Its Beginning or Inauguration Chapter 1:1–13 CHAPTER I:1 13 Outline of Chapter 1:1–13 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 1:1–8 The Ministry of John the Baptist 1:9–11 The Baptism of Jesus 1:12–13 The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness 1:1–8 The Ministry of John the Baptist Cf. Matt. 3:1–12; Luke 3:4 18; John 1:6 8, 15 28^[9] 1 1 Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. 2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. 3 A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. 4 So John the Baptist came, baptizing in the wilderness and proclaiming a baptism of conversion^[8] for the forgiveness of sins 5 And there were going out to him all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem. Confessing their sins they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River. 6 Now John was wearing a garment made of camel's hair, and a leather belt around his waist; and he was in the habit of eating locusts and wild honey. 7 He was preaching, saying, After me comes One who is mightier than I, whose sandal straps I, bending down, am not fit to untie. 8 I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. Though in many respects the four Gospels resemble each other, each has a different point of departure. Matthew begins his story with an account of the ancestry, conception, birth, and naming of Jesus; Luke (after a dedicatory introduction), with a narrative of the birth of John the Baptist; John, with the reminder that the Word, meaning Jesus Christ, already existed in the beginning, that is, from all eternity, and became incarnate. What is Mark's starting-point, and why? It has already been indicated that Mark pictures Christ as an active, energetic, swiftly moving, warring, conquering King. Now when a king is about to arrive he is generally preceded by a herald. The herald's function is to prepare the way for the king and to proclaim his coming or arrival. It is not surprising, therefore, that Mark's Gospel starts out by picturing the herald, so that from the very outset the student of this writing may be impressed with the exalted character of the One who is being heralded or proclaimed. 1. Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Although in the original the word Beginning is not preceded by an article, it probably permits the translation The beginning as well as Beginning. More important is the question whether the words Beginning [or: The beginning] of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God must be a. construed independently, as the title of this entire Gospel, or b. regarded as being closely connected with what immediately follows, namely, As it is written &Behold, I send my messenger before thy face who shall prepare thy way &So John the Baptist came &^[10] In defense of the book-title theory it has been argued that according to Acts 1:1Luke also viewed his former treatise as the beginning of the gospel. However, since Mark was probably not thinking of writing two books it is questionable whether this analogy holds. Arguments against the book-title theory and in favor of linking verse 1 with verses 2 4 are the following: First, if 1:1 had been intended as a superscription or title for the entire Gospel, would not The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God have been more natural than Beginning of the gospel &? Secondly, does not the word As indicate that verse 1 is closely connected with what immediately follows (in verses 2 4) with reference to prophecies that were fulfilled in John the Baptist? Thirdly, it should be borne in mind that in all probability Mark was indeed Peter's interpreter. Now when Peter proclaimed the good news in the home of Cornelius he too traced its beginning to John the Baptist (Acts 10:37).^[11] And finally, did not Jesus also state that it was John the Baptist who had begun to proclaim God's royal rule in his Son? See Luke 16:16. On the basis of all these considerations the most natural meaning of verse 1 would seem to be: The good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, began with John the Baptist. It was John who, as predicted, prepared the way for Christ's coming. There was a time when the word euaggelion (evangel, gospel) indicated a reward that was given for the bringing of good news. However, gradually it began to be used as a designation for the good news itself. This is obviously also the meaning here in Mark 1:1. The gospel is the message of salvation addressed to a world lost in sin. Not what we must do but what God in Christ has done is the most important part of that good news. For fuller explanation see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 81–85. Now this gospel concerns Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mark, who writes this book, and John the Baptist, prophetically announced in verses 2, 3, have in common that they are ever directing the attention of the people away from themselves to their Lord. Thus Mark never mentions himself by name, not at the beginning of his writing nor anywhere else, not even in 14:51, 52. How closely his humility resembles that of the Baptist (John 3:30)! Note the exalted title given to the Savior here in Mark 1:1. His name is Jesus, for he will certainly save. See Matt. 1:21; 11:27–30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12. To this personal name Jesus is added the official name Christ, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Messiah, meaning Anointed. See Isa. 61:1; cf. Luke 4:16 21. It indicates that its Bearer was by the Holy Spirit anointed hence, ordained: set apart (or commissioned) and qualified as Prophet, Priest, and King, in order to carry out the task of saving his people to the glorv of God Triune. To Jesus Christ is added the Son of God. ^[12] Not only is this designation applied to Jesus again and again in this Gospel (besides 1:1 see also 3:11; 5:7; 9:7, 14:61, 62; 15:39), but it is also in harmony with the fact that throughout his book Mark is constantly ascribing divine qualities and activities to Jesus, showing that the author regards the Savior as being indeed the Son of God in the full trinitarian sense. The rest of Scripture also confirms this fact (Isa. 9:6; Matt. 28:18; John 1:1 4; 8:58; 10:30, 33; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:16; 2:9; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 1:8). For anyone to say that Jesus was both wise and good, and then to turn around and affirm that he was not uniquely the Son of God is inconsistent, for if he was not God his claims were false. If his claims were false he could not have been wise and good. The denial of the deity of Jesus destroys the very foundation on which the Christian's hope is built.^[13] The beginning, then, of the gospel not meaning the book (Gospel) but the good news itself (gospel) concerning Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was 2. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way. Mark tells us that he is going to quote from Isaiah. He does exactly that, though not immediately. First, here in verse 2, he quotes Mal. 3:1; next, in verse 3, Isa. 40:3. The second reference is clarified by the first, for when the reader or listener, having first reflected on the quotation from Malachi, next rivets his attention on the words from Isaiah, he will know that the voice to which the latter passage refers is not an abstraction but the Lord's messenger. This method of quotation, namely, mentioning by name only one source when the reference is to two, is not peculiar to Mark. Matthew does this also, and again with good reason. See N.T.C. on Matt. 27:9, 10. Similarly, the quotation found in II Chron. 36:21, drawn from Lev. 26:34, 35and Jer. 25:12(cf. 29:10), is ascribed only to Jeremiah. To those who would find fault with this we would put two questions: First, what right have we to impose our own method of citation upon the authors of Scripture? Secondly, when by implication Mark promises to give us one thingMark 1:2a , and then gives us two a quotation from Mal. 3:1and one from Isa. 40:3, why should we complain? As to the quoted words, Behold, I send my messenger &who shall prepare &(Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:27), see the LXX rendering of (Exod. 23:10.^[14] This is also substantially what is found in the Hebrew original of Mal. 3:1. The meaning of Mal. 3:1is in all probability: Take note, I, Jehovah, send my messenger, to be the forerunner of thee, the Messiah. Moreover, in the final analysis the forerunner to whom reference is made functions in a spiritual sense. His task is to prepare the hearts of the people for the reception of their Messiah. Thus the forerunner paves the way for Messiah's first coming, but in view of the fact that the two comings are stages whereby God comes to his people in Immanuel, therefore in the Malachi context even that second coming is definitely included. In fact, as is common in the prophets, no clear distinction was as yet drawn between the two arrivals. Mark, however, as is clear from verse 4, very legitimatelyMatt. 11:13, 14) applies the prophecy especially to the first phase of the coming, or, to put it more simply, to the first coming. Before mentioning the herald's name, Mark without any words of transition, according to his promise quotes from Isaiah (40:3): 3. A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight his paths. These words are found also, in that same form, in Matt. 3:3and in Luke 3:4. The wording, though identical in the three Synoptics, differs from the form in which it occurs in the Hebrew Old Testament of Isa. 40:3and from the way it was rendered in the LXX (Greek) translation. The explanation for their remarkable identity in Matthew, Mark, and Luke may well be that Matthew, the former publican, had made his own paraphrase of Old Testament passages fulfilled in the New, and that, together with other notes, this material had been distributed widely before any of our four Gospels had been written.^[15] Isa. 40:3 5symbolically pictures the approach of Jehovah for the purpose of leading the procession of Jews who will be returning joyfully to their homeland after long years of captivity. In the Syrian desert, between Babylonia and Palestine, the way must be prepared for the Lord's coming. So, a herald cries out to the people, In the wilderness make ready the way of the Lord, Make straight in the desert a highway for our God. This figure of the herald is in the Gospels applied to John, as Christ's herald. The Baptist, by saying, I am the voice &shows that he agrees with this interpretation (John 1:23). So does Jesus himself (Matt. 11:10). This shows that the deliverance granted to the Jews when, in the latter part of the sixth century b.c. and afterward, they returned to their own country was but a type of that far more glorious liberation in store for all who accept Christ as their Savior and Lord. In other words, Isaiah's prophecy regarding the voice that cried out lacked total fulfilment until both Messiah's forerunner and also the Lord himself had arrived on the scene.^[16] Though we know that in verses 2 and 3 Mark is referring to John the Baptist, he does not mention the herald's name until he reaches verse 4. So John the Baptist came, baptizing in the wilderness.& The appropriate character of the application of (Isa. 40:3to John the Baptist is evident from the following: a. John was preaching in the wildernessMark 3:4); and b. the task assigned to him from the days of his infancy (Luke 1:76, 77), yes even earlier (Luke 1:17; Mal. 3:1), was exactly this, namely, to be Messiah's herald or way-preparer. He was to be the Lord's voice to the people, all of that but not more than that (cf. (John 3:22 30). As such he must not only announce Christ's approach and presence but also urge the people to prepare the way of the Lord, that is, by God's grace and power to effect a complete change of mind and heart. This implies that they must make straight his paths, meaning that they must provide the Lord with a ready access into their hearts and lives. They must make straight whatever was crooked, not in line with God's holy will. They must clear away all the obstacles which they had thrown into his path; such obstructions as self-righteousness and smug complacencyMatt. 3:9), greed, cruelty, slander, etc. (Luke 3:13, 14). John was preaching in the wilderness (Mark 1:4), the wilderness of Judea (Matt. 3:1), a term indicating the rolling bad lands between the hill country of Judea to the west, and the Dead Sea and lower Jordan to the east, stretching northward to about the point where the Jabbok flows into the Jordan. It is indeed a desolation, a vast undulating expanse of barren chalky soil covered with pebbles, broken stones and rocks. Here and there a bit of brushwood appears, with snakes crawling underneath. It is clear, however, from (Matt. 3:5John 1:28) that the terrain of John's activity extended even to the east bank of the Jordan. It is evident that, both in Isaiah and in John's preaching as recorded by Mark, the wilderness through which a path must be made ready for the Lord is in the final analysis the people's heart, inclined to all evil. What is emphasized with respect to John is that he was the Baptizer or Baptist. Now what was new and startling was not that he baptized, for the people were already acquainted with the baptism of proselytes, but rather that this rite, being the sign and seal (Rom. 4:11; cf. Col. 2:11, 12) of a fundamental transformation of mind, heart, and life, was required even of the children of Abraham! They too must be converted, for Mark continues: and proclaiming a baptism of conversion.& One could also say, with a view to conversion (Matt. 3:11). To be sure, a man must already be converted before he can properly receive baptism. However, it is also true that by means of baptism conversion is powerfully stimulated. How could devout reflection on the adopting, pardoning, and cleansing grace of God have any different effect? The word which I have rendered conversion repentance in A.V. and in many other translations indicates a radical change of mind and heart leading to a complete turnabout of life. Cf. (II Cor. 7:8–10; II Tim. 2:25. Repentance is certainly a basic element in conversion. Such a conversion is for the forgiveness of sins. When John baptized he called upon the people to confess their sinsMatt. 3:6). The law of God, conscience, the cleansing water, the words of the Baptist, all these impressed upon the people the need to confess and to be cleansed from their sins. The stepping down into the Jordan and later stepping up out of it reminded them that the old sinful self must be buried so that those baptized may rise to newness of life. The word forgiveness means remission or sending away. It is a very comforting expression, reminding one of such passages as (Lev. 16(the two goats); Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 44:22; 55:6, 7; and Mic. 7:18. The importance of this divine favor, apart from which life everlasting is impossible, is stressed also in many New Testament passagesMark 3:29; Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38, 5:31; 10:43; 13:34, 38; 19:4; 26:18; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). That removal of sin necessitated the shedding of the blood of the Lamb was taught by John the Baptist himself (John 1:29), in thorough harmony with the teaching of Christ and the apostles, as recorded by Mark and other New Testament writers (Mark 10:45; cf. 14:24; Matt. 20:28; 26:28; Luke 22:20; John 6:53, 56; Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:22; I Peter 2:24; Rev. 1:5; 5:6, 9). Though Mark informs us that John came, he does not say when he made his first public appearance. Matthew's time designation is also very indefinite. For a more precise chronological note see (Luke 3:1, 2. If John, like JesusLuke 3:23), was about thirty years of age when he made his first public appearance, then, since the Baptist was about six months older than Jesus (Luke 1:26, 36), and Jesus probably began his ministry about late a.d. 26,^[17] it was likely during the summer of that same year that John began to address the multitudes and to baptize. 5. And there were going out to him all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem. Multitudes went out to see and hear John. He did not withdraw himself from them. He was no hermit or recluse. He was entirely willing to have the crowds come out to see and hear him. In fact, he wanted to be of service to them. In this respect John differed from the men who belonged to the Qumran community, about which we have been hearing so much since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. To a considerable extent these men had withdrawn themselves from the public. The Baptist, on the other hand, welcomed multitudes, not only men but also women (Matt. 21:31, 32). He did not try to conceal his convictions. Yet, even so, does not the record indicate a difference between John and Jesus? To be sure, multitudes in fact, even greater multitudes (John 3:25 30) were going to resort to Jesus (Mark 1:32; 2:1, 2, 13; 3:8; 4:1; 5:21; 6:33, 55, 56; 10:1). He, too, would welcome them, his heart going out to them (9:36). He would even call and invite men (Mark 8:34; 10:13, 14, 49; cf. Matt. 11:28). But even more, he would actually take the initiative and go out to meet the people (Mark 1:38; Matt. 14:14). Had he not come from heaven in order to seek and to save sinners (Luke 19:10)? As to the multitudes that went to see and hear John, they are described here in somewhat figurative language. The expression the land may be considered synecdoche, a figure in which one object (here the people) is called by the name of another that is closely associated with it (here the land). Or, in view of the action ascribed to this land it might even be called personification (Ps. 114:3, 4; Hab. 3:10). It is clear at least that land refers here to those who inhabit it (Jer. 22:29); in the present case, the people of Judea. This harmonizes with and &the people of Jerusalem. As to all, this is hyperbole, and as such entirely legitimate. Cf. Judg. 7:12; II Sam. 1:23; I Kings 14:23; Ps. 6:6. Matthew adds, and the whole Jordan neighborhood. Not only the inhabitants of Judea in general, including those of Jerusalem, but definitely also those living on either side of the Jordan, resorted to John. There must have been thousands upon thousands of people, one crowd replacing another, and then still another, and another, etc. The Baptist, too, did not always remain at exactly the same place, but beginning in the vicinity of the Dead Sea seems to have ascended the Jordan Valley until he reached Bethany beyond Jordan (John 1:28), and a little later, Aenon near Salim, having crossed the river, and thus having arrived at a place west of it, with seven springs, a spot within easy reach of people of four provinces: Galilee, Samaria, Decapolis, and Perea (John 3:23). It is not surprising, therefore, that some of Christ's earliest disciples who had evidently been baptized by John were living in Galilee (John 1:35 42). Confessing their sins they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River. See on v. 4. A description of John's attire and mode of life is given in the words of verse 6. Now John was wearing a garment made of camel's hair, and a leather belt around his waist; and he was in the habit of eating locusts and wild honey. John's long, flowing garment, woven from camel's hair, reminds us somewhat of Elijah's mantle, though there is a difference in the description (Matt. 3:4with II Kings 1:8). Such rugged apparel may have been regarded as symbolic of the prophetic office. (Zech. 13:4I Sam. 28:14) seems to point in that direction. At any rate, such rough garb was fit for desert wear. It was durable and economical. Jesus makes special mention of the fact that John did not wear fine clothes (Matt. 11:8). The leather belt fastened at the waist not only kept the loose robe from blowing and tearing apart but also enabled it to be tucked up to facilitate walking. In this connection see also N.T.C. on Eph. 6:14. John's food was as simple as was his clothing. He subsisted on locusts and wild honey, evidently such fare as could be found in the wilderness. Honey, the kind that is found in the wild, presents no problem. It was not just a sweetener (sugar, as we now know it, being then rather rare) but an article of food. In the wilderness it could be found under rocks or in crevices between the rocks (Deut. 32:13). The role which wild honey played in the stories of Samson (Judg. 14:8, 9, 18) and of Jonathan (I Sam. 14:25, 26, 29) is too well-known to need elaboration. But locusts! It is entirely possible that one shudders to think of actually eating them, their legs and wings having been discarded, their bodies roasted or baked, a little salt added. Nevertheless, it is clear from Lev. 11:22that the Lord permitted and by implication encouraged the Israelites to eat four kinds of insects which we in North America would popularly call locusts. Even today certain Arabian tribes relish them. And why not? The Latin saying, De gustibus non disputandum est still holds. Those who enjoy shrimp, mussel, oyster, and frog-leg should not find fault with those who eat the locust. It is, however, not necessary to conclude that verse 6 gives us a complete summary of the Baptist's diet. The main point is that by means of his simple mode of life, evident with respect to both food and clothing, he was a living protest against all selfishness and self-indulgence, hence also against that frivolousness, carelessness, and false security with which many people were rushing toward their doom. Of course all John could do was to urge upon his hearers the necessity of conversion. As to baptism, considered as a symbol of divine purification (Isa. 1:16–18; Ezek. 36:25), John was able to perform only the outward rite. To impart the thing signified required the power and the grace of One mightier than John. We are not surprised, therefore, that Mark continues: 7, 8. He was preaching, saying, after me comes One who is mightier than I, whose sandal straps I, bending down, am not fit to untie. I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. In these verses Mark informs us that John, Christ's forerunner, gave a twofold comparative description of Jesus, indicating a. the latter's superior majesty, mightier than I (verse 7), and b. his equally superior activity (verse 8). It was necessary for John to draw this contrast between himself and his Master, for soon the people were wondering whether perhaps the Baptist might not himself be the Christ (Luke 3:15; cf. John 1:19, 20; 3:25–36). Note how also in (John 1:19 27the herald unconditionally rejects this thoroughly erroneous and reprehensible notion. True, on life's pathway, not only in his birth but also in the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus had come behind JohnLuke 1:26, 36; 3:23). But between Christ and the Baptist there was a qualitative difference as between the Infinite and the finite, the Eternal and the temporal, the Original Light of the sun and the reflected light of the moon (John 1:15 17). In order to emphasize this contrast between himself and his Superior, John uses an illustration borrowed from the custom prevailing at the time, namely, that when, weary of travel and with dusty sandals, a master would return home, his menial servant or slave would try in every way to make him comfortable. He would of course render this same service to his master's honored guests. Its omission would be cause for justified criticism (Luke 8:44 46). In the present instance one item of the service rendered is singled out, namely, that of untying or unlacing the honored person's dusty sandals and removing them. In the New Testament this figure occurs in forms which, though varying somewhat, in essence are the same. Whether one speaks of untying sandal straps (Luke 3:16; John 1:27), bending down (Mark alone adds this little detail) and untying these straps (Mark 1:7), untying sandals (Acts 13:25), or even removing sandals (Matt. 3:11), in each case the basic idea is that the underling stoops down in order to loosen the straps or laces of this footwear, and then brings it to the proper place and cleans it. To appreciate more fully what depth of genuine humility is expressed when, with reference to Jesus, the Baptist says whose sandal straps I, bending down, am not fit to untie it should be borne in mind that according to an ancient Jewish tradition the difference between a disciple and a servant was this, that a disciple was willing to perform every service for his master that a menial servant would perform except to untie his sandals. So what may very well be implied here are three ascending degrees or stages of humility: a. The disciple is willing to render almost every service. b. The slave or humblest servant is willing to render every service. c. The Baptist considers himself unfit or unworthy to render the service of untying his Master's sandal straps. In this connection see also N.T.C. on Phil. 2:3, 5 8, and on I Tim. 1:15. John, moreover, baptizes with water; Jesus will baptize with the Spirit. He will cause his Spirit and the latter's gifts to come upon his followers (Acts 1:8), to be poured out on them (Acts 2:17, 33), to fall upon them (Acts 10:44; 11:15). Now it is true that whenever a person, having been drawn out of the darkness into God's marvelous light, is baptized, he is baptized with the Holy Spirit. However, according to Christ's own words (Acts 1:5, 8), remembered by Peter (Acts 11:16), in a special sense this prediction was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost and the era which it introduced. It was then that, through the coming of the Spirit, the minds of Christ's followers were enriched with unprecedented illumination (I John 2:20); their wills strengthened, like never before, with contagious animation (Acts 4:13, 19, 20, 33; 5:29); and their hearts flooded with warm affection to a previously unprecedented degree (Acts 2:44 47; 3:6; 4:32). 1:9–11 The Baptism of Jesus Cf. Matt. 3:13–17; Luke 3:21, 22; John 1:32 34 9 Now it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. 10And immediately, as he was stepping up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open and the Spirit like a dove descending on him; 11 And a voice came from heaven, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. 9. Now it happened in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized in the Jordan by John. Though it often happens that Mark gives a more detailed account of an event than does Matthew, at times the opposite is true. So it is in the present case. Mark devotes only three verses to this incident and fails to say anything about the objection raised by John when Jesus presented himself to him to be baptized. Luke also omits this detail and uses only two verses to tell the story of Christ's baptism by John. For the full story we must turn to Matt. 3:13 17: five verses. Mark's phrase in those days probably indicates at the height of John's baptizing activity. Cf. (Luke 3:21. Note the difference between Matthew who states that Jesus, in making his first public appearance, came from Galilee (to the Jordan), while Mark is more specific and says, from Nazareth of Galilee. It is possible that Mark does this because he was writing to Gentiles, people who were not well acquainted with Jewish terrain. But not too much can be made of this. The phrase Nazareth of Galilee is also found in Matthew (21:11). And in connection with the story of Christ's baptism Matthew did not have to add from Nazareth because that is where he had left Jesus a few verses earlier (2:22, 23, where both Nazareth and Galilee are mentioned). It was at Nazareth that Joseph, Jesus legal father, had plied the carpenter's tradeMatt. 13:55). It was here that Jesus grew up to manhood, and became known as the carpenter (Mark 6:3). At the age of thirty (Luke 3:23) Jesus left Nazareth and proceeded on his way to the Jordan. In very simple language Mark states that Jesus was baptized in the Jordan by John. Did Jesus step down Jordan's bank into the water, so that his feet were covered with water, and did the Baptist then pour or sprinkle water on the Master's head? It has not pleased the Holy Spirit to give us any details in this connection as to the mode of baptism. The question may be asked, however, Since Jesus was sinless, and the water of baptism symbolized the necessity of the removal of filth, that is of sin, how then was it possible for the Sinless One to submit to baptism? Many answers have been given. The most simple one may well be the best. Jesus did, after all, have sin, namely ours. Is not this answer suggested by (Isa. 53:6( All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all ); and by the fact that not very long after John had baptized Jesus, the Baptist saw him approaching and exclaimed to his audience, Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the worldJohn 1:29)? It would appear, therefore, that the demand of Jesus to be baptized by John signified his solemn resolution to take upon himself the guilt of those for whom he was going to die. In a sense, by means of baptism Jesus was fulfilling part of his task of laying down his life for his sheep. Cf. Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; John 10:11; II Cor. 5:21; I Peter 3:18. Moreover, apart from this voluntary self-surrender, symbolized by his baptism, would not all other baptisms have been meaningless? It was by means of the Savior's sacrifice of himself that the basis was established for the forgiveness of sins, a forgiveness signified and sealed by baptism for all those who sincerely confess their unworthiness and intended to pursue their further journey in newness of life. 10, 11. And immediately, as he was stepping up out of the water, he saw the heavens split open and the Spirit like a dove descending on him; and a voice came from heaven, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. Gloriously the Trinity is here revealed. At the very moment when the Son, having been baptized, starts to step up out of the water, heaven suddenly opens wide and the Spirit descends on him. Jesus himself sees something resembling a dove, and representing the Spirit, coming lower and lower and going directly toward him. Though not all interpreters agree, it must be maintained that the pronoun he in he saw the heavens &refers to Jesus.^[18] And the Father, as it were deeply impressed with the willingness of his Son to shoulder so heavy a burden for, as has been pointed out, by means of submitting to this cleansing rite he confirmed his promise, made from eternity, to take upon himself and atone for the sin of the world (John 1:29) proclaims, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. Thus, very touchingly the doctrine of the Holy Trinity in action is set forth. That these three are One is the comfort of every believer. As to the details a few more remarks are in order: First, as to the Son, the question might be asked, Was (and is) he not divine, and therefore not in need of the anointing of the Holy Spirit to qualify him for the carrying out of his task? Answer: The divine Son at his incarnation adopted the human nature, which is in need of, and capable of, being strengthened. Thus qualified he, as divine and human Mediator, was enabled to function in his threefold office as Prophet, Priest, and King, for the salvation of God's people, to the glory of God Triune. With respect to this anointing see also Ps. 45:7; Isa. 61:1ff.; 11:1, 2; Matt. 11:27; 28:18; Luke 4:18; John 3:34; Acts 10:38. Secondly, as to the Spirit, Why was the third person of the Trinity represented by an object in the shape of a dove? Answer: Perhaps in order to indicate the purity, gentleness, peacefulness, and graciousness which characteristics mark the Holy Spirit, and are in popular opinion, as well as even in Scripture (Ps. 68:13; Song of Sol. 6:9; Matt. 10:16), associated with the dove. Did the water of Jordan suggest the need of cleansing? The Holy Spirit, symbolized by a form resembling a dove and resting on the Son, could very well indicate that in and by himself Jesus, Spirit-indwelt, was pure and holy; not only that but also gentle and peaceful. The sins for which he was to die were not his own but had been imputed to him. Thirdly, as to the Father, Whose voice was it that exclaimed, Thou art my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased? The Speaker is not named.^[19] Neither is this necessary, for the very phraseology identifies the Speaker as being, of course, the Father. Moreover, not only in his official Messianic capacity but also as Son by eternal generation, the One who fully shares the divine essence together with the Father and the Spirit, is he the Father's Beloved (John 1:14; 3:16; 10:17; 17:23). No higher love is possible than the love which the Father cherishes toward his Son. According to the verbal adjective (agaptos: beloved) here used, this love is deep-seated, thorough-going, as great as is the heart of God itself. It is also as intelligent and purposeful as is the mind of God. It is tender, vast, infinite!^[20] In the original the words My Son, the Beloved are so constructed that with this repetition of the article equal emphasis is placed on both the noun, Son, and the adjective, Beloved. In fact, the addition (after the noun) of the adjective, with repetition of the article, forms a kind of climax.^[21] In addition to possessing all the qualities already ascribed to this love it is also eternal; that is, it is timeless, raised far above all temporal boundaries. Though some disagree, the rendering in whom I am well pleased must be considered correct.^[22] In the quiet recess of eternity the Son was the object of the Father's inexhaustible delight (Prov. 8:30). The former's reaffirmation, by means of baptism, of his purpose to shed his blood for a world lost in sin did nothing to diminish that love. That is what the Father is telling his Son. That is what he is also telling John &and all of us. How filled with comfort this paragraph, comfort not only for the Son and for John, but for every child of God, for it indicates that not only the Son loves his followers enough to suffer the pangs of hell in their stead, but that also the Spirit fully co-operates by strengthening him for this very task, and that the Father, instead of frowning upon the One who undertakes it, is so very pleased with him that he must needs rend asunder the very heavens, that his voice of delightful approval may be heard on earth!^[23] All three are equally interested in our salvation, and the three are One. 1:12, 13 The Temptation of Jesus in the Wilderness Cf. Matt. 4:1–11; Luke 4:1 13 12 And immediately the Spirit sent him out into^[24] the wilderness. 13 And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was among the wild beasts, and the angels were rendering service to him. By means of his voluntary submission to baptism Jesus had signified his entire willingness to accomplish the task assigned to him, namely, to suffer and die in his people's stead. It is therefore logical that affliction, in the form of temptation, begins at once. Adam, when tempted, failed. So Christ, the last Adam (I Cor. 15:45) must now be tempted, in order that by his victory over the tempter he may, for all who believe in him, undo the results of the first Adam's failure. That even Jesus, the Sinless One, could be tempted is a mystery incapable of being made perfectly clear. All we can say about it is that this temptation pertains, of course, to Christ's human nature, since God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Since Jesus was not only God but also man, it should not be entirely surprising that after a fast of forty days (4:2 in Matthew and in Luke) the proposal to turn stones into bread was a temptation to him. This by no means solves every problem, for the very sensitive and searching mind of Christ must have discerned immediately that proposals coming to him from Satan were evil. The subject of the temptation of the perfect Savior is shrouded in mystery. But is not this true of doctrine in general? That Christ's temptation experience actually occurred is taught not only here in Mark and its parallels but also in (Heb. 4:15: He was tempted in all points (or in every respect) as we are, yet without sin; that is, without falling into sin. Heb. 4:15cannot mean, however, that the psychological process involved in being tempted was exactly the same for Jesus as it is for men in general. For the latter, including believers, there is first, the tempting voice or inner whispering of Satan, urging them to sin. But there is also the inner desire goading the tempted one to give heed to the devil's prompting. Thus man, being drawn away and enticed by his own evil desireJames 1:14) sins. With Christ the case was different. The outward stimulus outward in the sense that it did not originate in the Lord's own soul but was the voice of another was there, but the inner evil incentive or desire to co-operate with this voice from without was not. Nevertheless the temptation that is, the sense of need, the consciousness of being urged by Satan to satisfy this need, the knowledge of having to resist the tempter, and the struggle to which this gave rise was real even for Christ. For a far more complete account of the separate temptations see N.T.C. on Matt. 4:1–11. See also Luke 4:1 13. Mark's coverage of the temptation is so brief that it will hardly do to interpret Matthew's far more complete and chronological account in the light of certain first impressions one may receive from Mark's words. Neither Mark nor Luke gives us a step by step consecutive account. Matthew, on the other hand, does present a historical sequence, as is clear from 4:2, 4:5, 10 and 5:11 and from the inner or thought connection between the first and second temptations. It is in the light of these facts that we proceed now to the explanation of Mark's account, verse 12. And immediately the Spirit sent him out into the wilderness. Note the following: Immediately.