The Gospel text for this Sunday starts us on a relatively slow, deliberate journey with the Gospel according Mark. But a slow journey is hardly possible with this gospel account. The writer’s pace is unbelievable at times, especially when you take into account all the times the word ‘immediately’ appears.
 
I call it a slow journey because we will stay in this account until the third Sunday in Lent. And the Gospel texts for the next few weeks are as follows: 1:14-20, 1:21-28, and 1:29-39; and, if Easter were later (it happens to be April Fool’s Day this year!), there could be up to three weeks of texts which immediately follow after those.
 
During Epiphany we do not want to get too far into the Gospel according to Mark since, at the very beginning of chapter 3, Jesus’ enemies are already planning to destroy him. In a way, Lent is right around the corner.
 
Epiphany gives us a little time to enjoy a revelation or two about Jesus. How Jesus reveals himself in this account is certainly unique, and you do not have to go too far into the text to see that.
 
Mark 1:14-15 go this way (according to the ESV): “After John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’” It is extremely interesting—and I checked this to be sure—that this is, according to some manuscripts, the first mention of 'God' in the text. And he is certainly mentioned more than once!
 
Some manuscripts do not have Jesus called ‘Son of God’ at the end of first sentence of this account, and even if it is NOT there, that he is eventually called that in the text is an amazing thing. And even if it IS there, the frequent mention (and allusion) to God in this text is noticeable.
 
In verses 14 and 15 there is the phrase ‘the gospel of God’; Jesus talks about ‘the kingdom of God’, and when he says that ‘the time is fulfilled’, the implication is that this special time is determined by God (cf. BDAG, p. 498). The emphasis on God is undeniable. And it all started after the mention of an arrest (literally, a ‘giving over’ or, perhaps, a ‘passing on’).
 
The emphasis continues to be one of power. People are used to talking about power. People like to have power. In the same way (as it has always been), people like to be like God—someone with power.
 
This God of the text has a gospel. This God has a timeline. And this God has a kingdom. Perhaps you can imagine God sitting on his throne in heaven. He decides (given his timeline) to send a messenger to give some important news (and this is the definition of ‘gospel’ in the Old Testament).
 
God has always had a kingdom. God has always had some good news. That he decides to share it with us is incredible. The WAY in which he did it is BEYOND incredible. That he decided to share it with the harassed, belittled, outnumbered Christians in Rome is also incredible. And sometimes we can feel the same way as they did. That those early Christians were able to pass it along is even more incredible.
 
As Mark 1:1 reminds us, this is only the beginning of the good news.
 ​

​It has bothered me for a while that, within the Gospel according to Mark, the writer states that '... all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and we being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins (Mark 1:5).' I am particularly focusing on the use of the word 'all' within the text. I cannot imagine the city of Jerusalem being totally vacant, as well as the area of Judea. Obviously they did not all come out at the same time. But was it really even all?

To be honest, I did not like his exaggeration. (In literary terms, this is called a hyperbole.) If he exaggerates with this, with what else is he going to exaggerate?

That turned out to be a very good question. How else does the writer use the word 'all' within the text?

This verse has the very first uses of the word 'all' within this gospel account. They point to the great successes of John the Baptist. He simply shows up. There is no account of his birth. There is an Old Testament verse, and then he appears. He comes on the scene in a big way, and this is shown in the responses of the people. ALL of them went out.

The entrance of Jesus is different ... and yet the same. He shows up to get baptized. Again, as with John, there is no account of his birth. The results of his baptism are HUGE. How many times have the heavens ripped open like they were at his baptism? The focus of the text quickly and appropriately shifts to Jesus.

Things with Jesus begin to build quite quickly. In verse 32 ALL who were sick were brought to him. (It's interesting that, following this, the text says that MANY were healed--and not all.) But the next time the word 'all' is used is when Jesus went away to pray the next morning, and Peter says to him, 'Everyone is looking for you (v. 37).' In other words, ALL are looking for you. That is the next use of the word.

It seems that Jesus does not like that exaggeration. The implication of Peter seems to be that, if everyone is looking for Jesus, he should go to them. But Jesus does not do what they want. He does what HE wants. And he wants to go to the next towns. He says that is why he 'came out'. 

He ends up preaching around in Galilee and getting the attention of the religious leaders in Jerusalem. Then he ends up going there and getting killed. 

I actually like that exaggeration that all are looking for Jesus. I like that exaggeration, especially in light of the way that this gospel account ends. In Mark 16:8, it says that the women fled from the tomb, 'for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.'

Now THAT is an exaggeration that I have NEVER really liked. And, again, I think I can see a literary purpose within it, especially in light of the situation of the earliest Christians. They were getting killed for the faith. Peter and Paul were both killed at about the same time, and I could imagine this 'double-whammy' being a very difficult thing for those early Christians to handle. 'What is our future?' they were asking.

It is comforting to know that the word 'astonishment' in the reaction of the women is also found in the reaction of the people who saw Jesus resurrect a child in Mark 5:42. (These are the only two occurrences in Mark; literally the word is 'ecstasy'.) The dictionary (BDAG), interestingly enough, defines this as 'a state of consternation or profound emotional experience to the point of being beside oneself.' Now THAT is a long definition. But it also takes a while to get your mind around the death and resurrection of Jesus--as well as our own death and resurrection.

You exaggerate when it is a life and death issue. PLEASE exaggerate when it is a life and death issue. BY ALL MEANS exaggerate when it is an ETERNAL life and death issue.