Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Mark 1:11
And there came a voice from heaven, [saying,] Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
11. a voice from heaven ] The first of the three heavenly Voices to be heard during our Lord’s Ministry, viz., at (i) His Baptism; (ii) His Transfiguration (Mar 9:7); (iii) in the courts of the Temple during Holy Week (Joh 12:28). This Voice attested in the presence of His Forerunner the Divine Nature of our Lord, and inaugurated His public Ministry. The Baptism was a very important event in our Lord’s life:
(1) Needing no purification Himself, He submitted to it as the Head of His Body, the Church (Eph 1:22) for all His members;
(2) He was thus by baptism, and the unction of the Holy Ghost which followed (Mat 3:16; comp. Exo 29:4-37; Lev 8:1-30), solemnly consecrated to His office as Redeemer;
(3) He “sanctified water to the mystical washing away of sin.” See the Baptismal Office;
(4) He gave to His Church for all time a striking revelation of the Divine Nature, the Son submitting in all lowliness to every requirement of the Law, the Father approving by a voice from heaven, the Spirit descending and abiding upon the Son. “ I ad Jordanem, et videbis Trinitatem.”
12, 13. The Temptation
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mar 1:11
Thou art My beloved Son.
Humiliation and exaltation
It will be well for us to remember that our great Example was most highly exalted just when His humiliation was deepest; that it was when He had made Himself one with the sons of men that He was declared to be the Son-the beloved Son-of God. It is a pledge that the lowly, submissive spirit will be greatly sanctified, and that there is no surer way to win the approval of God than by yielding our wills to the authority of those set over us by the Lord, and striving to carry out the rules of the Church in the spirit of Him who accepted at once what His Father had appointed. God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble. (H. M. Luckock, D. D.)
My beloved Son
I. An expression of affection and approval. The Father bore witness to the Son. Not for Christs sake only, but for ours, came that voice, approving the character and authenticating the mission of the Son of God.
II. An implicit and authoritative appeal for human faith, attachment, and obedience. He of whom the Father thus speaks, is worthy of all our honour, gratitude, and devotion. (Family Churchman)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 11. See Clarke on Mr 1:9.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
And there came a voice from heaven,…. What the Jews call “Bath Kol”, saying,
thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased: it is in Matthew, “this is my beloved Son”, Mt 3:17; as if the words were spoken to others, to John, the administrator of baptism to him, and to those that were spectators; directing them to Christ, on whom the Spirit now descended, and testifying to them how great a person he was, how nearly related to God; how much he was the object of his love, and what a pleasure and delight he took in him; but here they are delivered as an immediate address to Christ himself, “thou art my beloved Son”. Christ, as he was the only begotten Son of God from eternity, so his filiation was owned and declared to him as early, Ps 2:7. This therefore was not the first time, nor was it only for his sake that this was said unto him, but also for the sake of those that stood by: but it may be observed, that he is not only called his Son, but his “beloved Son”; which might be necessary to be said to him in his state of humiliation, whilst he was yielding obedience to the will of God, and fulfilling all righteousness; and when he was about to be, as he quickly after this was, tempted by Satan in the wilderness, by whom his sonship was called in question. Now these words being directed to Christ, show that the former are spoken of him, and are applicable to him, as well as to John;
[See comments on Mt 3:17].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Thou art ( ). So Lu 3:22. Mt 3:17 has
this is ( ) which see. So both Mark and Luke have “in thee,” while Matthew has “in whom.”
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Thou art my beloved son
The three synoptists give the saying in the same form: Thou art my son, the beloved.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And there came a voice from heaven, saying,” (kai phone (egeneto) ek ton outanon) “And an audible voice came out of and from heaven,” giving Divine sanction to the baptism of Jesus at the hand of John the Baptist, Mat 3:16-17; Luk 3:21-22. The audible voice said to Jesus:
2) “Thou art my beloved Son,” (su ei ho huios mou ho agapetos) “Thou art the beloved Son of me.” Baptism did not make Jesus the Son of God. He was that, by begettal of the Holy Spirit; Neither does baptism make anyone on earth become a child of God. Baptism is a symbol of Divine Sonship and voluntary service, Luk 1:35; Joh 6:63; 1Jn 5:1.
