As With Authority - Mark 1:21-26

21 They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach. 22 The people were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority, not as the teachers of the law.23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”
25 “Be quiet!” said Jesus sternly. “Come out of him!” 26 The impure spirit shook the man violently and came out of him with a shriek.

This passage, begins with Jesus, while passing through Capernaum, stopping in at the synagogue there and starting to teach.  This was not uncommon for travelling Rabbis.  But what had the people there somewhat more than startled was that he was giving his own teaching, his own interpretation of the Scriptures as if he had the authority and was ordained to do so.  It is pointed out that the revered "teachers of the law" did not have this authority and this left the people wondering by what authority or "certification" did he consider himself to have the right.

In Jewish society only those Rabbis who were ordained and recognized by the community as having s'mikhahto, or, "authority", were allowed to give their own interpretation of the law and Scripture in general.  All other teachers were expected to only recite existing accepted interpretations, commonly the "yoke", or interpretation and lifestyle passed on to them by the Rabbi who they had studied under and been a talmidim, or disciple of.  This was treated very seriously with Jesus' act being like someone today practising medicine without a medical license, or setting themselves up in a courtroom to decide legal cases without being appointed or elected.  Being recognized in the community as having s'mikhahto meant that a person was authorized to pass legal judgements and tell people how they should be living their lives, how they should be practising and living out their part of the Covenant with God. 

Recognition as a Rabbi with s'mikhahto was an involved process that can be thought of as similar to ordination or professional licensing in today's society.  In first century Galilee, this process started at age 4-5 in a Beth Sefer (elementary school) associated with the local synagogue and taught by a teacher hired by the community.  Teaching would focus on the Torah and the reading, writing, and memorizing of Scripture.  If you were considered one of the better students, one would continue one's study (while also learning a trade) at a Beth Midrash, also taught by a rabbi of the community.  There one would study the prophets and the writings, interpretations of the Oral Torah, and continue to memorize Scripture.  If one was one of the most outstanding students of the Beth Midrash, one might seek permission to study with a famous rabbi and leave home to travel with him for a period of time. After this, one might be considered by the Rabbi one studied with as a candidate for semicha, or rabbinic ordination. Semicha, literally, "laying of the hands", was a ritual that ensured that the student was the next link in the Sinaic tradition and authorized him to judge cases which involved any sort of punitive punishment. This ceremony had to be done by a Rabbi already ordained in this manner while accompanied by two others. The ceremony itself consisted of addressing the person as "rabbi" and telling him:  "You are ordained and you have the authority to render judgement, even in cases involving financial penalties".

http://ourrabbijesus.com/2013/09/16/a-question-about-disciples-rabbis/

https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1933944/jewish/What-Is-a-Rabbi.htm

Given this information, you can imagine what a big deal it would be for Jesus, who was not certified in this manner, to start offering his own interpretation of Scripture and how people should live and act to fulfil the Covenant. The passage states that the people were, "amazed" that he was teaching with authority.  In the Greek, ἐξεπλήσσοντο (exeplēssonto).  Strong's Concordance defines this expression as: I am thunderstruck, astounded (1605 )

In Mark's story we immediately go from the people in the Synagogue being struck with shock and panic at finding Jesus to be claiming an authority he has not been licensed to hold to what seems to be a complete non-sequitur:

Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, 24 “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”

A man possessed by a demon starts addressing Jesus and shouting at him.  However, when we look at what the impure spirit says, we realize it is not a non-sequitur at all, but an answer to the unspoken question from the previous verse, "Where does Jesus get his authority?  What gives him the right to give his own teaching and tell people how they should live their lives?".

The unclean spirit recognizes Jesus' identity as the, "Holy One of God", and appears fearful that Jesus will destroy him, conferring to him the authority and ability to perform this act on a being of the supernatural realm.  The implication is that beings of the supernatural realm recognize and vouch for his authority.  There is also an implication that those who are in touch with the supernatural, those who, "know God", would recognize Jesus authority and would recognize that his teaching is, "of God". 

So, why did the community of Mark tell this particular story about Jesus, in this particular way?  What did it mean to them?  Although it is believed that there was a Gentile portion of the community, the majority were most likely Jewish.  Whether the community was in one of the provinces of Palestine or somewhere in the diaspora, there would have been other Jews around who would question the way they chose to live.  They would ask why members of this community, if they claimed to be part of Judaism, did not follow an authorized and accepted interpretation of the law and Jewish practice.  Why did the community not follow the laws and practices the way they did?  How could they consider themselves legitimate Jews if they followed the yoke and teaching of an un-ordained, unrecognized Rabbi who operated outside of the chain of s'mikhahto passed down from one Rabbi to the next in the Sinaic tradition.