& There was no interval between the glory of Christ's baptism and the hardship of the temptation. As it was going to be in connection with Christ's transfiguration, so already here the narrative shows how Jesus, the King, to be sure, but also the Suffering Servant, proceeds at once from daylight to darkness, from the Father's approving smile to Satan's contemptuous wile. & the Spirit sent him out. Here others have driveth him (A.V.), driveth him forth (A.R.V. drove him out (Williams, Beck), or something similar. And it is true that the verb used in the original frequently has the meaning to drive out or expel. In fact, in this very chapter (Mark 1) the word indicates the expulsion of demons (1:34. 39, 43). Also, Jesus drove or cast the merchants out of the templeMatt. 21:12); and the wicked sharecroppers cast the heir out of the vineyard (Matt. 21:39). However, when the word is thus translated it is not easy to dissociate from it the idea of the use of external force in order to move an unwilling object. And certainly that cannot be the connotation in the present instance. It would be better therefore, either with N.A.S.B. (N.T.) to substitute the rendering impelled him (to go) out, filled him with an inner urge, moved him; or else, to take cognizance of the fact that the same Greek verb is also used in a somewhat weaker sense, namely, released, sent out, put out (John 10:4; Acts 16:37). & into the wilderness. The question has been asked, But was not Jesus already in the wilderness when he was baptized? Was it not exactly in the wilderness that John was baptizing (Mark 1:4)? It has been suggested therefore that the wilderness into which Jesus was now sent was more rugged and inhospitable than the one mentioned in verse 4. Though this is possible, and the presence of wild beasts (verse 13) might even lend some support to this theory, is it not more reasonable to find the solution in Luke 4:1? In other words, the meaning may simply be that from the Jordan Jesus was led into the wilderness. It is useless to venture a guess as to the location of the particular wilderness region where Christ fasted and was tempted. Was it a limestone height near Jericho? No one knows. One fact must not be forgotten: the wilderness, though dreadful, especially when one spends at least forty days there without food, was also the place where nothing was able to separate Jesus from communion with his heavenly Father. It was also the place, therefore, of preparation for the performance of the mediatorial task! Cf. Mark 1:35; Luke 5:16. 13. And he was in the wilderness forty days.& The experience of Moses on Mount Horeb (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18) and that of Elijah on the same height (I Kings 19:8) occur to the mind immediately. Not only for them but also for Jesus the period was one of fasting. It was in the wilderness that Jesus was being tempted by Satan. The verb here rendered tempted can have a favorable meaning: to put someone to the test in order to strengthen him spiritually. It was in that sense that Jehovah tested Abraham (Gen. 22:1–19; Heb. 11:17). See also (John 6:6. But the addition of the phrase by Satan makes it clear that in the present case the sense is that the prince of evil tried hard to entice Jesus to sin. Mark says, tempted by Satan; Luke, by the devil; Matthew, by the devil &the tempter. Diabolos means devil, slanderer, accuserJob 1:9; Zech. 3:1, 2; cf. Rev. 12:9, 10) and (through the influence of the LXX) also adversary (I Peter 5:8), which, strictly speaking, is the meaning of Satan. It is clear that Mark believed in the existence of a personal prince of evil. ^[25] So did all the other New Testament writers: Matthew (4:1, 3, 5, 8); Luke (4:2, 3, 6, 13; 8:12); Peter (Acts 10:38; I Peter 5:8); Paul (Rom. 16:20; Eph. 4:27; 6:11); the author of Hebrews (2:14); James (4:7); John (I John 3:8, 10, 12; 5:18, 19; Rev. 12:9; 20:2, 7, 10); and Jude (see his epistle verse 9). So did also Jesus himself (Matt. 6:13; 13:39; 25:41; Mark 3:23, 26; 4:15; 8:33; Luke 4:8; 10:18; 11:18; 13:6; 22:3, 31; John 8:44). Many other references could have been added. It is certainly fitting that it is exactly (though not alone) in Mark, which describes Jesus as the Conquering King, that the tempter is called Satan, that is Adversary. The battle, then, is going to be between the King and his Adversary. The entire clause, And he was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan is by many interpreted to mean that throughout the entire forty days Jesus was being tempted by the devil. It is even argued that the Greek does not allow any other interpretation. Now when this clause is considered entirely by itself that is, apart from the far more detailed and chronological account found in Matthew it must be admitted that the language used in the original certainly allows it to be understood in that sense. At the same time it should also be stated that this is not the only possible view. At times this is even recognized by those who favor the forty days of temptation theory.^[26] The argument in defense of a forty day temptation would be unassailable if the clause were as follows: Forty days he was being tempted, being in the wilderness. As it actually stands, however, the original can mean: Forty days he was in the wilderness, where he was being tempted. ^[27] In favor of the second construction, rejecting the forty days of temptation, it can be argued that: a. Matt. 4:2, 3, clearly teaches that the temptation by Satan began at the close of a forty day fast. b. The greatly condensed account in Mark should be interpreted in the light of the full and chronological narrative found in Matthew; not vice versa. But even if the forty day temptation theory is adopted one should be careful not to fill in this period with all kinds of products of the imagination. It should be borne in mind that if there was a lengthy series of temptations that preceded the familiar three, Scripture has given us no details. As a further description of what happened while Jesus was in the wilderness Mark (alone) continues: He was among the wild beasts.& The Jordan valley and the adjacent wilderness have been known as the haunt of hyenas, jackals, panthers, and even lions, which at one time were by no means scarce in Palestine,^[28] as is evident from the fact that lions are mentioned in two-thirds of the books of the Old Testament. The region where Jesus fasted and was tempted was therefore the scene of abandonment and peril, the very opposite of paradise, where the first Adam was tempted.^[29] Mark concludes the description of what happened to Jesus at this time by writing: and the angels were rendering service to him. Rendering service in various ways is the function of these ministering spirits (Heb. 1:14). See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, pp. 184, 185. In connection with the story of the temptation, just when was it that the angels rendered this service to Christ? Here also the answer is found in the more detailed and chronologically arranged account written by Matthew (4:11), Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were rendering service to him. The service was evidently rendered when the devil had been thoroughly vanquished. Just what this service implied is not mentioned. The general statement that angels were sent by the Father to provide for the Son's needs, whatever these may have been, is perhaps the best. That this also included providing bodily nourishment would seem to be a reasonable inference.^[30] Mark does not make any statement about Christ's triumph over Satan. For this we are again dependent on Matt. 4:1–11; cf. Luke 4:1 13. But is not this triumph implied in the ministry of the angels, sent by the Father as a reward upon obedience? We have noticed in these two verses: the action of the Holy Spirit, the obedience of Christ, the presence of wild beasts, the temptation by Satan, and at the close, the service rendered by angels. In the background implied rather than expressed we have become aware of the total absence of any human helpers and the providential love and care of the Father, who sent his angels to render service. The presence (and, in the case of human helpers, the absence) of these seven shows the majesty of the central figure, Jesus Christ, the great King who was at the same time the Suffering Servant. The victory having been won, Christ's actual ministry of preaching, teaching, healing, and (last but not lacking in importance) casting out of demons, all this leading to the final triumph of death followed on the third day by a glorious resurrection, can now begin. A significant section of Mark's Gospel closes here. Summary of Chapter 1:1–13 This first section of Mark's Gospel consists of three paragraphs and deals with three topics: a. the ministry of John the Baptist (1:1–8), b. the baptism of Jesus (1:9–11), and c. the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness (1:12, 13). John's ministry Time: the first part of John's ministry, the part here in view, stretched from about the middle to the end of the year a.d. 26 (or a little later). Place: the wilderness of Judea and the Jordan River. John's ministry was in fulfilment of prophecyMal. 3:1and Isa. 40:3; in Mark 1:2, 3referred to in that order . The Baptist urged the people to undergo a basic spiritual change, that their sins might be forgiven. He also baptized, for baptism was a sign and seal of this forgiveness. In the light of verses 2 4 the meaning of verse 1 would seem to be: The good news about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, began with John the Baptist. It was John who, as predicted, prepared the way for Christ's coming. His preaching consisted in proclaiming the necessity of genuine conversion and of faith in the One whose sandalstraps, said John, I, bending down, am not fit to untie. To show that he, the Baptist himself, was unable to supply what the people needed, he added, I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit, uttering words which in a sense are realized whenever a sinner is brought from darkness to light, but are fulfilled especially during the dispensation beginning with the Spirit's outpouring on Pentecost. The response to John's ministry was astounding: large multitudes from Judea, including Jerusalem, were constantly going out to hear John. Many of them confessed their sins and were being baptized in the Jordan River. The Baptist's simple manner of life wearing a garment made of camel's hair, with leather belt around his waist; eating locusts and wild honey, as well as the earnestness and directness of his appeal, must have contributed to this favorable result, whereby the way for the entrance of Christ's message into the hearts and lives of the people was being prepared. Jesus baptism Time: probably about December of the year a.d. 26 (or shortly afterward). Place: the Jordan River, exact spot unknown. Jesus inaugurated his ministry by requesting John to baptize him. When he had been baptized the heavens opened and the Spirit like a dove descended on him. A voice spoke to him: Thou art my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased. It is true that the water of baptism indicated the necessity of the removal of sin. It is also a fact that Jesus was and is the Sinless One. How then could he be baptized? Answer: he did, after all, have sin, namely ours (Isa. 53:6; II Cor. 5:21). Jesus temptation Immediately after the baptism the Spirit sent Jesus from the Jordan into the wilderness. Here he spent forty days, and was tempted by Satan. The region where the temptation took place was desolate and dangerous: Jesus was in the midst of the wild beasts. Yet he triumphed and was rewarded, as is indicated by the fact that the angels, sent by the Father, were rendering service to him. By his voluntary submission to the rite of baptism and also by his equally voluntary obedience to the Father's will and the Spirit's direction when he was tempted by Satan, Jesus, as the last Adam, fulfilled the law which the first Adam had transgressed. By means of this obedience he was clearly indicating that he had taken upon himself and was taking away the sin of the world. Cf. John 1:29. He was therefore ready to begin his ministry of teaching, preaching, healing, casting out demons, and overarching everything else, suffering and dying for all those lost sheep who would place their trust in him. See Isa. 53:6, 11; John 10:11, 14, 15, 27, 28. The Work Which Thou Gavest Him to Do Its Progress or Continuation Chapter 1:14 10:52 CHAPTER 1:14–45 Outline of Chapter 1:14–45 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do A. The Great Galilean Ministry 1:14, 15 Its Beginning 1:16–20 The Calling of Four Fishermen 1:21–28 The Healing of a Man with an Unclean Spirit 1:29–34 The Healing of Simon's Mother-in-law and of Many Others 1:35–39 Christ's Pre-dawn Prayer; Simon's Exclamation and Christ's Answer; Christ's Preaching and Demon-expulsions throughout All Galilee 1:40–45 A Leper Cleansed 1:14, 15 The Beginning of the Great Galilean Ministry Cf. Matt. 3:2; 4:12; 11:2; 14:3–5; Mark 6:17 20; Luke 3:19, 20; 4:14, 15; John 3:24; 4:1–3, 43, 44. 14 Now when John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God, 15 and saying, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand; be converted and believe the gospel. 14. Now when John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee.& A new section of Mark's Gospel begins here. Between Christ's baptism and temptation, on the one hand (1:9–13), and his arrival in Galilee, recorded here in verse 14, on the other, there may well have been a time interval of about a year.^[31] But though thus separated in time from the earlier events reported by Mark, yet what the evangelist is about to report is closely related in thought to that which precedes. The preparation for, and inauguration of, the work which the Father had given his Son to do is ended. The beginning has been accomplished. Having been introduced to Israel by the herald, John the Baptist, Jesus by means of the baptism which he himself requested has reaffirmed his decision to take upon himself the sin of the world. Moreover, he has proved himself worthy, for in the wilderness he has triumphed over Satan. He has done this as his people's representative, the last Adam, succeeding where the first Adam failed. Therefore nothing can now prevent him from carrying forward the task assigned to, and voluntarily assumed by him. The time of Christ's departure from Judea to Galilee (John 4:1 3, 43) had something to do with the imprisonment of John the Baptist. When John had been taken into custody (Mark 1:14), and the Pharisees, with headquarters in Jerusalem, had heard that Jesus was gaining and, through his disciples, was baptizing more disciples than John, the Master left Judea and started on his way to Galilee. He was aware of the fact that his own great popularity in the country region of Judea would bring about such keen resentment on the part of the religious leaders of the Jews that in the natural course of events this hatred would lead to a premature crisis. As soon as the appropriate moment for his death would arrive Jesus would voluntarily lay down his life (John 10:11, 14, 15, 18; 13:1). He was going to do this then, but not before then. Besides, Galilee, too, has lost sheep that must be brought into the fold. So Jesus came into Galilee preaching the gospel of God, that is, heralding or proclaiming the good tidings of salvation as God's free gift to men, a salvation which from start to finish is God's work. To be sure, all of God's true servants tell the story, but God (in Christ) saw to it that there was a story to tell. It was he who provided the way of salvation, apart from which all men would have been everlastingly lost. This good news is therefore in truth the gospel of God. What could be a better commentary than the following series of passages: John 3:16; Rom. 8:3, 32; II Cor. 5:20, 21; Gal. 4:4, 5; Eph. 2:8–10; Titus 3:4 7? 15. &and saying, The time is fulfilled.& Cf. Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:10. The appropriate season or golden opportunity^[32] for the fulfillment of God's redemptive promises and along with it for the promulgation of the gospel had arrived. The hour for the realization of Isa. 9:1, 2^[33] had struck. Hence, Jesus continues: and the kingdom of God is at hand. Note kingdom of God where Matthew generally has kingdom of heaven. Basically the meaning is the same. What Jesus is saying, then, is that God's reign in the hearts and lives of men would begin to assert itself far more powerfully than ever before. Great blessings were in store for all those who, by sovereign grace, would confess and forsake their sins and would begin to live to God's glory. In its broadest connotation the terms the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of God, or simply the kingdom (when the context makes clear that what is meant is the kingdom of heaven or of God ) indicate God's kingship, rule or sovereignty, recognized in the hearts and operative in the lives of his people, and effecting their complete salvation, their constitution as a church, and finally a redeemed universe. Note especially the four concepts: a. God's kingship, rule, or recognized sovereignty. That may be the meaning in Luke 17:21, The Kingdom of God is within you, and is the meaning in Matt. 6:10, Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.& b. Complete salvation, i.e., all the spiritual and material blessings that is, blessings for soul and body which result when God is King in our hearts, recognized and obeyed as such. That is the meaning, according to the context, in Mark 10:25, 26, It is easier &than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. And they &said, Then who can be saved? c. The church: the community of men in whose hearts God is recognized as King. Kingdom of God and church when used in this sense are nearly equivalent. This is the meaning in Matt. 16:18, 19, &and upon this rock will I build my church &I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. d. The redeemed universe: the new heaven and earth with all their glory; something still future: the final realization of God's saving power. Thus in Matt. 25:34, &inherit the kingdom prepared for you.& These four meanings are not separate and unrelated. They all proceed from the central idea of the reign of God, his supremacy in the sphere of saving power. The kingdom or kingship (the Greek word has both meanings) of heaven is like a gradually developing mustard seed; hence, both present and future (Mark 4:26 29). It is present; study Matt. 5:3; 12:28; 19:14; Mark 10:15; 12:34; Luke 7:28; 17:20, 21; John 3:3 5; 18:36. It is future; study Matt. 7:21, 22; 25:34; 26:29. Jesus spoke of the work of salvation as the kingdom or reign of heaven in order to indicate the supernatural character, origin, and purpose of our salvation. Our salvation begins in heaven and should redound to the glory of the Father in heaven. Hence, by using this term Christ defended the truth, so precious to all believers, that everything is subservient to God's glory. Accordingly, when Jesus says, The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand an excellent commentary would be Matt. 4:14–16; 11:4, 5; Luke 4:18 21. It is understandable that Jesus says is at hand, for when these words were spoken Christ's work of preaching, teaching, and healing in and around Galilee was only just beginning. Jesus continues: be converted and believe the gospel. Compare Be converted, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, spoken by the Baptist (Matt. 3:2; see also Mark 1:4), with The kingdom of God is at hand; be converted&, spoken by Jesus. The meaning is the same. In fact, in Matthew's Gospel the identical words are ascribed to both John (3:2) and Jesus (4:17). Basically, therefore, their gospel was the same. John was a true way-preparer. Though the rendering found in many of our translations, namely, Repent, which stresses only the negative aspect of the required change, is probably not the best, repentance is definitely demanded. Genuine sorrow for sin and an earnest resolution to break with the evil past is at times even emphasized (Luke 3:13, 14). But the word used in the original^[34] looks forward as well as backward. It means Be converted, ^[35] undergo a radical change of heart and life, a complete turnabout of life. The positive side of conversion is given further emphasis in the added words and believe the gospel. ^[36] Such believing or faith implies knowledge, assent, and confidence. In the language of the Heidelberg Catechism, True faith is not only a sure knowledge, whereby I hold for truth all that God has revealed to us in his Word, but also a firm confidence which the Holy Spirit works in my heart by the gospel, that not only to others, but to me also, remission of sins, everlasting righteousness and salvation are freely given by God, merely of grace, only for the sake of Christ's merits. A person accepts a message when he acts upon it. 1:16–20 The Calling of Four Fishermen Cf. Matt. 4:18–22; and for Mark 1:17b and Matt. 4:19b cf. Luke 5:10b.^[37] 16 While he was going along the Sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew, Simon's brother, throwing a casting-net into the sea, for they were fishermen. 17 Jesus said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men. 18 And at once they left their nets and followed him. 19 And when he had gone a little farther he saw James the son of Zebedee and John his brother, who were in the boat mending their nets. 20 At once he called them. And they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired men and followed him. 16 18. While he was going along the Sea of Galilee he saw Simon and Andrew, Simon's brother, throwing a casting-net into the sea, for they were fishermen. Jesus said to them, Come, follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men. And at once they left their nets and followed him.^[38] The wonderful gospel of the kingdom was not intended only for the men living during the time of Christ's earthly ministry. It was intended for the ages. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that at the very beginning of his ministry Jesus chose men who, by means of their testimony both oral and written, would perpetuate his work and proclaim his message. For a teacher to have not only a general audience but also a band of close companions or disciples was nothing new. Did not Socrates have disciples? Did not John the Baptist? The Pharisees? The rabbis? Christ's disciples were to become the links between himself and his church. Think, for example, of the importance of such men as Matthew, John, and Peter in the formation of the Gospels, which are our chief sources of information about Jesus Christ. Accordingly, while he was passing along the Sea of Galilee Jesus invites certain men to come to him. It must be understood, however, that the call which Jesus extended to the four men mentioned here in Mark 1:18 22was not the first one they received. A year earlier Andrew and an unnamed disciple, in all likelihood John, had been invited to come and see where Jesus lived and had become his spiritual followers. Andrew had brought his brother Simon to Jesus. John had probably rendered the same service to his own brother James. See N.T.C. on John 1:35 41. So now, according to Mark 1:16 20, about a year later these same four disciples become the Lord's more steady companions, and are made more conscious than ever of the fact that they are being trained for apostleship, that is, for becoming fishers of men. The men who were chosen by Jesus to be his immediate companions needed to be trained for apostleship. Simon the fickle must become Peter the rock. Something similar was true with respect to all. When we first meet these men, and to a certain extent even much later, they manifest lack of deep spiritual penetration (Mark 4:10, 13; 8:4, 16 21, 32, 33; 9:10–13; 10:10, 24 27); of fervent sympathy (6:35, 36; 10:13, 14); of profound humility (9:33, 34); of the gladly forgiving spirit (10:41); of persevering prayerfulness (9:28, 29); and of an unflinching courage (14:50, 66 72). Nevertheless, on their part it required a degree of courage to become Christ's followers and thereby face the opposition of many, including the religious leaders. For further details on The Twelve see on 3:16 19a. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER II Outline of Chapter 2 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 2:1–12 The Healing of a Paralytic 2:13–17 The Call of Levi 2:18–22 The Question About Fasting 2:23–28 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath; Picking Heads of Grain on the Sabbath 2:1–12 The Healing of a Paralytic Cf. Matt. 9:2–8; Luke 5:17 26 2 1 When he had re-entered Capernaum some days later, it was reported that he was at home. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer any room left, not even near the doorway; and he was speaking the word to them. 3 And they came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four men. 4 Being unable to get to him [Jesus] because of the crowd, they opened up the roof (above the place) where he was; and when they had dug an opening they lowered the pallet on which the paralytic was lying. 5 Now when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven. 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts. 7 Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? 8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they were reasoning thus within themselves, said to them, Why are you reasoning [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up, take up your pallet and walk? 10 But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the paralytic) 11 I say to you, get up, take up your pallet and go home. 12 He got up, and immediately took up his pallet and went out in full view of them all, so that they were all astonished and glorified God, saying, Never have we seen anything like this. When one compares chapter 1 of Mark's Gospel with chapter 2 the contrast is striking. Chapter 1 is the chapter of glory; chapter 2, of opposition. To be sure, even in chapter 1 Jesus encountered opposition, but this was coming from the side of Satan and his demons (1:13, 23 26, 32, 34, 39), not from the side of men. The Spirit descends on Jesus (1:10), the Father calls him my beloved Son (1:11), and the people are filled with amazement because of his words and works (1:27). As far as the human realm is concerned, the description of conflict begins in chapters 2 (see especially verses 6, 7, 16, and 24) and 3 (verses 2, 6, and 22). The struggle increases in intensity. At first the scribes merely reason in their hearts (2:6, 7) against Jesus. Next, they complain about him to his disciples (2:16). Afterward they become bolder and protest to Jesus himself; yet not immediately because of what heis doing but because of what he is allowing his disciples to do (2:24). But in the third chapter they begin to scheme how they may destroy him (verse 6), and charge him with being in league with the devil (verse 22). Of course, the conflict could not be avoided; for he stressed love, they legalism; he God's holy law, they law-burying tradition; he freedom, they bondage; he the inner attitude, they the outward act. How they hated to surrender to him their prestige, their hold on the public! 1. When he had re-entered Capernaum some days [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 ([Greek] it was reported that he was at home.Jesus has returned from his Galilean circuit (1:38, 39). He is back in his own cityMatt. 9:1). He is now at home, or, as some interpret the phrase in a house. In this connection some think of the house where as they assume Jesus, his mother Mary, and other members of the family, are now living. Here, however, one must be careful not to come into conflict with (Matt. 13:54 56Luke 4:16). Does the phrase refer, perhaps, to a Capernaum home which he himself now owned? The possibility cannot be ruled out. Matt. 8:20( &the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head; see on that passage) does not necessarily render this view unreasonable. Does it refer to Peter shouse, an interpretation that is rather [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] But if Mark had been thinking of Peter's house, would not his reference to it have been more definite? See 1:29. The possibility should be considered that friends had provided Jesus with a home for his use while performing his task in and around Capernaum. However that may have been, in some real sense the house to which Jesus had come was home to him. And everybody had heard the report that he was home, for the news had quickly [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] 2. And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer any room left, not even near the doorway.& (In view of the amazement caused by Christ's words and works (1:21–34, 38 45) we can understand why it was that the house was filled. No doubt friends and disciples of Jesus were present in goodly numbers, with genuine interest in the truth. Also, there must have been many rubbernecks burning with curiosity to hear what Jesus would say and especially what he would do. Last but not least, there were straitlaced rabbis Pharisees and doctors of the lawLuke 5:17), filled with envy, deeply disturbed about the large crowds Jesus was attracting. These important people had come from every village not only in Galilee but even in Judea and Jerusalem! Result: not even near the doorway was there any room left. Normally it was by the doorway that entrance was obtained into the house. Only the well-to-do had an extra gate and entrance hall. In the more modest homes the door opened directly to the street. But today this entrance was blocked. And there were no fire-marshals to open a path. & and he was speaking the word to them. (In his own unique manner (see on 1:22) Jesus was bringing the gospel to this audience. Cf. 4:14 If., 33; 16:20. That, after all, was the purpose of his coming from heaven to earthMark 1:38), namely, to bring the message of cheer, liberty, salvation full and free. Cf. Luke 4:17 22. Words of grace, clear and simple, were falling from his lips. Suddenly, however, there is an interruption, a noise overhead: 3. And they came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four men.Wretched indeed was this man. The disease that plagued him is characterized by extreme loss of power of motion, and is generally caused by inability of the muscles to function, due to injury in the motor areas of the brain and/or of the spinal cord. In addition to the parallels in Matthew and Luke see also Matt. 4:24; 8:5–13; Acts 8:7; 9:33. In the present case whatever may have been the parts of the body affected by paralysis and the point to which the sickness had progressed, one fact is clear: the stricken person was unable to move about. He had to be carried. Four men relatives? friends? performed this service for him, as Mark indicates. 4. Being unable to get to him [Jesus] because of the crowd, they opened up the roof (above the place) where he was; and when they had dug an opening they lowered the pallet on which the paralytic was lying.The courage and resourcefulness of the five, particularly also their faith in the success of their venture, hence ultimately their trust in Jesus, must be admired. If the house where the crowd had gathered had an outside stairway, then it was by means of it that the four and their precious cargo reached the roof. If it did not but the adjoining house had one, then, having reached the top of that other house, they crossed over from roof to roof. In one way or another they reached the place directly above the spot where Jesus was addressing the people. Now to get through the roof! This outside cover of a house was generally flat. It had beams with transverse rafters, overlaid with brushwood, tree branches, etc., on top of which was a thick blanket of mud or clay mixed with chopped straw, beaten and rolled. Such a roof was not difficult to unroof [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] Having made an opening in the roof, the four (loweredthe pallet on which the paralytic was lying. Cf. the manner in which Paul was let downover the wall at DamascusActs 9:25; II Cor. 11:33). The pallet was a kind of poor man's bed, perhaps a thin, straw-filled mattress. Since there were four men who lowered the pallet, it is probably legitimate to imagine that ropes had been attached to the four corners of the bed. Thus it was that the sick man landed right in front of Jesus. The latter, looking down, saw this patient; and glancing up, took notice of the four friends in need who were proving to be friends indeed. We do not read that the four, from their position on top of the roof, shouted anything to Jesus. Nor does any of the evangelists report that the sick man himself said anything to him. As far as the paralytic is concerned, it is even possible that, due to his condition, he was unable to speak. But though the five did not talk, they trusted! And that was what really mattered. Their confidence touched the very heart of the Lord, so that we read: 5. Now when Jesus saw their faith he said to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven.To infer from this that Jesustraced the man's sickness to his sin, as is often [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 ([Greek] is unwarranted, though it is true that among the Jews the notion, A grievously afflicted individual must have been a grievous sinner was not unusualJob 4:7; 22:5–10; Luke 13:4; John 9:2). For a similar belief among non-Jews see Acts 28:3, 4. As the passages from the Gospels prove, Jesus combated this error. But as to this paralytic, all we really know is that he was deeply concerned about his sin. Whether even he himself thought that his sin had resulted in his sickness is not stated. Jesus knew, however, that this man's sins the many ways in which by means of his attitudes, thoughts, words, and deeds he had missed the mark of living in harmony with God's will grieved him deeply. According to Matthew, Jesus very tenderly addresses this man as sonor child. He said to him (according to all three evangelists), [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] are your sins (the order of the words in the original, placing all the emphasis on forgiving love). Not only for the paralytic was this pronouncement of pardon an inestimable blessing, it was also a source of gladness for his benefactors. They must have rejoiced in his joy. More even, it was a lesson for the entire audience. All were made aware of the fact that thisPhysician regarded spiritual blessings above material, and claimed to possess authority that is, the rightand the powerto heal not only the body but also the soul. Jesus never took sin lightly. He never told people, Do you have a sense of guilt? Forget about it. On the contrary, he regarded sin as inexcusable departure from God's holy law (Mark 12:29, 30), as having a soul-choking effect (John 8:34), and as being a matter of the heart and not only of the outward deed (Mark 7:6, 7, 15 23. But he also offered the only true solution. He was well aware of the fact that the advice, Get rid of your guilt feelings; a little cruelty, promiscuity, infidelity is not so bad, creates more problems than it solves. He also knew that it was entirely impossible for a person to rid his soul of the sense of guilt by trying to offset his sins by good deeds. He knew that this philosophy would lead but to tragic failure and appalling despair. Instead, he had come to proclaim no, not only to proclaimbut first of all to providethe one and only solution, namely forgiveness,and this on the basis of his own atonement for sin (10:45; 14:22–24). Cf. John 1:29. When he therefore now says to the paralytic, Forgiven are your sins, he is not only conveyingto this man the news of God's forgiveness, as Nathan had done to penitent DavidII Sam. 12:13); he is also in his own right cancelingthe paralytic's debt. He blots out his sins completely and forever. Cf. Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19; John 1:9. Moreover, such forgiveness never stands alone. It is ever pardon plus. In Christ, God dispels the invalid's gloom andembraces him with the arms of his protecting and adopting love. Cf. Rom. 5:1. 6, 7. But some of the scribes were sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? (A Dutch poet has called man's guilt the root of all human problems. A British psychologist has called man's sense of having been forgiven the most healing force in the world. And how often have not specialists informed us that many patients could be dismissed from mental institutions if they were only able to convince themselves that their guilt had been blotted out! One would think, therefore, that everybody who heard Jesus say to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven would have rejoiced with the pardoned man. But no, in the hearts of the scribes who had come here to find fault with Jesus there was no room for participation in the joy of this grievously stricken man who at this moment heard words of encouragement and cheer. In a highly derogatory manner these enemies are saying something decidedly unfavorable. However, they are not saying it out loud, only within their hearts. But hearts are very important. Are they not the mainsprings of dispositions as well as of feelings and thoughts? Does not a man's heart show what kind of a person he really is? See Mark 3:5; 6:52; 7:14–23; 8:17; 11:23; 12:30, 33; Eph. 1:18; 3:17; Phil. 1:7; I Tim. 1:5. Cf. Prov. 23:7) -2 _ftnref8 A.V. In their hearts, then, the scribes are carrying on a dialogue,throwing thoughts back and forth. What they are saying is this, Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming. He is claiming for himself a prerogative that belongs to God alone, and is therefore guilty of blasphemy, that is, of defiant irreverence. He is robbing God of the honor that belongs to no one else, for Who can forgive sins but God alone? The scribes were right in considering the remission of sins to be a divine prerogative (Exod. 34:6, 7a; Ps. 103:12; Isa. 1:18; 43:25; 44:22; 55:6, 7; Jer. 31:34; Mic. 7:19). To be sure, there is a sense in which we, too, forgive, namely, when we earnestly resolve not to take revenge but instead to love the one who has injured us, to promote his welfare, and never again to bring up the past (Matt. 6:12, 15; 18:21; Luke 6:37; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13). But basically,as described, it is God alone who forgives. It is he alone who is able to remove guilt and to declare that it has actually been removed. But now the thinking of the scribes arrives at the fork in the road, and they make the wrong turn. Either: a.Jesus is what by implication he claims to be, namely, God; or b.he blasphemes, in the sense that he unjustly claims the attributes and prerogatives of deity. The scribes accept b. Not only do they commit this tragic error, but, as the following context indicates, they compound it by reasoning somewhat as follows, It is an easy thing for him to say, Your sins are forgiven, for no one is able to disprove it, since no one can look into his neighbor's heart or enter the throne-room of the Almighty and discover his judicial decisions as to who is, and who is not, forgiven. On the other hand, to tell this man, Get up and walk would be far more difficult, for if no cure results, as is probable, we are all here to witness his embarrassment. As they see it, therefore, Jesus is both blasphemous and flippant. In what the Master now says and does he annihilates both of these false conclusions: 8 11. And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they were reasoning thus within themselves, said to them, Why are you reasoning thus [or: harboring such thoughts] in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Get up, take up your pallet and walk? But in order that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins (he said to the [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 ([Greek] I say to you, get up, take up your pallet and go home.Jesus perceived in his spirit what these scribes were thinking. Their inner deliberations were not concealed from him. Cf. Matt. 17:25; John 1:47, 48; 2:25; 21:17. Had he not been God he would not have been able to penetrate so deeply into their secret cogitationsPs. 139; Heb. 4:13). By means of questioning these men Why are you reasoning thus? he sharply reprimands them. Their dialogue was wicked (Matt. 9:4), for they were accusing him falsely. They themselves were the evil ones. Was it not in order to find fault with Jesus that they had come here today, with the ultimate purpose that they might destroy him (Mark 3:6)? Let them then examine their own hearts. As to which was easier to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or Get up, take up your pallet and walk, do not both in an equal measure require omnipotent power? Jesus decides, however, that if, as the scribes reason, a miracle in the physical sphere is required in order to prove to them his authority (right plus power) in the spiritual realm, then let them see this miracle! So to the paralytic he addresses the words, I say to you, get up, take up your pallet and go home. Obedience to this command will prove that he, the humble yet all-glorious Son of man has the divine authority on earth hence, before the door of grace is closed to forgive sins. Here, for the first time in Mark, the term Son of man is found. In all it occurs fourteen times in this Gospel: twice in the beginning (2:10, 28), seven times in the middle (8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45), and five times toward the end (13:26; 14:21; 14:41 twice; 14:61). It is Christ's self-designation, (revealingsomething with reference to him, concealingeven more, especially to those not thoroughly acquainted with the Old Testament. Use of the term led to the question, Who, then, is this Son of man?John 12:34). The term characterizes Jesus as the Sufferer, the One who is going to be betrayed and killed (9:12; 14:21, 41), all of this in accordance with the divine decree, voluntarily, and vicariously (10:45). His willing sacrifice in the place of his people will, however, be rewarded (8:31; 9:31; 10:33, 34). Put to death he rises again. Having departed from the earth, one day he returns in glory, sitting at the right hand of the Almighty (14:62), fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel 7:13, 14. So intrinsically glorious is he that this glory reaches back, as it were, through his entire life on earth. In reality he is always even in his suffering the glorious Son of man. While yet on earth he has the right to forgive sin (2:10) and is Lord of all, including eventhe sabbath (2:28). For more on this subject see -2 _ftnref10 N.T.C.on Matthew, pp. 403–407. The glory of the Son of man is clearly evident also in the present account. Jesus had commanded the paralytic to get up, etc. Result: 12. He got up, and immediately took up his pallet and went out in full view of them all.& The man believed that the One who ordered him to get up, take up his pallet and go home would also enable him to obey the order. So before here meaning in full view of all the onlookers he at once obeyed the threefold command and went home (probably right here in Capernaum?). Effect on those who had heard what Jesus said and had taken note of the glorious transformation experienced by this man: so that they were all astonished and glorified God, saying, Never have we seen anything like this.Mark reports the people's astonishment. Never in all their past experience have they witnessed anything similar. According to Matthew the crowd was awe-struck. Luke relates that all were seized with astonishment &and filled with awe, causing them to exclaim, We have seen strange things today. Common to these three Gospel writers is the remark that the people glorified God: all (thus Mark and Luke) ascribed to God the honor and splendor due to him. This all, as often, is very general, and does not mean that scornful and fault-finding scribes suddenly experienced a genuine change of heart and mind. That men of this type remained hostile and became more and more hardened is clear from 2:16, 24; 3:2, 6, 22. Nevertheless, the response of glorifying God was sufficiently general to warrant the use of the word all. And no doubt among the many who did exalt him there were those upon whom Christ's words and deeds had made a lasting and saving impression. Probably there were also others, people who in their excitement uttered loud words of praise to the Most High (Dan. 4:34; 6:26, 27), but whose hearts remained unreborn. See Mark 7:6. 2:13–17 The Call of Levi Cf. Matt. 9:9–13; Luke 5:27 32 13 He went out again along the seashore; and all the people kept coming to him, and he was teaching them. 14 And as he was passing by, he saw Levi, the (son) of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax-collector's booth; and he said to him, Follow me. He got up and followed him. 15 And as he was reclining at table in his [Levi's] house, many tax-collectors and [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] were reclining with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many, and they were beginning to follow him. 16 And when the scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners? 17 Hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor, but those who are ill; I did not come to call righteous people but sinners. As Matt. 9:9indicates, the healing of the paralytic was followed closely by the calling of the publican, Levi. 13. He went out again along the seashore; and all the people kept coming to him, and he was teaching them.Again, as before when he had called the first four disciples (1:16), Jesus was walking along the Sea of Galilee. It is not surprising that out of an uncomfortably crowded house (2:2) the Master made his way to the pleasant and refreshing breezes of the shore. But as soon as the people knew where he was they started to gather around him again, and this process of gravitation toward Jesus continued for some time. He, in turn, did not ask them to leave but started to teach them, and is here pictured in the act of thus addressing them. The scene somewhat reminds us of the one described in 6:30–34. There, too, Jesus, seeking rest and refreshment for himself and his disciples, leaves the multitudes behind, only to find them regathered at the retreat he had selected. A crowdor even a person(7:24) in need always aroused Christ's sympathy. See Matt. 9:36. When Jesus had finished his teaching he resumed his walk along the shore. 14. And as he passed by, he saw Levi, the (son) of Alphaeus, sitting at the tax-collector's booth; and he said to him, Follow me. He got up and followed him.Mark and Luke call this man Levi for explanation of the name see Gen. 29:34, but he calls himself MatthewMatt. 9:9ff. , meaning gift of Jehovah. When was his name changed from Levi to Matthew? Did Jesus give him this new name when the tax-collector became a disciple, as the Lord had also changed Simon's name to Cephas (=Peter) when the latter joined the group (Mark 3:16; John 1:42)? It is, however, possible that from the beginning the man here described as becoming a disciple had two names, as may also have been true with respect to Thomas (John 11:16) and Bartholomew (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:13; cf. John 1:45 49; 21:2). The identity of Levi and Matthew can hardly be questioned, as a comparison of the three Synoptic accounts of this event proves. Moreover, Luke calls Levi a publican (5:27), and in the list of The Twelve as recorded in Matt. 10:3there is mention of Matthew the publican. Levi's father's name was Alphaeus, not to be confused (as is sometimes done) with the man by the same name who was the father of James the Less and of Joses (Mark 3:18; cf. 15:40). If Levi or Matthew had had a brother who was also one of The Twelve, this fact would probably have been mentioned, as it was in the case of Peter and Andrew, and of James and John. When Jesus, proceeding along the shore, saw Levi, the latter was sitting at (i.e., in or near the entrance of) the tax-collector's booth, the place where the tariff was collected on any merchandise that passed along the international highway between Syria and Egypt. Levi, then, was a tax-collector or publican. To gather the (publicrevenue on exports and imports pertaining to a province, certain Romans, generally of equestrian rank, would pay a large sum of money into the Roman treasury. These farmer-generals, as they have been called, were accustomed to sublet the privilege to district chief publicans, like ZacchaeusLuke 19:2), who then, in turn, appointed lower rank publicans to do the actual collecting. The term publican, probably at first the equivalent of farmer-general, began to be used in a secondary sense to indicate tax collectors of whatever rank. In this part of the Roman empire the main tax booths were located at Caesarea, Capernaum, and Jericho. Publicans generally charged whatever the traffic would bear, huge amounts. They acquired the reputation of being extortionists. In addition, Jewish publicans were regarded by other Jews as being traitors,unfaithful to their own people and to their own religion. Were they not in the service of the foreign oppressor, ultimately in the service of the pagan Roman emperor? Were they not filling his coffers? The low esteem in which publicans were held appears from passages such as the following: Mark 2:15, 16; cf. Matt. 9:10, 11; 11:19; 21:31, 32; Luke 5:30, 7:34; 15:1; 19:7. Publicans and sinners are at times mentioned in one breath. Yet it was to such a hated individual, such a publican,that Jesus now turns, in order to make him one of his disciples. It should be borne in mind that by this time Jesus had already gathered around him the following disciples: Simon and Andrew, James and John (1:16–20); and according to John's Gospel also Philip and Nathanael (1:35–51). Whether or not any others had been called is not indicated. If not, then Levi (=Matthew) was Christ's seventh disciple. The calling of The Twelve as a group occurred a little laterMark 2:13, 14with 3:13–19; Luke 5:27, 28with 6:12–16 , shortly before the delivery of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:17 49), a sermon which Matthew, not following a chronological order, records in chapters 5 7. When Jesus said, Follow me, Levi immediately got up and followed him. In Matthew's own Gospel, as well as in Mark, the decisive and immediate obedience of the tax-collector is thus soberly reported. For more detail, with emphasis on the greatness of the sacrifice, we must turn to Luke 5:28, which informs us that Matthew forsook all. He left his lucrative business and trusted that God would provide for his needs. It is clear that in doing so, his sacrifice was even greater than that of the four men mentioned in Mark 1:16 20. At this stage it was not impossible for Simon and Andrew, James and John to do a little fishing now and then. Matthew's sacrifice, on the other hand, was total. His eagerness to join Jesus and his generosity are also clear from the fact that in his house he proved the sincerity of his act by honoring Jesus with a banquet. In summary, Levi is described in the Synoptics as follows: He was: Matthew, a Jewish tax-collector, in the service of Rome; and as such Abhorred by the Jews, especially by the scribes. Nevertheless, he was Trained in the Old Testament, which he quotes very often. He was also Talented, an inspired writer, acquainted with Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek; Humble and Hospitable; see especially Luke 5:28, 29; Ecumenical, in the sense of Matt. 28:19, reflecting Christ's mind; and Willing, ready, and eager to obey the Master's call. It is in Levi's house that Mark pictures Jesus as a guest: (15. And as he was reclining at table in his [Levi's] house, many tax-collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many, and they were beginning to follow him.That it was indeed Levi who gave the banquet in his house is clear from Luke 5:29. It was in that house that he, namely Jesus the immediate antecedenthim) at the close of verse 14 refers to no one else was reclining at table, and that many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with the Master and his disciples. They were reclining on mattresses, couches, or divans around low tables, and resting on the left elbow, as was customary at least at festive occasions. Cf. Mark 6:26; 14:18; 16:14; and see N.T.C. on John 13:23. Tax-collectors and [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 ([Greek] As the Pharisees saw it, a sinner was one who refused to subject himself to the Pharisaic interpretationof God's holy law, the Torah. In that sense even Jesus himself and his disciples were sinners, that is, sinners as the Pharisees understood the term; for in several respects not rinsing the hands before every meal, not observing various man-made sabbath regulations, based on sophistical reasoning neither the Master nor his followers conducted themselves in accordance with the rabbinical interpretation of the law. In fact, we are not far from expressing the truth when we say that in the eyes of the Pharisees all non-Pharisees were sinners: But this rabble that does not know the law, accursed are theyJohn 7:49). Actually, therefore, the man who by the Pharisees was called a sinner might be an individual upon whom God's favor rested, a true disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. However, here we must be very careful. The term as used in the Gospels must not be interpreted too favorably, as if all these sinners who were reclining with Jesus in Matthew's house were saints (in the sense of exceptionally virtuous people). Quite the contrary would probably be nearer to the truth. Not only the rabbinical interpretation of God's law but even that divine law itself was often grossly violated by these tax-collectors and sinners. Jesus does not justify or even condone their manner of life. He regards them as the sick who have to be healed (verse 17), as the lost who must be found (Luke 15:1 4; 19:10). He had come from heaven to deliver these people from their sins and miseries. Matthew understands this and honors Jesus with a banquet. He hopes, of course, that all of the despised tax-collectors and sinners will also, like himself, become the Lord's spiritual followers. Although there are divergent explanations of the words at the close of verse 15, yet when they are read in the light of the context the true explanation does not appear to the present author to be very difficult. The key to the meaning is in all probability the repetition of the word many. Note: &(manytax-collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples; for there were many,and they were beginning to follow him. The second manyis probably resumptive, and means that they, the publicans, and generally the people who passed for sinners, were many, and that they had begun to follow him (Bruce). The word for can then be explained in this way: It may seem strange that many tax-collectors and sinners, despised people, would be reclining at table with Jesus; nevertheless, it is the truth: they were reclining with him becausethey had begun to see in him a FriendMatt. 11:19; Luke 7:34), One whom they were beginning to follow. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] Continued: (16. And when the scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with the sinners and tax-collectors, they said to his disciples, Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners?Just as not every priest was a SadduceeJohn 1:24), so also not every scribe was a Pharisee. Cf. Luke 5:30, theirscribes; but in the present case we are definitely told that the critics were scribes by profession and belonged to the religious sect of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] In all probability it was when the banquet had ended and the guests were departing that these Pharisaic scribes, ever ready and eager to find fault with Jesus, but at times lacking courage to criticize him directly, approached his disciples with the [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] Why does he eat with tax-collectors and sinners? Does not eating with a person imply sweet fellowship? See N.T.C. on Matt. 8:11. And had not the rabbis laid down the rule, The disciples of the learned shall not recline at table in the company of the am h [Greek]? The term am h re�was used by them to indicate the people of the soil, the rabble that does not know the law. See John 7:49. What the critics, because of their unsympathetic, self-righteous attitude (Luke 18:9), failed to understand was that there are times when fellowship with publicans and sinners is entirely proper, so altogether right that lack of such fellowship would be highly improper. Jesus, by associating with these people of bad reputation, was meeting a need, as he himself now declares: 17. Hearing this, Jesus said to them, It is not those who are healthy that need a doctor, but those who are ill.The criticism of the scribes had been duly noted by Jesus. He himself, by means of what may have been a current proverb, flings back a clinching answer. When he associates on intimate terms with people of low reputation he does not do this as a hobnobber, a comrade in evil, birds of a feather flocking together, but as a physician, one who, without in any way becoming contaminated with the diseases of his patients, must get very close to them in order that he may heal them!Moreover, it is especially the Pharisees who should be able to understand this. Are not they the very people who regard themselves as being healthy, and all others as being sick? If, then, in the eyes of the Pharisees, publicans and sinners are so very sick, should they not be healed? Is it the business of the healer to heal the healthy or the sick? The sick, of course. Jesus adds: I did not come to call righteous people but sinners.Substantially this is the reading also in Matthew and Luke, though in Matthew these words are preceded by a quotation from Hos. 6:6, and prefixed by for; while Luke adds the phrase (sinners) to repentance. The passage makes clear that the invitation to salvation, full and free, is extended not to righteous people, that is, not to those who consider themselves worthy, but rather to those who are unworthy and in desperate need. It was sinners, the lost, the straying, the beggars, the burdened ones, the hungry and thirsty, whom Jesus came to save. See also (Matt. 5:6; 11:28–30; 22:9, 10; Luke 14:21 23; ch. 15; 19:10; John 7:37, 38. This is in line with all of special revelation, both the Old Testament and the NewIsa. 1:18; 45:22; 55:1, 6, 7; Jer. 35:15; Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; Hos. 6:1; 11:8; Rom. 8:23, 24; II Cor. 5:20; I Tim. 1:15; Rev. 3:20; 22:17). It is a message full of comfort and relevant to every age! 2:18–22 The Question About Fasting Cf. Matt. 9:14–17; Luke 5:33 39 18 Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] came and said to him [Jesus], Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] 19 Jesus said to them, While the bridegroom is with them, is it possible for the bridegroom's attendants to be fasting? So long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast. 20 But days will arrive when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then, on that day, they shall fast. 21 No one sews a patch, made of a piece of new cloth, on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results. 22 And no one pours new wine into old wine-skins otherwise the wine will burst the skins; the wine is lost and so (are) the skins but new wine (is poured) into fresh wine-skins. 18. Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting.Mark's story lacks any specific reference to time or chronological [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] This is true both for the beginning and the close of his account. As to Matthew, it is not at all certain that the word then links this story with the immediately preceding, as if the two events Matthew's banquet and the enquiry concerning fasting followed each other in [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 ([Greek] Luke's conjunction And (5:33) is no more definite than Matthew's then. There is, however, one clear chronological note. It is found in Matt. 9:18: While he was still saying these things, look, a ruler came.& The probability is that while Matthew's call and banquet took place beforethe choosing of The Twleve and the delivery of the Sermon on the MountMark 3:13 19; Luke 6:12 49), the question about fasting followed shortly by the double miracle recorded in Mark 5:25 43occurred afterward,that is, after that choosing, etc. The law of God suggests only one fast in an entire year, namely, on the day of atonement (Lev. 16:29–34; 23:26–32; Num. 29:7–11; cf. Acts 27:9). In course of time, however, fasts (not always total; see the text in each instance) began to multiply, so that we read about their occurrence at other times also: from sunrise to sunset (Judg. 20:26; I Sam. 14:24; II Sam. 1:12; 3:35); for seven days (I Sam. 31:13); three weeks (Dan. 10:3); forty days (Exod. 34:2, 28; Deut. 9:9, 18; I Kings 19:8); in the fifth and seventh month (Zech. 7:3–5); and even in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth month (Zech. 8:19). The climax was the observance of a fast twice a week, [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 ([Greek] the boast of the PhariseeLuke 18:12). It is not surprising therefore that for some reason or other the Pharisees were once again keeping a fast. Their manner of fasting looking glum, making their faces unsightly in order that everybody might see that they were fasting was roundly condemned by Jesus (Matt. 6:16). But why were the disciples of John also fasting? Various reasons have been suggested. John had probably made his first public appearance in the summer of the year a.d. 26. About the close of the year 27 he had been imprisoned. Jesus may have preached the Sermon on the Mount sometime during the spring to mid-summer of the year 28. Not long afterward perhaps near the beginning of the year 29 John was put to death. It is therefore not impossible that the fasting of John's disciples was essentially a mourning for their master, whether for his imprisonment or for his death. It is not necessary to believe that the Pharisees and John's disciples were fasting for the same reason. But the opposite possibility that both groups were indeed fasting for the same reason must also be granted. It must be borne in mind that John was in a sense an ascetic (Matt. 11:18; Luke 7:33). He emphasized sin and the necessity of turning away from it. It is not inconceivable, therefore, that he may have encouraged fasting as an expression of mourning for sin, the very reason which the Pharisees probably also gave for much of their fasting (Matt. 6:16). And they came and said to him [Jesus], Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?As to And they came, the question is, To what group does the pronoun they (implied in the Greek verb) refer? Luke 5:33is as indefinite as is Mark 2:18. In either case And some people might be subsituted for And they. If a definite antecedent is indicated, then in Mark 2:18it would be the scribes who were Pharisees of verse 16; and in Luke 5:33, the Pharisees and their scribes of verse 30. However, it is very questionable whether in either case we are dealing with a contextual antecedent. On the other hand, Matt. 9:14clearly states that the questioners were the disciples of John. Since not only they but also the Pharisees were fasting at this time, it is conceivable that the group of enquirersalso included Pharisees. With respect to those of whom it is predicated that they were fasting, the reference to John's disciples presents no further important difficulty. Even after John's imprisonment his disciples continued as a separate group, one that distinguished itself from the followers of Jesus. There was, however, a relation of friendship and co-operation between the two groups, as is clear from such passages as (Matt. 11:2, 3; 14:12, and probably even from the passage now under study, Mark 2:18. A difficulty arises, however, in connection with the phrase the disciples of the PhariseesLuke 5:33). Considered as a group Pharisees were not technically teachers, hence had no disciples. However, the difficulty may be more apparent than real. Mark, in writing disciples of the Pharisees, may well have had in mind disciples of the scribes who were Pharisees, as in 2:16. The main point is that John's disciples and presumably the disciples of these Pharisaic scribes were fasting, in harmony with the teaching and/or example of their leaders. Matt. 9:14states that the Pharisees fasted often. On the other hand, Christ's disciples did not join in observing these fasts. This striking contrast gave rise to the question. In favor of these enquirers it must be said that they did not bypass Jesus but approached him directly and frankly. Also, their question, though perhaps not entirely free from a tinge of criticism, was probably rather an honest request for information than a veiled but bitter accusation. In reality, however, there was no justification for this question. Had these men been better students of Scripture they would have known a.that, as has been indicated, the only fast that could by any stretch of the imagination be derived from the law of God was the one on the day of atonement, and b.that according to the teaching of Isa. 58:6, 7and Zech. 7:1 10it was not a literal fast but love, both vertical and horizontal, which God demanded. 19. Jesus said to them, While the bridegroom is with them, is it possible for the bridegroom's attendants to be fasting? (In all three synoptics the question is so phrased that the answer must be No. Mark, however, makes that answer explicit by reporting that Jesus continued: So long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.Jesus here compares his blessed presence on earth with a wedding-feast. Again and again Scripture compares the relationship between Jehovah and his people, or between Christ and his church, with the bond of love between bridegroom and brideIsa. 50:1ff.; 54:1ff.; 62:5; Jer. 2:32; 31:32; Hos. 2:1ff.; Matt. 25:1ff.; John 3:29; II Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:32: Rev. 19:7; 21:9). Verse 19 speaks about the sons of the bridal chamber (thus literally), meaning the bridegroom's attendants. These were friends of the groom. They stood close to him. They had been invited to the wedding, were in charge of arrangements, and were expected to do everything possible to promote the success of the festivities. Bridegroom's attendants fasting while the feast is in progress! How absurd, says Jesus as it were. Disciples of the Lord mourning while their Master is performing works of mercy and while words of life and beauty are dropping from his lips, how utterly incongruous! Jesus adds, however, (20. But days will arrive when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them; then, on that day, they shall fast.This is an early prediction of Christ's death on the cross. The prediction that the bridegroom, Christ, shall be taken awayis found also in the parallelsMatt. 9:15; Luke 5:35). It strongly reminds one of (Isa. 53:8, By oppression and judgment he was taken away. It is remarkable how often in the Gospels Jesus himselfquotes from (or at least alludes to passages from) Isaiah. Among the well-known are those found in Matt. 11:5Isa. 35:5, 6); (Luke 4:18, 19Isa. 61:1, 2); and 22:37 (Isa. [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] In the Gospel according to Mark see also 1 13:10; 34:4 The present passage (Mark 2:20) is not even the only one containing at least an allusion to (Isa. 53. See also Mark 9:12; cf. Isa. 53:3; and Mark 15:4, 5; cf. Isa. 53:7. Isaiah's expression shall be taken away, and this by oppression and judgment, refers, of course, to a violent death; note context: He was oppressed &led to the slaughter &cut offDan. 9:26) out of the land of the living. It is natural to assume that here in Mark the meaning is similar. With reference to days will arrive, followed by Mark's very striking on that day (contrast Luke's less definite in those days and Matthew's complete omission of anything similar), Jesus is saying that his approaching violent death will mean days of mourning for his disciples. Then, at that particular time, fasting as an expression of sorrow would be in order and would occur. That the mourning would not be of long duration is pointed out in John 16:16 22. The important truth which Jesus here reveals and which makes the passage so practical and filled with comfort especially also for today is that for those who acknowledge Christ as their Lord and Savior the proper attitude of heart and mind is not that of sadness but that of gladness. If it be true that God (withus (Immanuel) spells joy for believers, should not God withinus (the situation on and after Pentecost) awaken in every child of God joy unspeakable and full of glory? It was in order to bring such abounding joy that Jesus came on earth and that he, through his sacrificial death, brought salvation full and free. See Luke 2:10: good tidings of great joy; 24:52: they &returned to Jerusalem with great joy; John 15:11: that your joy may be full; 17:13: that they may have my joy made full in themselves. The apostles learned that lessonRom. 5:11; 15:13; Gal. 5:22; Philippians, the entire epistle; I Peter 1:8; 4:13; I John 1:4; II John 12). By two illustrations taken from daily life Jesus makes clear how inappropriate it would be for the disciples nowto be fasting, as if with the coming of Christ a great calamity had descended upon them. The main lesson conveyed is that the new order of things which Jesus by his coming has ushered in, bringing healing to the sick, liberation to the demon-possessed, freedom from care to the care-ridden, cleansing to lepers, food to the hungry, restoration to the handicapped, and above all salvation to those lost in sin, does not fit into the old mold of man-ordained fasting. The first figure is as follows: 21. No one [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] a [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] made of a piece of [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 [Greek] on an old garment; otherwise the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and a worse tear results.If a patch of unfulled wool or undressed cloth is placed on a garment that has seen better days, the result will be that, especially when this unshrunk piece becomes wet and shrinks, the bordering cloth of the badly worn piece of clothing will be pulled to pieces. The new strong, fresh will pull away from the old, says Mark, and a worse rent results. The patch that was supposed to solve a problem creates a bigger problem. The second figure reinforces the first: 22. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins otherwise the wine will burst the skins; the wine is lost and so (are) the skins but new wine (is poured) into fresh wineskins.What Jesus means is that the salvation which he was bringing was out of line with joyless fastings. Old wineskins are no match for new, still fermenting, wine. Such wine would burst the skins, resulting in the toss of both skins and wine. Similarly the new wine of rescue and riches for all who are willing to accept these blessings, even for publicans and sinners, must be poured into new, that is, fresh, [Greek] -2 _ftnref26 [Greek] wineskins of gratitude, freedom, and spontaneous service to the glory of God. 2:23–28 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath, Picking Heads of Grain on the Sabbath Cf. Matt. 12:1–8; Luke 6:1 5 23 Once, on a sabbath, when he [Jesus] happened to be passing through the fields of standing grain, his disciples began, as they went, to pick the heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees said to him, See here, why are they doing what is not permitted on the sabbath? 25 He said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need, and he and those with him were hungry: 26 how, in the days of Abiathar the highpriest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which only the priests were allowed to eat, and also gave (some) to those who were with him? 27 And he said to them, The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. 28 Consequently, the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. As has been indicated, Matthew's Gospel clearly states that the question with respect to fasting was followed by a double miracle: a.the revival to life of the ruler's daughter, and b.the healing of the woman who touched Christ's garment. Mark and Luke, having reported the enquiry concerning fasting, now as it were turn the clock back and relate two sabbath controversies. In all three Synoptics the two stories a.on a sabbath plucking grain, and b.on another sabbath healing the man with the withered hand are told in immediate [Greek] -2 _ftnref27 [Greek] Since neither Mark nor Luke indicates any chronological connection between the question concerning fasting and the story concerning the plucking of grain on the sabbath there is obviously no chronological conflict. As to exactly when the sabbath controversies occurred, much remains uncertain. The four Gospels contain three of these narratives, recording events that may have been rather closely connected with respect to the time when they occurred. Worthy of consideration (John 5:1, 16; then Matt. 12:1; finally, Luke 6:11, 12) is the theory that the three took place in rather close succession during the spring to mid-summer of the year a.d. 28. I suggest that they may have followed each other in this order: (a.the healing at the pool, about the time of the PassoverJohn 5:1 18), (b.picking heads of grainMatt. 12:1–8; Mark 2:23 28; Luke 6:1 5), and (c.the healing of the man with the withered handMatt. 12:9–14; Mark 3:1 6; Luke 6:6 11). The last of these three controversies seems to have been followed by the choosing of The Twelve and the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:11 49; cf. Mark 3:6, 13 19). 23. Once, on a sabbath, when he [Jesus] happened to be [Greek] -2 _ftnref28 [Greek] through the fields of standing grain, his disciples began, as they went, to pick the heads of grain.Although no chronologicalconnection between this and the immediately preceding paragraphs is indicated, Mark may well have had in mind a logicalconnection. He has just now described Jesus as emphasizing that those who are living in his very presence should be feasting instead of fasting, rejoicing rather than mourning. The evangelist now proceeds to picture the Master in the act of showing that this manifestation of gladness instead of sadness should characterize even the manner in which the sabbath is observed. Grain was evidently ripening. This process, varying with the altitude, occurred during a period extending from the spring of the year until mid-summer. In Palestine's warm Jordan Valley barley ripens during April; in Transjordan and the region east of the Sea of Galilee wheat is harvested in August. Exactlywhen it was that Jesus and his disciples went through the fields of standing grain is not stated in the text. The place is even more indefinite than the time. A. T. Robertson's suggestion that the event took place probably in Galilee on the way back from Jerusalem may be as good a guess as [Greek] -2 _ftnref29 [Greek] But it is no more than a conjecture. The translation fields of standing grain leans heavily upon the context for its justification. Literally and etymologically the reference is simply to that which was sown. However, the context shows that when the trip on a path through the grain fields occurred, harvest time had arrived or was soon to arrive. Matthew reports that the disciples were hungry (12:1). What they did to relieve this hunger is reported variously in the Synoptics. Mark merely states that, in going through the fields, these men started to [Greek] -2 _ftnref30 ([Greek] the heads of grain. Matthew adds, and to eat them. This eating is also implied in Mark 2:26. Luke, more complete on this point than either of the others, has, His disciples began picking and eating the heads of grain, rubbing them with their hands. What they were doing was entirely legitimate. As long as the traveler did not thrust a sickle into a man's standing grain he was permitted to pick the heads or earsDeut. 23:25). Nevertheless, on the part of those who hated Christ and were trying to find some excuse for having him condemned there was an immediate adverse reaction, as is shown in verse 24. The Pharisees said to him, See here, why are they doing what is not permitted on the sabbath?The Greek particle, which must be rendered variously, according to the context in each [Greek] -2 _ftnref31 [Greek] in the present instance expresses shocked disapproval of an action which, as the Pharisees see it, calls for immediate correction; hence See here, or Now look. In both Mark and Luke the Pharisees ask a question. In Luke 6:2this question is addressed to the disciples themselves: Why are youdoing what is not permitted on the sabbath? In Mark it is addressed to Jesus, Why are theydoing&? In both cases the question clearly implies a charge, an accusation. What is implied in Mark and Luke is plainly stated in Matt. 12:2, where the question form has been dropped and the Pharisees are reported to have made the bald statement, Your disciples are doing what is not permitted on the sabbath. Since both Jesus and the disciples were certainly involved the disciples were plucking the heads of grain, and Jesus approved of what they were doing there is no real discrepancy here. The criticism directed against one, namely, Jesus, was also directed against the entire group. The underlying reasoning of the Pharisees was as follows: Was not work forbidden on the sabbath day (Exod. 20:8–11; 34:21; Deut. 5:12–15)? Had not the rabbis drawn up a catalogue of thirty-nine principal works, subsequently subdivided into six minor categories under each of these thirty-nine, all of which were forbidden on the sabbath? In accordance with this list was not plucking heads of grain [Greek] -2 _ftnref32 ([Greek] And here were these disciples engaged in this forbidden activity, and Jesus was doing nothing about it! Obviously, what was happening was that Christ's enemies were burying the real law of God which did not in any sense forbid what the disciples were now doing under the mountain of their man-made, foolish traditionsMark 7:8, 9, 12, 13; cf. Matt. 15:3, 6; 23:23, 24). 25, 26. He said to them, Have you never read what David did when he was in need, and he and those with him were hungry: how, in the days of Abiathar the highpriest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which only the priests were allowed to eat, and also gave (some) to those who were with him? (Have you never read? As if to say, You pride yourselves in being the very people who uphold the law, and your scribes deem themselves to be so thoroughly versed in it as to be able to teach others; yet are you yourselves unacquainted with the fact that even this very law allowed its ceremonial restrictions to be ignored in case of need [note: what David did when he was in need,the words in italics occurring only in Mark]? Have you not read about David and the showbread? The reference is to consecrated bread, bread of the Presence, in Hebrew le% em happn�mExod. 25:30), translated literally and accurately in Luke 6:4. This showbread consisted of twelve loaves placed on a table three feet in length, one and a half feet wide, and two feet, three inches high. The table was overlaid with pure gold, surrounded by a molding of gold, and equipped with four rings of gold, a ring at each corner, through which poles were passed, so that the table could be carried. The description of this article of tabernacle furniture is found in Exod. 25:23, 24. In ancient times this table was standing in the Holy Place, not far away from God's special dwelling-place: the Holy of Holies. The showbread was laid on the table in two rows. The twelve loaves represented Israel's twelve tribes and symbolized the constant fellowship of the people with their God. The Israelites were, so to say, guests at his table, were consecrated to him, and by means of the offering of these presentation loaves gratefully acknowledged their indebtedness to him. Every sabbath the old bread was exchanged for fresh loaves (I Sam. 21:6). The old loaves were eaten by the priests. They were for Aaron and his sons, that is, for the priesthood, definitely (notfor everybodyLev. 24:9). Yet when, in the days of Abiathar the highpriest (see below), hungry David entered the house of God (Judg. 18:31; cf. I Kings 1:7, 24), the (court of the) sanctuary in Nob, which was the shrine where the ark was kept (I Sam. 21:1; 22:9), he was given this consecrated bread. He shared it with his equally hungry companions. They all ate of it, even though by divine law it had been designated as food for the priests, for them alone. The point is this: if David had a right to ignore a divinely ordained ceremonial provisionwhen necessity demanded this, then would not David's exalted Antitype, namely, Jesus, God's Anointed in a far more eminent sense, have a right, under similar conditions of need, to set aside a totally unwarranted, man-made sabbath regulation?After all, to a considerable extent the rabbinical sabbath regulations amounted to misapplications of God's holy law. That was true also in the present case. Much has been made of the fact that Mark represents Jesus as saying that the event in connection with David and his men took place in the days or: at the time [Greek] -2 _ftnref33 [Greek] Abiathar the highpriest, though according to I Sam. 21:1 6it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, who gave David the holy bread. Proposed Solutions 1. The two names, Ahimelech and Abiathar, were borne by both father and son. Cf. (I Sam. 22:20; II Sam. 8:17. In the first of these two passages Abiathar is one of the sons of Ahimelech; in the secondI Chron. 18:16) Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar. [Greek] -2 _ftnref34 [Greek] Evaluation.Though this may seem to solve the problem, it is doubtful that there would be this interchange of names in writings so closely related that in the Hebrew Canon what we now call I Samuel and II Samuel were one book. Besides, is it not possible that Ahimelech had a son by the name of Abiathar, who in turn had a son named Ahimelech? 2. The Hebrew text is confused (I Sam. 22:20and I Chron. [Greek] -2 _ftnref35 ([Greek] The New Testament passageMark 2:26) may be a copyist's [Greek] -2 _ftnref36 [Greek] Evaluation.Although in our attempt to solve the problem room must be left for any solution that does not ascribe error to the original author, confusion in the Hebrew text has not been proved (see 1. Evaluation), and the variants in the text of Mark 2:26(see textual apparatus) do not solve the difficulty. 3. Mark's statement may be a primitive [Greek] -2 _ftnref37 [Greek] Evaluation.If this means that Mark himself originated this error, or accepted it as the truth and repeated it, it must be rejected. In writing their books divinely inspired authors did not commit errors. 4. The father, Ahimelech, and the son, Abiathar, were both present when David came to Nob, and both gave the bread to David. Soon afterward the father was killed; the son became highpriest and recorded the [Greek] -2 _ftnref38 [Greek] Evaluation.Though it is impossible to speak with any degree of finality, this proposed solution is the best I have come across. In support of it note the following: An entire family of priests evidently co-operated at Nob (I Sam. 22:15). When King Saul heard that his enemy David had been given loaves of showbread and the sword of Goliath, his wrath was directed most of all against Ahimelech; not exclusively against him however, also against the entire priesthood in Nob (I Sam. 22:17). Eighty-five priests were slain. Abiathar escaped, fled to David (I Sam. 22:20), and became highpriest, subsequently functioning in that capacity along with Zadok. It is clear therefore that the man who here in Mark 2:26is called highpriest was definitely alive and active when David entered the [Greek] -2 _ftnref39 [Greek] of the house of God. The action took place in his time. It is true that at the moment when the bread was given to David and his men and consumed by them, Abiathar was not as yet the highpriest. This, however, does not prove that Mark really Jesus, for Mark is reporting (hiswords was in error when he said in the days of Abiathar the highpriest. It is not at all unusual to designate a place or a man by a name which did not belong to it or to him until later. Thus Gen. 12:8mentions Bethel, though in the days of Abraham it was still called LuzGen. 28:19). We do the same thing even today. We say, It happened in Marne (Michigan), when we mean, It happened in Berlin, which today is called Marne. Or, The house was sold to Gen. Smith, though we know very well that at the time when Smith became the owner of the house he was not as yet a general. Scripture contains many examples of abbreviated expression on which see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 206, and so does our everyday conversation. The suggested solution (No. 4) may therefore be the right one. Certainty in this matter is impossible. When critics add, as they sometimes do, that Matthew and Luke were aware of Mark's error and therefore omitted it, the answer is that this is an unwarranted assumption. Fact is that under the guidance of the Spirit each Gospel writer made his own selection of materials. Exactly why it is that some material found in one Gospel is lacking in others is not always clear. That at times even one of the most precious sayings of our Lord is found in only one Gospel is proved by the passage which follows, recorded only by Mark: 27. And he said to them, The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath. Not the sabbath but man was created first; then came the sabbath (Gen. 1:26 2:3). The sabbath was instituted to be a blessing for man: to keep him healthy, to make him helpful, hence happy, to render him holy, so that he might calmly meditate on the works of his Maker, might delight himself in Jehovah (Isa. 58:13, 14), and look forward with joyful anticipation to the sabbath rest that remains for the people of God (Heb. 4:9). But by means of ever so many minute and often absurd requirements, vexing and burdensome restrictions including the one that forbade men to still their hunger by picking heads of grain on that day the rabbis were changing the sabbath into a cruel tyrant, and man into that tyrant's slave &as if God's intention had indeed been to make man for the sabbath, instead of the sabbath for man. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER III Outline of Chapter 3 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 3:1–6 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath (continued); the Shriveled Hand 3:7–12 By the Seaside Teaching and Healing Great Multitudes 3:13–19 Choosing The Twelve 3:20–30 Were Christ's Miracles Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? 3:31–35 The Mother and the Brothers of Jesus 3:1–6 The Son of Man Asserting His Authority as Lord Even of the Sabbath; The Shriveled Hand Cf. Matt. 12:9–14; Luke 6:6 11 3 1 Again he entered the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. 2 And in order that they might bring a charge against him [Jesus], they were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal him on the sabbath. 3 He said to the man with the shriveled hand, Rise and come forward. 4 And he [Jesus] asked them, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill? But they remained silent. 5 And when he had looked around at them in anger, being deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart, he said to the man, Stretch out your hand. He stretched it out, and his hand was restored. 6 Then the Pharisees left, and immediately, in consultation with the Herodians, began to take counsel against him, how they might destroy him. The story is found in all three (Matt. 12, Mark 3, Luke 6). They all report: a.that on a sabbath Jesus somewhere attended the synagogue and noticed a man with a withered or shriveled hand; b.that present also were some Pharisees, who were aiming to bring a charge against Jesus; c.that the Lord told the man to stretch out his hand; d.that obedience to this command resulted in complete restoration; and e.that the Pharisees discussed what should be done about the situation. As to further details, there is a very interesting variety of presentation, again showing that the Gospel writers were no mere copyists. There are no contradictions. Combining the various items mentioned in the three accounts, the following vivid and dramatic narrative results: Another sabbath has arrived. Jesus has entered the synagogue. Here he teaches (Luke 6:6). Attending the service is a man with a shriveled hand. It is the (righthandLuke 6:6; cf. Col. 4:14). Opponents of Jesus, that is, Pharisees and scribes (Luke 6:7) are closely watching him (Mark 3:2; Luke 6:7), with the purpose of preparing a charge against him. He knows their thoughts (Luke 6:8), and makes them voice what they have on their minds. Is it right to heal on the sabbath? they ask (Matt. 12:10). Jesus turns to the man, telling him to rise and step forward (Mark 3:3; Luke 6:8). Then Jesus asks his adversaries, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill? (Mark 3:4a; Luke 6:9). When they remain silent, Jesus looks around at them in anger, being grieved at the hardness of their heartsMark 3:4b, 5a . He continues, What man of you, if he has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not grab hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is right to do good on the sabbath (Matt. 12:11, [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 ([Greek] Jesus then says to the man, Stretch out your hand. So complete was the restoration that the (right) hand was now sound as the otherMatt. 12:13). The opponents were furious (Luke 6:11). Having left the synagogue (Matt. 12:14; Mark 3:6), not only did they discuss among each other what they should do to JesusLuke 6:11b , but they also made contact with the HerodiansMark 6:6a , so that a combined plot was hatched. The aim was to kill, to destroy JesusMatt. 12:14; Mark 3:6b . Turning now to the story as found in Mark we read: (1. Again he entered the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there.The exact location of this synagogue is not indicated. Could it have been the one in Capernaum? In view of the fact that Mark and Luke relate this story in close connection with that of the choosing of The Twelve and the ascent up the mountainMark 3:13 19; Luke 6:12 49), a mountain or hill probably not far removed from Capernaum (Luke 7:1; cf. Matt. 8:5), it is at least possible that a synagogue somewhere in the vicinity of what was now Jesus headquarters is meant. But we cannot be sure. On this sabbath in walks a man with a lame hand. The apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews states that the man was a stonemason, who pleaded with Jesus to heal him that he might not have to spend his life as a beggar. Be that as it may, the point is that this is a sabbath, and though there may well have been a difference of opinion between the disciples of Shammai with their stricter interpretation of sabbath observance, and those of Hillel, with their more lenient view the more rigorous position prevailing in Jerusalem, the more lenient in Galilee, the rule that only in such cases in which a man's life was actually in danger would it be permissible to heal him on the sabbath was widely [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] Would Jesus dare to oppose this rule, by the Pharisees regarded as a well-established and basic principle which must not be violated? It is useless to speculate how the man had come to have a hand that was paralyzed. There are those who think that the form of the word used in the original here in 3:1, and translated shriveled or withered, indicates that the condition of the hand was not congenital, but the result of an injury caused by disease or [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] This, however, may well he an over-refinement. It may be true but cannot be proved. Far more important is what follows in verse 2. And in order that they might bring a charge against him [Jesus], they were watching him closely (to see) whether he would heal him on the sabbath. Secretly the opponents hope that Jesus may trample upon their rule with respect to the sabbath. Who were these opponents? According to Matt. 12:14and Mark 3:6, the Pharisees; to which Luke, as was shown, adds the scribes. It is with evil intent that they watch Jesus so closely, that they observe him so scrupulously. See also Luke 14:1; [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] They wanted to see whether Jesus would actually heal this man on the sabbath. If so, they will be in a position to press charges against him for unnecessarily practicing medicinal therapy on that day. Jesus, however, does not shrink from his purpose to show kindness to this man: 3. He said to the man with the shriveled hand, Rise and come forward.The Lord clearly takes the offensive. He is opposed to all secret scheming and conniving, furtive watching and under-cover planning. Besides, he may have wished to elicit the sympathy of the audience for this handicapped person. So, he tells the man to get up and to stand where everybody can see him. 4. And he [Jesus] asked them, Is it right on the sabbath to do good or to do harm, to save life or to kill?Were not the Pharisees and the scribes the very people who were always claiming that theyknew what was permitted, lawful, and therefore right? Let them therefore give their expert opinion. Of course, the answer to Christ's question was so obvious that a child could have given it. If it is right to do goodfor which see also Luke 6:9, 33, 35, I Peter 2:14, 15, 20; 3:6, 17; 4:19; III John 11on any ordinary day of the week, would it not be right to do good on the sabbath? Besides, in the Old Testament was it not exactly doing good,both with respect to God loving, serving, and delighting oneself in him, and with respect to man delivering him from bondage, feeding and clothing him, which God had required and even emphasized? And this in a context of fasting and sabbath observance? How strange that these adverse critics had not recalled the clear and definite teaching of Isa. 56:6; 58:6 14! The Lord had urged Israel to use the sabbath for the very purpose for which Jesus was here, now, and always using it. Nevertheless, it was with himthat men who were supposed to be experts in the law were finding fault. However, Jesus probed even more deeply. He exposed the perversity of the critics even more unequivocally; for not only did he ask whether it was permitted on the sabbath to do good and to save life; he added, or to do harm and to kill? Certainly, if it was improper to do harm and to kill on the other six days of the week, was it not very improper to engage in this sinister business on the day specifically set aside for honoring God and showing sympathy to man? Nevertheless this doing harm and killing was exactly what these enemies were right now engaged in! In their hearts they were doing harm to the Messiah, sent by the Father. They were engaged in killing him! For proof see verse 6; cf. Matt. 5:21, 22; I John 3:15. O that even now they had repented and confessed their wickedness. But they remained [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] 5. And when he had looked around at them in anger, being deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart, he said to the man, Stretch out your hand.Mark's description is very vivid, He writes as if he were reporting the very words spoken by an eye-witness, which was probably what he was indeed doing, the eye-witness being [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] Mark states that it was in anger that Jesus looked around at his critics. For this word anger or wrath see also 3:7 in both Matthew and Luke; further: (Luke 21:23; John 3:36; and the many references to divine wrath in the epistles and in the Book of Revelation. Similarly, Jesus was going to be moved with indignation upon noticing that the disciples were trying to stop those who were bringing the little ones to him, that he might touch themMark 10:14). It should not be necessary to point out that there was nothing wrong with such indignation, such intense horror and disapproval. Actually it was simply the necessary concomitant of love. What was happening, as recorded here in Mark 3, was that the Pharisees were esteeming man-made ritualism above God-ordained concern about a man's welfare. Strict adherance to a rabbinical rule evidently meant more to them than the happiness of a human being. Jesus, on the other hand, sympathized with this handicapped person. Hence, he was terribly displeased with those cold-hearted ritualists. But even his anger was tempered by grief: he was deeply grieved at the hardening of their heart, that is, at their spiritual obtuseness, insensibility, and obstinacy. Cf. Rom. 11:25; Eph. 4:18. Are we correct in saying that he felt sorry even for these rigid traditionalists? Cf. Luke 23:34. However that may be, it is significant that, according to the tenses used in the original, the angry look was momentary,the deep-seated grief was [Greek] -2 _ftnref7 [Greek] A chilling silence prevails in the ranks of the critics. With bated breath the rest of the people are also watching, wondering what will happen now. The atmosphere in the synagogue is surcharged with uneasiness on the one hand, expectancy on the other. The man with the withered hand is still standing there, in full view of the audience. Jesus is about to perform the miracle demanded by this situation. He must act now,not later. For him to have waited until the following day could easily have been interpreted as an admission on his part that deeds of healing, unless in a case of life or death, were after all wrong when performed on the sabbath. Such a delay would have compounded error. This must not be. Now is the appropriate moment. So, after the scrutinizing all-around look, Jesus says to the handicapped man, Stretch [or: hold] out your hand. Immediately he obeys: He stretched it out, and his hand was restored.The cure was instantaneous and complete. Cf. I Kings 13:6. Subsequent treatments or check-ups were not required. In a manner too mysterious for any mortal to comprehend, the Savior had concentrated his mind on the plight of this poor man, and by means of his power and compassion, had willed and performed the cure; and this not in a dark corner but in the sight of everyone present. The effect upon the legalists? Answer: (6. Then the Pharisees left, and immediately, in consultation with the Herodians, began to take counsel against him, how they might destroy him.Not only did the Pharisees leave the synagogue; they left in a huff. They were furiousLuke 6:11). The fact that a handicapped man had been delivered of his serious impediment, did not affect them in the least. It did not make them feel happy for this man. And it did not make them kindly disposed toward the Healer. What riled them was that here, before the eyes of everybody, they and their traditionalism had suffered a humiliating defeat. What a vast difference between (Christ stotally unselfish angerMark 3:5) and theirthoroughly selfish resentment! Moreover, as the word immediately shows, these men lost no time in planning their opponent's destruction. At once they started their scheming, choosing as their co-plotters &of all people, the thoroughly unholy, worldly adherants of Herod Antipas and his family. A strange coalition between the sanctimonious and the sacrilegious! See also 12:13 and Matt. 22:16. Nevertheless, a little reflection may well lead to the conclusion that the unholy alliance was not so strange after all. The life and teaching of Jesus implied a denunciation of worldlimindedness; hence, of the mode of life that characterized, among others, the Herodians. Besides, as viewed by the Herodians, who were lovers of the political status quo, would not Christ's huge following appear to hold within its bosom the seeds of political rebellion and revolution? If, then, the Herodians are willing to be in on the plot to bring about the destruction of Jesus, their co-operation will be welcomed and appreciated by the Pharisees. Anything &yes, anything will do, to get rid of Jesus! 3:7–12 By the Seaside Teaching and Healing Great Multitudes Cf. Matt. 12:15–21 7 Together with his disciples Jesus withdrew to the seashore, and a large crowd from Galilee followed. 8 And many people, hearing all the things he was doing, came to him from Judea and from Jerusalem and from Idumea and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon. 9 So, because of the crowd he told the disciples that a small boat should be kept in readiness for him, to prevent the people from crushing him; 10 for he had healed so many that all those who were suffering from illnesses were crowding in upon him in order to touch him. 11 And whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they were falling down at his feet and were screaming, You are the Son of God. 12 But he strictly forbade them to reveal who he was. 7. Together with his disciples Jesus withdrew to the seashore, and a large crowd from Galilee followed.Up to this point Mark has recorded four [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] whether direct or indirect between Jesus and the Pharisees (2:6–11; 2:15–17; 2:23–28; 3:1–6). The most bitter of these were the first, when the opponents in their hearts accused Jesus of blasphemy, and the fourth, when they began to scheme how they might destroy him. At the close of the first confrontation Jesus went to the seashore. It is not surprising, therefore, that now, too, after the fourth collision, he withdraws to the seashore. Both times it is from inside a building (crowded house, synagogue) that he retires to the shore; the first time, after healing a paralyzed man; now, after restoring a paralyzed hand. We must bear in mind also that the time for the decisive head-on confrontation with the religious authorities had not as yet arrived. According to the Father's time-clock Calvary is still some distance away. For the present therefore the seashore is better suited to the Master's purpose than the synagogue. The disciples accompany Jesus to the seashore. From Mark's Gospel we know that Simon, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew had accepted the call to be Christ's disciples (1:16–20; 2:13, 14). According to John 1:35 51Philip and Nathanael had also been added to the group. Were all of these present with Jesus at this time? Any others? Mark's five but not Philip and Nathanael? However that may have been, it is clear that The Twelve as a body had not yet been appointed. Since the Galilean Ministry was still continuing, we are not surprised that a large crowd from Galilee followed Jesus. It must be borne in mind that already many sick, demon-possessed, and handicapped persons had been blessed by Christ's healing, rescuing, and restoring power and love. See 1:29–34, 39 42; 2:1–12; 3:1–6. This was going to continue (see verses 10 12). The good news with reference to what was taking place in Galilee kept on reaching other places both within and outside of the nation: 8. And many people, hearing all the things he was doing, came to him from Judea and from Jerusalem and from Idumea and the regions across the Jordan and around Tyre and Sidon.The reports kept coming in, for Christ's deeds, too, were continuing. So, people came in great numbers and from several different places. They came from Judea including Jerusalem in the south. Also, from south of the borders of Palestine, that is, from Idumea, which by John Hyrcanus had been conquered and whose people had by him been forced to observe the laws of the JewsAntiquitiesXIII.257 . They came also from the region across that is, east of the Jordan; hence, from Transjordan or Perea, stretching from beyond Machaerus in the south, almost to Pella in the north, a region for the most part desert and rugged, but interspersed with tracts of finer soil, productive of every kind of cropJewish WarIII.44 47 . For this see also 10:1; Cf. Matt. 4:15, 25; 19:1; John 1:28; 3:26; 10:40. They even came from Phoenicia, the region around Tyre and Sidon, along the Mediterranean Sea, northwest of Galilee. Cf. 7:24, 31; see also I Chron. 14:1; 22:4; Ps. 45:12; 83:7; 87:4; Matt. 11:21, 22; Acts 21:3 7. It was mainly because of Christ's continuing miracles that people from everywhere, many of them seeking healing for themselves and/or for relatives, came to him. The size of the crowd and the eagerness of the people to get close enough to Jesus to touch him caused a problem: (9, 10. So, because of the crowd he told the disciples that a small boat should be kept in readiness for him, to prevent the people from crushing him; for he had healed so many that all those who were suffering from illnesses were crowding in upon him in order to touch him.Jesus had already healed many. Accordingly, the people were so thoroughly convinced of his power and readiness to deliver them from their scourges or illnessesLuke 7:21; and see the very comforting Heb. 12:6) that, unwilling to wait for Jesus to touch them,they were crowding upon him, in order to touch him. For the significance of either touch see on 1:41; cf. 5:27–31; 6:56. Therefore, for safety's sake, Jesus told the disciples to provide a boat for him. The original uses a diminutive. Mark makes frequent use of diminutives; see footnote 5 on p. 19f. The one here used is generally translated a small boat. By no means is it true, however, that such diminutives always emphasize smallness in size, though in the present instance the vessel was probably small. But the small boat of 3:9 may have been equal in size to the boat of [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Whether in the present instance the emphasis is on size or on familiarity with the indicated object would be hard to determine. At any rate, by making use of such a boat moored offshore, ifhe found it advisable to do so, Jesus could when he deemed it necessary not only protect himself but also in an unhampered manner address large throngs on the beach. Jesus tells the disciples that such a vessel should be kept in readiness [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] for him, so that it could be used ifand whenneeded. Whether at this particular time the Lord actually made use of the boat, as he was going to do in 4:1, is not indicated. The passage about the little boat must not be passed by as if it were of no practical significance, as is often done. On the contrary, it is intensely practical. It shows that even Jesus, though divine as well as human, in his state of humiliation made wise use of precautions, measures taken before-hand against possible danger. In doing this, is he not teaching a lesson which everyone would do well to heed? This lesson is not always taken to heart. Think of the student heading for the ministry, but neglecting the study of Scripture in the original; of the would-be enthusiastic missionary, preaching the gospel in his own native tongue on a busy street corner in a foreign land, to people who do not understand a word of what he is saying; and of the man who is down on medical care for himself and for his family, because (as he puts it) he trusts wholly in God. Certainly Matt. 6:19–34; Phil. 2:13; 4:6, 7, must not be emphasized at the expense of Gen. 41:33–36; Isa. 38:21; Matt. 4:7; 10:16, 23; Mark 3:9; Luke 14:28 32; 16:8, 9; Philippians 2:12. When God created the human body he equipped it with many precautionary extras! At the particular occasion to which Mark 3:9refers the small boat may not have been used. The point is: it was there, always ready, ever available. That little vessel teaches a big lesson! Jesus not only healed all those many sick people; he also drove out demons: 11. And [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 ([Greek] the unclean spirits saw him, they were falling down at his feet and were screaming, You are the Son of God.For demon possession see on 1:23a. These spirits are called unclean because they are morally and spiritually filthy, evil in themselves, and because they urge those whom they inhabit to commit evil. They here, of course, those possessed by them, their helpless tools, the demoniacs kept falling down at his feet and screaming. It is pointless to argue that when these spirits yelled, You are the Son of God, they were using the term Son of God in the sense of angelGen. 