3) “In whom I am well pleased.” (en soi eudokesa) “in whom I was well pleased,” when you were baptized, and as you set forth to do my will, Mar 8:34-35; Luk 9:23; Joh 14:15; Joh 15:14; Mat 28:18-20. God the Father acknowledged, sanctioned, and encouraged His Son in this beginning act or declaration of His public ministry, preparation, and identity, Joh 1:30-34.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying , Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Ver. 11. In whom I am well pleased ] And in him with us, whom he hath made gracious or favourites in him, the beloved One,Eph 1:6Eph 1:6 . , gratificavit.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
11. ] , Mark, Luke; ., Matt. ., Matt.; ., Mark and Luke. I mention these things to shew how extremely improbable it is that Mark had either Matt. or Luke before him. Such arbitrary alteration of documents could never have been the practice of any one seriously intent on an important work.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
from = out of. Greek. ek. App-104.
My beloved Son = My Son, the beloved. As in Matthew and Luke.
I am well pleased = I have [ever] found delight.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
11.] , Mark, Luke; ., Matt.- ., Matt.; ., Mark and Luke. I mention these things to shew how extremely improbable it is that Mark had either Matt. or Luke before him. Such arbitrary alteration of documents could never have been the practice of any one seriously intent on an important work.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
there: Mat 3:17, Joh 5:37, Joh 12:28-30, 2Pe 1:17, 2Pe 1:18
Thou: Mar 9:7, Psa 2:7, Isa 42:1, Mat 17:5, Luk 9:35, Joh 1:34, Joh 3:16, Joh 3:35, Joh 3:36, Joh 5:20-23, Joh 6:69, Rom 1:4, Col 1:13
Reciprocal: Mat 12:18 – my beloved Mar 12:6 – his Joh 5:32 – is another Joh 6:27 – for him
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Chapter 6.
The Barren Fig-Tree: Difficulties
“And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when He had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, He went out unto Bethany with the twelve. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, He was hungry: And seeing a fig-tree afar off having leaves, He came, if haply He might find any thing thereon: and when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet. And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And His disciples heard it.”-Mar 11:11-14.
The Visit to the Temple.
-Its Import.
Before discussing the difficult passage which tells the story of the barren fig-tree, let us look at Mar 11:11, in which Mark tells us what happened after our Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem. “And He entered into Jerusalem,” says the Evangelist, “into the Temple.” “Into the Temple,” surely the terminus of the procession is significant. It is significant as to the nature of Christ’s Kingdom, and the character of His Kingship. Had it been an earthly kingdom our Lord was set upon establishing, had it been Herod’s or Csar’s throne He wished to occupy, He would have marched, not to the Temple, but to the castle or the procurator’s palace. But Jesus had no designs against Csar’s soldiers; no wish to sit in Pilate’s or Herod’s room; and so He bent His steps, not to the palace, but to the Temple. The Temple was the shrine and centre of the Jewish religion. By marching on the day on which He was acclaimed as King straight to the Temple, our Lord declared to the world that it was a spiritual kingdom He came to establish, and it was in men’s hearts He desired to reign. When He reached the Temple, He “looked round about upon all things.” He cast a searching, scrutinising glance upon all that was taking place in the Temple precincts. He saw much that grieved and pained Him, and on the morrow, as we shall see, He took sharp and drastic action. But on the day of His entry He contented Himself with this all-embracing gaze. He “looked round about upon all things.”
The Searching Look.
How full of solemn suggestion a little phrase like this is! The Lord still visits His temple! He comes to visit His Father’s house. And when He comes nothing escapes His notice. I wonder what it is He sees. He sees no one buying or selling. There are no seats of the moneychangers to be overthrown. And yet He may see things equally incongruous with the purpose of a house of God. His house is a house of prayer. But is it the prayerful and believing spirit Christ always sees? Do we never bring the proud and unforgiving spirit with us? Do not foolish and sometimes foul thoughts go racing through our minds even in a sacred place like this? Are we not often busy with worldly plans and cares, while to outward appearance engaged in worship? And by bringing these things with us into the house of God we desecrate it just as badly as did these Jews who chaffered and haggled in the Temple courts. And whatever we bring with us our Lord sees. The foolish thought, the evil temper, the wandering imagination, the unholy desire, nothing escapes His notice. Every time we gather in church, the Lord is present too, and He “looks round about upon all things.” I never think of that solemn, searching, scrutinising gaze without feeling constrained to take the Psalmist’s prayer on my lips and to say, “Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in Thy sight, O Lord, my Rock and my Redeemer” (xix. 14). With that solemn and searching glance our Lord contented Himself on the day of His entry; for apparently, as His lowly procession had made its way down Olivet and into Jerusalem, the day had waned; and as it was now eventide, He went out into Bethany-out of the reach of His bitter foes, to the restfulness and quiet of Martha and Mary’s house.
Returning to Jerusalem.