The  community's response through this story was that this authority came from supernatural recognition and appointment rather than tradition and the, "systems of man".  And that the truth of this could be found by those who "know God" recognizing his word rather than the dictates of tradition.

Leaving Zebedee - Mark 1:19-20

19 When he had gone a little farther, he saw James son of Zebedee and his brother John in a boat, preparing their nets. 20 Without delay he called them, and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him.

In the previous verses, we heard about Jesus calling the fisherman brothers Simon and Andrew to be his talmidim (disciples).  In the verses above, Jesus travels a little further along the sea of Galilee and calls a second pair of brothers who are fishermen, James and John.  

Looking at the previous verses, we discussed how the Jesus of Mark considers himself as a Rabbi and teacher who had authority (Hebrew s'mikhahto) to interpret Scripture and had his own interpretation, or "yoke", to instruct to students.  He presented himself as this although no credentials are given that would allow him to claim this authority or position as would be expected in the Jewish community. So far in the narrative, Jesus has only had the revelation of God's favor during his baptism with John, spent a period of time in the wilderness, and then done some preaching in Galilee, spreading a message similar to that of John the Baptist.  This provoked the question of why the brothers would take up his offer to become his talmidim.

We also looked at the commitment expected of someone who became the talmidim of a Rabbi.  They were understood to follow the Rabbi in his travels, to submit to the Rabbi's interpretation of the Scriptures and its application to their lives, and to totally devote their time to becoming like their Rabbi.  It was assumed that they would spend their entire time listening to and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice.

The one difference between the calling of Simon and Andrew in the previous verses and the calling of James and John in this passage, is the part with them immediately leaving their father behind.  In both incidents the following of Jesus is portrayed as an immediate, on the spot, action, where nets were dropped and all else left with no looking back.  Here their father is left still sitting in the fishing boat while they start trailing after Jesus down the beach with an implication that they said no goodbyes, or even stopped to discuss this decision with their father.  

It was not uncommon, for young men to leave their family and occupation to follow a Rabbi for a period of time if called.  However, in First Century Jewish Palestine, where Patriarchy and the family were the center of authority and allegiance, it is difficult to imagine one making this move without first being granted permission and receiving a blessing from one's father. Since the family was the primary economic unit, it would have been similar as well to asking for an extended leave from your employer.  It is possible that since their father was right there in the story when they are called that they received some sort of nod from him which is not mentioned.  But consider the brothers Simon and Andrew in the preceding verses, there is no mention of their father being on the scene when they drop everything and follow Jesus, and again nothing about swinging by home to ask permission or make arrangements.

That also brings up the question of Simon's wife.  The others may have been married as well, but the only one the Gospels make mention of is Simon who's wife's mother is healed of a high fever by Jesus later in the chapter.  Lois Tverberg, an author on the subject of Jesus as a Rabbi, states that:

A disciple had to ask his wife’s permission to be away from home to study longer than 30 days.  http://ourrabbijesus.com/2013/09/16/a-question-about-disciples-rabbis/

However, there is no mention of Simon doing this before or after accepting Jesus' call.

This introduces another aspect of Jesus' teaching as given in Mark and the other Gospels; it wasn't exactly pro-family.  In spite of a Western Cultural Christian spin that is almost unquestioned, the Christianity of Jesus is not family centered, or based on, "family values". There is a reason why no one quotes Jesus on Family Day.

It is not that Jesus was specifically anti-family; he was just against tribalism in general where it restricts universal and unbiased love. Jesus proclaimed social equality, inclusion, and the indiscriminate nature of God's love which he called us to imitate. As such, Jesus warned us against any cultural, national, or religious division that encourages people to prefer, favor, or give allegiance to some individuals or groups while discriminating against, discounting, or marginalizing others.

Jesus' most famous statements on this in terms of family are:

If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26 NIV)

Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. (Matthew 10:37 NIV)

Hate in Hebrew doesn’t have the same connotation it does in the west. Hate in Hebrew is leesno whose root word is meeshno which means less important or second place.  For these passages, let me also point out that, for the Gospel writers, Jesus and, "The Way of Jesus", were synonymous and that Jesus' Way was a vision of a God of indiscriminate and unpreferential love. Seen from this perspective, Jesus was telling his followers not to love anyone any less than with the love normally reserved in their society for family members.

