The Person and Passion of Christ


The Pronouncement of the Person and Passion Christ


Mark 1:1 – “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” 


The Gospel of Mark is about the actions of Jesus. The words, “The beginning” convey this. The word “beginning,” is translated from the Greek term ARCHE (Strong’s #746 - ajrchv archeµ, ar-khay´) which means, “a commencement, . . . beginning, . . .”[1] This Greek term is a derivative of another root word ARCHOMAI (Strong’s #756 - a[rcomai archoámai, ar´-khom-ahee) which means, “to commence . . .  begin (-ning).” [2] This is an action word and this is important because the gospel of Mark emphasizes the actions of Jesus. For instance, Mark records 18 miracles of Jesus, but he only records 4 of His parables. You see, the gospel as “beginning,” is ongoing, it does not stop going out and impacting people. The gospel did not end with the close or stop in the first century, but truly it has had an ongoing continuous impact on the world like no other truth in history, and that is true even up to the present. The gospel will go on and on powerfully until the return of Jesus (e.g. Romans 1:16-17; Titus 2:11-15; Revelation 19-20).


The activity that is going to be shown according to the first verse is “the gospel.” Mark is the only gospel that actually uses the word “gospel” in its opening words. The word “gospel” comes from the Greek term EUANGELIUM (Strong’s # 2098 - eujaggevlion eáuaggeálioán, yoo-ang-ghel´-ee-on) meaning, “a good message, gospel.” [3] 


The first century Christians never spoke of “Gospels,” (as in many ways to satisfy God’s requirements in order to gain access to heaven) but went out of their way to speak of the “Gospel” in the singular. There are not various versions of the gospel that contradict or give alternative means of salvation. There are not many various paths that can be taken to heaven, Jesus is the only way to get to heaven and this is conveyed in every part of the New Testament where the gospel is discussed (e.g. John 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 14-19). Mark does not begin his writing with the words, “One of the gospels of Jesus,” or “This is only one of many versions or paths to heaven concerning Jesus.” There is one gospel truth and many anointed to share the account of it.


The word “gospel” is found 8 times in the gospel of Mark. The gospel according to Mark is:


1.      A gospel of Jesus Christ (1:1).

2.      A gospel message preached and taught by Jesus (1:14).

3.      A gospel about God’s Kingdom rule (1:14).

4.      A gospel that involves the timing of God (1:15).

5.      A gospel that involves immediacy (1:15; “the kingdom of God is at hand”)

6.      A gospel that involves repentance (1:15).

7.      A gospel that involves belief or faith (1:15).

8.      A gospel that cannot be found by trying to save their life, but involves losing one’s life in some way for the sake of Jesus and His gospel (8:35).

9.      A gospel that involves leaving things and relationships in some way for the sake of Jesus and the gospel and being compensated for that in some way (10:29-30).

10.  A gospel that must be preached everywhere (13:10; 16:15).

11.  A gospel that involves Jesus being anointed for burial (14:8-9).


As we study through this gospel we will look into the meaning of all these aspects of the gospel of Jesus Christ.


The gospel of Mark is about the Person of Christ. We see this in the very first verse of the gospel. Jesus is identified in the first verses as, “the Son of God.” Jesus is revealed as Son of God throughout Mark’s gospel. We can summarize affirmations of Jesus as Son of God in Mark in the following references:


1.      God the Father affirms Jesus as His Son – Mark 1:11; 9:7.

2.      Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of God – Mark 13:32; 14:36, 61-62.

3.      Jesus’ authoritative teaching affirmed Him as Son of God – Mark 1:22,27.

4.      Jesus power to heal affirms Him as the Son of God – Mark 1:30-31, 40-42; 2:3-12; 3:1-5; 5:25-34; 7:31-37; 8:22-26; 10:46-52.