But Jerusalem was to be the scene of His labours during these last few days. He had a witness to bear, and at all risks and costs it must be borne. So, when the next morning comes, He takes the journey to Jerusalem once more. And on the way He realised He was faint and hungry. It is possible He had risen a great while before day, to seek the Father’s face in prayer; and absorbed in communion with God He had clean forgotten His physical necessities. That was often the case with Jesus. Again and again it happened that He had no leisure so much as to eat. But the needs of the body cannot for long be neglected. And so Jesus, lifted in the exaltation of His spirit above any sense of need, suddenly realised that He was going to face a long and trying day in Jerusalem, and He was faint and spent almost before it began.
-“He Hungered.”
The Barren Fig-Tree.
“When they were come out from Bethany He hungered” (Mar 11:12). Does that seem a trivial thing? Does it almost seem derogatory to the dignity of Christ to mention a fact like that? Personally, I am grateful for it. It makes one realise how truly Jesus was man, and how completely He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities. “He hungered.” And ahead of Him on the road He saw a fig-tree, which promised the sustenance He needed; for although it was not the regular season of figs, this particular tree was in full leaf, and in the fig-tree, we are told, fruitage precedes leafage. But when Jesus reached it He found that the tree bore nothing but leaves. All that show of foliage was a cheat and a delusion. There was not a fig on the whole tree. And so our Lord “answered” (note the word; it is as if the tree had refused to give fruit), and said unto it, “No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever” (Mar 11:14). The disciples heard the sentence; and next morning, as they were making their way again into the city, they saw that the barren fig-tree had withered away.
Difficulties (1) Our Lord’s Knowledge.
Now certain obvious difficulties are raised by this story. (1) The first and most obvious is concerned with Christ’s knowledge. Did our Lord really expect to find fruit on the tree? Was He really ignorant that it was a barren tree? This was the difficulty that gave most trouble to ancient commentators. To admit ignorance seemed to them equivalent to denying our Lord’s perfection. “If He really sought fruit,” says Augustine, “He erred.” And so they resort to various shifts to reconcile our Lord’s pretended ignorance with His honesty. Their explanations amount practically to this-that He only feigned to seek the fruit. The whole action, we are told, was symbolic; it was a “wrought” parable. The entire episode was simply meant to teach the lesson that large professions without practice, as illustrated in the case of the Jewish nation, inevitably come under the judgment and condemnation of God. Many prefer, however, the simple explanation of our Lord’s conduct in connection with this fig-tree, namely, that He did not know it was barren. It was not the regular season for figs, Mark says. But our Lord inferred from its luxuriant leafage that there were sure to be figs upon it. It is urged that this interpretation in no way detracts from His Divinity (for that rests in the last resort upon His sinless life and His power to impart life to others); but that it does help to make His humanity a more real and genuine thing.
Difficulties: The Tree not a Moral Agent.
(2) A further difficulty is felt by some who hold that a tree, not being a moral agent, not being capable either of good or of evil, ought not to have been punished. But we answer the objection by the language we use of trees. We talk of “good” trees and “bad” trees. We say such and such a tree “ought” to bear well, while another perhaps cannot be “expected” to do much. That is to say, we attribute moral qualities to trees, and ourselves pass judgment upon them. All of which, again, implies that there is a certain analogy between trees and men. Indeed, our Lord more than once employs the analogy. In one familiar parable, for instance, He compares Israel to a barren fig-tree, which is only spared through the importunity of the gardener who begged for another year of grace. So now it was Israel-so rich in professions, so poor in practice-that He saw symbolised in that barren tree, and when He pronounced judgment upon it, it was Israel that He had in mind. It was a solemn warning to His countrymen of the doom that would surely fall upon them, if they satisfied themselves with empty professions, and brought forth no fruits meet for repentance. The physical injury was intended to teach a great spiritual lesson.
Difficulties: The Severity of our Lord.
-But He is Judge as well as Saviour.
(3) But behind all this, there lies a feeling that judgment of this kind is alien from the spirit of Christ. The tendency of our own day is to ignore every suggestion of sternness and austerity in the character of our Lord. We emphasise the kindly, gracious aspects of our Lord’s character. “Gentle Jesus,” we call Him. “A bruised reed He will not break,” we say of Him, “and smoking flax He will not quench.” We delight to remember that He came to seek and to save the lost, and that He was the friend of publicans and sinners. And all this is, of course, quite true. But there is another aspect of our Lord’s character. He is not merely gentle and kind; He is also majestic and austere. He is not only Saviour; He is also Judge. I will admit, if you like, that judgment is strange work, distasteful work to Him. “Curse a fig-tree?” so Dr Halley used to begin a great sermon of His on this incident. “Curse a fig-tree? ‘Tisn’t like Him.” I grant it is not like Him. It is not work in which He takes delight. He came to save men’s lives, not to destroy them. But we are blind to whole tracts of the New Testament teaching if we ignore the fact that Christ is Judge as well as Saviour. He does not bear the sword in vain. We are not exalting Christ, we are doing a grave wrong to men, if we induce them to believe that Jesus is mere indulgent good-nature, and that He can view sin and wrong with easy indifference. And I am not sure that our overemphasis on the gentleness and kindness of Jesus has not already inflicted that grave wrong upon men. “No one is afraid of God now,” said Dr Dale to Dr Berry one day.
