In the opening section or preface (of verses 1-13), then, we have here no genealogy whatever, but very simply the announcement of John the Baptist. We have our Lord then ushered into His public ministry, and, first of all, His Galilean labors. As He walks by the sea, He sees Simon, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea. These He calls to follow Him: It was not the first acquaintance of the Lord Jesus with these two apostles. At first sight it might seem strange that a word, even though it were the word of the Lord, should call these two men away from their father or their occupation; yet no one can call it unprecedented, as the call of Levi, already referred to, makes plain. Nevertheless, so it is that in the case of Andrew and Simon, as well as the sons of Zebedee, called about the same time, there was certainly previous acquaintance with the Saviour. Two disciples of the Baptist, one of them Andrew, preceded his brother Simon, as we know from John 1. But here it is, not at all the same time or facts that are described in that Gospel. In the call to the work, I have no hesitation in saying that Andrew and Simon were called before John and James; but in the personal acquaintance with the Saviour, which we find in the Gospel of John, it is evident to me, that an unnamed disciple (as I think, John himself) was before Simon. Both are perfectly true. There is not even the appearance of contradiction when the Scripture is rightly understood. Each of these is exactly in its proper place, for we have in our Gospel Christ’s ministry. That is not the theme of the Gospel of John, but a far deeper and more personal subject; it is the revelation of the Father in the Son to man upon the earth. It is eternal life found by souls, and of course in the Son of God. This accordingly is the first point of contact which the Holy Spirit loves to trace in John’s Gospel. Why is all that entirely left out of Mark? Evidently because his province is not a soul acquainted for the first time with Jesus, the display of the wonderful truth of eternal life in Him. Another subject is in hand. We have the Saviour’s grace, of course, in all the Gospels; but the great theme of Mark is His ministry. Hence it is, that not the personal so much as the ministerial call is the one referred to here. In John, on the contrary, where it was the Son made known to man by faith of the Holy Spirit’s operation, it is not the ministerial call, but the previous one—the personal call of grace unto the knowledge of the Son, and eternal life in Him.
This may serve to show that weighty lessons lie under that which a careless eye might count a comparatively trivial difference in these Gospels. Well we know that in God’s word there is nothing trivial; but what might at first sight seem so is pregnant with truth, and also in immediate relation to God’s aim in each particular book where these facts are found.
All things, then, they now forsake at the call of the Lord. It was not a question simply of eternal life. The principle, no doubt, is always true; but we do not, in fact, find all things thus forsaken in ordinary cases. Eternal life is brought to souls in the Christ who attracts them, but they are enabled to glorify God where they are. Here it is all abandoned in order to follow Christ. The next scene is the synagogue of Capernaum. And there our Lord shows the objects of His mission here in two particulars. First there is teaching—“He taught them,” as it is said, “as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.” It was not tradition, it was not reason, not imagination, or the persuasible words of man’s wisdom. It was the power of God. It was that, therefore, which was equally simple and sure. This necessarily gives authority to the tone of him who, in a world of uncertainty and deceit, utters with assurance the mind of God. It is a dishonor to God and His word to pronounce with hesitation the truth of God, if indeed we know it for our own souls. It is unbelief to say “I think,” if I am sure; nay, revealed truth is not only what I know, but what God has made known to me. It is to cloud and weaken the truth, it is to injure souls, it is to lower God Himself, if we do not speak with authority where we have no doubt of His word. But then it is plain that we must be taught of God before we are at liberty to speak thus confidently.
But it is here to be noted that this is the first quality mentioned in our Lord’s teaching. This, I need not say, has a voice to us. Where we cannot speak with authority we had better not speak at all. It is a simple rule, and abundantly short. At the same time it is clear that it would lead to a great deal of searching of heart; but, I am no less persuaded, it would be with immense profit to ourselves and to our hearers.