6:2), or Israel (Hos. 11:1), or child of God, believer (Rom. 8:17). Clearly, when they yelled You are theSon of God, they were referring to Jesus as Son of God in a unique sense, God's Sonas no one else ever was or will be. Cf. 1:24. Also the idea that this item is not historical but merely expresses Mark's theology must be rejected. 12. But he strictly forbade them to reveal who he was.More literally, But he kept on strictly warning [or: [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] them not to make him known. Just why was it that Jesus refused to allow the demons to reveal his identity? Several answers may be suggested: 1. The person and the work of the Savior are so holy and exalted that it would not be fitting to allow corrupt, filthy demons to proclaim them. 2. The title the Son of God implied at least that Jesus was the long expected Messiah. However, most of the people conceived of the Messiah in a nationalistic sense: one who could deliver them from the yoke of the foreign oppressor. So, before publicly revealing himself as the Messiah, or allowing himself to be thus proclaimed, Jesus must first make clear the nature of his Messianic office: that he has to suffer and die for the sins of his people, etc. The time to proclaim this publicly, or to have it thus proclaimed, has not as yet arrived. 3. The scribes were telling the people that Jesus and the demons were allies (3:22). If, then, Jesus permitted himself to be advertised by demons, would he not seem to be confirming the allegation of these scribes? Which of these reasons is the correct one? Or which combination of reasons? Or was there perhaps another reason? We simply do not know. The possible reasons that have been enumerated show at least that Christ's unwillingness to be proclaimed as the Son of God by demons need not be considered very surprising. 3:13–19 Choosing The Twelve Cf. Matt. 10:1–4; Luke 6:12 16 13 He went up into the mountain and called to himself those whom he wanted, and they came to him. 14 And he appointed twelve whom he also named apostles, that they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach 15 and to have authority to expel demons. 16 He appointed these twelve: Simon whom he named Peter, 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James them he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. 13. He went up into the mountain and called to himself those whom he wanted, and they came to him.The transition is again very natural. With so many sick to be healed, so many demoniacs to be set free, so much preaching needed (see 3:7–12, 14, 15), it was natural that Jesus would authorize some of his followers to have a share in the work he himself was doing, his own power and sympathy operating also in them. Moreover, the hostility of the religious leaders had become so bitter (3:6) that co-operation with them had become impossible: God's people must become separately organized. Also, from the start of Christ's earthly ministry death and (after resurrection) departure from this earth were staring him in the face. In fact, he had come for the very purpose of giving his life as a ransom for many (10:45). He felt the need therefore of appointing witnesses by means of whom, through his own work in them, the militant church could be gathered and guided, after his own physical departure. So Jesus went up into the mountain. Both in Matthew (see 8:1) and in Luke (6:12, 17) the description has so much local color, that a specific elevation whether we today would call it a mountain or a hill is of no consequence seems to be meant. Hence, the rendering the mountain would in this case seem to be better than the hills. [Greek] -2 _ftnref13 [Greek] It is true, nevertheless, that neither here nor in Matt. 5:1, where the same expression occurs, are we told which mountain is indicated. To the people of that day it was probably well-known, so that they understood exactly what the Gospel writers meant by the mountain. It seems to have been in the general vicinity of Capernaum. For more on this see -2 _ftnref14 N.T.C.on Matthew, pp. 259, 260. And for an introduction to the Sermon on the Mount preached here, see that same commentary, pp. 259–262. So very important did Jesus consider the appointment of The Twelve and the preaching of the sermon to be that on this mountain he spent the entire preceding night in prayer (Luke 6:12). Thereupon [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 ([Greek] called to himself those whom he wanted. His sovereign will prevails. They choose him only after he first had chosen them! In the night of his betrayal he was able to say to his disciples, You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit &John 15:16). See also (I John 4:10, 19. Result: they came to him, leaving behind whatever had to be left behind. In fact, several of themMark 1:16 20; 2:13, 14; John 1:35 51) had already been closely associating with him, and even the rest must have been his followers, though in a more general sense (Luke 6:13). 14, 15. And he appointed twelve whom he also named (apostlesthat they might be with him, and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to expel demons.It is clear that Mark summarizes. The full content of the commission is found in Matt. 10: The Charge to the Twelve, which must be dated a little later. The disciples all twelve of them must have been in Christ's company a while before they could be sent out to proclaim the good tidings to others. As Markrelates, the task for which Jesus appointedI Kings 12:31; Acts 2:36; Heb. 3:2) these men was threefold: association and education, mission, and demon-expulsion. Matthewadds a fourth item. Associationand Education. He appointed them, first of all, to spend some time with their Master, seeing and hearing him, and learning whatever it was he wished to teach them. For them such association meant spiritual education. Mission. (Secondly, and in close connection with the preceding, he appointed them to be his heralds; hence, in that sense, to preach. Receivers must become givers. Disciples must become apostles. They must publish the message of salvation through Jesus Christ. In a sense they were invested with his authority. So real was this authority that Jesus was going to say, He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent meMatt. 10:40). Cf. (Mark 6:11; John 20:21 23. They were sent first to the lost sheep of the house of IsraelMatt. 10:5, 6); later, to all the nations (Matt. 28:19), into all the world (Mark 16:15). Demon Expulsion.Thirdly, Jesus appointed them to [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] authority (the right and the power) to expel demons. For demon possession see on 1:23. Restorationof the body both healing and bringing back to life was also included, as Matt. 10:8shows. 16 19. He appointed these twelve: Simon whom he named Peter, and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James them he named Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. The very fact that Jesus appointed exactly twelve men, no more no less, indicated that he had in mind the new Israel, for ancient Israel had twelve tribes and twelve patriarchs. The new Israel was going to be gathered from among all the nations, Jews and Gentiles alike (Matt. 8:10–12; 16:18; 28:19; Mark 12:9; 16:15, 16; Luke 4:25 27; John 3:16, 10:16; Rev. 21:12, 14). In the New Testament the names of The Twelve are listed four times (Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16 19; Luke 6:14 16; Acts 1:13, 26). Acts 1:15 26records the manner in which Judas Iscariot was replaced by Matthias. With that exception the twelve names undoubtedly indicate the same persons in each of the four lists. With respect to the three lists recorded in the Synoptics note the following: If theoretically the twelve names are viewed as in each case consisting of three groups of four, the ones mentioned are the same in each group. They are, however, not always arranged in identical sequence. In the first group of four Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, separates the names of the two brothers Simon (=Peter) and Andrew. Mark's order is: Simon, James, John, Andrew. Matthew's and Luke's is: Simon, Andrew, James, John. In the second group Luke's order agrees with Mark's: Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas. In this group Matthew places Thomas before his own name; hence, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, Matthew. In the final group Matthew's order is the same as Mark's: James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, Judas Iscariot. Here Luke, reversing the middle two, has: James the son of Alphaeus, Simon the Zealot, Judas the (son) of James this Judas, we may assume, is Thaddaeus, Judas Iscariot. Mark, it will be noted, does not arrange the twelve names in pairs, as Matthew does. He mentions them all in one long row. Just why it was that Mark separated the names of the two brothers, Simon and Andrew, is not clear. Suggestions: Does he group Simon, James, and John in immediate succession because frequently Jesus chose exactly these three, not the others, to be with him? Does he mention Andrew in immediate connection with Philip because there may well have been a close relationship between these two? See John 12:21, 22. Or is it possible that he separated the names of the brothers Simon and Andrew because he wanted to indicate that in Christ's family spiritual kinship was even more important than physical? See this very chapter (3:31–35). We simply do not know. As to the twelve, considered individually, in the order in which Mark has arranged them, note the following: Simon. (He was a son of Jonas or John. By trade he was a fisherman, who with his brother Andrew first lived in BethsaidaJohn 1:44), afterward in Capernaum (Mark 1:21, 29). Both Mark and Luke report that it was Jesus who gave Simon the new name Peter. For details of this event see (John 1:42. This new name, meaning rock,was a description not of what Simon was when called, but of what by grace he was to become. At first, and for some time afterward, Simon was anything but a model of steadfastness or imperturbability. On the contrary, he was constantly swaying from one position to its opposite. He turned from trust to doubtMatt. 14:28, 30); from open profession of Jesus as the Christ, to rebuking that very Christ (Matt. 16:16, 22); from a vehement declaration of loyalty, to base denial (Matt. 26:33–35, 69 75; Mark 14:29 31, 66 72; Luke 22:33, 54 62); from By no means shalt thou wash my feet ever, to Not my feet only but also my hands and my head (John 13:8, 9). See also John 20:4, 6; Gal. 2:11, 12. Nevertheless, by the grace and power of the Lord this changeable Simon was transformed into a true Peter. For the significance of Peter in the post-resurrection church see N.T.C. on Matt. 16:13–20. Accordingly, when Jesus at this early date-for Mark 3:16reflects John 1:42assigned to Simon his new name, that was an act of love, a love that was willing to overlook the present and even the near future, and to look far ahead. Wonderful and transforming grace of our loving Lord! Two New Testament books are by tradition accredited to this apostle: I and II Peter. As was shown earlier see pp. 12, 13, Mark has not unjustly been called Peter's interpreter. James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James.Mark mentions these two fishermen not only here and in 1:19, 20 (see on that passage) but also later on (9:2; cf. 10:35–45). There are also several references to them in the other Gospels. Probably because of their fiery nature Jesus called these two brothers Boanerges. This is an Aramaic word, which Mark, who is the only Gospel-writer to report this, for his non-Jewish readers interprets to mean sons of thunder. The Hebrew name would be ben [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 ([Greek] That the two did indeed have a fiery nature may perhaps be inferred from Luke 9:54 56. Cf. Mark 9:38. James was the first of The Twelve to wear the martyr's crownActs 12:2). While he was the first to arrive in heaven, his brother John was in all probability the last to remain on earth. On the life and character of John, considered by many (I believe correctly) as being the disciple whom Jesus loved (John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20) see N.T.C. on the Gospel according to John, Vol. I, pp. 18–21. Five New Testament books have by tradition been assigned to John: his Gospel, three epistles (I, II, and III John), and the book of Revelation. Andrew. (It was he, also a fisherman, who brought his brother Peter to JesusJohn 1:41, 42). For other references to Andrew see above (on 1:16, 17, 29); also study Mark 13:3; John 6:8, 9; 12:22. See also below under Philip. Philip. (He was at least for a while a fellow townsman of Peter and Andrew, that is, he too was from Bethsaida. Having himself responded to the call of Jesus, he found Nathanael, and said to him, The one about whom Moses wrote in the law and about whom the prophets wrote, we have found, Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from NazarethJohn 1:45). When Jesus was about to feed the five thousand he asked Philip, How are we to buy bread-cakes that these (people) may eat? Philip answered, Bread cakes for two hundred denarii would not be sufficient for them so that each might get a little something (John 6:5, 7). Philip apparently forgot that the power of Jesus surpassed any possibility of calculation. To deduce from this incident the conclusion that Philip was a coldly-calculating type of person, more so than the other apostles, would be basing too much on too little. In the Gospels Philip generally appears in a rather favorable light. Thus, when the Greeks approached him with the request, Sir, we would see Jesus, he went and told Andrew, and these two, Andrew and Philip, brought the enquirers to Jesus (John 12:21, 22). It must be admitted that Philip did not always immediately understand the meaning of Christ's profound utterances did the others? but to his credit it must be said that with perfect candor he would reveal his ignorance and ask for further information, as is also clear from (John 14:8, Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be content. He received the beautiful and comforting answer, &He who has seen me has seen the FatherJohn 14:9). Bartholomew(meaning: son of Tolmai). He is clearly the Nathanaelof John's Gospel (1:45–49; 21:2). It was he who said to Philip, Out of Nazareth can any good come? Philip answered, Come and see. When Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him he said, Look, truly an Israelite in whom deceit does not exist. This disciple-apostle was one of the seven persons to whom the resurrected Christ appeared at the Sea of Tiberias. Of the other six only Simon Peter, Thomas, and the sons of Zebedee are mentioned. Matthew.This disciple has already been discussed in some detail (see above on 2:14–17). Thomas.The references to him combine in indicating that despondency and devotion marked this man. He was ever afraid that he might lose his beloved Master. He expected evil, and it was hard for him to believe good tidings when they were brought to him. Yet when the risen Savior in all his tender, condescending love revealed himself to him it was he who exclaimed, My Lord and my God! For more information on Thomas see N.T.C. on John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28; 21:2. James the son of Alphaeus.By Mark (15:40) he is also called James the Less, which by some is interpreted as meaning James the younger, but by others as James small in stature. About him we have no further positive information. It is probable, however, that he was the same disciple who is referred to in Matt. 27:56; Mark 16:1; and Luke 24:10. If this be correct, his mother's name was Mary, one of the women who accompanied Jesus and stood near the cross. See N.T.C. on John 19:25. It has already been shown that the Alphaeus who was the father of Matthew should probably not be identified with Alphaeus the father of James the Less. See above on 2:14. Thaddaeus (Matt. 10:3and Mark 3:18). He is in all probability the Judas not Iscariot of John 14:22(see on that passage); cf. Acts. 1:13. From what is said about him in John 14it would seem that he wanted Jesus to show himself to the world, probably meaning: to get into the limelight. Simon the Cananaean. (The Cananaean is an Aramaic surname meaning enthusiast or zealot. In fact Luke calls him Simon the ZealotLuke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In all probability this name is here given him because formerly he had belonged to the party of the Zealots, which party in its hatred for the foreign ruler, who demanded tribute, did not shrink from fomenting rebellion against the Roman government. See Josephus Jewish WarII.117, 118; AntiquitiesXVIII.1 10, 23. Cf. Acts 5:37. Judas Iscariot. (This name is generally interpreted as meaning Judas the man from Kerioth, a place in southern Judea. The Gospels refer to him again and againMatt. 26:14, 25, 47; 27:3; Mark 14:10, 43; Luke 22:3, 47, 48; John 6:71; 12:4; 13:2, 26, 29; 18:2–5). He is at times described as Judas who betrayed him, Judas one of the twelve, the betrayer, Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, or simply Judas. This man, though thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deeds, was an instrument of the devil (John 6:70, 71). While other people, when they felt that they could no longer agree with or even tolerate Christ's teachings, would simply disassociate themselves from him (John 6:66), Judas remained, as if he were in full accord with him. Being a very selfish person he was unable or shall we say unwilling? to understand the unselfish and beautiful deed of Mary of Bethany, who anointed JesusJohn 12:1ff. . He was unable and unwilling to see that the native language of love is lavishness. It was the devil who instigated Judas to betray Jesus, that is, to deliver him into the hands of the enemy. He was a thief; yet it was he who had been entrusted with the treasuryship of the little company, with the predictable result (John 12:6). When, in connection with the institution of the Lord's Supper, the dramatic moment arrived forever commemorated in Scripture (Matt. 26:20–25; John 13:21 30) and emblazoned in art (Leonardo da Vinci, etc.) in which Jesus startled The Twelve by saying, One of you will betray me, Judas, though having already received from the chief priests the thirty pieces of silver as a reward for his promised deed (Matt. 26:14–16; Mark 14:10, 11) had the incredible audacity to say, Surely not I, Rabbi? Judas served as guide for the detachment of soldiers and the posse of temple police that arrested Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane. It was by means of perfidiously kissing his Master, as if he were still a loyal disciple, that this traitor pointed out Jesus to those who had come to seize him (Matt. 26:49, 50; Mark 14:43 45; Luke 22:47, 48). As to the manner of Judas self-inflicted demise, see on (Matt. 27:3–5; cf. Acts 1:18. What caused this privileged disciple to become Christ's betrayer? Was it injured pride, disappointed ambition, deeply entrenched greed, fear of being put out of the synagogueJohn 9:22)? No doubt all of these were involved, but could not the most basic reason have been this, that between the utterly selfish heart of Judas and the infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart of Jesus there was a chasm so immense that either Judas must implore the Lord to bestow upon him the grace of regeneration and complete renewal, a request which the traitor wickedly refused to make, or else he must offer his help to get rid of Jesus? See also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; 4:28. One thing is certain: The shocking tragedy of Judas life is proof not of Christ's impotence but of the traitor's impenitence! Woe to that man! What points up the greatness of Jesus is that he took (such men as these,and welded them into an amazingly influential community that would prove to be not only a worthy link with Israel's past but also a solid foundation for the church's future. Yes, he accomplished this multiple miracle with such men as these, with all their faults and foibles. Even when we leave out Judas Iscariot and concentrate only on the others, we cannot fail to be impressed with the majesty of the Savior, whose drawing power, incomparable wisdom, and matchless love were so astounding that he was able to gather around himself and to unite into onefamily men of entirely different, at times even opposite, backgrounds and temperaments. Included in this little band was Peter the optimistMatt. 14:28, 26:33, 35), but also Thomas the pessimist (John 11:16; 20:24, 25); Simon the one-time Zealot, hating taxes and eager to overthrow the Roman government, but also Matthew, who had voluntarily offered his tax collecting services to that same Roman government; Peter, John, and Matthew, destined to become renowned through their writings, but also James the Less, who remains obscure but must have fulfilled his mission. Jesus drew them to himself with the cords of his tender, never-failing compassion. He loved them to the uttermost (John 13:1), and in the night before he was betrayed and crucified commended them to his Father, saying: I have manifested thy name to the men whom thou gavest me out of the world; thine they were, and thou gavest them to me, and they have kept thy word.& Holy Father, keep them in thy name which thou hast given me, in order that they may be one, even as we are one.& I do not make request that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. Consecrate them in the truth; thy word is truth. Just as thou didst send me into the world, so have I also sent them into the world. And for thy sake I consecrate myself, in order that they also may be truly consecratedJohn 17:6 19, in part . 3:20–30 Were Christ's Miracles Proof of Beelzebul's Dominion or of His Doom? Cf. Matt. 12:22–32; Luke 11:14 23; 12:10 20 He came home; and again a crowd gathered, so that they were not even able to eat a meal. 21 Now when his [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] heard (about this), they went out to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind. 22 And the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, He is possessed by Beelzebul [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] and It is by the prince of the demons that he is casting out the demons. 23 So he called them to himself and spoke to them in parables: How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. 26 And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand he is [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] 27 On the contrary, no one can enter the strong man's house and carry off his goods unless he first binds the strong man. It is only then that he will ransack his house. 28 I solemnly declare to you: all things will be forgiven to the sons of men, all their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; 29 but whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never receive forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin. 30 (He said this) because they were saying, He has an unclean spirit. At this point, after the calling of The Twelve, we might have expected some phrases from the Sermon on the Mount. Cf. Luke 6:12 49. But Mark, being predominantly the Gospel of action see pp. 18, 19, does not specialize in discourse [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] Abruptly Mark's account continues: 20. He came home; and again a crowd gathered, so that they were not even able to eat a meal.There are no indications as to just when the incident (verses 20, 21) took place. It must have happened sometime during the Great Galilean Ministry, but there is no definite chronologicallink. Nevertheless there may well be a logicalconnection between Mark 3:20 30and what has gone before, in 2:1 3:19. Mark has shown that the hostility of the religious authorities had advanced to the point where they were plotting Jesus destruction (3:6), and where he, in turn, by means of the calling of The Twelve was establishing the foundation of the church in its New Testament manifestation. Cf. Matt. 16:18, 19; Rev. 21:14. But now something is added to the burden of the Man of Sorrows. Not only his enemies, the Pharisees and scribes, but now also his friends begin to make matters difficult for him. In the sense already explained (see on 2:1) Jesus was at home once more in Capernaum, his headquarters. And just as on a previous occasion the crowd had been so large that the entrance was blocked (2:4; cf. 1:33), so now also the throng was so enormous that it was impossible for Jesus and his disciples note they even to [Greek] -2 _ftnref22 [Greek] Result: 21. Now when his friends heard (about this), they went out to take charge of him, for they said, He is out of his mind.Who were those people who thought that Jesus was bereft of his [Greek] -2 _ftnref23 [Greek] and who therefore wanted to take him into protective [Greek] -2 _ftnref24 [Greek] The phrase used in the original to describe [Greek] -2 _ftnref25 [Greek] is rather ambiguous. It means basically those from his side. The theory according to which the reference is to Jesus immediate family, that is, to his mother Mary and to his [Greek] -2 _ftnref26 [Greek] is held, by those who favor it, to be supported by the following considerations: a. Family (parents and other relatives) is the meaning of this phrase in Prov. 21:21and in a passage of the apocryphal writing Susanna 33. See context, verse 30. b. John 7:5states, Even his brothers did not believe in him [Jesus]. c. Here in Mark the context, verses 31 35, mentions Jesus mother and his brothers. d. The atmosphere of tension revealed in the chapter's closing paragraph is best explained by the supposition that Jesus immediate family had originated or at least given credence to the opinion, He is out of his mind. On the basis of considerations such as these it is not surprising that the phrase his family occurs in several translations of Mark 3:21 -2 _ftnref27 N.E.B., etc. . Others offer the not very different rendering his relatives (Phillips, Goodspeed, Berkeley, Norlie, Weymouth, Jerusalem Bible) or something similar. That the phrase used in the original does at times have this meaning has already been shown. See a. above. Nevertheless, by no means all translators have adopted the rendering his family, or even his relatives. Several avoid it, in favor of his friends -2 _ftnref28 (A.V., ) -2 _ftnref29 (A.R.V., ) -2 _ftnref30 R.S.V., Living N.T., R. Young . F. C. [Greek] -2 _ftnref31 [Greek] states, His friendsis probably the best translation. Whatever one may think of the rendering his family or his relatives, the further conclusion, namely, that the passage (3:21) must be interpreted to mean that Mary and Jesus brothers were the ones who were calling Jesus insane is not nearly as unavoidable as it may seem to be. As for the arguments that have been used in its support (see a.-d. above), note the following: As to a True, but the word also has other meanings. In I Macc. 9:44; 11:73; 12:27; 13:52; 15:15 the meaning is probably his men, his envoys, his company, his adherants or followers. Josephus, AntiquitiesI.193 reflects Gen. 17:27, where many more are included than those who belonged to Abraham's immediate family. In the papyri, too, the expression used in the original has many different meanings, in accordance with the specific context in each individual case. See F. Field, Notes on the Translation of the New Testament, Cambridge, 1899, p. 25. It can mean neighbors, agents, friends, etc. As to b It is true that John 7:5teaches that even Jesus brothers did not believe in him, but the context clearly shows that they did not consider him mentally unbalanced. Otherwise would they have said, &show yourself to the world? Whether or not these brothers were included in 3:21 is not known. John 7:5does not prove that they were. As to c The words &those with him may mean his family, though it is doubtful if Mark meant to anticipate vs. 31 in this way (F. C. Grant). The theory according to which vss. 31 35 resume the story begun in verse 21 is questionable. To be sure, there is a relation between vss. 20 30, on the one hand, and vss. 31 35, on the other. But that relation is probably of a different character. See on vss. 31 35. As to d This point concerns both Jesus brothers (and his mother. For the brothers see above, under As to b. With respect to Mary: even though it is true that she erred at times and that her criticisms and attempts at interference with Christ's program were always firmly reprovedLuke 2:49; John 2:4; and so probably also Mark 3:31 35), yet we have no reason to doubt that the relation between Mary and Jesus was ever one of tenderness and respect, proceeding from both sides (Luke 2:51; John 2:5; 19:26, 27). There is no reason to believe that Mary's faith in God's revelation regarding her firstborn son (see below, on verses 33 35) was ever obliterated to the extent that she regarded Jesus as having lost his mind. The burden of proof rests entirely on those who think [Greek] -2 _ftnref32 [Greek] Who, then, were those friends or associates of Jesus that were convinced that he had taken leave of his senses? We simply do not know! They may have been people with whom he had grown up in Nazareth, including possibly even relatives. Or, again, they may have been persons well disposed toward Jesus, an outer circle of disciples. [Greek] -2 _ftnref33 ([Greek] That there was indeed such an outer circle, probably consisting of a great number of people, is clear from many passagesMatt. 11:12; Mark 12:34; 14:3, 12 16, 51, 52; 15:43; Luke 6:13, 17; 10:1; 23:50–56). What may have been the reason(s) causing these friends, associates, or followers to consider Jesus to have become demented? Many possibilities suggest themselves. They may have thought: At times the Master acts so strangely; for example, at an earlier occasion, when everybody in Capernaum wanted him to return to that town, he said, Let us go elsewhere, to the next towns (1:36–38). Also, he is constantly opposing the establishment, consisting of scribes and Pharisees. That is not what is generally done by those who aspire to leadership. He pronounces pardon as if he were God himself (2:7)! Yet, on the other hand, he is on close terms with &of all people, sinners and tax collectors (2:15, 16). Horrors! Moreover, his teaching, too, is unusual. As to the latter, see, for example, Mark 2:17, 19, 27, 28; to which later on would be added such baffling passages as those found in 8:34, 35; 9:43–50; 10:23, 24. Because of such and similar teaching and this by a carpenter! were not the people of Nazareth going to take offense at him? See 6:3. All this and more should be borne in mind when we try to determine why friends of Jesus considered him bereft of reason. Nevertheless, the main consideration that led those who stood in some undefined relation to him to arrive at this judgment may well have to be found in the immediate context. That context indicates that it was especially Christ's willingness to move from one large crowd to another, teaching, healing, casting out demons (1:32–34; 2:2), and now his presence among a throng so large that he and his disciples did not even have an opportunity to eat (3:20), that led to the remark, He is out of his mind. It was at least seems to have been what looked to his friends as his slighting of rest, recreation, and refreshment, that occasioned the exclamation. Add to this the fact that whenever Jesus granted sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, healing to the sick, and liberty to the demon-possessed, (his heart was in it!He sympathized as no one else invested with the human nature ever sympathized before or after him. In all theirafflictions he was afflictedIsa. 