To a large extent Dr Dale’s remark remains true. The sense of God’s holiness and purity has been lost and submerged in the sense of, I will not say His love, but His good-nature. And the result is that the edge has gone from our sense of sin, and our hatred of it. But the fear of the Lord remains to this day the beginning of wisdom. And an incident like this teaches us that neglected truth of the fear of God. Men may banish the “wrath of the Lamb” from thought and speech. But, in spite of our silence, that “wrath” remains a reality. In parable it is here in the cursing of this barren fig-tree.
God’s Goodness and Severity.
“Behold, then,” says St Paul, “the goodness and severity of God” (Rom 11:22). The goodness and the severity! We talk much, as a rule, about the goodness, and say nothing about the severity. But, as a matter of fact, there can be no goodness apart from severity. The indulgent father, the father who is never severe, the father who never steels his heart to punish, is not a good father. He is a weak father and a foolish father, and from the child’s standpoint, a bad father. In the same way exactly a God who winked at and never punished sin would not be a good God. He would not be good in Himself; for good-nature is not the same as goodness. And He certainly would not be good towards men. I can conceive of nothing more fatal to human souls than that God should allow them to sin on without penalty or rebuke. By ignoring the austere and severe aspects of our Lord’s character, we really sacrifice His holiness and perfection. Moreover, paradoxical as it may sound at first, it is a fact that we sacrifice the very kindness and love of Christ, if we ignore His severity. “Thy chastisements are love,” says our familiar hymn. So they are. They are the final and consummate proof of love.
A Last Appeal.
Love is seen even m the very seventy of this action. He had already compared Israel to a persistently barren tree. They made loud professions of religion; they had all the outward parade of it; they offered sacrifices and made long prayers, but the genuine effects of religion- obedience, mercy, love and truth-were conspicuous by their absence. They were like this fig-tree, with a profusion of leafage, but no fruit. And by this act of blighting the barren fig-tree our Lord made a kind of last appeal, and gave a kind of final warning to Israel. He inflicted this act of penal justice upon this tree, that thereby barren Israel might be warned to escape the wrath to come. He destroyed a fig-tree that He might save men’s souls.
The Pity of the Lord.
The yearning pity of the Lord shines out of an act like this. There was an intention of saving grace at the very heart of it. This is the one miracle of judgment our Lord ever performed. And when He felt constrained to assert the holiness and righteousness of God, He did not do it, Archbishop Trench remarks, like Moses and Elijah, at the expense of the lives of many men; but only at the cost of a single, unfeeling tree. His miracles of help and healing were numberless, and on men; His miracle of judgment was but one, and on a tree. Behold the “goodness and severity” of the Lord!
-And His Solemn Warning.
And yet, though we may assuredly see love and kindness shining through it, the story is a solemn story. Let us not ignore its austere and searching teaching. Christ is Judge as well as Saviour. He is full of patient and seeking love for the sinner, but He burns with a flame of holy wrath against sin. And sooner or later the judgment upon sin will fall. There are limits to the patience even of the patient Christ. The blow fell upon Israel, rebellious and barren Israel, in shattering fashion, some thirty years later, when the Lord they had rejected, by the hand of the Roman power, broke the nation in pieces like a potter’s vessel. And the sin that provokes judgment need not be some great and positive offence. It is barrenness that incurs the doom mentioned in the story. “Inasmuch as ye did it not,” that was the charge. “Depart from Me,” that was the doom. Let us “kiss the son, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way. Blessed are all they that put their trust in Him” (Psa 2:12).
Fuente: The Gospel According to St. Mark: A Devotional Commentary
1
The voice from heaven was that of God, who openly recognized Jesus as his Son after he had been baptized, and he also added the important truth that he was well pleased in his Son.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mar 1:11. See Mat 3:17.
Came out of the heavens. The latter phrase is to be joined with came, not with voice as in the E. V.