The second thing was not authority in teaching, but power in action; and our Lord deals with the root of the mischief in man—the power of Satan, now so little believed in—the power of Satan over human spirits or bodies, or both. There was then in the synagogue—the very place of meeting, where Jesus was—a man with an unclean spirit. The demoniac cried out; for it was impossible that the power of God in the person of Jesus could be there without detecting him that was under the power of Satan. The bruiser of the serpent was there, the deliverer of the enthralled sons of Adam. The mask is thrown off; the man, the unclean spirit, cannot rest in the presence of Jesus. “He cried out, saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth?” (Mark 1:22-2322And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. 23And there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, (Mark 1:22‑23)). In the most singular way he blends together the action of the evil spirit with his own—“What have we to do with thee? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.” Jesus rebukes him. The unclean spirit tore him; for it was right that there should be the manifestation of the effects of the evil power, restricted as it was before Him who had defeated the tempter. It was a profitable lesson, that man should know what the working of Satan really is. We have on the one side, then, the malignant effect of Satan’s power, and on the other the blessed benignant might of the Lord Jesus Christ, who compels the spirit to come out, amazing all that saw and heard, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, “What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him.” There was, we thus see, both the authority of truth, and also the power that wrought in outward signs accompanying.
The next scene proves that it was not merely displayed in such acts as these: there was the misery and the maladies of man apart from the direct possession of the enemy. But virtue goes out of Jesus wherever there was an appeal of need. Peter’s wife’s mother is the first who is presented after He leaves the synagogue; and the marvelous grace and power blended in His healing of Peter’s mother-in-law attracts crowds of sick with every evil; so that we know all the city was come together at the door. “And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him” (Mark 1:3434And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. (Mark 1:34)).
Thus, then, the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ is fully come. It is thus that He enters upon it in Mark. It is clearly the manifestation of the truth of God with authority. Divine power is vested in man over the devil, as well as over disease. Such was the form of the ministry of Jesus. There was a fullness in it naturally, one need scarce say, which was suitable to Him who was the head of ministry as well as its great pattern here below, no less than, as He is now, its source from His place of glory in heaven. But there is another notable feature in it, too, as contributing to fill this instructive introductory picture of our Lord’s ministry in its actual exercise. Our Lord “suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.” He refused a testimony that was not of God. It might be true, but He would not accept the testimony of the enemy.
But positive strength is also requisite in dependence on God. Hence we are told, “In the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed” (Mark 1:3535And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. (Mark 1:35)). There, just as there is the rejection of the enemy’s testimony, so there is the fullest leaning upon God’s power. No personal glory, no title to power that attached to Him, was the smallest reason for relaxing in entire subjection to His Father, or for neglecting to seek His guidance day by day. Thus He waited on God after the enemy was vanquished in the wilderness, after He had proved the value of that victory in healing those oppressed of the devil. Thus engaged it is that Simon and others follow and find Him. “And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee.”
But this public attraction to the Lord Jesus was a sufficient ground for not returning. He did not seek the applause of man, but that which comes from God. Directly it came to be published, so to speak, the Lord Jesus retires from the scene. If all men sought Him, He must go where it was a question of need, not of honor. Accordingly He says, “Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for therefore came I forth.” He ever abides the perfect, lowly, dependent servant of God here below. No sketch can be more admirable, nowhere else can we see the perfect ideal of ministry completely realized.
Are we, then, to assume that all this was set down at random? How are we to account without a definite purpose for these various particulars, and no others, swelling the picture of ministry? Very simply. It was what God inspired Mark for. It was the Spirit’s object by him. It was owing to a different design that we find other topics introduced elsewhere. No other Gospel presents even the same facts after such a sort, because no other is thus occupied with the Lord’s ministry. Thus the reason is most plain. It is Mark, and he alone, who was led of God to put the facts together that bear upon Christ’s ministry, adhering to the simple natural order of the facts— related, omitting of course what did not illustrate the point, but among those which did, keeping the events as they followed one another. Christ is thus seen as the perfect servant. He was Himself showing what service of God is at the beginning of His ministry. He was forming others. He had called Peter, and James, and Andrew, and John. He was making them fishers of men-servants, too. And so it is that the Lord presents before their eyes—before their hearts—before their consciences—these perfect ways of grace in His own path here below. He was forming them after His own heart.