63:9). In him was fulfilled the prophecy, Surely, he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows (Isa. 53:4). Is it not possible that all of this caused the friends to think, He is altogether too hard on himself, and to say, He is mentally unbalanced, is being consumed by religious frenzy? Granted that this judgment, no matter how well intentioned, was untrue and unjust, is it not understandable? If even The Twelve, who benefited from close and constant fellowship with Jesus, were often confused (Luke 9:45; 18:34; John 12:16), we can well imagine that those friends of Jesus who were further removed from him might indeed have interpreted his behavior, so strange by human standards, to be that of a person who had lost his mind. In later days Christ's followers, too, have often been charged with madness. This happened to Paul (Acts 26:24). Francis of Assisi, the man with the life and commandments of Jesus ever before his eyes, was called the mad son of Bernadone. When Martin Luther defended the supremacy of the Word of God over the traditions of men he was regarded even by some of his former sympathizers as a fool and one possessed by the devil. And see I Cor. 1:18; 3:19. The friends, we may assume, meant well. The enemies did not: 22. And the scribes who had come down from Jerusalem said, He is possessed by Beelzebul and It is by the prince of the demons that he is casting out the demons.Scribes had been sent to spy on Jesus. Downfrom Jerusalem elevation about 2400 feet above sea level they came to Galilee, the Sea of Galilee being about 600 feet belowsea level. However, when these law experts, probably delegated by the Sanhedrin, descended toward Capernaum, they must have considered their descent ideological Jerusalem being the citadel of Jewish orthodoxy fully as much as merely physical. They came down when Jesus had just healed a demon-possessed man who could neither see nor speak. As a result of this multiple miracle, All the people were amazed and were saying, Surely this cannot be the Son of David? (Matt. 12:22, 23; cf. Luke 11:14). Mark, paralleling Matt. 12:24–32; Luke 11:15 23, continues the story from here on. In its main points the account is the same in all the [Greek] -2 _ftnref34 [Greek] The scribes are not going to allow the people to remain thoroughly amazed, even to the point of entertaining messianic notions with respect to Jesus. For his demon expulsions and other miracles they offer an entirely different, in fact a sharply conflicting, explanation: Jesus, being possessed by Beelzebul, is casting out demons by strength derived from that prince or ruler of the demons! When these men mentioned Beelzebul, of whom were they thinking? Opinions differ. In the Old Testament we read about Baal-zebub= Beelzebub. But whatever may have caused the name Beelzebubto be changed to Beelzebul, [Greek] -2 _ftnref35 [Greek] one fact is clear, Beelzebul is definitely the prince of the demons. Beelzebul is Satan. A comparison of verse 22a with 22b and with 23; of Matt. 9:34with 12:24; and 12:26 with 12:27 proves this. The charge leveled against Jesus by scribes and Pharisees was wicked. It was the result of envy. Cf. (Matt. 27:18. They felt that they were beginning to lose their following, and this they were unable to endure. How completely different had been the attitude of John the BaptistJohn 3:26, 30). The thoroughly shameful character of the charge becomes apparent also from the fact that it regards Beelzebul not as an evil spirit exerting his sinister influence upon Jesus from the outside; no, Beelzebul is regarded as being inside the soul of Jesus. The latter is said to (havethat is, to be possessed by this unclean spiritMark 3:22, 30; cf. John 8:48). The charge, then, amounts to this, that Jesus, indwelt by and in league with Satan, is by the power derived from that evil spirit driving out demons. Christ's reply follows in verses 23 30, which may be divided as follows: a.refutation of the charge (verses 23 26); b.explanation of Christ's demon expulsions and other miracles (verse 27); c.exhortation (verses 28 30). Refutation,verses 23 26. So he called them to himself and spoke to them in parables: How can Satan east out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand he is finished.In all three accounts the charge of the antagonists is given in the third person. What is in their minds is being expressed behind Christ's back. So now Jesus summons these slanderers into his presence. He gives them an opportunity to make their charge before the very face of the One whom they deride, and to answer his refutation if they care to do so. Understandably they do not avail themselves of this opportunity: they cannot answer his refutation. Jesus points out that the charge is ridiculous. If it were true, Satan would be casting out Satan. How can that be? Have the scribes pictured Satan as a prince or ruler of a domain? In their own terms, and making use of parables here meaning brief illustrative comparisons, Jesus answers them. If their charge were true, the ruler would be destroying his own realm; the prince, his own princedom. First, he would be sending out his envoys, the demons, to work havoc in the hearts and lives of men, destroying them body and soul, often little by little. Afterward, as it were in base ingratitude and suicidal folly, he would be supplying the very power needed for the shameful defeat and expulsion of his own obedient servants. No kingdom, thus divided against itself, can maintain itself. Under similar conditions any household, too, would go down to rain. If this is actually what Beelzebul is doing, He cannot stand, but has an end, says Jesus literally. Explanation. (Having refuted the Pharisees contention, Jesus now presents the true explanation of his victories over the demons and their lord: 27. On the contrary, no one can enter the strong man's house and carry off his goods unless he first binds the strong man. It is only then that he will ransack his house.The rhetorical question of Matt. 12:29becomes a positive statement here. The idea conveyed is the same in both cases. In ordinary life the burglar does not receive willing help from the home owner. Instead, in order to get what he wants the intruder first ties up the owner. Then he burglarizes. Jesus by word and deed is depriving Satan of those values which the evil one regards as his own and over which he has been exercising his sinister controlLuke 13:15). The Lord is casting out Beelzebul's servants, the demons, and is restoring that which through their agency Satan has been doing to men's souls and bodies. Jesus is doing all this because by means of his incarnation, his victory over the devil in the desert of temptation, his words of authority addressed to the demons, his entire activity, he has begun to bind Beelzebul, a process of binding or curtailment of power that was going to be further strengthened by means of his victory over Satan on the cross (Col. 2:15) and in the resurrection, ascension, and coronation (Rev. 12:5, 9 12). He has done, is doing, and will do this through the power not of Beelzebul himself surely but of the Holy Spirit (see verses 28, 29). Yes, the devil is being, and is progressively going to be, deprived of his goods, his furniture, that is, of the souls and bodies of men, and this not only through healings and demon expulsions but also through a mighty missionary program, reaching first the Jews but later on also the nations in general (John 12:31, 32; Rom. 1:16). Is not this the key to the understanding of Rev. [Greek] -2 _ftnref36 [Greek] Note how also in Luke 10:17, 18the fall of Satan as lightning from heaven is recorded in connection with the return and report of the seventy missionaries. It is clear, then, that Christ's miracles, far from being proof of Beelzebul's dominion, as if the evil one were the Great Enabler, are instead a prophecy of his certain doom. Already his realm is being broken down, and a glorious kingdom, which had existed for ages, is now arising in a marvelously new form. And Beelzebul, active and mighty though he be, can do nothing to prevent it, for he is bound. His power is being very seriously curtailed through the coming and work of Christ. Exhortation.28 30. I solemnly declare to you: all things will be forgiven to the sons of men, all their sins and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never receive forgiveness, but is guilty of an everlasting sin.Luke's parallel section (11:14–23) does not contain this earnest warning; but see Luke 12:10. The parallel in Matt. 12:31, 32is very [Greek] -2 _ftnref37 [Greek] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER IV Outline of Chapter 4 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 4:1–9 Parables: Opening Words and The Parable of The Sower 4:10–12 The Purpose of the Parables 4:13–20 Explanation of the Parable of the Sower 4:21–25 Various Sayings of Jesus 4:26–29 The Parable of The Seed Growing in Secret 4:30–32 The Parable of The Mustard Seed 4:33, 34 Christ's Use of Parables 4:35–41 A Tempest Stilled 4:1–9 Parables: Opening Words and The Parable of the Sower Cf. Matt. 13:1–9; Luke 8:4 8 4 1 Again he began to teach beside the sea. The crowd that gathered about him was so very large that he stepped into a boat and sat (in it) out on the sea, while all the people were on the land, facing the sea. 2 He was teaching them many things in parables, and in his teaching he said to them: 3 Listen! Once upon a time^[134] the sower went out to sow. 4 It so happened that, as he was sowing, some seed fell along the path. The birds came and gobbled it up. 5 Some fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and because it did not have depth of soil it sprang up immediately. 6 But when the sun came up it was scorched, and since it had no root it withered away. 7 Some fell among the thorns. The thorns shot up and choked it, and it did not yield any grain. 8 And some seeds fell into good soil. Coming up and growing they were bearing fruit, yielding: some thirty(fold), some sixty, and some a hundred. 9 And he said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. 1. Again he began to teach beside the sea. The meaning is Again, as he had done earlier (2:13; 3:7). The reference is to the shore of the Sea of Galilee. Exactly when this renewed teaching beside the sea took place Mark does not report. But see Matt. 13:1. The crowd that gathered about him was so very large that he stepped into a boat and sat (in it) out on the sea, while all the people were on land, facing the sea. While on previous occasions the crowd had been large (3:7; cf. 1:34; 2:2, 15; 3:8, 10), the present multitude is described as very large. ^[135] Result: This time we know (contrast 3:9) that Jesus actually stepped into a boat, which was then rowed out a little distance from the beach. From the land the huge throng was facing^[136] the sea; hence, was also facing Jesus, who in turn was facing the people. This time, therefore, the Lord used a boat as his pulpit. This point should not be quickly passed by. One of the astounding facts with respect to Christ's earthly ministry is the rich variety of methods he employed to reach his audiences. Many a time he must have preached and taught at the regular synagogue service (Mark 1:21, 39; 3:1; 6:2); and in Judea also in the temple (John 18:20). He believed in regularity of worship (Luke 4:16). This shows that the habit of some, who have begun to substitute their own group meetings for church attendance, would except in special circumstances of stress or necessity not meet with his approval. On the other hand, this regularity did not prevent him from availing himself of additional opportunities to spread the good news. He did not limit himself to temple and synagogue, but addressed the crowd anywhere. He spoke to the people from a mountainMatt. 5:1ff. , while with them in a houseMark 2:1ff. , by the seaside (4:1a), in the desert (8:1–4), while sitting in a boat (4:1b), or even when a group had gathered in a cemeteryJohn 11:38ff. . There was no stiffness or rigidity about the Master. Without losing sight of principle for he never sinned (John 8:46) he was always adapting himself to circumstances, or circumstances to himself. Cf. I Cor. 9:19–22. The same holds with respect to his flexibility in selecting an audience, or allowing an audience to select him as the Speaker. He spoke to anyone who was willing to listen: crowds, The Twelve, separate individuals; publicans and sinners; men but also women; Jews but also non-Jews; the poor as well as the rich. To all he proclaimed the good tidings. Finally, as the present section indicates, in his preaching and teaching he made use of illustrations, parables, that is earthly stories with heavenly meanings. In fact, a study of Christ's sayings and discourses reveals that his style ran the gamut of interest-arousing devices. Nevertheless, all his words were from the heart to the heart. There were no artificial smiles, unnatural gestures, stilted phrases. Everything was genuine. Never did a man speak as this man speaks (John 7:46). It was thus he commanded, commissioned, admonished, exhorted, explained, questioned, consoled, refuted, and predicted. The minister, therefore, whose spiritual (?) contact with the world of human beings destined for eternity consists of delivering mostly reading? to his own people one sermon a week, or even two, without stirring appeals, tender admonitions, illustrations, and/or a climax; and who then retires to his study for the next six days, may well ask himself whether anyone will ever say about him, I recognize that he has been with Jesus. Cf. Acts 4:13. The so-called layman whose heart is never so filled with the warmth of Christ's love that he listens eagerly and that his mouth overflows with praise and witness-bearing, should ask himself the same question. 2. He was teaching them many things in parables. Mark presents only a very small selection of these parables (verses 2b 32); Matthew, a much wider selection (most of chapter 13). And even Matthew's group of seven kingdom parables need not be considered the full record of all the parables Jesus spoke at this time. Mark, after presenting the parable of The Sower, The Seed Growing in Secret, and The Mustard Seed, concludes his story on this theme by adding, With many such parables he was speaking the word to them &(verses 33, 34); then turns to another subject. After the words, and in his teaching be said to them, Mark records that Jesus began the first of this series of parables by saying, 3. Listen! Once upon a time the sower went out to sow. After the introductory word Listen, in this connection found only in Mark, not in Matthew and Luke, and arousing the attention of the audience, the sentence continues literally, Behold or Lo or Look. The word used in the original has about the same interest promoting effect as our Once or Once upon a time. ^[137] In the present case the focus of attention is not the fact as such that the sower went out to sow, but the entire story. Instead of the sower the rendering a farmer has been suggested. However, when this is followed up consistently, so that verse 14 then becomes The farmer sows the word, the inadequacy of such a rendering becomes immediately apparent, for it is not a farmer who sows the word, but it is the Son of man who does this.^[138] 4. It so happened that, as he was sowing, some seed fell along the path. It was customary for wheat or barley to be sown by hand. But it makes all the difference in the world how that seed is received. As this man is sowing, it was unavoidable that a portion of the seed fell along the footpath on which he was walking through the field. Since the place where it fell had not been reached by the plow, and/or many feet had walked here, the soil was too hard for anything to fall into it. So this seed remained on the surface, with the result: The birds came and gobbled it up. The feathered creatures acted very quickly and greedily. The seed was snatched up; then down it went into the alimentary tract; hence literally, they (the birds) ate it down. 5. Some fell on rocky ground, where it did not have much soil, and because it did not have depth of soil it sprang up immediately. It is typical of Palestine now Israel and its surroundings that a considerable portion of its tillable soil is found on top of layers of rock. In such a situation the seed, in the process of sprouting, has only one way to go, namely, up. So, instead of first becoming firmly rooted, the seed described in this part of the parable sprang up immediately. 6. But when the sun came up it was scorched, and since it had no root it withered away. Because this seed lacked depth of earth, it could not take root; hence, when the sun was risen it was scorched, thus Matthew and Mark. Luke 8:6supplies the intermediate cause of withering: (for lack of roots) this seed had no moisture. No wonder that it was scorched to death. 7. Some fell among the thorns. The thorns shot up and choked it.& This soil was infested with the roots of thorns. Since generally nothing grows faster than that which is not wanted, and each patch of ground had adequate room for only a definitely restricted amount of healthy plant life, it is not surprising that the faster growing weeds were soon choking the very life out of the noble grain. Mark states the result as follows: and it did not yield any grain. 8. And some seeds fell into good soil. Coming up and growing they were bearing fruit, yielding: some thirty(fold), some sixty, and some a hundred. Note Mark's change from singular to plural, from collective seed to individual seeds. Could it be that in this case the evangelist (and before him Jesus) wishes to place special emphasis on the variety in the yield? Mark describes this yield in the ascending order: thirty(fold), sixty, hundred; contrast Matt. 13:8(descending order). By the use of the imperfect (were bearing, yielding) he pictures the scene! An earnest admonition concludes the parable: 9. And he said, He who has ears to hear, let him hear. Ears must be used to hear, that is, to listen closely and take to heart. In all of Christ's teaching, both on earth and from heaven, it would be difficult to discover any exhortation that he repeated more often, in one form or another, than the one of verse 9 (see also verse 23; cf. 8:18 in both Mark and Luke; 13:9 in both Matt. and Rev.; further: Matt. 13:43; Luke 8:8; 14:35; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). This repetition is not surprising. Is not lack of receptivity that which, if persisted in, leads directly to the unpardonable sin? The results of unwillingness to hear, or of hearing but not heeding, are set forth in Jesus own explanation of the parable (verses 13 20). 4:10–12 The Purpose of the Parables Cf. Matt. 13:10–17, 36; Luke 8:9, 10 10 When he was alone, those who were about him together with the twelve were asking him concerning the parables. 11 He said to them, To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for the outsiders everything comes in parables, 12 that: They may see and see but not perceive; And hear and hear but not understand; Lest they should turn again and be forgiven. The admonition, He who has ears to hear, let him hear, did not remain unheeded. 10. When he was alone, those who were about him together with the twelve were asking him concerning the parables. Jesus was now alone, in the sense that he had dismissed the crowds and had gone home. Nevertheless, he was not entirely alone. With him were The Twelve. But note: those who were about him together with the twelve. The meaning must be that in addition to twelve well-known disciples there were present also some who belonged to the wider circle of constant followers. Mark pictures this combined group in the act of asking Jesus about the parables. The plural is significant. Though Mark, before describing Jesus as being now alone has related only one parable, that of The Sower, Matthew reports four parables The Sower, The Tares, The Mustard Seed, and The Leaven before telling the readers (13:36) that Jesus dismissed the crowds and went home, where he was interrogated by his disciples. However, when we fix our attention on the wording of the incident recorded in Mark 4:10 12the questioning done by the disciples and the answer given by Jesus, we should turn again to Matthew 13, but this time to verses 10 17, especially verses 10, 11, 13 15. Luke's report (8:9, 10) looks like a very brief summary. Those who surrounded Jesus wanted to know two things: a. why he used parables in addressing the crowds (Matt. 13:10), and b. what was the meaning of a certain particular parable; for example, that of The Tares (Matt. 13:36), or (Mark 4:13) that of The Sower. 11. He said to them, To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but for the outsiders everything comes in parables.& This word mystery is very interesting. Outside of Christendom, in the realm of paganism, it referred to a secret teaching, rite, or ceremony having something to do with religion but hidden from the masses, and known (or practiced) only by a group of initiates. In the LXX (Greek) translation of (Daniel 2, where the word occurs no less than eight times (as a singular in verses 18, 19, 27, 30, and 47b; as a plural in verses 28, 29, and 47a), it refers to a secret that must be revealed, a riddle that must be interpreted. In the book of Revelation, where it occurs four times (1:20; 10:7; 17:5, 7), it is perhaps best explained as being the symbolical meaning of that which required explanation. The word occurs twenty-one times in Paul's epistlesRom. 11:25; 16:25; I Cor. 2:1, 7; 4:1; 13:2; 14:2; 15:51; Eph. 1:9; 3:3, 4, 9; 5:32; 6:19, Col. 1:26, 27; 2:2; 4:3; II Thess. 2:7; I Tim. 3:9, 16). There it can be defined as a person or a truth that would have remained unknown had not God revealed him or it, a revealed or open secret. Thus, had it not been disclosed we would not have known that in every age a remnant of Jews (as well as of Gentiles) will be saved, until at last through faith in Jesus Christ all Israel will thus have been gathered; and that this process will continue until Christ's return, when the full number of Gentiles destined to be saved will also have been brought in (Rom. 11:25). Again, had it not been revealed we would not have known that we shall not all sleep, etc. (I Cor. 15:51). A very similar mystery or revealed secret is Christ himself in all his glorious riches, actually dwelling through his Spirit in the hearts and lives of both Gentiles and Jews, united in one body, the church (Eph. 3:4–6; Col. 1:26, 27). And how, apart from divine disclosure, would we have been able to discover that one day the spirit of lawlessness will become incarnate in the man of lawlessness? (II Thess. 2:7). This same general definition of mystery, namely that it is a divinely disclosed secret, a person or thing which apart from revelation could not have been discovered, fits very well into the context of the present passage of Mark's Gospel (4:11) and its parallels (Matt. 13:11; Luke 8:10), the only Gospel instances of its use. Here the mystery is the powerful manifestation of the reign of God in human hearts and lives; which reign, in connection with Christ's coming, was attended by mighty works in both the physical and the spiritual realms. Jesus declares that this mystery that it was indeed God who was doing all these things, not Satan had been given, that is, graciously disclosed to those who were with him at this time; in fact, to all who had accepted him by genuine faith. To outsiders everything comes in parables; that is, to them Christ's teaching had to be presented in parabolic form. From what follows it is clear that when Jesus here speaks about outsiders he is thinking especially of hardened Pharisees and their followers, men with impenitent hearts (Matt. 13:13, 15), for he continues: 12. that They may see and see but not perceive; And hear and hear but not understand; Lest they should turn again and be forgiven. In this way Mark summarizes the substance of Christ's quotation from Isa. 6:9, 10. Luke 8:10is even shorter. A fuller statement is found in Matt. 13:13–15.^[139] Jesus, then, is saying, For the outsiders everything comes in parables, that they may see and see but not perceive &lest they should turn again and be forgiven. But how can that be? Isn t this shocking? Can it be true that the kind and merciful Savior, the very One who was constantly extending tender invitations, would take great pains to prevent people from perceiving and understanding the truth? That he would actually go out of his way to keep men from turning to God and being forgiven? There have been various attempts to solve this problem. Among them are the following: 1. We misinterpret the little word that when we take it to mean in order that or so that. ^[140] Or else, Mark himself misinterpreted the Aramaic word which Jesus probably used. Answer. Mark represents Jesus as saying not only that but also lest. This combination that &lest shows that the little word that can best be taken to indicate purpose. 2. The saying is an unauthentic and intolerable version of a genuine saying of Jesus.^[141] It is sometimes added that in view of such passages as Matt. 11:28–30; Rev. 3:20Jesus could never have spoken the words ascribed to him in Mark 4:11, 12. Answer. For the theory that this saying is unauthentic and intolerable there is no proof. Also, is it fair to refer to Matt. 11:28–30, but to forget about verse 25; or, to Rev. 3:20, and to ignore verse 16? Besides, does not Mark's summary truly reflect Isa. 6:9, 10? 3. If Christ's words were those reported by Mark, they must have been spoken in jest. Jesus evidently wanted his words to be taken in a sense which was the exact opposite of their literal meaning. This is clear from the fact that Matthew diametrically changes the meaning of the statement, for he makes Jesus say because [instead of that] seeing they do not see.& ^[142] Answer. If it be granted that when the Master uttered the words, To you has been given the mystery of God he was speaking in earnest, stating what he knew to be a fact, and not making a joke, the rest of the closely knit saying must also be considered a fact. And as to the alleged conflict between Matthew, on the one hand, and Mark and Luke, on the other, why cannot both be right? The true explanation, as this author sees it, is as follows: Both because and that are correct. It was because by their own choice these impenitent Pharisees and their followers had refused to see and hear, that, as a punishment for this refusal, they are now addressed in parables, that they may see and see but not perceive, and hear and hear but not understand, lest they should turn again and be forgiven. They must endure the blame of their own blindness and hardness (Calvin on this passage).^[143] God had given these people a wonderful opportunity. It is his sovereign will to remove what man is unwilling to improve, to darken the heart that refuses to hearken. He hardens those that have hardened themselves. If God even surrenders to the lusts of their hearts the unenlightened heathen when they hold back the truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18, 26), will he not punish more severely the impenitents before whom the Light of the world is constantly confirming the truthfulness of his message? And if he blesses those who accept the mysterious, will he not curse those who reject the obvious? It is evident, therefore, that Matt. 13:13is in harmony with Mark 4:12; in fact, the because of the former helps to explain the that or in order that of the latter. When, of their own accord and after repeated threats and promises, people reject the Lord and spurn his messages, then he hardens them, in order that those who were not willing to repent will not be able to repent and be forgiven. See also N.T.C. on Matt. 13:10–15; and on John 12:37 41. 4:13–20 Explanation of The Parable of The Sower Cf. Matt. 13:18–23; Luke 8:11 15 13 And he said to them, Do you not know what this parable means? How then are you going to understand all the parables? 14 The sower sows the word.^[144] 15 The ones along the path where the word is sown are the kind of people in whose case, whenever they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. 16 And the ones sown on rocky ground are the kind of people who, whenever they hear the word, immediately accept it with joy. 17 However, they have no root in themselves and last but for a short while. Then, when affliction or persecution arises on account of the word, they immediately fall away. 18 And some, the ones sown among the thorns, are the kind of people who hear the word, 19 and then the cares of this present world, the deceitful glamor of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful. 20 And those sown on the good soil are the kind of people who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit, some of them (yielding) thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred. Mark has already told us that, having dismissed the crowds, Jesus was alone with The Twelve and some other constant followers, and that this combined group then asked him about the parables (4:10). Luke, more specifically, adds that these disciples asked Jesus what this particular parable, the one of The Sower, meant (8:9). This explains what we now read in Mark 4:13. And he said to them, Do you not know what this parable means? How then are you going to understand all the parables? If they have no insight into the parable of The Sower, how will they be able to sense the meaning of^[145] any parable? This implies that the Master wants them to listen carefully, so they may be able to catch the meaning of other parables also. Jesus then proceeds to explain the parable: 14. The sower sows the word. This is one of the key passages for the understanding of the story illustration. It should be borne in mind throughout. It fixes our attention upon two objects: the sower and the seed. As to the first, although in this parable he is nowhere identified for the emphasis is on the kind of soil rather than on the sower, in that of The Tares it is definitely stated that the sower is the Son of man (Matt. 13:37), that is, Jesus himself (Matt. 16:13–15). There is no good reason to believe that this identification does not also hold for the parable of The Sower. Jesus, therefore, points to himself as the sower. By a legitimate extension of the figure (Matt. 10:40) we are justified in saying that the sower is not only Jesus but anyone minister, missionary, evangelist, any genuine witness-bearer who truly proclaims the Son of man's message. As to the second, we have already been told and this is implied in the very term that the sower sows the seedMark 4:3ff. . So, when Jesus now states, The sower sows the word, the conclusion must be that the seed symbolizes the word, the message from God. See also Matt. 13:19; Luke 8:11. To these two tenets the third can now be added: The ground or soil upon which the seed falls is clearly man's heart, or, if one prefers, man himself. This is definitely implied in (Matt. 13:19a, what was sown in his heart. In each of the four instances recorded in the parable the ground or soil, that is, the heart, hence the person, is different. One might speak of the unresponsive heartMark 4:15), the impulsive heart (verses 16, 17), the preoccupied heart (verses 18, 19), and the good, responsive, or well-prepared heart (verse 20). Substitute the word person for heart and the meaning remains essentially the same. The heart indicates the person or hearer as he is in his inner being. Correct is therefore the following: What, then, is the lesson? The Savior has given us the answer in his own interpretation of the story. The seed is the word of God, or the word of the kingdom; and the soil is human hearts: so that, reduced to a general law, the teaching of the parable is, that the result of the hearing of the gospel always and everywhere depends on the condition of heart of those to whom it is addressed. The character of the hearer determines the effect of the word upon him. ^[146] Unresponsive Hearts Jesus continues: 15. The ones along the path where the word is sown are the kind of people in whose case, whenever they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that was sown in them. Meaning: the people that are represented by seed sown along the path (see verse 4) are the kind that allow Satan, the great adversary (see above, on 1:13), to take away the message that had been sown in them. By no means does Jesus excuse these people, as if only Satan and not they themselves were responsible for what happened to the divine message that had been spoken to them. Verse 15 does not cancel verse 9! But here in verse 15 these frivolous hearers are being told that in treating the word of God so lightly they are co-operating with the prince of evil! These people do nothing with the message. They do not use it to good advantage. Immediately after they have heard it any favorable effect it might have had on them is annihilated. What accounts for their negative reaction? Perhaps it is ill-will toward the messenger. Or perhaps hostility with respect to this particular message. Or they do not wish to be inconvenienced (Acts 24:25). The spirit of indifference may have crept into them, perhaps little by little until it was total, their hearts having become as hard as the path on which the seed of the parable was scattered. The Lord, addressing Ezekiel, gave this description of the prophet's audience: You are to them like a lovely song, sung with a beautiful voice, and played well on an instrument; for they hear your words, but refuse to practice them (Ezek. 33:32). Cf. Matt. 7:26. The following lines may also be appropriate in this connection: The Baptist found him far too deep, The Deist sighed with saving sorrow, And the lean Levite went to sleep, And dreamt of eating pork tomorrow. Praed The Vicar Impulsive Hearts 16, 17. And the ones sown on rocky ground are the kind of people who, whenever they hear the word, immediately accept it with joy. However, they have no root in themselves and last but for a short while. Then, when affliction or persecution arises on account of the word, they immediately fall away. The description of unresponsive hearts or hearers is followed by that of impulsive ones. Note how in this particular case both Mark and Matthew twice make use of the word immediately. These people act on the spur of the moment. Immediately they accept the word, with joy even! And then immediately they fall away. They get caught, are ensnared, by affliction and persecution. It is this that induces them to give up what at first they had so enthusiastically embraced.^[147] Had they been genuine believers they would not have been to the end thus ensnared. In the midst of affliction, that is, all kinds of pressure mostly from the outside in a non-Christian environment, and persecution, actual suffering deliberately brought about by the enemy, all of this on account of the message, perseverance is the mark of the true believer. This perseverance, which by implication is here commended, must however be genuine. It must take place for the sake not of self but of Christ. It must be a willingness to suffer out of love for the Lord, his word, his people, and his cause. When such love is absent, the endurance is futileI Cor. 13:3b . When it is present, it produces gladness of heart, assurance of salvation. See Matt. 5:11, 12; John 16:33; Acts 5:41; Rom. 8:18, 31 39; Phil. 1:27–30; I Peter 4:14; Rev. 2:9, 10. But the people symbolized by the seed that had fallen on rocky soil (see on verses 5, 6) lacked such stick-to-itiveness. They never took to heart the examples of Ruth, Jonathan, Stephen, and Paul. The word loyalty was not in their vocabulary. As to examples of such fair-weather friends, is it not reasonable to suppose that among the many Hosanna shoutersMark 11:9, 10and parallels there were also some who a few days later screamed, Crucify, crucify? It must be borne in mind that not only after Christ's resurrectionActs 4:3; 5:18; 6:11, 12; 7:54–60; 8:1; etc. but even earlier (John 9:22, 34, and may well be implied also in Matt. 5:10–12; 10:23, 25, 28; Luke 6:22; 12:4) Christ's followers were being persecuted. Not everyone affected by such persecution stood the test. To some the words of I John 2:19applied: They went out from us, but they never actually belonged to us. As to genuine believers, see John 10:28, My sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they follow me. I give them everlasting life, and they shall certainly never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. The erstwhile outward adherants, never genuine followers at all, for their confessions did not spring from inner conviction, failed to consider that true discipleship implies self-surrender, self-denial, sacrifice, service, and suffering. They ignored the fact that it is the way of the cross that leads home. Preoccupied Hearts 18, 19. And some, the ones sown among the thorns, are the kind of people who hear the word, and then the cares of this present world, and deceitful glamor of riches, and the desires for other things enter in and choke the words, and it becomes unfruitful. This passage describes the case of people whose hearts resemble soil infested with roots and runners of thorns. Such dirty soil is a serious threat to the growth of any desirable plant. Similarly hearts filled with worry with respect to the workaday world, beclouded by dreams about riches, and (Mark adds) the desire for other things, thwart any influence for good that might otherwise proceed from the entrance of the kingdom message. Such hearts are preoccupied. They have no room for calm and earnest meditation on the word or message of the Lord. Should any such serious study and reflection nevertheless attempt to gain entrance, it would immediately be choked off. Cares, that is, constant anxiety about worldly affairs namely, about matters pertaining to the age in which they are living fill such minds and hearts with dark foreboding. When these persons are poor they deceive themselves into thinking that if they were only rich they would be happy. When they are rich they delude themselves into imagining that if they were only still richer they would be satisfied, as if material riches could under any circumstances guarantee contentment. In fact, the glamor that pertains to riches is deceitful glamor. To the two thorns already mentioned Jesus, as reported by Mark, adds a third, namely, the desires for other [or: for the remaining] things. No doubt he includes all other wrong desires^[148] under this heading. Such desires or cravings are wrong either a. because the object for which these people yearn is wrong; for example, a desire for dangerous drugs, or for intimate relations with another man's wife; or b. because, even though the thing which one desires to have or to do is perfectly legitimate, the desire itself may be inordinate; for example, to play baseball or chess to the neglect of everything else. That Jesus was especially thinking of sinful pleasures would seem to follow from Luke's brief summary: cares and riches and pleasures of life (8:14). So interpreted, we notice that Luke's enumeration runs parallel with that of Mark. Doubtlessly when Jesus mentioned the thorns that choked the sprouting seed, he left out nothing that could be placed in this general category. Anything at all in the entire realm of Possessions, Power or if one prefers Prestige, and Pleasure, that destroys the effect of the good seed of the word is included. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vainglory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the worldI John 2:16A.R.V. . In the days of Amos outwardly religious men would ask, When will the new moon be over, that we may sell grain? And the sabbath, that we may offer wheat for sale [or: that we may open the wheat market], making the bushelbasket small and the shekel large, and dealing deceitfully with false balances? The deceptive glamor of riches was the thorn that choked to death whatever good the message from God might have done. Other examples, both from Scripture and daily life, abound. The people here indicated cannot be richly blessed nor can they be a blessing. The word as it affects them cannot be fruitful. There is nothing wrong with the sower. Also, there is nothing wrong with the seed. With these people, however, everything is wrong. They should ask the Lord to deliver them from corroding cares and dream-world delusions, so that the kingdom message may begin to have free course in their hearts and lives. Then their minds, rescued from gnawing anxieties and delusory fantasies, will be able to reflect meaningfully on such precious passages as Prov. 30:7–9; Isa. 26:3; Matt. 6:19–34; 19:23, 24; Luke 12:6, 7, 13 34; I Tim. 6:6–10; and Heb. 13:5, 6. Responsive Hearts 20. And those sown on the good soil are the kind of people who hear the word, accept it, and bear fruit, some of them (yielding) thirtyfold, some sixty, and some a hundred. With these people the message of the kingdom falls into good soil, the kind of soil that, negatively speaking, is neither hard nor shallow nor preoccupied; positively speaking, is receptive and fertile. These people hear because they want to hear. They reflect on what they hear, for they have faith in the speaker. So they reach a measure of true understanding. They put the message into practice and bear fruit: conversion, faith, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. The importance of spiritual fruitbearing, as the mark of the true believer, is stressed even in the Old Testament (Ps. 1:1–3; 92:14; 104:13). This line of thought is continued in the GospelsMatt. 3:10; 7:17–20; 12:33–35; Luke 3:8; John ch. 15 and in the rest of the New Testament (Acts 2:38; 16:31; Rom. 7:4; Gal. 5:22; Eph. 5:9; Phil. 4:17; Col. 1:6; Heb. 12:11; 13:15; James 3:17, 18). There is, however, a difference in the degree of fruitfulness. Not all are equally penitent, trustful, loyal, courageous, meek, etc., hence also not all are equally productive in bringing other lives to Christ. In the case of some believers the seed, the message, yields thirtyfold, that is, thirty times as much as was sown; in some sixty, and in some a hundred. Matthew has the opposite order (100, 60, 30). In faithfully reproducing Christ's message, each evangelist employs his own style. There is no essential difference. Consider Timothy, Titus, and Paul: three eminent men of God, men in whom the seed of the gospel had sprouted and had brought forth fruit. After their conversion the three have in common unwavering loyalty to the cause of the gospel, willingness to perform difficult kingdom tasks, love for souls, a love that sprang from love for God, the very God who had first loved them. Yet, there was a difference between the three. Timothy a wonderful Christian indeed! (Phil. 2:19–23) needed a little prodding. He was the timid type. The Corinthians were told to see to it that when Timothy arrived, he would be with them without fear (I Cor. 16:10). And see also (II Tim. 2:22a. Titus, on the other hand, is the man who is able not only to take orders but also to go ahead of his own accordII Cor. 8:16, 17). He is resourceful, a man of initiative in a good cause. One finds in him something of the aggressiveness of Paul. Neither Timothy nor Titus, however, can compare with Paul. Anyone who reads II Cor. 11:23 28should be convinced of that. Without exaggeration he was able to write the words of I Cor. 15:10, ascribing all the glory to God alone. The comparison here made between Timothy, Titus, and Paul is not intended to convey the idea that Timothy produced only thirtyfold, Titus exactly sixty, and Paul a hundred. It is intended only as evidence for the basic truth, which this concluding part of the parable establishes, namely, that even among those whose lives are spiritually fruitful there are differences. Let everyone do his best to produce much fruit (John 15:5), always remembering however that even though the parable emphasizes that the result of the hearing of the gospel depends on the condition of the hearts of those to whom it is addressed, so that human responsibility is stressed, in the final analysis every good thought, disposition, word, deed, character has its source in God and his sovereign grace (Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 4:7). See also the explanation of the parable of The Seed Growing in Secret (Mark 4:26 29). 4:21–25 Various Sayings of Jesus 21 And he said to them, The lamp is not brought in to be put under the peck-measure, is it, or under the bed? Is it not (brought in) to be put on the lampstand? 22 For there is nothing concealed except to be disclosed, nor is anything covered up except to come to light. 23 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. 24 And he said to them, Be careful what you hear. In accordance with the measure whereby you measure it shall be measured back to you, and more besides shall be given to you. 25 For he who has, to him shall be given; and he who does not have, from him shall be taken away even what he has. For verse 21 cf. Matt. 5:15; Luke 8:16; 11:33. For verse 22 cf. Matt. 10:26; Luke 8:17; 12:2. For verse 23 cf. Matt. 11:15; 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9; Luke 8:8, 18a; 14:35. For verse 24a see above, on verse 23. For verse 24b cf. Matt. 7:2; Luke 6:38. For verse 25 cf. Matt. 13:12; 25:29; Luke 8:18b; 19:26. In this paragraph are found several sayings of Jesus that, as shown above, are recorded also elsewhere. It is natural to believe that Jesus repeated some of his famous words. The connection between verse 21 and the preceding is not clear. This holds also for the relation between the verses of the new paragraph (21 25). This does not mean that the sayings are here grouped artificially. But though an attempt will be made to show inner coherence the thought connections between the several verses, it must be admitted at the very outset that certainty in such matters is unobtainable. 21. And he said to them, The lamp is not brought in to be put under the peck-measure, is it, or under the bed? Is it not (brought in) to be put on the lampstand? And he said to them. To whom? Probably to the same group as in verse 10; hence, not to the general public. Contrast And he said to them of verses 21 and 24 with And he said of verses 26 and 30. In the latter case Mark returns to the time when from the boat the Master was addressing the crowds. Jesus, in the parable of The Sower, had emphasized the necessity of fruitbearing, the result of seed falling upon good soil, that is, of the word entering well-prepared hearts. Fertile hearts resemble shining lamps. If this view of the connection is right, then by means of a different figure Jesus is stressing the same basic truth, namely, that hearts and lives should be fruitful, that they should shine so as to benefit others, to God's glory. Nevertheless, in the light of the then prevailing conditions, as set forth in the Gospels, the conclusion would seem to be warranted that the basic thought is taking a slightly different turn here. What is it that causes hearts and lives to shine? Answer: the word of God asserting its influence within these hearts and lives. That word is symbolized by the seed (Matt. 13:19; Mark 4:14; Luke 8:11); also by the lamp (Ps. 119:105). It was that word and that lamp which the rabbis were hiding under an elaborate load of human traditionsMatt. 15:3; ch. 23 and hypocritical actions (Matt. 6:1–18; 23:15). That word must reveal its power once more. That lamp must shine forth again in all the pristine purity of its light, in order to be a blessing to men. See Matt. 5:15, 16; Luke 8:16b. This interpretation sheds light on what Jesus says about the absurdity of putting the lamp under the peck-measure or the bed, instead of on the lampstand. Note the article before the name of each piece of furniture here mentioned. This is not strange, for: a. lamp, peck-measure, bed, and lampstand were familiar pieces in a typical Galilean home; b. in the homes of the poor there may have been only one lamp, only one peck-measure, etc. As to the lamp, picture a terra cotta saucer-shaped object with handle on one end; on the other end a nozzle-shaped extension with hole for a wick. As to the two holes in the lamp's upper surface, one is for adding oil, the other for air. Of course, not all lamps were similar. For the different types consult encyclopaedias; better still, visit the museum. The question Jesus asks is a double one. It is immediately evident not only from the Greek but from the translation as here proposed,^[149] that the first part looks forward to the answer No; the second expects Yes. Who would ever think of first lighting the lamp and then putting it under the peck-measure?^[150] Or under the bed, a kind of mattress which, when not in use was rolled up. Doing this with the lamp would be absurd. A lit lamp belongs on the lampstand! Such a lampstand was generally a very simple object. It might be a shelf extending from the pillar in the center of the room (the pillar that supported the large cross-beam of the flat roof), or a single stone projecting inward from the wall, or a piece of metal conspicuously placed and used similarly. The point is, of course, that believers, too, should let their light shine. They should permit the word of God to be in full control over their own lives: their inner self, dispositions, thoughts, words, teachings, writings, deeds. And they should never hold back but should testify. See Ps. 66:16; 107:2; Matt. 5:16; II Tim. 4:2; I John 2:12 14. God intended that the mystery given to his children should be disclosed. It is hidden only from those who continue to harden themselves against its appeal. Thus, while the teaching of Mark 4:11, 12is not refuted, the emphasis now is rather on that which must happen first of all: the sower must sow the seed; the lamp must be placed where it can shine; the mystery must be disclosed, not concealed. But whether revealed or concealed, whatever is done with it will not go unnoticed: 22. For there is nothing concealed except to be disclosed, nor is anything covered up except to come to light. Men may try to cover up things, but in this they will always be unsuccessful, for God brings everything out into the open. One day whatever is now concealed will be revealed. See Eccl. 12:14; Matt. 12:36; 13:43; 16:27; Luke 8:17; 12:2; Rom. 2:6; Col. 3:3, 4; Rev. 2:23; 20:12, 13. Now this is a fact that is often ignored. Men think they can get away with their evil thoughts, plans, words, and actions. God, however, will expose all this. It is therefore not surprising that, as reported by Mark, Jesus continues: 23. If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear. Essentially verse 23 is the same as verse 9, though the form differs slightly. Therefore see on verse 9. Another but closely connected thought is now added: 24. And he said to them, Be careful what you hear. With respect to men's here in verses 21 25 especially Christ's followers duty and responsibility in the matter of hearing, three things are stressed in the Gospels: a. That they should hear or listen (Mark 4:9, 23), the emphasis being on hearing over against refusing to hear; b. What they should hear (verse 24), what to hear over against what not to hear; and c. How they should hear (Luke 8:18), attentively, judiciously, over against how not to hear. As to Be careful, Take heed, or Be on your guard, see also (Mark 13:33; Luke 8:18. When a person is constantly listening to what he should not be hearing for example, malicious gossip, he will be inclined to judge rashly and condemn. He will be wrongly measuring people, condemning them. Let him then bear in mind: In accordance with the measure whereby you measure it shall be measured back to you &If the one who does the measuring is kind, he will judge favorably, will take delight in giving credit where credit is due, in bestowing favorsLuke 6:38). On the other hand, if he is of the opposite disposition, he will easily fall into the habit of judging severely, unkindlyMatt. 7:1–5; especially verse 2 . Whatever it be, the measure he gives will be the measure he gets. If he gives generously he will receive even more generously: and more besides shall be given to you. This reminds one of Matt. 6:33, where the original uses the same verb,^[151] and similarly in a favorable sense: all these things shall be added to you, that is, shall be granted to you as an extra gift. God's gifts are always most generous. He is forever adding gift to gift, favor to favor, blessing to blessing. He gives not only of his riches as a billionaire might do when he gives a dollar to charity, but according to his riches, the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7). He imparts grace upon grace (John 1:16). He not only pardons but pardons abundantly (Isa. 55:7). He delights in lovingkindness (Mic. 7:18). Before they call I will answer; and while they are still speaking I will hear (Isa. 65:24; cf. Dan. 9:20–23). When he loves, he loves the world; and when he gives, he gives his only begotten Son (John 3:16). That Son, moreover, not only intercedes for his people but ever lives to make intercession for them (Heb. 7:25). Truly, He giveth and giveth and giveth again. More besides shall be given to you. When Abraham's servant asks Rebekah for a drink, she not only quenches his thirst but in addition also that of the camels (Gen. 24:13, 14, 18 20, 42 46). This is only a faint reflection of what God in Christ is doing constantly: He not only grants Solomon's wish for wisdom, but in addition promises him riches and length of days (I Kings 3:9–15). He not only accedes to the centurion's request to heal the latter's servant, but in addition pronounces a blessing upon the centurion (Matt. 8:5–13). He not only answers the plea of Jairus, restoring to life his daughter, but in addition sees to it that the child gets something to eat (Mark 5:21 24, 43). He, the resurrected Christ, not only fulfils his promise to meet the disciples in Galilee (Matt. 26:32; 28:7, 16 20), but in addition meets and blesses them even earlier, in Jerusalem (Luke 24:33 48). He not only pardons the sinner as a governor might grant pardon but, in addition, adopts him and grants him peace, holiness, joy, assurance, freedom of access, super-invincibility (Rom. chapters 5 8). This interpretation of the final clause of verse 24 is supported by what immediately follows in verse 25. For he who has, to him shall be given, and he who does not have, from him shall be taken away even what he has. In matters spiritual, standing still is impossible. A person either gains or loses; he either advances or declines. Whoever has, to him shall be given. The disciples (exception Judas Iscariot) had accepted Jesus. With reference to them he was later on going to say to the Father, They have kept thy word (John 17:6) and They are not of the world (17:16). To be sure, this faith was accompanied by many a weakness, error, and flaw. But the beginning had been made. Therefore, according to heaven's rule, further progress was assured, an advance in knowledge, love, holiness, joy, etc., in all the blessings of the kingdom of heaven, for salvation is an ever deepening stream (Ezek. 47:1–5). Every blessing is a guarantee of further blessings to come (John 1:16). He shall have abundantly. The theory according to which Jesus (or Mark) was referring only to an increase of knowledge or even insight is improbable. Such discernment is, to be sure, included, but there is nothing in the context that would limit so rigidly the blessing here promised. On the other hand, whoever does not have, from him shall be taken away even that semblance of knowledge, that superficial acquaintance with matters spiritual, which he once had. Is there not an analogy of this in the realm of knowledge on a level below the strictly spiritual? Is it not true that the person who has learned enough music to play a few simple melodies, but not really enough to be able to say, I have mastered this or that instrument, and then stops practicing altogether, will soon discover that the little skill which he had at one time has vanished? The man who refuses to make proper use of his one talent loses even that (Matt. 25:24–30). 4:26–29 Parable of the Seed Growing in Secret 26 And he said, The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the earth, 27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow-how he does not know. 28 By itself the earth produces crops: first the blade, then the ear,^[152] then the full grain^[153] in the ear. 29 But whenever the (condition of the) crop permits, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.^[154] It would appear from verses 33, Matt. 13:31 (, 34) that when Jesus spoke the pair of parables recorded in Mark 4:26 32(as also the one in 4:3–9), he was speaking to the crowds. In other words, Mark returns here to the situation that prevailed when from a boat the Lord addressed the people (verse 1). Between the parable of The Sower, to which such prominence is given in the Synoptics, and which Mark also reports first of all (verses 3 9) and the one about The Seed Growing in Secret, which is peculiar to Mark,^[155] there is a close relationship. The first stresses human responsibility: the seed cannot sprout, grow, and bear fruit unless it falls into good soil. Meaning: the word or message of God, the gospel, bears fruit only when the heart responds favorably. This is an aspect of the truth that must never be neglected. Yet, this may happen at times. A preacher asks his audience, What can man do in order to be saved? and then creates suspense by remaining silent a few moments&, after which he continues, Let me tell you: he can do exactly nothing! God does it all! Should he not also tell the other side of the story? When the jailer asked, Men, what must I do to be saved? Paul and Silas did not say, You can do nothing at all. What they said was, Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household (Acts 16:30, 31). It is true, nevertheless, that of himself man can do nothing. It is only by means of power imparted by God that man is able to turn to God in true faith. He cannot be converted unless he is first of all regenerated (John 3:3, 5). See also Jer. 31:18; I Cor. 4:7; Eph. 2:8; Phil. 2:12, 13; 4:13. On this aspect of the truth, namely, God's sovereignty, the present parable places the emphasis. It teaches that just as God alone, not the farmer, thoroughly understands and is in fact the Author of physical growth, so also God alone, not man, thoroughly understands and is the Author of spiritual growth, the establishment and progress of the reign of God in hearts, lives, and spheres. It is because of his will that the spiritual seed, the word or message of the gospel, asserts its increasingly powerful influence upon the hearts of men and thus also upon society generally. What a comfort this is, for now with patience we await the harvest that is certain to arrive. Victory is assured: God's plan must be and is going to be carried out. Accordingly, the parable sets forth three thoughts. So closely are they linked that the three actually form a unit. They are as follows: 1. To man growth is a mystery (verses 26, 27). 2. The seed reveals its potency (verse 28). 3. The harvest-time spells victory (verse 29). Thus it is in the realm of nature; thus also in that of grace, for the kingdom's growth is also a mystery. Its (the kingdom's) word (Matt. 13:19; 24:14) reveals its potency, which is going to become very clear on the day of the harvest, the final judgment, certain to arrive at the appropriate moment. 1. To man growth is a mystery 26, 27. And he said, The kingdom of God is as if a man should scatter seed on the earth, and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should sprout and grow^[156] how he does not know. Jesus is again describing the kingdom of God. See on 1:15. He is saying that this reign of God over hearts and lives, with consequent influence in every sphere, is mysterious in its growth. It is with this kingdom or kingship as it is with a man who casts seed on the earth. Having entrusted the seed to the soil, evening arrives. For the Jews that meant the beginning of a new day. Soon afterward the man, tired out from a day of hard labor, goes to sleep, sleeping on and on until dawn. In the morning he arises. As to the seed he has been scattering the preceding day, he fully realizes that he can do nothing about it. He lacks all control over the processes of germination and growth. When night falls once more, he again goes to sleep. Again he rises in the morning. That routine of sleeping and rising, sleeping and rising, night and day, night and day, goes on and on and on. Meanwhile the seed is sprouting and growing. Just how this growth takes place he, the farmer, does not know. Neither does the chemist or the most learned agricultural specialist. He has never been able to figure out exactly how the seed is able to transform a tiny bit of shall we say dead? soil into a living plant cell; no, not just into a cell, any cell, but into the kind of cell that is precisely similar to the cells that were in the plant from which the seed originated. All the farmer can do is trust. To be sure, he can cover the seed, root up weeds, loosen the soil, add fertilizer, and perhaps even channel water to his plot. All these things are important. But he cannot cause the seed to sprout and grow. As to that, all he can do is sleep night upon night, and rise day after day. The rest he must leave entirely to the seed, ultimately to the One who created the seed, who knows it thoroughly, and activates it. The farmer must trust and pray. He must wait patiently. In the spiritual realm this holds also. The admissions I cannot and I know not are just as true with respect to the establishment and growth of the reign of God as they are with respect to germination and development of physical seed. For I cannot see I Cor. 3:6, I planted, Apollos watered, but God supplied the growth. For I know not see John 3:8, The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound, but you do not know where it comes from and where it goes to. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit. 2. The seed reveals its potency 28. By itself the earth produces crops: first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. By itself means without visible cause, and apart from any human help. Think of the city gate which opened to Peter of its own accordActs 12:10, the only other New Testament instance of the occurrence of this word . The secret of growth has, as it were, been entrusted to the earth. However, this term earth by metonymy must here mean the seed embedded in the earth. To that seed God entrusted the secret, so that it now, as it were, knows exactly what it has to do, when to do it, and how. As to man, if the day after sowing, or even the next day or the following one, he looks at the field, he sees no sign of life whatever. But some time later when he looks again, he stands amazed when he beholds ever so many little sprouts where before nothing had been visible. He exclaims, What potency was concealed in things so small! So it is also with the kingdom, the reign of God. A faithful minister scatters the seed year upon year. He explains, pictures, invites, exhorts, comforts, warns, urges, makes pastoral calls. Nevertheless, to a considerable extent his efforts seem to have been futile. Then of a sudden the winds of God begin to blow upon the gardens (hearts) of his parishioners (Sol. 4:16). The word shows its power. It had been active before, but results had not been greatly in evidence. But now men and women, old and young, educated and unlettered, rich and poor, jubilantly confess their faith and show this in their lives. The Spirit is working mightily, always in connection with the word, the gospel. The people have peace within their hearts, the assurance of salvation. They look forward to the inheritance stored up for them in heaven. But that is by no means all. These people are grateful. Therefore they realize that everything everywhere must be done to the glory of their wonderful God (Ps. 150; John 17:1 4; Rom. 11:36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Jude 24, 25; Rev. 4:11; 5:12–14; 19:1–8). They also begin to put forth every effort not only to be the means in God's hand for the conversion of others, a worthy ideal indeed (Prov. 11:30; Dan. 12:3; Matt. 11:28–30; 23:37; I Cor. 9:22), but also to see to it that the will of God as revealed in his Word is recognized and obeyed in every sphere: the family, the church, government (on every level), education, art, science, literature, commerce, industry, etc., etc. Thus the kingdom or reign of God becomes established upon the earth. Note the progress that is here indicated: from blade to ear to full grain in the ear.^[157] In the plant world this transition from one stage to another is so gradual that it can truly be called imperceptible. Try to indicate the precise moment when the blade develops into the ear, or the latter produces a row of full kernels. It cannot be done. Nevertheless, though imperceptible, development is also inevitable. Under normal conditions nothing can stop growth. Who has not seen places where a plant pushed its head through a sidewalk or a wall or at times even through a pipe? Something very similar happens in the case of the kingdom of heaven. Though it may not be possible clearly to describe growth in holiness hence, progress in the reign of God over one's life from one day to another, nevertheless it remains true that The path of the righteous resembles the light of dawn, that shines more and more brightly until the full-orbed day (Prov. 4:18). This holds not only with respect to the life of the individual believer; it holds also with reference to the influence of the gospel as throughout the centuries, little by little, it travels from one nation to another, and increasingly causes its power to be felt in every sphere of life. See N.T.C. on (Matt. 24:14. This clearly reveals the potency of the wordIsa. 40:6–8; I Peter 1:24, 25; Heb. 4:12). 3. The harvest-time spells victory 29. But whenever the (condition of the) crop permits, at once he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come. Whenever the (condition of the) crop permits^[158] means when the proper time arrives; then, but not until then. The description of harvest or harvest-time the word used in the original can mean either is very dramatic. At once, without any delay, the man (of verse 26)^[159] puts in the sickle, for the moment for which he has been waiting has finally arrived. Farmers who wait too long are going to suffer loss. Thus it is in nature. Thus also in the spiritual realm. The picture drawn is truly apocalyptic. See (Joel 3[Heb. 4]:13; Rev. 14:14–16. The lesson is: the victory is sure; harvest is approaching and will certainly arrive at the very moment decided in God's eternal plan. Then God's kingdom will be revealed in all its splendorRev. 11:15; 17:14). Be patient, therefore, brothers, until the arrival of the Lord. Look, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient over it until he receives the early and the late rain. You also should continue to wait patiently. Strengthen your hearts, for the arrival of the Lord is near (James 5:7, 8). 4:30–32 The Parable of the Mustard Seed Cf. Matt. 13:31, 32; Luke 13:18, 19 30 And he said, With what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? 31 It is like a mustard seed which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on the ground; 32 yet, once sown, grows and becomes the biggest of all the garden herbs, and sends out branches so large that the birds of the air can lodge^[160] under its shade. In our treatment of The Synoptic Problem (N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 6–54) it was pointed out that one of the reasons why Matthew, Mark, and Luke resemble each other so closely may have been literary relationship, both Matthew and Luke having probably used Mark's Gospel; all three having utilized Matthew's earlier notes; Luke perhaps also Matthew's Gospel (p. 53). It was also shown that one of the reasons why the three are so different may have been that in the use of sources, whether oral or written, each evangelist exercised his Spirit-guided judgment, in accordance with his own character, education and general background, and with a view to the realization of his own distinct plan and purpose (p. 54). An illustration both of the variety and the unity is found in this parable of The Mustard Seed. Matt. 13Mark 4 verse 31 verse 30 He presented another parable to them, saying, And he said, With what shall we compare the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it verse 31 The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field. It is like a mustard seed which, when sown on the ground, verse 32 It is the smallest of all the seeds; is the smallest of all the seeds on the ground; verse 32 yet, when it is full-grown, it is the biggest of the garden herbs, and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in its branches. yet, once sown, grows and becomes the biggest of all the garden herbs, and sends out branches so large that the birds of the air can lodge under its shade. What a variety of expression! Nevertheless, no discrepancy anywhere! And the similarity is as striking as is the variety. Luke 13also contains this parable, as follows: verse 18 He said therefore, What is the kingdom of God like, and to what shall I compare it? verse 19 It is like a mustard seed, which a man took and cast into his garden; and it grew to be a tree, and the birds of the air lodged in its branches. Here, too, there is no discrepancy, no conflict between Luke and the others. We note, moreover, the close resemblance between Luke's eighteenth verse and Mark's thirtieth. Matt. 13:31a is wholly different. Did Luke, though retaining his own style, have Mark before him as he wrote? There is also a close resemblance between Luke's nineteenth verse and Matt. 13:31b, 32. Luke resembles Matthew more closely than he does Mark. Was he making use of what Matthew had already written: the latter's notes, or perhaps even his Gospel? However that may be, the fact stands out that amid pleasing variety of presentation an equally delightful harmony is evident. In the selection of his sources, both oral and written, as well as in everything else pertaining to his writing, each Gospel writer, for his own purpose employing his own style, was being guided by the Holy Spirit. In the parable of The Sower (verses 3 9, 13 20) the emphasis was on human responsibility; in that of The Seed Growing in Secret (verses 26 29), on divine sovereignty. When these two co-operate man working out his own salvation because God is working within him (Phil. 2:12, 13), abundant growth results, as shown in the parable of The Mustard Seed. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER V Outline of Chapter 5 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 5:1–20 In the Land of the Gerasenes: Helpfulness over against Heartlessness 5:21–43 The Restoration to Life of Jairus Daughter and The Healing of the Woman Who Touched Christ's Garment 5:1 20: In the Land of the Gerasenes: Helpfulness over against Heartlessness Cf. Matt. 8:28 9:1; Luke 8:26 39 5 1 And they came to the opposite side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. 2 Just as he was getting out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. 3 This man had his living quarters among the tombs, and not even with a chain was anyone any longer able to bind him. 4 Indeed, he had often been bound with shackles and chains; but the chains had been torn apart by him, the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him. 5 Always, night and day, in the tombs and in the hills, he kept on screaming and gashing himself with stones. 6 When he saw Jesus from a distance he ran, fell on his knees in front of him, 7 and at the top of his voice yelled, Why do you bother me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won't torture me. 8 For he [Jesus] had been saying to him, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit! 9 Then he asked him, What is your name? He replied, My name is Legion, for we are many. 10 And he begged him [Jesus] again and again not to send them out of the area. 11 Now a large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside; 12 and they [the unclean spirits] begged him, Allow us to go into the pigs, so that we may enter them. 13 So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs, and the herd of about two thousand rushed headlong down the cliff into the sea and were drowning in the sea. 14 And those in charge of them fled and spread the news in the city and countryside. And the people came to see what it was that had happened. 15 They came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man, sitting there, clothed and in his right mind, the very man who had had the legion; and they became frightened. 16 Those who had seen it told them how it went with the demoniac, and about the pigs. 17 And they began to beg him to leave their district. 18 And as he [Jesus] was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19 But he refused and said to him, Go home to your people, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you and how he had mercy on you. 20 So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis^[178] what great things Jesus had done for him; and everybody was amazed. The connection between the preceding story (Mark 4:35 41) and the present narrative (5:1–20) is easy to remember. From a description of the wild sea (4:37) the Gospel writer moves on to that of a wild man (5:3–5). Humanly speaking both were untamable, but Jesus subdued both. It was evening when the Lord and his disciples crossed the sea. They landed on the eastern shore, hence opposite Galilee (Luke 8:26). Is it not reasonable to assume that at verse 14 or 15 of Mark's account the evangelist reports what happened on the following day? The three accounts vary greatly in length and fulness of detail. By far the most detailed is Mark. He is followed by Luke. Matthew's coverage is very brief. Common to all three is this summary: When, accompanied by The Twelve, Jesus arrives on the eastern shore, he is met by a demon-possessed man (or: by two such men, according to Matthew). On seeing Jesus, the demoniac addresses (or: the demoniacs address) him as follows, Why do you bother me (or: us), Jesus, thou Son of God (or: &of the Most High God, according to Matthew and Luke)? The demons are afraid that Jesus has come to torment them. In the vicinity a herd of pigs is feeding. The unclean spirits, just before relinquishing their stranglehold on the man (or: the men), beg permission to enter the pigs. Permission is granted, with the result that the entire herd, now demon-possessed, rushes down the cliff into the sea, and is drowned. Those in charge of the animals return to the city and relate what has happened. The people come out to see Jesus. They beg him to leave their region. In each of the three Gospels certain details are added: Matthew, in addition to mentioning two men instead of one, states that they were so violent that travel on their road had become unsafe; that they expressed fear that Jesus had come to torture them before the appointed time; and that the herd was feeding at some distance away from the point where the confrontation between Jesus and the demoniacs took place. Luke adds that the demon-possessed man was from the city had apparently lived there; that for a long time he had been running around naked; that the demons caused their presence to be felt by spurts; and that the man had been kept under guard, and driven into the deserts by the demons. He also reports that the demons begged Jesus not to send them into the abyss, and that the liberated man was sitting at the feet of Jesus and subsequently proclaimed throughout the whole city what the Lord had done for him. Mark vividly describes how all previous attempts to keep the demoniac under control and to subdue him had failed; that he was screaming night and day and cutting himself with stones; that the spokesman of the demons wanted Jesus to swear that he would not torment him; that the herd consisted of about two thousand pigs; and that everybody was amazed about the cured man's report concerning the great things God had done for him. Finally, the question of Jesus, What is your name, and the answer to that question; as well as the request of the cured and grateful man to be allowed to accompany Jesus on the latter's further travels, and his reply, are reported only by Mark and Luke. Returning now to Mark 5:1 20, we notice that the section under study can be conveniently divided into five short paragraphs; see above, the translation. These five focus the attention respectively on: the man; the demons; the pigs; the swineherds; and Jesus. Or, more fully stated: The wretched man meeting Jesus. Description of the man (verses 1 5). The demons in control of this man. Their confrontation with Jesus. The demons identified and ordered out (verses 6 10). The pigs, by the demons plunged down the cliff and into the sea, where they perish (verses 11 13). The swineherds and the people to whom they report. The people's request that Jesus leave the district (verses 14 17). The cured man's request and Jesus reply. Implication of that reply (verses 18 20). Furthermore, the first paragraph describes a man in need of help. The first, second, and fourth show that this man received no help from any source other than Jesus. Heartlessness characterized demons, swineherds, and people in general. Over against this attitude stands the helpfulness of Jesus, as is described in the second, third (yes, also third!), and fifth paragraphs. 