5.      Jesus power over demons affirms He is the Son of God – Mark 5:21-24, 35-43.

6.      Jesus power over nature affirms He is the Son of God – Mark 4:35-41.

7.      A Roman soldier refers to Jesus as the Son of God – Mark 15:39.

8.      Even demons refer to Jesus as the Son of God – 3:11; 5:7.


The gospel of Mark is about the passion of Christ. This is seen in the opening verse in Mark’s reference to “the gospel of Jesus Christ.” “Christ” is not the last name of Jesus, it is an identifying title. The word Christ” is translated from the Greek term, CHRISTOS (Strong’s #5547 - Cristov" Christos, khris-tos´) which means, “anointed, i.e. the Messiah, . . . Christ.”  [4] As “Christ,” Jesus is identified as the anointed One, the Messiah promised in the Old Testament (Psalm 22; Isaiah 7:14; 9:7; 61:1-3). This Messiah would come to be a suffering Servant sacrifice (Isaiah 53). The act of Jesus suffering on the cross and raising form the dead is referred to as His passion. Nearly half of Mark’s gospel is concerned with the passion of Jesus the Christ.


From the opening verse, therefore, we can conclude that the gospel of Mark is a book of action and the actions emphasized in the book are aimed at revealing the Person and Passion of Jesus the Christ. We will see Jesus as the servant of the Father, carrying out His gospel plan. But before we get further into the gospel, let’s pause a moment to get a handle on the human author and nature of the book itself.


Who Was Mark?


John Mark was Jewish and accepted Jesus as His Messiah. He was likely a resident of Jerusalem since that is where we find him when we are introduced to him in Acts. We do not know the name of John Mark’s father but his mother’s name was Mary (Acts 12:12,25). Since in Acts 12 when Peter is freed from prison he goes directly to the house of Mary knowing that disciples would be there, it is likely Mary was a believer and probably wealthy too since she had a house large enough to have a fellowship of believers present there to pray. Also, since the house is referred to as “the house of Mary,” it is very likely that John Mark’s father was not alive at this point since if he was the house would be referred to in his name by tradition and cultural mores.


The closest we come to a reference to Mark in the Gospels is the mention of the young man who ran away naked when Jesus was arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark 14:51). Mark is not mentioned by name there and we cannot be dogmatic about whether or not this does refer to Mark.


John Mark is mentioned as an “assistant” to Paul and Barnabus (Acts 13:5). This tells us he most likely had a servant’s heart and been a disciple worth trusting in the eyes of Paul and Barnabus (compare Mark 10:45). We do know with certainty however, that John Mark accompanied his wealthy uncle, Barnabus (Acts 4:36), and Paul on the first missionary journey (Acts 13:13). John Mark left this first journey prematurely, which caused a temporary division between Barnabus and Paul (Acts 15:38-40). Apparently Paul and Mark were reconciled because Paul calls for Mark to be involved in ministry and to join him in Paul’s later years before martyrdom (Colossians 4:10; Philemon 24; 2 Timothy 4:11).


John Mark was apparently very close to the apostle Peter and the later referred to Mark as “my son” (1 Peter 5:13). This has led to the tradition that Mark’s gospel reflects Peter’s style of gospel message. It would not be a stretch to think that Mark would have gotten a great deal of influential input from Peter the apostle who treated him as a son in the Lord.


What was John Mark like physically? One commentator states:


If his early nickname of kolobodaktylos, ‘stumpy-fingered’, is a genuine tradition (see the anti-Marcionite prologue to Mark, dating from the later 2nd century, which is the earliest evidence for it), then it may refer either to a physical peculiarity on the part of the author or to some strange stylistic features of the Gospel which have puzzled critics of all ages. It may, however, be only a late conjecture, due to the confusion of ‘Marcus’ with the Lat. adjective mancus, ‘maimed’.[5]


This is only conjecture and not based on any solid scriptural evidence; it just helps us get a picture of the author.


Mark – A Synoptic Gospel


What does the word “synoptic” mean? One commentator explains:


“Synoptic” comes from the Greek adjective synoptikos, which is from two words syn and opsesthai, “to see with or together.” While Matthew, Mark, and Luke have distinctive purposes, they nevertheless view the life of Jesus Christ in a common way. However, some differences in the Gospel narratives must also be accounted for. These similarities and differences raise the question of the sources of the Gospels, thus positing a “Synoptic problem.”[6]


Having said this, we must assert that all four gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) tell the same story, but from different perspectives. The truth of the story is unchanged, the Holy Spirit in inspiring the human authors to write about the life of Jesus chose to have each emphasize the core revelation of who Jesus was and His mission of redemption, as well as have each human author present their account from a unique perspective that adds fullness and perspective to the historical account. While some who hold a low view of scripture and attempt to refute the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture, would contend that the gospel conflict at certain points, the truth of the matter is that any apparent contradicting differences in the gospel accounts can be explained and solved if one just does a little prayerful thoughtful scriptural spadework.


