.59

 

 

REFLECTIONS

 

Modern Christians find three surprises in the beginning of Mark’s Gospel: its abruptness, the meaning of a gospel as proclamation, and the importance of the titles “messiah” and “Son of God.” Our experience with the other Gospels, as well as the annual celebration of Christmas, leads us to expect either a birth story, as in Matthew and Luke, or a poetic meditation on Jesus’ pre-existence with God, as in John. The danger of the infancy narratives lies in speculations about the childhood of Jesus and his family, which may take over from the real story of salvation. In early Christianity, a number of writings provided readers with that emphasis, and even in modern times writers claiming special psychic wisdom have produced works that claim to fill in details of the hidden life of Jesus. The abrupt beginning of Mark provides an opportunity to highlight a different feature of our Christmas celebration: the fulfillment of God’s promises of salvation. Information about Jesus’ childhood, or even speculation that he spent time with the Essenes or in some other part of the world, that one finds in these pseudo-gospels has no bearing on the plan of salvation. The public ministry, death on the cross, and resurrection of Jesus are the events in which God’s love comes to humanity.

We can demonstrate the importance of the message about salvation by reminding people that the word gospel originally meant “proclamation” or “good news.” Christianity did not begin with a new book. Its Scripture was that of the Jewish people. Christianity began with a “new message” about what the God known through that Scripture had done in Jesus Christ. The sayings of Jesus and stories about him had circulated by word of mouth for years before Mark was written. Unlike a technical manual, these stories do not depend on writing to be remembered. Compared to the difficulties of Sanskrit religious writings from India, for instance, the story about Jesus is amazingly simple. If one expects long ascetic training, complex rituals, and obscure writings for a religion to be profound, then the gospel form comes as a surprise. The good news itself is a simple message of salvation in Jesus, which people can take anywhere in the world.

The titles for Jesus are so familiar that it is difficult to hear “Christ” or even “Son of God” as though for the first time. How can modern men and women recapture the eager expectation that God will redeem humanity from the cosmic and human powers of suffering, evil, and injustice? All too often the modern versions of those false prophets who appropriate Christ’s name and the human longings for an end time have led their followers to a sectarian isolation from the larger community. Christians should not be taken in by such latter-day prophets. Yet we have been warned that the title “God’s anointed” belongs to Jesus alone. Others hear “Son of God” and immediately isolate Jesus from the real world of human experience. Mark’s Jesus is not so isolated; he exhibits a range of human emotions. Although he possesses divine power, Jesus cannot overcome the hostility of his enemies or the fearful misunderstanding of his own [Vol. 8, p. 530] disciples. We must learn to hear in “Son of God” praise for the faithful human suffering that Jesus exhibits.

 

Pheme Perkins, “The Gospel of Mark,” in General Articles on the New Testament; Matthew-Mark, vol. 8 of The New Interpreter’s Bible. Accordance electronic ed. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1995), 527-530.

 

-Dan

[Tim Hall]

Lorinda,

 

I myself am well into preaching through The Gospel of Mark (Mark 7.1-23 this coming Sunday). For myself, I have found the Pillar and NIVAC to be fantastically helpful. Edwards (Pillar) offers great insight into the Greek and has given me a great amount of insight into the text. Garland (NIVAC) has given me great insight into how I can apply the insights from the text into application for my sermons. I realize that Accordance doesn't sell the NIVAC seperately, but I think it would be worth getting through a different channel (hard-back or via Amazon).

 

Hope my 2 cents help.

[Brian W. Davidson]

France rocks hard

[Abram K-J]

He is--may his soul rest in eternal peace--rocking hard even now, on a heavenly guitar, or drum set... or papyrus.

 

I don't usually cry when I read technical commentaries (or in other situations, for that matter), but I found his NIGTC volume surprisingly tear-inducing, in an inspiring and doxological way.

[Emanuel Cardona]

He is--may his soul rest in eternal peace--rocking hard even now, on a heavenly guitar, or drum set... or papyrus.

 

I don't usually cry when I read technical commentaries (or in other situations, for that matter), but I found his NIGTC volume surprisingly tear-inducing, in an inspiring and doxological way.

Is his Matthew commentary (NICNT) as good?

[Abram K-J]

Is his Matthew commentary (NICNT) as good?

 

I think his Matthew commentary in that series is probably just as good as his Mark volume. Another really stellar work.

[Emanuel Cardona]

I think his Matthew commentary in that series is probably just as good as his Mark volume. Another really stellar work.

I own Carson's commentary (not the revised edition) and Osborne's, but not France's. Perhaps it can serve me as a good supplement? 

[Abram K-J]

Seems like a good idea to me!

[Emanuel Cardona]

Seems like a good idea to me!

Thank you Abram K-J.  I really appreciate your help.

[Lorinda H. M. Hoover]

Thank you everyone!  Thanks to an unexpected bonus and the incredible NIVAC sale, I was able to get NIVAC NT and France.  As an aside for other folks looking for best commentaries, I discovered that bestcommentaries.com offers sample pages of the commentaries for at least some commentaries.  I was hesitant about NIVAC despite the positive recommendations here, because I've often found "application" resources to be make theological assumptions I don't, without realizing there might be other assumptions.  Having a chance to read both the series preface and part of the actual Mark commentary helped me to see that NIVAC will indeed be very helpful to me.

 

Thanks, Dan, too, for the NIB suggestion.  I have the NIB one volume, and would love to have the full set, but it's out of my budget.  I keep hoping that one of these days that it will be on sale at a time when I have the budget to bite.  (So far sale scheduling for that resource and my budget flexibility haven't converged)