I would contend that Jesus' point was not that we should not love our family, but that our love should be universal and that his concern was that family devotion and obligation should not exclude those outside our family, that this same love and duty should extend beyond all social groupings whether it be family, religion, nationality, or social caste based on wealth and power.

Despite this, many conservative right-wing Christian denominations and groups peddle Christianity as being primarily about, "Family Values". This phrase and the term, "Pro-Family", have become code words to promote a doctrine that narrows the definition of family to exclude same sex couples and their children and that further defines family in patriarchal terms that enshrine unequal power relationships. It is interesting to note that the States in the U.S. where conservative Evangelicals who promote the ideology of "Christian Family Values" have the most sizable population also report the highest number of unplanned pregnancies and S.T.D.s as well as the highest rates of domestic abuse.

The book of Mark is the least, "Family Friendly", of the Gospels.  There is no backstory about his parents, no genealogy, no nativity narrative, and no stories about a young Jesus growing up and visiting the Temple with his family.  He just appears for his baptism with John as fully formed. 

I can imagine that there were many in the community of Mark who had left family behind to be part of this commune with some even disowned by their families.  There would also have been the destitute who had no family connections or support to speak of.  To these people, living in a society where family was the most important source of status, economic security, and support, a message that set family as secondary and of less importance than the Way they were following would be empowering and affirming.

Calling Of Disciples - Mark 1:16-18

16 As Jesus walked beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and his brother Andrew casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. 17 “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 18 At once they left their nets and followed him.

The next scene, after Jesus begins his ministry in Galilee proclaiming his message, has him choosing some disciples. The first thing this indicates is that the Jesus of Mark considers himself a Rabbi, a teacher who had authority (Hebrew s'mikhahto) to interpret Scripture and had his own interpretation, or "yoke", that he would instruct students, or disciples, in.

Most Rabbis, or "masters", were Torah teachers, "teachers of the law", as referred to in the Gospels, who could only teach accepted interpretations, mainly the interpretation, or "yoke", that their master had instructed, or passed on to them as their disciples. Those with s'mikhahto could make new interpretations, pass legal judgements, and could call their own talmidim (disciples) to learn and pass on their yoke. (https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim)

In Matthew 21:23-27, Jesus is questioned on his authority to interpret the law;  from which authority did he get his interpretation from, who was his teacher, or what qualified him as having his own authority?  The Gospels give him no credentials, no claims to have studied at any specific Beth Midrash, or to have been a talmidim and travelled with some famous Rabbi.  In fact, as we saw earlier, the writer of Mark makes some effort to discourage the idea he might have been a student or follower of John the Baptist.

This begs the question of why the brothers would drop their nets and follow him when he called.  This would have been a big commitment on their part and for someone who had no credentials.

Doug Greenwold, a Teaching Fellow at Preserving Bible Times, describes what was expected in becoming a Rabbi's disciple:

If a rabbi ultimately agreed to a would-be-disciple’s request, and allowed him to become a disciple, the disciple-to-be agreed to totally submit to the rabbi’s authority in all areas of interpreting the Scriptures for his life. This was a cultural given for all observant Jewish young men – something each truly wanted to do. As a result, each disciple came to a rabbinic relationship with a desire and a willingness to do just that - surrender to the authority of God’s Word as interpreted by his Rabbi’s view of Scripture.  https://bible.org/article/being-first-century-disciple

Ray Vander Laan, a teacher of Jewish culture who received his Master's of Divinity from Westminster Theological Seminary , explains it further:

The decision to follow a rabbi as a talmid meant total commitment in the first century as it does today. Since a talmid was totally devoted to becoming like the rabbi he would have spent his entire time listening and observing the teacher to know how to understand the Scripture and how to put it into practice. Jesus describes his relationship to his disciples in exactly this way (Matt. 10:24-25; Luke 6:40) He chose them to be with him (Mark 3:13-19) so they could be like him (John 13:15).  https://www.thattheworldmayknow.com/rabbi-and-talmidim