Who wrote the Gospel of Mark


When you read something its good to know who is the author. When it comes to the Bible we know that regardless of which of the 66 Old and New Testament books or letters we are reading, God is the Author. But it is also good to know who the human author is so that we can see the type of person the Holy Spirit uses in ministry.


When you read the gospel of Mark you will not find a literal reference to Mark as the author. You do not find something like, “I Mark am writing this gospel,” or “at the end of the gospel, “by Mark.” The heading of the gospel states, “The Gospel According to Mark” but the reference to Mark being the author was added around 125 A.D. by a scribe. There is evidence that supports Mark as the author of this gospel from both the gospel itself (I.e. Internal Evidence) and outside the gospel (i.e. External Evidence).


The internal evidence that supports Mark as the author of the second gospel is that Mark was familiar with the area in which the gospel takes place, Jerusalem and the surrounding region (Mark 5:1; 6:53; 8:10; 11:1; 13:3).  Mark seems to have known Aramaic, the common language of the region (Mark 5:41; 7:11, 34; 14:36). And he had a good understanding of Jewish traditions, customs and politics (Mark 1:21; 2:14, 16, 18; 7:2-4).


That Mark was closely related to Peter in ministry and comradeship is seen in details he shares in his gospel. He shares what would seem to be privileged information that only Peter, one of Jesus’ inner circle of disciples, would know (Mark 1:16-20, 29-31, 35-38; 5:21-24, 35-43; 6:39, 53-54; 9:14-15; 10:32, 46; 14:32-42). Mark frequently refers to Peter’s words and works (Mark 8:29, 32-33; 9:5-6; 10:28-30; 14:29-31, 66-72). Mark uniquely uses the words, “and Peter” in Mark 16:7. There are close parallels in what Mark writes and what Peter is known to have preached (Acts 10:34-43). [7]


The external evidence for Mark being the author of this gospel is very strong. The earliest church leader (i.e. referred to as a Church Father) who supported Mark as the author of this gospel was Papias in 110 A.D. Papias said Mark was not an eyewitness, but worked closely with Peter and wrote down accurately the teachings and gospel account of Peter. Justin Martyr, 160 A.D., Irenaeus, 180 A.D., and Tertullian, 200 A.D., are all prominent leaders of the early church who believed Mark was the author of the second gospel.


In light of the internal and external evidence it seems likely that John Mark was the human author of the second gospel.




Liberal scholarship looks to discredit scripture at every turn it seems. One of the most popular ways in which such “scholarship” attempts to do this is by suggesting in a negative way that the gospel writers are merely compilers and redactors of other written accounts of the life of Christ and therefore are only giving there perspective on what liberal scholars purport is a much more mundane and non-miraculous (since they usually do not believe in the possibility of the miraculous like modern day Sadducees) life of Jesus.


When we talk of “other sources” here we are not referring to the use of sources like Luke tells us in his opening verses of his gospel account (Luke 1:1-4). Luke interviewed eyewitnesses and under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit wrote down the account of the life of Jesus. When liberal scholars say there are “other sources” the gospel writers used, they do so in an effort to discredit the human writers of the gospel as though they picked and chose certain things from certain other sources in a way that presented Jesus in a certain Divine light. Liberal scholars are basically saying that the human authors of the gospels were dishonest and had an agenda in their writing; they do not accept or make allowance for the gospels being inspired by the Holy Spirit; they look at the gospels as propaganda by certain groups.


The most popular theory on the sources of the gospels is called The Documentary Theory. In essence the theory and its problem can be summarized as follows:


A popular view today is that the biblical editors made use of various written sources to compile their accounts. This viewpoint usually posits the following: (1) The first written account was the Gospel of Mark. A major reason for this position is that only 7 percent of the Gospel of Mark is unique, as 93 percent of Mark can be found in Matthew and Luke. (2) In addition to Mark a second written document existed which basically contained discourse material. This document is known as “Q”, an abbreviated form of the German word for source, Quelle. The approximately 200 verses common to Matthew and Luke which are not found in Mark must have come from “Q”. (3) The editors used at least two other sources. One source reflects verses in Matthew not found in either Mark or Luke, and the other source reflects verses in Luke not found in either Matthew or Mark. This theory with its lines of dependence could be charted in this way:


This theory has several problems. First, it has difficulty with tradition. Conservative scholars have generally held that Matthew was the first of the written Gospels. While not all conservatives agree, this tradition does have some weight behind it and should not be shrugged off as “mere tradition” as sometimes tradition is correct. Second, this theory cannot account for the fact that occasionally Mark made a comment that neither Matthew nor Luke included. Mark wrote that the rooster crowed a second time (Mark 14:72), but neither Matthew nor Luke included that fact. Third, if Mark were the first Gospel, written after Peter’s death around a.d. 67-68, then Matthew and Luke would probably have been written later after the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. One would then expect that destruction to have been mentioned as a fitting climax to the Lord’s words in Matthew 24-25 or Luke’s statement in 21:20-24; however, neither mentioned the event. Fourth, the greatest problem is the whole speculation about the existence of “Q”. If such a document existed and were thought of so highly by Matthew and Luke that they quoted extensively from it, why did not the church also regard it highly and preserve it?[8]


Another theory of the sources of the gospels is The Form Critical Theory. This theory accepts the documentary theory and goes a step further asserting that not only the four gospels and “Q” existed in the first century, but that there were many sources or forms, and that the gospels as we have them is a selective compilation of the accounts of Jesus’ life. The Form Critic therefore seeks to demythologize the gospel. They seek to get to the root of what the gospel writers really wanted to say. Such a view disregards the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture as well as proudly places the scholar in the seat of judgment over God’s word. Again the assumption is that the early church writers were presenting Jesus dishonestly. The theory as well as the results are often blasphemous!


So how are we to understand how the gospels came to be? The following quote from a commentary gives a balanced view when it is stated:


The similarities and differences in the Gospel accounts can be solved through a composite viewpoint. First, the Gospel writers of the first century had extensive personal knowledge of much of the material they recorded. Matthew and John were disciples of Jesus Christ who spent a considerable amount of time with the Lord. Mark’s account may be the reflections of Simon Peter near the end of his life, and Luke could have learned many facts through his relationship with Paul and others. These facts would have been used in writing the four accounts.


Second, oral tradition was involved. For example, Acts 20:35 refers to a saying of Christ not recorded in the Gospels. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:10 gave a quotation from the Lord; when Paul wrote this, possibly none of the Gospels had yet been written. Third, written documents told some of the stories about Jesus Christ. Luke acknowledged this fact as he began his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4). None of these facts, however, gives the dynamic needed to record an inspired account of Jesus Christ’s life that is free from all error. Fourth, another element must be included to help solve the Synoptic problem, namely, the dynamic of the Holy Spirit’s ministry of inspiration as the Gospel writers recorded the accounts. The Lord promised the disciples that the Holy Spirit would teach them all things and remind them of all Jesus had told them (John 14:26). This dynamic guarantees accuracy, whether the author was making use of his memory, passed-down oral traditions, or written accounts available to him. Whatever the source, the direction of the Holy Spirit assured an accurate text. The better one understands the various stories about the Lord, the clearer the “difficulties” become, for there was a divine superintendence over the authors regardless of the sources they used.[9]


When it comes to understanding any part of scripture, if you are going to understand it, you must factor in the work of the Holy Spirit.


When Was the Gospel of Mark Written?


When something was written in relation to the events it is writing about is important because the more time that passes between an event and when it is written about means the details committed to memory may become hazy. But we need to remember right from the start that the human authors of the letters and books of the Bible did not rely only on their memory, the Holy Spirit added and directed them to recollect the truth and write from the heart of God (John 14:26).


While Mark does not tell us the exact date of his writing, we can narrow the time of the writing down but what we find and do not find in this gospel. The Gospel of mark was likely written sometime before 70 A.D. because in 70 A.D. the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and no mention is made of this epochal event in the Gospel. The Temple was the center of life for the Jew. Jesus said the Temple would be torn down, which was quite a prophetic statement. The Temple was huge, strongly built on solid rock blocks and seemingly impregnable. Yet the Temple was destroyed just as Jesus said it would be and if this event had occurred by the time the Gospel of Mark was written, it seems very unlikely that it would not have been included in any such account to support Jesus’ prophetic statement.


