A Specimen Day in Capernaum. With His first followers, Jesus went to Capernaum (p. 29), a border town in the kingdom of Antipas, on the high road from Ptolemais to Damascus (HNT, ad loc.; Matthew 4:13 *). Mk.'s information now becomes more detailed, and he records the events of the first Sabbath as perhaps Simon himself recalled them.
Mark 1:21-28. Jesus visits the synagogue and proclaims His message there. Throughout the earlier period of His Galilean ministry the synagogues seem to have been open to Him (cf. Mark 1:39; Mark 3:1; Luke 4:16). Of the content of His teaching, Mk. tells us nothing. He only brings out the contrast between Jesus and the scribes. They taught from authorities, balancing one traditional opinion with another. Jesus spoke with authority as one commissioned of God. The same confidence and sense of power which were felt in His words were apparent in His dealings with demoniacs. Jesus uses no incantation or adjuration. He simply gives His commands and the evil spirits obey Him. This fact apparently interests Mk. and his readers even more than the sayings of Jesus. The astonishment aroused by the teaching was turned into amazement by the miracle, and the fame of the new prophet spread through Galilee.
[ Mark 1:22. and not: better yet not. The scribes taught with authority, but that of Jesus was of a different, stamp. A. J. G.]
Mark 1:22-27. Of the two words astonished and amazed the latter seems to be the stronger. It implies fear (see Mark 10:32 and the parallels to this passage). The first word is more frequent in Mk. who elsewhere (Mark 6:2; Mark 10:26; Mark 11:18) attributes the same effect to the teaching of Jesus.
Mark 1:24. Did the demoniacs, as Mk. suggests, openly acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah? If so, how did they reach the conviction, and why does their confession not influence the public? These questions raise difficulties. Some scholars hold that Mk. has given his own interpretation to inarticulate cries. The testimony of the demons exists for the reader but did not exist for the spectators. Consequently the motive assigned for enjoining silence in Mark 1:34 is mistaken. Wrede holds that the demons-' confession and their repression by Jesus are alike unhistorical. He groups along with this material, the passages in which those healed of their complaints are told to keep silence, e.g. Mark 1:44, Mark 5:43; Mark 7:36, and also the passages in which the disciples are forbidden to reveal the Messianic secret, e.g. Mark 8:30, Mark 9:9. The historic fact, according to Wrede, is that Jesus was not recognised as Messiah during His lifetime. Mk. accounts for this, by supposing that Jesus did not wish to be recognised. Therefore the demons are silenced, miracles of healing are not to be mentioned, the disciples may not say anything. Yet in Mk.'s view the Messianic secret must have been penetrated. Demons and disciples must have confessed. Miracles must have been impressive evidence. His narrative is full of contradictions because he tries to reconcile his conviction of the Messiahship of Jesus with the fact that the Messianic claim was not made public during the lifetime of Jesus. Wrede's ingenious theory rests on an illegitimate grouping of details, which do not require and are not capable of a common explanation. Thus in Mark 1:44 and Mark 7:36 the enjoining of silence is as intelligible and as historic as it is pointless and artificial in Mark 5:43. That some demoniacs addressed Jesus as Messiah, that such confessions aroused wonder but not faith in the people, and that Jesus sought to silence the demoniacs (the injunction and the word used were normal in exorcism) may well be historic fact. For the whole subject, see p. 663, Nevius, Demon-Possession and Allied Themes, and Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity, i. 125- 146.