What also are we to make of Jesus' choice of talmidim? He calls two fishermen of Galilee.  Now, at the beginning of this study I stated that I wish to identify my own bias while interpreting this Gospel.  My bias would be to spin a narrative that sees the community of Mark portraying Jesus as deliberately choosing marginalized and uneducated as people and affirming them as eligible to follow his teaching and way of life.  This certainly would be in keeping with the theme throughout the Gospel of Jesus including and even preferring the marginalized.  However, Ray Vander Laan suggests that these assumptions about these fishermen may not hold true and that: 

The people of Galilee were the most religious Jews in the world in the time of Jesus. This is quite contrary to the common view that the Galileans were simple, uneducated peasants from an isolated area.
The Galilean people were actually more educated in the Bible and its application than most Jews. More famous Jewish teachers come from Galilee than anywhere else in the world. They were known for their great reverence for Scripture and the passionate desire to be faithful to it. This translated into vibrant religious communities, devoted to strong families, their country, whose synagogues echoed the debate and discussions about keeping the Torah

Be that as it may, what is important to this study is what view the people of the community of Mark held and how it informed their telling of their story of Jesus.  I have to conclude that they would share the prejudices of the Jews of the other provinces that we looked at in the previous post and saw Galilee as representing an unsophisticated and rural poor.

Most commonly a person would ask a Rabbi to take them on as a disciple rather than a Rabbi asking someone to follow them.  An article by Doug Trudell (whose credentials I can not find) suggests the type of criteria a Rabbi would use for a talmidin:

To make his decision, a rabbi would question you. He would seek to determine your scriptural knowledge. He would question you regarding the sages and the prophets and dig into your interpretation of the Scriptures and various laws. Ultimately the rabbi would be seeking to answer just one question. That is....Can this potential disciple, really become just like me, or putting it another way, can this potential talmid become a mirror image of me?Breaking that down, the rabbi was trying to determine if you could a) learn all of his teachings b) learn to think and act as he acted and c) could you then spread his “yoke” to others.  http://dougtrudell.com/html/i_choose_you.html

I can imagine that the community of Mark were affirming that becoming like Jesus was open to everyone.  The statement about sending the brother out to, "fish for people", would be a message within the community that all of them were eligible to spread Jesus' teaching and yoke.

I can also see the Gospel writer's lack of credentials for Jesus as a defiance of the monopoly "accredited" Rabbis had on interpreting Scripture in the Jewish world.  Jesus did not need credentials or a specialized education to claim authority and convince others to follow him and become his disciples. Neither did the community of Mark believe that they did.

I believe that the community of Mark held a view on authority for teaching similar to that latter expressed in the Gospel of John.

¹⁶ Jesus answered, “My teaching is not my own. It comes from the one who sent me. ¹⁷ Anyone who chooses to do the will of God will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." (John 7:16-17)

Jesus' lack of credentials also reinforced the narrative that his teaching was, "not of man, but of God".  Simon and Andrew's decision to become Jesus' talmidim when he had no credentials or recognized status would also speak to the idea that, as suggested in the passage above, that people who did thw will of God could recognize that his teaching came from God rather than his speaking on his own.

Proclaiming the Good News - Mark 1:14-15

14 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”

Jesus' ministry, after his baptism by John, begins with his proclaiming the, "good news of God", in Galilee.  Let's start with the, "where", and explore why the community of Mark may have had Jesus start his work in Galilee.

In the time of Jesus, Palestine was divided into three provinces, Judea, Samaria, and Galilee.  Galilee, particularly the northern portion, was home to a large Gentile population. The Upper Galilee included the whole mountain range lying between the upper Jordan and Phoenicia. To this region the name "Galilee of the Gentiles" is given in the Old and New Testaments. (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:16)  http://biblehub.com/topical/g/galilee.htm

The ATS Bible Dictionary describes the view held of Galileans by the Jews of the other provinces:

...other Jews affected to consider them as not only stupid and unpolished, but also seditious, and therefore proper objects of contempt,Luke 13:1 23:6 John 1:47 7:52....Many of the apostles and first converts to Christianity were men of Galilee, Acts 1:11 2:7, as well as Christ himself; and the name Galilean was often given as an insult, both to him and his followers.

Starting Jesus' ministry in Galilee would suggest the priority placed on the marginalised and rejected.  The Jesus of the community of Mark does not hold the common biases and prejudices of the day and acts in opposition to them.

Now let's look at the, "what", of the message he preached.  His message was the good news that the time had come and the kingdom of God had come near.