External evidence composed of the teachings of early Church Fathers indicates that Mark probably wrote his gospel between 64-68 A.D. when Peter was still alive, or between 67-69 A.D. just after Peter’s martyrdom and before the destruction of the Temple. Either way, that means it was written approximately 30-35 years after the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. That may seem to be a long time at first glance, but in terms of ancient writings it is extremely recent to the events. Just think about it, if you are in your late 40s to early 50s in age, that would be like remembering your high school years. Even though more than 40 years have passed, most people can, (if they’re old enough) remember where they were and what they felt when President Kennedy was assassinated. If you fought in World War 2, Korea, or Vietnam, you can probably remember very vividly events that marked your lives. Now what if 30 to 35 years ago you came into contact with Someone who taught and preached with unusual power, performed miracles of all kinds, stilled stormy seas, fed 4,000 and 5,000 people with a few fish and bread scraps, was terribly and unjustly murdered by crucifixion and then rose from the dead!, don’t you think you’d remember that, and in great detail? I think you would. I thin that would have been something you’d never forget. Mark may have not been an eyewitness, but he knew someone who was, someone (Peter) who was closer to Jesus than almost everyone else. That puts into perspective the gospel account. You can count on the Gospel of Mark to be accurate and true.


Who Was Mark’s Gospel Written to?


Knowing who an author was addressing his writing to, or who his target audience was helps explain why he wrote the way he did. Almost all scholars are agreed that Mark wrote his gospel from Rome and aimed it at Roman, primarily non-Jewish audience. Mark goes out of his way to explain Jewish customs and does not assume those he writes to would understand them, which supports the idea he is writing to a non-Jewish audience (Mark 7:3-4; 14:12; 15:42). Mark translates Aramaic expressions into the more common Greek language (Mark 3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 9:43; 10:46; 14:36; 15:22, 34). In Rome Latin was spoken and Mark does not translate Latin terms into Greek, therefore showing he assumes his readers will understand the Latin equivalents (Mark 5:9; 6:27; 12:15, 42; 15:16, 39). Mark uses a Roman way of reckoning time (Mark 6:48; 13:35). Mark does not point out as many Old Testament references to fulfilled prophesy as do the other gospels. Mark has a Roman centurion proclaim the deity of Jesus at a climactic point in the gospel (Mark 15:39). Mark has a scope that goes beyond the Jewish nation (Mark 5:18-20; 7:24-8:10; 11:17; 13:10; 14:9). [10]


The Uniqueness of the Gospel of Mark


The synoptic gospels have a lot in common. One commentator notes:


“Of the 661 verses in Mark only 31 do not in part or in total have parallels in the other Gospels. No less than 606 verses of Mark are repeated in Matthew, either almost word for word or in an abbreviated form. Three hundred and eighty verses from Mark recur in Luke.


While practically all of Mark occurs in Matthew and Luke, that material comprises only about half of Matthew’s contents (1068 verses) and only about one third of Luke (1149 verses).


In comparing Matthew and Luke, one discovers that they have material in common which does not appear in Mark, approximately 250 verses. This leaves about 300 verses in Matthew and about 500 in Luke which are unique to these evangelists. This is truly striking since there are only 31 verses unique to Mark.


In spite of all the similarities and the common material, it is till evident that the evangelists have not copied one another. [11]



There are differences in Mark’s gospel when compared to the other gospels. These distinctives can be summed up as follows:


  1. Mark emphasizes the actions of Jesus more than His teachings. Mark records 18 of Jesus’ miracles, but only four of His parables (Mark 4:2-20, 26-29, 30-32; 12:1-9). He records only one major discourse of Jesus, the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13:3-37). Mark states that Jesus taught, but does not go into detail on what He taught, he simply points out that He did teach (Mark 1:21, 39; 2:2, 13; 6:2,6,34; 10:1; 12:35). When Mark does record the teaching of Jesus, it is in the context of Jesus acting against the opposition of the religious leaders (Mark 2:8-11, 19-22, 25-28; 3:23-30; 7:6-23; 10:2-12; 12:10-11, 13-40).