In thee (compare Luk 3:22) is the better supported reading.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
11 And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
Again, there is no indication here whether all heard the voice, or just the Lord and John. We saw from the Gospel of John that the dove was a sign to John the Baptist, thus the dove and voice may well have been uniquely tied together. Matthew mentions that the heavens were opened to “him” indicating John the Baptist. Luke does not indicate that anyone but Christ and John saw or heard this.
It would seem that if all the people saw this that there would have been quite a stir and that one of the synoptic writers would have mentioned it.
2Pe 1:16 mentions the similar situation relating to the Mount of Transfiguration occasion.
“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellentglory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” Peter was speaking of an occasion when there was a voice from God declaring Christ, Mat 17:5 and Mar 9:2.
A point should be declared here. John the Baptist observed such a voice as did some of the disciples. Matthew and Mark declare these disciples to have been Peter, James and John. It would be of interest as to why these four men had a direct declaration from God Himself that Christ was the Son of God. What special need did they have in their coming lives to have this bestowed upon them?
Since John the Baptist was martyred this may have been a real boost to his confidence in facing his coming death. Peter, being the prime mover in the early church faced many trials as well that could have used a confidence booster – not to forget his hesitancy to acknowledge the Lord after the arrest of the Lord.
Just why James and John had this experience we don’t know. James was the leader of the church at Jerusalem and John may have needed this for his knowledge in recording his Gospel. The point is what grand knowledge to have had before going into the heavy duties of the Lord. God knew that they would need this for whatever the reason.
We also should give ourselves comfort in knowing that God will prepare us for the tasks He has for us. No matter how bad or how hard, He will prepare us adequately to face all that might come our way. We need not doubt that He has us prepared according to His need.
The term translated “voice” is the word we gain our word “phone” from. It has the idea of sound forth or voice. One of the leaders in one of the churches we have been a part of over the years has a voice that reminds me of the cartoons you know when someone is towering over another with their mouth opened into a chasm yelling at the other. The listener is bent backward and his hair and clothing are being blown backward due to the force of the voice of the other. This deacon is rather quiet in most of his talking, but when he gets excited he does not control the force of his voice well. The force reminds me of these cartoon characters. His voice is booming it is largeness itself and to the point of being physically painful to the ear in a small room.
I have to imagine that this would be similar to what God’s voice might be like, not that it is meant to terrify, only that there is the force of almighty God behind it.
Mark and Luke state that God said “thou” art, while Matthew mentions “this is” my son. It could be assumed that Matthew was using poetic license to make a special point to the Jewish reader but he may also just have given this angle without thinking of the specific wording. It might be more to the point to contemplate why God would tell Jesus that He was His son, when they both knew the fact intimately well.
Fuente: Mr. D’s Notes on Selected New Testament Books by Stanley Derickson
1:11 And there came a voice from heaven, [saying], Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am {h} well pleased.
(h) See Geneva “Mat 3:17”
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The Father’s voice from heaven expressed approval of Jesus and His mission in words recalling Gen 22:2. What the voice said identified the speaker. God’s words from heaven fused the concepts of King (Psa 2:7) and Servant (Isa 42:1). This combination constituted the unique sonship of Jesus.
"The first clause of the [Father’s] declaration (with the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood) expresses an eternal and essential relationship. The second clause (the verb is in the aorist indicative) implies a past choice for the performance of a particular function in history." [Note: Lane, p. 58.]
From this point on, the reader of Mark’s Gospel knows God’s authoritative evaluation of Jesus. This evaluation becomes the norm by which we judge the correctness or incorrectness of every other character’s understanding of Him.
"If Mark refuses knowledge of Jesus’ identity to human characters in the beginning and middle of his story, who, then, knows of his identity? The answer is Mark himself as narrator, the reader, and such supernatural beings as God, Satan, and demons." [Note: Kingsbury, p. 38.]
Jesus began His official role as the Messiah at His baptism (cf. 2Sa 7:12-16; Psa 89:26; Heb 1:5). He also began His official role as the Suffering Servant of the Lord then (cf. Mar 8:31; Mar 9:30-31; Mar 10:32-34; Mar 10:45; Mar 15:33-39).
"Jesus’ baptism did not change His divine status. He did not become the Son of God at His baptism (or at the transfiguration, Mar 9:7). Rather, His baptism showed the far-reaching significance of His acceptance of His messianic vocation as the suffering Servant of the Lord as well as the Davidic Messiah. Because He is the Son of God, the One approved by the Father and empowered by the Spirit, He is the Messiah (not vice versa)." [Note: Grassmick, pp. 105-6.]