The expected time he is talking about is the establishment of God's kingdom foretold in the book of Daniel.

“Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him” Daniel 7:27

The writings of the book of Daniel were quite important to the Jesus of Mark with him quite often referring to the figure of the, "son of man", from that book. But, the main reference is to the idea of the establishment of the Kingdom of God.

The presence and arrival of the Kingdom of God was the central message of Jesus in Mark and the other Synoptic Gospels, not his death, or some afterlife, or ones fate there.

The term "Kingdom of God" occurs four times in Matthew (12:28; 19:24; 21:31; 21:43), fourteen times in Mark, thirty-two times in Luke, twice in the Gospel of John (3:3, 5), six times in Acts, eight times in Paul, and once in Revelation(12:10). Matthew actually prefers the term "Kingdom of heaven" which he uses over 20 times in his gospel. http://www.theopedia.com/kingdom-of-god

We will take a closer look at what the Jesus of Mark's Gospel meant by the, "Kingdom of God", further into the study. For now, let's look at how Jesus' called the people to respond to his announcement that the, "Kingdom of God has come near".

"Repent and believe the good news!”

Let us first look at the word, "repent".

g3340

μετανοέω

 μετανοέω metanoéō, met-an-o-eh'-o; from G3326 andG3539; to think differently or afterwards, i.e. reconsider (morally, feel compunction):—repent. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3340&t=NIV

The Greek word given as, "repent", in most English translations mean to, "think differently", or, "reconsider".  Jesus here is telling the people to, "think differently", in light of the news that the kingdom of God has come near.

He also preaches to the people that they should, "believe", in this good news, to put their trust in and give their allegiance to the implications of this news. 

Into The Wildernes - Mark 1:12-13

12 At once the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness, 13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

In verse twelve, the Spirit which has just been, "descending on him like a dove", sends Jesus into the wilderness.  The parallelism to the story of Moses and the children of Israel here is obvious.  The allusion is reinforced by the forty days, like the forty years Israel spent wandering in the wilderness.  The community of Mark sees Jesus as a new Moses.  Like Moses, there will be a period of preparation and purification in the desert, the place where the Covenant between God and his people was renewed.  Jesus comes to bring a new Covenant and lead his people out of the wilderness and into the Promised Land. 

An allusion to the Exodus story can also be seen in the preceding verses with Jesus' baptism.  Jewish thought equated the passing of the children of Israel between the waters of the Red Sea as a form of baptism.  It was viewed as having been an initiation and purifying ritual for the Hebrews leaving Egypt.  Speaking of the children of Israel, Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians in chapter 10, verse 2, says, "They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

Backing up further in the opening chapter of Mark, even the name of our hero evokes the Exodus story. The Hebrew name of Jesus, Yeshua, is a form of the name Joshua.

Yeshua (ישוע, with vowel pointing יֵשׁוּעַ –yēšūă‘ in Hebrew) was a common alternative form of the name יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ("Yehoshuah" –Joshua) in later books of the Hebrew Bible and among Jews of the Second Temple period. Meaning "salvation" in Hebrew, it was also the most common form of the name Jesus hence the name corresponds to the Greek spelling Iesous, from which, through the Latin Iesus, comes the English spelling Jesus.^[1][2] 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

I can imagine that the community of Mark saw this as their own story. They are currently in a wilderness, rejected, marginalized, but Jesus will lead them out of the desert into new life.  The fact that they have recast Jesus and themselves in this story begs the question of why?  Why is this story so important to them that they tie it so closely to their own faith story in the opening chapter? 

The Exodus story is about an oppressed people living as slaves in another's land who were rescued by God and given a land of their own.  Did this community feel oppressed and exploited, strangers in a place ruled by those outside of themselves?  Consider who this community was made up of. If it was like the early Christian communities talked about in Acts, it was a mixed one of Jew and Gentile, male and female, the poor and marginalized next to those who had been wealthy and connected. That there was a Gentile portion is confirmed by the spelling out Jewish practises as to an audience that would not be familiar to them throughout this Gospel. Many of these would have been those who were discriminated against, oppressed and excluded by Temple Judaism.  

Foreigners, women, and the disabled were denied access to the Temple and the presence of God.  Likewise the poor, who after being taxed by the Romans, were expected to cough up the Temple tax, were often unable to afford the sacrificial animals which they were required to purchase as Temple approved.  As well, they were often unable to afford or have the means to carry out 0the purity practises prescribed by the Law, particularly if they had lost their property to taxes and were homeless.