  1. Mark writes in a very colorful and detailed way that gives an impression of action (2:4; 4:37-38; 5:2-5; 6:39; 7:33; 8:23-24; 14:54). He depicts clearly the responses of people to Jesus (1:22, 27; 2:12; 5:20; 9:15). This includes that Jesus’ own family questioned His mental health (Mark 3:21, 31-35). Mark points out the dullness of understanding on the part of the disciples (Mark 4:13; 6:52; 8:17,21; 9:10,32; 10:26). Mark paints us a picture of the emotional nature of Jesus who shows compassion for those He ministers to (Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 10:16), anger toward opposition (1:43; 3:5; 8:33; 10:14, and sadness over those who reject Him (Mark 7:34; 8:12; 14:33-34).


  1. Mark does not record an account of Jesus’ birth or the Sermon on the Mount.


From mark 8:31 onward Jesus passion is the focus. Indeed, more than 36% of the gospel of Mark (more than any of the other gospel accounts) is devoted to the Passion Week through the resurrection. [12] Mark is a gospel that gives us a vivid picture of the Person of Jesus and the Passion of Jesus the Christ.


An Outline of the Gospel of Mark


When studying a book of the Bible it is always a good practice to read it through a few times and then try to form an outline of its contents. By doing this you can better “rightly divide” the word of God so as to learn from it and be equipped to pass on its edifying contents to others (2 Timothy 2:15). The Gospel of Mark can be outlined as follows:


I.                   The Pronouncement of the Person and Passion of Christ  – 1:1

II.                The Preparation of the Christ – 1:2-13

III.             The Person of Christ – 1:14-8:30

IV.             The Passion of Christ – 8:31-16:20


There are strategic areas in this book that act as glasses through which we can view its contents. These glasses give us the proper perspective and help us to stay the course of rightly dividing God’s revelation. The strategic areas for Mark’s gospel are:


1.      Mark 1:1, 9-17 – The anointing and empowerment of Jesus the Christ, the Anointed One.

2.      Mark 8:27-31  - The question of who Jesus is and the beginning of His purposeful Passion are introduced here.

3.      Mark 10:45 – The Person of Jesus as a Servant and His Passion as redeeming Messiah are addressed in this verse.

4.      Mark 15:37-39; 16:1-8  - The climax of the Passion of Christ on the cross and that His sacrifice was accepted and effective as shown by the resurrection is depicted in these verses.


An Overview of the Person and Passion of Jesus the Christ


Who was Jesus? What does the Biblical evidence in Mark reveal? An initial overview of Mark’s gospel reveals the following answers to these questions:


1.      He was a preacher – 1:14-15, 36-39; 2:2 (Preacher of the word).

2.      He was a powerful Maker of Disciples – Mark 1:16-20; 2:13-14; 3:13-19.

3.      He was a Teacher – 1:21-22; 2:13

4.      He was the Holy One of God who had power of demons – Mark 1:23-28; 5:1-20.

5.      He was a Healer – Mark 1:29-31, 32-34,40-45; 2:3-12; 3:6-12; 5:21-43; 6:53-56; 7:31-37; 8:22-26.

6.      He was a Person of prayer – Mark 1:35.

7.      He was a Forgiver of sins (which God alone can do) – Mark 2:5-11.

8.      He was One interested in relationships with God not religion – Mark 2:15-20; 3:1-5.

9.      He was a Seeker of the lost – Mark 2:17.

10.  He was a New Way – Mark 2:21-22.

11.  He was Lord of the Sabbath – Mark 2:23-28.

12.  He was unconventional in His ways – Mark 3:20-21.

13.  He was a Holy Spirit Teacher – 3:22-30.

14.  He was spiritually oriented regarding family – Mark 3:31-35.

15.  He was an Illustrator – Mark 4:1-34.

16.  He was a Ruler over nature – Mark 4:35-41; 6:45-52.

17.  He was viewed as offensive and dishonored – Mark 6:1-6.

18.  He was a Sender – Mark 6:7-13, 14-31.

19.  He was a Miracle Worker – 6:32-44; 8:1-9.

20.  He was a Defender of God’s word (when human traditions contradicted God’s word)– Mark 7:1-13.

21.  He was a Discerner of the heart – Mark 7:14-23.

22.  He was approachable – Mark 7:24-30.

23.  He was a Disciplinarian – Mark 8:10-21.

24.  He was not John the Baptist raised from the dead, nor Elijah, nor merely another prophet – Mark 8:28.

25.  Jesus was and is the Christ, the Son of Man (the 2nd Adam; humanities’ perfect representative who was to suffer as a substitute on the cross to pay the debt of sin) Mark 8:29-30.


What was the passion of this Person Jesus Christ? That question can be addressed in the following summary list:


1.      Jesus’ passion was to suffer, be rejected, killed (crucified) and raised from the dead – Mark 8:31; 9:30-32; 10:32-34.

2.      Jesus’ passion was not deterred by human opinion – Mark 8:32-33.

3.      Jesus’ passion involved denying self, taking up the cross and following God’s will – Mark 8:34-38.

4.      Jesus’ passion involved being God the Father’s beloved Son and Sacrifice – Mark 9:1-13.

5.      Jesus’ passion involved liberating those in bondage to demons – Mark 9:14-29.

6.      Jesus’ passion involved being a humble lover of children – Mark 9:33-37; 10:13-16.

7.      Jesus’ passion involved uniting the brethren – Mark 9:38-41.

8.      Jesus’ passion involved warning against sin that leads to hell – Mark 9:42-50.

9.      Jesus’ passion involved supporting the God ordained institution of marriage – 10:1-12.

10.  Jesus’ passion involved using the Law of God to convict people of their sin – Mark 10:17-22.

11.  Jesus’ passion involved teaching on the Kingdom of God – Mark 10:23-27.

12.  Jesus’ passion involved teaching about heavenly rewards – Mark 10:28-31.

13.  Jesus’ passion involved serving as a ransom for the lost – Mark 10:35-45.

14.  Jesus’ passion involved heeding those asking for healing – Mark 10:46-52.

15.  Jesus’ passion involved purifying His Father’s House, the Temple – Mark 11:1-19.

16.  Jesus’ passion involved prayer – Mark 11:20-24.

17.  Jesus’ passion involved forgiveness – Mark 11:25-33.

18.  Jesus’ passion involved confronting the religious – Mark 12:1-12; 12:13-17; 12:18-27; 12:28-40.

19.  Jesus’ passion involved giving – Mark 12:41-44.

20.  Jesus’ passion involved His 2nd Coming – Mark 13.

21.  Jesus’ passion involved fulfilling (being a Passover Lamb) – Mark 14.

22.  Jesus’ passion involved giving Himself as a sacrifice – Mark 15.

23.  Jesus’ passion involved the victory of the resurrection – Mark 16.


This is a brief overview of what the Gospel of Mark contains about the Person and Passion of Jesus Christ.




As we study the gospel of Mark keep in mind the Person and passion of Jesus Christ. Try to personalize the gospel message and come closer to Jesus. Jesus had you in mind when He came in Person and performed His passion. A poem I recently received from an unknown author makes this point.


The U in JesUs

Before U were thought of or time had begun, God even stuck U in the name of His Son.

And each time U pray, you'll see it's true, You can't spell out JesUs and not include U.

You're a pretty big part of His wonderful name, For U, He was born; that's why He came.

And His great love for U is the reason He died. It even takes U to spell crUcified.

Isn't it thrilling and splendidly grand, He rose from the dead, with U in His plan?

The stones split away, the gold trUmpet blew, and this word resUrrection is spelled with a U.

When JesUs left earth at His upward ascension, He felt there was one thing He just had to mention. "Go into the world and tell them it's true, That I love them all - Just like I love U."

So many great people are spelled with a U, Don't they have a right to know JesUs too?
It all depends now on what U will do, He'd like them to know, But it all starts with U.

Will yoU pass it on ?


I pray God enable us by His Spirit to come into a deeper relationship with the Person of His only
Son Jesus Christ, and that we come to know and appreciate and love Him more for His provision in His passion. Amen.


[1]James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[2]James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[3]James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[4]James Strong, New Strong’s dictionary of Hebrew and Greek words [computer file], electronic ed., Logos Library System, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson) 1997, c1996.

[5]The New Bible Dictionary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1962.

[6]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

[7]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

[8]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

[9]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

[10]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.

[11] Robert Shank, D.H.L, Harmony of the Gospels,(The Complete Biblical Library: Springfield, MI) 1986. Pages 25-27

[12]Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B., The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, Inc.) 1983, 1985.