This use of the Exodus story reminds me of the Negro slaves in the Southern United States.  They also in their oppression and exploitation looked to the story of the Exodus as reflective of their own experience and a source of hope.

The book of Exodus, although attributed to Moses, is believed by scholars to be written in the 6th century B.C.E., during the Babylonian Exile.  As such, it would have been a subversive story expressing the Hebrews' longing for deliverance from their captivity under the Babylonians, only with the name changed to the Egyptians to allow them to use it more openly.  Since there is no concrete archaeological evidence that the Hebrews ever lived in mass as a people in Egypt, (Sorry Republican Presidential Nominee hopeful Ben Carson, there is no evidence that the pyramids were grain elevators built by Pharaoh on the advice of Joseph) we don't know whether there was any historical basis for the story, or whether it was a completely subversive myth of hope.

13 and he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him.

Let's look at the rest of the second verse for this post.  Jesus spent his forty days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan.  Now the Satan of the Tanakh, the Jewish Scriptures, is quite a different figure than that which was created by later Christian mythology.  The Hebrew word for Satan means to oppose or accuse.  He was envisioned as a member of God's inner council who sometimes played the role of chief prosecutor of Heaven.  As seen in the book of Job, he also played the role of tester.  In the book of Job he accuses Job of only being righteous because of God's favour and enacts a set of trials which end up proving the righteousness of Job's heart.  I can imagine that the community of Mark was saying that Jesus was righteous.  He has been tested by God's representative and has emerged pure.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm

The last part of the verse has Jesus with wild animal and attended by angels.  This image evokes the Prophets of the Tanakh.  Jesus is seen as one with their tradtion as well.

Like A Dove: Mark1:9-11

9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. 11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

In this passage from the Gospel of Mark, we witness Jesus' introduction and first public act.  The Gospel of Mark, unlike the later Gospels of Matthew and Luke, has no miraculous birth narrative to set the tone of the story.  Instead it is the baptism scene that creates the imagery that introduces who Jesus is and what his purpose is.

While looking at the preceding verses we discussed the linking of Jesus with the ministry of John the Baptist who was a popular figure associated with renewal and purity.  Again, in this verse, we see the effort at the same time to distance Jesus from John and deny that he was John's student.  Jesus here is not part of John's retinue, but comes from Nazareth in order to go to John in order to be baptized.

It is significant that the community of Mark chose a baptism as the introduction in their story of Jesus.  Jesus' first act is a ritual of purity, the enactment of a practice required in order to visit the temple and come close to the presence of God.  It would appear that they are saying that the importance of Jesus is tied up with being brought to a state where one can enter God's presence.  It says that his ministry is about bringing humanity into a closer union with God.

The description of what happens when Jesus is baptized further emphasizes this point as well as providing a wealth of other images and allusions in regard to who they saw Jesus as being and of what they saw as his purpose. 

Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove

Jesus Tears Open the Heavens

Jesus is portrayed here as causing the separation between man on earth and God in the heavens to be breached.  This is the introduction of a major theme of this Gospel.  The image here of the heavens being torn would bring to mind the curtain in the temple that separated the presence of God from the people and which could only be entered after careful procedures of atonement and purification without fear of death.

Jesus As Source of God's Life Creating Spirit

The allusion in these verses to the opening of the creation story in Genesis is obvious.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.(Genesis 1:2)

Jesus is linked here to God's life giving force at creation, the Spirit of God.  The Hebrew word here is ruach.  Strong's Concordance defines it as meaning, breath, wind, spirit (http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7307.htm).  It is God's act of breathing into the first human being that brings the first human to life from the dust of the ground in the second chapter of Genesis.

The Symbolism of the Dove

The Dove in this passage is a rich source of symbolism both from the Jewish Tanakh and  Talmud, and from other religions in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean world that this community which included Gentiles would have been aware of.

God's Compassion - Cessation of God's Punishment

In the eighth chapter of Genesis, Noah sends out a dove from the ark to see if the water had receded from the surface of the ground.  When the dove returns with a freshly plucked olive leaf, Noah knew that the water had receded from the earth and that God's cleansing of mankind had come to an end.  As such, the dove was a symbol for the Hebrew people of God's peace with humanity, the cessation of punishment and cleansing, and the start of new life.

Fertility and New Life

Dorothy Willette, writing for the Biblical Archaeology Society's, "Bible History Daily", gives the following background of the dove as a symbol of the mother goddess in the Ancient Near East:

In the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean world, the dove became an iconic symbol of the mother goddess. Small clay shrines from the Iron Age Levant depict doves perched atop the doorways of these mini-temples. On one example from Cyprus, the entire exterior of the goddess’s shrine is covered with dovecotes. The doves represented feminine fertility and procreation, and came to be well-recognized symbols of the Canaanite goddess Asherah and her counterpart Astarte, as well as her Phoenician and later Punic embodiment, Tanit. First-century B.C. coins from Ashkelon bore a dove, which represented both the goddess Tyche-Astarte and the city mint. In Rome and throughout the Empire, goddesses such as Venus and Fortunata could be seen depicted in statues with a dove resting in their hand or on their head.

There is strong evidence in the Hebrew Bible, as well as the archaeological record, that many ancient Israelites believed the goddess Asherah was the consort of their god Yahweh. Perhaps it is not so surprising, then, that the heirs of this Israelite religion incorporated the “feminine” symbol of the dove to represent the spirit of God (the word for “spirit,” ruach, is a feminine word in Hebrew). The Babylonian Talmud likens the hovering of God’s spirit in Genesis 1:2 to the hovering of a dove. Indeed, this same “hovering” language is used to describe God’s spirit in the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the New Testament.  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/the-enduring-symbolism-of-doves/ 

 Atonement

Doves were also a means of atonement, being made right with God.  Several passages in Leviticus specify the sacrifice of doves as a guilt offering or a means to purify oneself after a period of ritual impurity.  Doves and turtle doves were the only birds considered clean according to Mosaic law and could therefore be offered as sacrifice ( Leviticus 5:7 ; 12:6).

An interesting item is that doves are given as an allowable substitute for those too poor to offer a lamb for a sacrifice for a mother in Leviticus 12:6-8.  One theme in the Gospel is that Jesus' atonement is inclusive of the poor and marginalized excluded by the requirements of Temple practice.  Could the Gospel writer been calling on this allusion to introduce this theme? 
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/dove/

Dorothy Willette in her article also ties the dove as a symbol of atonement to writings in the Talmud and the Targums.

The atoning quality of doves led to comparisons in the Talmud and the Targums with Isaac and Israel. According to these extra-Biblical sources, just as a dove stretches out its neck, so too did Isaac prepare to be sacrificed to God, and later Israel took on this stance to atone for the sins of other nations.  http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/the-enduring-symbolism-of-doves/ 

Symbol of Deliverance

Doves were also used as a symbol of deliverance in the Tanakh. 

The rapid flight of the dove became a symbol of deliverance from one's enemies or from threatening circumstances. The psalmist writes: "Oh, that I had the wings of a dove! I would fly away and be at rest" (55:6). The Israelites returning from the Exile are described as those "that fly along like clouds, like doves to their nests" (Isa. 60:8; cf. Hosea 11:11) https://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/holy-spirit/why-dove

Dove Symbol Summary

So, lets summarize the things the community of Mark could have been saying about the purpose of Jesus by using the image of the Spirit descending on him like a dove:

• Jesus brings an end to God's punishment and a fresh start with God at peace with humanity
• Jesus is a source of life and fertility
• Jesus brings atonement, right relationship with God, that includes the poor
• Jesus brings deliverance

The Voice From Heaven

11 And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

First of all, you can't get a greater reference or affirmation than having the voice of God say that God is well pleased with you.  The community of Mark were certainly testifying that Jesus and his teaching met the highest standard of validity and authority.

It also portrays Jesus as being among the select few that God communicates with directly like Abraham, Moses and the prophets.  But, even more, it portrays him as bringing that direct communication to the people.  Nowhere in the Hebrew Scriptures do we see God speaking directly to the people, only to special chosen representatives.  Here, God is portrayed as communicating in an audible fashion to all those present at this public baptism at the Jordon.

We also have Jesus being identified by God as, "my Son".  Again, this is a legitimizing of Jesus, his mission, and his teachings.  We can see this as referring to the examples of kings of Israel such as David being called God's son.  Or we can see this in semi-biological symbolic terms like Caesar being called the son of a god.  Either way, it affirms the legitimacy and authority of Jesus' teaching to the people of Israel.