1. The wretched man meeting Jesus. Description of the man 1. And they came to the opposite side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. The original as represented by Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) has Gadarenes in (Matt. 8:28; Gerasenes here in Mark 5:1; and Gergesenes in Luke 8:26. In each case variant readings are recognized in the footnotes. In order to locate the place where Jesus landed, a description as given in the GospelsMatt. 8:28, 32; Mark 5:2, 13; and Luke 8:27, 33) is helpful. We learn that it was a region of caves used as tombs, and that a steep hill descended sharply to the very edge of the water. This description does not fit Gerasa, a town situated at least thirty miles to the south-southeast of the Sea of Galilee. See map on p. 199. It does, however, suit Khersa, which could very well be indicated as the town inhabited by the Gerasenes or Gergesenes. If it be assumed that the larger city of Gadara (also on the sketch), mainly located a few miles southeast of the sea but extending all the way to the shore, was, as it were, the capital of the entire district to which Khersa belonged, the various geographical designations begin to make sense. Moreover, at Khersa, situated on the eastern shore, about six miles diagonally (oversea) southeast of Capernaum, there is indeed a hill descending sharply to the edge of the water. There are also many caves evident even today suitable for tombs.^[179] 2. Just as he was getting out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. The confrontation between Jesus and this man takes place right near the shore, the very moment when the Master stepped out of the boat. The expression a man with an unclean spirit means a demon-possessed man, as is clear from the entire description see especially verses 8 12, and is definitely stated in the parallel accounts (Matt. 8:28; Luke 8:27). Unclean means evilLuke 7:21; 8:2with 4:33, 36 . The unclean spirits are morally filthy. They are evil in themselves and a source of harm and evil for those over whom they exercise control. For more about demon-possession see on 1:23 and N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 436, 437. Why Matthew mentions two demoniacs, while Mark and Luke tell the story of one^[180] is not known, but such a variation in reporting is not uncommon even today. It has been suggested that the demoniac to whom Mark and Luke refer was the leader and spokesman, but this opinion is merely a guess. It should be noted, however, that these other evangelists do not say that only one demoniac met Jesus that day. No one, therefore, has a right to speak about a Matthew versus Mark-Luke contradiction. This demoniac, then, met Jesus just as he was disembarking; that is, immediately, at once. Add to this the fact that in verses 3b 5 Mark describes this man as being a very violent person (Matt. 8:28), and the inference is warranted that already in the impetuous manner in which he rushed toward Jesus this fierceness was displayed. It would seem that out of the tombs he streaked downhill to meet the new arrivals. A streaker indeed was he! See Luke 8:27. The tombs which were this man's home are mentioned again in verses 3 and 5. In fact, as the original shows, verses 3 5 belong together, and furnish a very vivid description of the wild man: 3 5. This man had his living quarters among the tombs, and not even with a chain was anyone any longer able to bind him. Indeed, he had often been bound with shackles and chains; but the chains had been torn apart by him, the shackles broken in pieces, and no one was strong enough to subdue him. Always, night and day, in the tombs and in the hills, he kept on screaming and gashing himself with stones. We are definitely dealing here with a demoniac, not merely with a maniac. The picture Mark draws is filled with terror. It describes a man who is the victim of demonic malevolence coupled with human indifference and impotence. But in the end divine omnipotence and benevolence come to the rescue and triumph. The helpfulness of Jesus is strikingly contrasted with the heartlessness of demons and men. The man here pictured used to live in the city, as has been indicated. But now, demon-possessed, his dwelling is among the tombs. This term probably refers to abandoned burial chambers hewn into the side of the cliffs. Habitually, at intervals during the night and day, this man's ear-splitting screams are echoing eerily from cavern to cavern near the rocky shore, striking terror into the hearts of any traveler who might dare to come within hearing distance. Most people simply bypassed this neighborhoodMatt. 8:28b . Moreover, in the midst of his hideous screaming the demoniac was making things worse for himself by gashing the flesh of his naked body with the sharp edges of broken stones. As to the attitude of his neighbors toward him? It would seem that all they ever thought of was their own safety and protection. With that in mind they were in the habit of binding the man hand and foot. But no matter how frequently they resorted to this means of safeguarding themselves, they were never successful, for the handcuffs were torn apart by him and the leg irons were broken in pieces. In fact, no one, but no one, had the strength to tame him down.^[181] 2. The demons in control of this man. Their confrontation with Jesus. The demons identified and ordered out 6, 7. When he saw Jesus from a distance he ran, fell on his knees in front of him, and at the top of his voice yelled, Why do you bother me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? It is sometimes argued that verse 6 contradicts verse 2. According to verse 2 when Jesus steps out of the boat the demoniac is right there, while according to verse 6 he is still a considerable distance away.^[182] But surely this argumentation amounts to creating a conflict where there need not be one at all. A legitimate interpretation of Mark's account is that before the boat even reaches the shore the demoniac, from a distance spying its approach, comes running, and that he actually meets Jesus as the latter steps ashore.^[183] Perhaps somewhat more difficult to understand is the behavior of the demoniac. On the surface it seems to be very inconsistent: one moment we see him rushing down with hostile intent; the next moment he has thrown himself at Jesus feet and is worshipping him; only to change once more to the immediately following sinister outcry. To say that, after all, irrational behavior is exactly what one can expect from a demoniac is probably only half the solution. In addition it should be pointed out that when this man started to run toward the company, he did not as yet recognize its Leader. When he really the demons inside him, represented by their leader in a manner that surpasses human understanding did recognize him, the first reaction, because of the majesty of Christ, was that of awe, resulting in prostration.^[184] But when the demon's spokesman reflected on the fact that Jesus was, after all, his great Opponent, the One who had arrived on earth with the very purpose of destroying the works of the devil (I John 3:8), he, making use of the poor man's vocal organs, gave vent to his feeling of anger, frustration, and despair, in the outburst, Why do you bother me, Jesus, son of the Most High God? The behavior of this demoniac is very similar to the one described in 1:23, 24. In both cases note the loud, angry outcry, the confession of Christ's deity, and the fear that even now Jesus might have in mind to torture his hellish adversaries. Therefore, see on 1:23, 24. Though men will at times do their utmost to deny Jesus deity, the demons do not; note the exalted title given to the Master by the spokesman of the unclean spirits that inhabited this man. He calls Jesus Son of the Most High God, nothing less! And Jesus was and is exactly that. Cf. (Gen. 14:18, 19; Isa. 6:3John 12:41); Luke 1:32, 35, 76; 6:35; 8:28; Heb. 7:1. It would seem that immediately after this outcry Jesus said, probably more than once, to the demon who acted as spokesman for all, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit (see on verse 8). Instead of immediately obeying, the demon answered. Swear to God that you won't torture me. Or, more literally, I adjure you by God &^[185] The substance of this insolent remark is reflected more mildly in Luke's passage, I implore you, do not torture me. This meant: Do not order us to depart into the abyss (8:28, 31). The demon's request that Jesus bind himself by means of an oath was passed by in silence, in keeping with (Matt. 5:33–37; see N.T.C. on that passage. The demonic scream is by Matthew interpreted to mean, Did you come here to torture us before the appointed time? The demonic world realizes that on the day of the final judgment its relative freedom to roam about on earth and in the sky above itEph. 2:2; 6:12) must cease forever, and that its final and most terrible punishment is destined to begin at that time. Its representative who is now speaking to Jesus knows that right now he is face to face with the One to whom the final judgment has been committed, and he is afraid that even now before the appointed time Jesus might hurl him and his partners into the abyss or dungeon, that is, into hell, the place where Satan is kept. That fear on the part of this unclean spirit was engendered and intensified by Christ's repeated command that the demon depart from the horribly frustrated man, as is clearly stated in verse 8. For he [Jesus] had been saying to him, Come out of the man, you unclean spirit. The story continues: 9. Then he asked him, What is your name? Just why was it that Jesus, ignoring the demon's demand (verse 7b), asked this question? Among commentators: a. Several completely omit any attempt to solve this difficult puzzle. b. Others^[186] are of the opinion that Jesus, in common with other exorcists, believed that knowledge of the demon's name carried with it the ability to cast out the demon. The moment a demon's name was known, his power was broken. Objection. This certainly looks like an attempt to reduce the power of Jesus to that of any exorcist. Moreover, if the theory were true, we would expect that also in other cases of demon-expulsion recorded in the Gospels there would be a reference to asking the name of the demon. c. Still another^[187] confidently affirms that Jesus questions about the name in order that supposedly by means of the answer to this question his disciples, etc. would know that he was dealing not just with one demon but with ever so many of them. d. What may well be the best answer though we cannot be sure is the one suggested in one form or another by several other commentators.^[188] It amounts to this: Jesus wishes to reveal to the demoniac the seriousness of his condition. In order to deliver him from this condition he wishes to calm him down and to strengthen his consciousness of his real self. He desires to tear him loose from his close association almost identification with the demon, or demons, that had for so long a time dominated him. He replied, My name is Legion, for we are many. The reply indicates the depth of the demoniac's misery. He is under the control not of just one demon, the spokesman, but of an entire host, a Legion!^[189] The word must not be taken literally, as if it meant that a force of at least 6000 demons were in control of the poor man. The meaning here is undoubtedly figurative: a very large number. It is also possible that the term Legion conjured up the vision of an army of occupation, cruelty, and destruction. We are not dealing here with a legion of protecting angelsMatt. 26:53: more than twelve legions of angels . We are confronted here with Satan's army of terror and death. That more than one demon would at times occupy and enslave a person is clear also from other Scripture passages. See (Matt. 12:45Luke 11:26); (Mark 16:9Luke 8:2). 10. And he begged him [Jesus] again and again^[190] not to send^[191] them out of the area. See on verse 7. However, at this point another item may have to be added. Not only do the demons feverishly desire to stay away from the abyss, but they prefer to remain in this particular area, because it is the terrain of tombs, skeletons, desertion, death, and destruction. They feel at home here. If we are accustomed to associate the good angels with places in which order, beauty, and fulness of life prevail, does it not seem natural, in harmony with Scripture (Matt. 12:43) to link evil angels with regions where disorder, desolation, desertion, and death dominate? 3. The pigs, by the demons plunged down the cliff and into the sea, when they perish At this point the story takes a new turn: a new element is added. 11, 12. Now a large herd of pigs was feeding there on the hillside; and they [the unclean spirits] begged him, Allow us to go into the pigs, so that we may enter them. The demons realize that they cannot successfully resist Christ's command that they take their departure from the demoniac. They must leave him, and they are going to do exactly that. But they present a final request in connection with pigs that were feeding on the hillside. Note there on the hillside. This must mean in that general vicinity. If we place this herd of pigs too close to the scene of Christ's confrontation with the demoniac we create a conflict between Mark 5:11and Matt. 8:30. Actually there is no conflict, for there on the hillside leaves room for the idea that the herd was at some distance away from Jesus and the demon-possessed man (or: men, according to Matthew). What was the reason for the request of the demons that they be allowed to enter the pigs? Was it simply a yearning to destroy? Was it perhaps a sinister hope that the owners of the herd, seeing their property destroyed, would be filled with antagonism toward Jesus? The answer has not been revealed. It is, however, worthy of special attention that the demons are fully aware of the fact that without Christ's permission they will not be able to enter the pigs. Continued: 13. So he gave them permission. And the unclean spirits came out and went into the pigs, and the herd of about two thousand rushed headlong down the cliff into the sea and were drowning in the sea. Finally, then, the unclean spirits actually obeyed Christ's command and released their vise-like grip. In answer to their request (verse 12) Jesus gave them permission. So they came out of the man and went into the pigs. Result: the herd two thousand strong; Mark likes to mention numbers; see Introduction IV, footnote 5 c rushed pell-mell down the cliff, and &Here Mark suddenly changes the tense of the verb. So far he has very briefly stated four incidents, four summary facts: gave, came out of, went into, rushed down. It is as if he, in very rapid succession, showed us four snapshots. Then we are shown a slow-motion movie: one by one we see the (approximately) two thousand pigs choking to death in the sea, until all have drowned.^[192] Two questions demand consideration. First, What ethical justification was there for Jesus to allow this to happen to these animals? Shall we say that one of these days those pigs would have had to die anyway; so they might as well die now? Shall we add that quick death by suffocation or asphyxiation through drowning may even have been more merciful than slower death by fire, or by animal attack, starvation, slaughter at the hands of a clumsy butcher, etc.? But is not Rom. 9:20, Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? (to use the A.V.) the real answer? Cf. Dan. 4:35. In this commentary the love of God in Christ and his power have been mentioned again and again. We believe rightly so, for Scripture itself mentions these qualities repeatedly. But no less important, surely, are God's holiness and his sovereignty. God is sinless. Rather, he is holy, and the source of holiness for all who place their trust in him. Cf. (Isa. 6:1–5. Moreover, he owes us no explanation of his deeds. We should live by faith!Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). See also Job 21:5; 40:4. Says H. Bavinck: Round about us we observe so many facts which seem to be unreasonable, so much undeserved suffering, so many unaccountable calamities, such an uneven and inexplicable distribution of destiny, and such an enormous contrast between the extremes of joy and sorrow, that any one reflecting on these things is forced to choose between viewing this universe as if it were governed by the blind will of an unbenign deity, as is done by pessimism, or, upon the basis of Scripture and by faith, to rest in the absolute and sovereign, yet however incomprehensible wise and holy will of him who one day is going to cause the full light of heaven to dawn upon these mysteries of life.& In the midst of terrible reality Calvinism does not come forth with a solution, but it offers this comfort: that, in whatsoever happens, it recognizes the will and the governing hand of an omnipotent God, who is at the same time a merciful Father. Calvinism does not offer a solution, but it causes man to rest in him who dwells in light unapproachable, whose judgments are unsearchable and whose ways are past tracing out. ^[193] That same answer will do also for the second question, namely, Was it right for Jesus to permit the demons to destroy so much property, that is, to deprive the owners of so large a proportion of their material possessions? In addition, however, to the appeal to God's sovereignty, which, after all, is basic, it should also be pointed out that, rightly considered, by permitting this loss Jesus was actually helping these owners; that is, he was helping them if only they were willing to take the lesson to heart. These owners and in general the people of this community were selfish. In their scale of values the acquisition, retention, and multiplication of material possessions ranked higher by far than the liberation and restoration of a man unfree, unhappy, unloved, and uncared for; yes, enslaved, wretched, hated, and abandoned. For proof see on verse 17. Hence they needed this lesson.^[194] 4. The swineherds and the people to whom they report. The people's request that Jesus leave the district 14 17. And those in charge of them fled and spread the news in the city and countryside. And the people came to see what it was that had happened. They came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed^[195] man sitting there, clothed and in his right mind,^[196] the very man who had had the legion; and they became frightened. Those who had seen it told them how it went with the demoniac, and about the pigs. The men who had been tending the pigs must have witnessed the meeting between Jesus and the demoniac. They had also observed that the wildness of this man had left him and had, as it were, been transferred to the pigs, with the result that the entire herd had perished in the water. The swineherds drew the correct conclusion that it was Jesus who had ordered and allowed all this to happen. He had ordered the demons to leave, and had allowed them to enter the pigs. The loss of the pigs was therefore not the fault of those who had been tending them. The herdsmen, accordingly, ran back to where the people were living. They wanted the owners and everybody else, in town and countryside, in the little city and on the farms, to know who was and who was not to blame. Mark pictures the people coming to see what it was that had happened. This was probably the morning after the miracle had occurred. What do the people see? They see Jesus. They also carefully observe the man who had been a demoniac. There was no doubt about it. It was the very man. Now, however, he was no longer rushing down the hill but sitting down, and right at the feet of Jesus. No longer was he naked (Luke 8:27) but clothed. And no longer was he acting like a madman, screaming night and day and gashing himself with the sharp edges of stones, but in his right mind (II Cor. 5:13). The power and majesty of Jesus who had brought all this about caused these people to become frightened, a reaction that was not lessened when right here, on the spot where it had all happened, the details of the story how it went with the demoniac, and about the pigs were rehearsed by the eye-witnesses: herdsmen and disciples. What should have been the result? Initial sadness because of the loss of the pigs would have been natural. But should not the owners and all who were in any way affected by this loss have spoken somewhat as follows: We see now that the loss of our property was a small price to pay for the lesson we have learned. These pigs, that property, meant everything to us. We were selfish. We never felt concerned about the needs of our fellow-citizen, this poor, wretched man. Now we see things differently. We now understand that human values surpass material values by far? Should they not have congratulated the man who was sitting there at Jesus feet? Should they not have brought their sick and handicapped to Jesus to be healed? Surely, the people of this general region could not have been entirely ignorant about this great Benefactor! See Matt. 4:25. Should they not have tried to prevail upon Jesus to stay a while longer in their midst, in order to impart blessings for body and soul? Cf. John 4:40. Their real reaction was quite different. It was in fact the very opposite. Jesus must leave, the sooner the better: And they began to beg him to leave their district. This is reported by all three evangelists. It is essential to the understanding of the lesson here conveyed. These men were scared of Jesus. Besides, they resented him. Had he not deprived them of their property? Was he not a disturber of their familiar mode of life? How often, even in our own day and age, has not this incident been repeated? People are eager to listen to the story of Jesus and his love &just so the gospel's implications for daily life and conduct (Matt. 18:23–35; 25:31–46; John 13:14, 15; II Cor. 8:7–9; Eph. 4:32 5:2) are not emphasized, for that would be upsetting! 5. The cured man's request and Jesus reply. Implications of that reply 18. And as he [Jesus] was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed^[197] begged to go with him. It was a very natural request. The man wishes to be in the company of his Benefactor, to whom he has become so heavily indebted. He wishes to render to him every service he may require. 19. But he refused and said to him, Go home to your people, and tell them what great things the Lord has done for you and how he had mercy on you. Several points should be noted: a. Is it not striking that the One who had granted the request of the demons, permitting them to enter the pigs, and of the people, that he leave their district, refuses to grant the request of a man who has become his own ardent follower? We learn from this that when God allows his people to get whatever it is they wish to have, this is not always an unmixed blessing. And when he refuses to say Yes in answer to their earnest petition, this is not necessarily a sign of his disfavor. b. True missionary activity begins at home &but does not end there. It does indeed begin at home (Acts 1:8; cf. Matt. 10:5, 6). Does this not also imply that a true church member is at least as concerned about providing a thorough Christian education for his own children as he is about sending missionaries to the heathen? The latter task is indeed very important and necessary, but the former should have the priority. c. The man is ordered to tell his people what great things the Lord has done for him. As verse 20 indicates, he understands this word the Lord to refer to Jesus. In Luke 8:39a the word God is substituted for the Lord. The man again interprets God to refer to Jesus (8:39b). This shows that, as the evangelists and the cured demoniac saw it, Jesus is the Lord. He is God. d. What may well be considered the main lesson is this: by ordering the man to go to his own folks the term not to be taken too narrowly (see verse 20), and with the implied idea that neighbor will tell neighbor, Jesus is showing a great kindness, and this not only to the former demoniac but also to the entire community that had so shamefully rejected him. They had asked him to leave, but he, in his great love, cannot completely separate himself from them. So he sends them a missionary, in fact the best kind of missionary, one who can speak from experience. See Ps. 34:6; 66:16; 116; John 9:25; I Cor. 15:9, 10; Gal. 1:15, 16; Phil. 3:7–14; I Tim. 1:15–17; II Peter 1:16; I John 1:1 4. The man obeyed. 20. So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what great things Jesus had done for him; and everybody was amazed. The healed man did exactly what the Lord wanted him to do. He went home and there related what great things Jesus had done for him. But he did not stop then and there. So filled was he with joy and gratitude that he soon included the entire city where he was living in the sphere of his missionary activity (Luke 8:39). Even this did not satisfy his eagerness to ascribe the glory to God. Soon he was bearing testimony to God's goodness in the Decapolis as a whole, as Mark states. This Decapolis was a league of ten Hellenic cities: Scythopolis (located west of the Jordan River); east of the Jordan: Philadelphia, Gerasa, Pella, Damascus, Kanata, Dion, Abila, Gadara, and Hippos. See the sketch. These ten cities, at one time deprived of their freedom by the Maccabees, had by the Romans been delivered from their yoke and had even been given a considerable measure of home rule. Though required to render tribute and military service to Rome, they had been allowed to form an association for commercial progress and for mutual defense against any encroachment from the side of either Jews or Arabs. They had their own army, courts, and coinage. Throughout this region there was a scattering of Jews, but by and large this was definitely Gentile territory; a fact to which, for example, many Greek amphitheatres bore witness.^[198] Everybody was amazed. The people who heard this man testify probably continued for some time^[199] to be filled with wonder and praise. No doubt some did more than merely marvel. In Decapolis, too, there must have been a remnant of people in whose hearts and lives the word of God was effective unto salvation, to his glory. See Isa. 55:11; Matt. 4:24, 25; Mark 7:31 37. 5:21–43 Two Miracles The Restoration to Life of Jairus Daughter and The Healing of the Woman Who Touched Christ's Garment Cf. Matt. 9:18–26; Luke 8:40 56 21 Now when Jesus had again crossed over^[200] to the other side, a large crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. 22 Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, fell at his feet 23 and pleaded earnestly with him, saying, My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and put your hands on her, that she may get well and live. 24 So he [Jesus] went with him. A large crowd was following him and pressing upon him. 25 And a woman who had been subject to hemorrhages for a period of twelve years, 26 and who had suffered much from many physicians, and had spent all she had and instead of getting better had grown worse, 27 after hearing about Jesus came from behind in the crowd and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch just his clothes I shall get well. 29 And at once her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she had been healed of her illness. 30 Now Jesus, being well aware in himself that power which issued from him had gone out of him, immediately turned around in the crowd and asked, Who touched my clothes? 31 You see the crowd pressing on you, said his disciples, and you ask, Who touched me? 32 But he [Jesus] continued to look around to see who had done it. 33 Then the woman, trembling with fear since she knew what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. 34 He said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your illness. 35 While he [Jesus] was still speaking, some men came from the synagogue ruler's (house). Your daughter is dead, they said. Why bother the Teacher any further? 36 Ignoring^[201] what was being spoken, Jesus said to the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only believe. 37 And he allowed no one to accompany him except Peter and James and John the brother of James. 38 They came to the house of the synagogue ruler; and he noticed the hubbub, with people loudly weeping and wailing. 39 And having entered he said to them, Why do you make a hubbub and weep? The child is not dead but asleep. 40 But they were laughing in his face. But he turned them all out, and taking with him (only) the child's father and mother and his own companions entered (the room) where the child was. 41 And having grasped the child's hand he said to her, Talitha koum ^[202]; which means Little girl, I say to you, get up. 42 At once the little girl stood up and started to walk around, for she was twelve years old. And at once they were utterly astonished. 43 He strictly charged them that no one should know this, and he ordered that she be given (something) to eat. The transition from the preceding section (verses 1 20) to this one (verses 21 43) is well-nigh unforgettable. From the request amounting to Please go away, the story advances to the earnest and moving petition Please come (contrast verse 17 with verse 23). When Jesus was asked to leave, he left; that is, he recrossed the sea and landed at the Capernaum side, where a ruler of the Capernaum synagogue was in sore need of help, for his little daughter was at the point of death. So, from the story of the miraculous blessing bestowed on a man who had his dwelling in a locality associated with death (verse 3) we advance to that of triumph over death itself (verses 41, 42). From being amazed (verse 20) we are led to being utterly astonished (verse 42). It would seem that when Jesus landed, the disciples of John the Baptist were waiting for him, with their question about fasting. See N.T.C. on Matt. 9:18. It was while he was still speaking with them that Jairus made his request. The synagogue was ruled by a board of elders. One of its responsibilities was to maintain good order at the synagogue meetings. The man who came to Jesus and whom Matthew does not mention by name but whom Mark and Luke call Jairus was a member of such a board. Since he was probably living in Capernaum we may assume that he had heard about, and perhaps even witnessed, some of the miracles performed by Jesus. Matthew's report of the double miracle is very brief, nine verses; Luke's covers seventeen verses; Mark's twenty-three. For more information on the synagogue see above on 1:39. Matthew omits the ruler's request (see Mark and Luke) that Jesus heal the very sick child. In fact, Matthew in his very brief summary leaves out several items mentioned by one or both of the other synoptists. However, it is he alone who relates that the ruler asks Jesus to lay his hand upon the dead girl, adding and she will live (9:18). Also, he alone mentions the flute-players in the house of mourning (9:23). Mark alone, in his very lengthy account, represents Jairus as using the term of endearment my little daughter (verse 23), pictures a vast crowd thronging or pressing upon Jesus (verse 24), relates that Jesus paid no attention to the message delivered to Jairus, Your daughter is dead &(verses 35, 36), emphasizes the weeping and wailing that was going on among the mourners (verse 38, 39), reports the Aramaic words spoken by Jesus to the child (verse 41), and adds that the girl, brought back from the dead, walked (verse 42). Several items are common to Mark and Luke, though not found in Matthew. Thus we are told that the name of the ruler was Jairus (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41), that Jairus made his first request before the child had died (Mark 5:23; Luke 8:42), that she was about twelve years of age (Mark 5:42; Luke 8:42), that Peter, James, and John, and also the child's parents were with Jesus when he performed the miracle (Mark 5:37, 40; Luke 8:51), and that Jesus did not want the news of this miracle to spread (Mark 5:43; Luke 8:56). It is Luke alone who reports that the daughter was an only child (8:42), and that Jesus did indeed hear the remark to which he paid no attention (8:50). In all the three accounts the story of the bringing back to life of the daughter of Jairus is interrupted by that of the healing of the woman who touched Christ's garment. The material as here presented permits the following outline. Under the general theme that has already been indicated (The Two Miracles, etc.) we arrive at these subdivisions or points: Verses The first miracle introduced 21 24 The first miracle interrupted by the second miracle faith concealed 25 28 faith rewarded 29 faith revealed 30 34 The first miracle performed a word of encouragement 35, 36 a word of revelation 37 40a word of love and power 40b 42 word of tender concern 43 * 1. The first miracle introduced 21 23. Now when Jesus had again crossed over to the other side, a large crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the sea. Then came one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name; and seeing him, fell at his feet and pleaded earnestly with him, saying, My little daughter is at the point of death; please come and put your hands on her, that she may get well and live. As often previously (1:16; 2:13; 3:7; 4:1), Jesus was again to be found beside the sea, near Capernaum; with a large crowd assembled about him, as usual. It was then that Jairus fell prostrate at his feet. This very action was a manifestation of high respect for Jesus. The ruler's earnest entreaty, My little daughter is at the point of death literally: has reached the final stage; please come and put your hands on her, that she may get well and live, was an expression of tender affection, intense anxiety, and a considerable measure of faith. Tender affection! Jairus says, my little daughter. At the age of twelve many children resent being considered little. But to this father the child is still little; with emphasis, however, not so much on her tender years as on her loveliness in his eyes.^[203] Intense anxiety! Please come.& Fearful apprehension is coupled with strong desire. A considerable measure of faith! The man believes in the effectiveness even now with death so close of the touch of Jesus hands. For this touch see on 1:41. Note: &that she may get well and live. ^[204] This ruler must have seen and heard Jesus many a time, right here in Capernaum, where the Master had his headquarters and where, whenever possible, he attended the synagogue. Jairus may well have witnessed previous miracles. It is remarkable, nevertheless, that with his darling daughter, his only child, so near to death, the man still has hope, still manifests a considerable degree of faith. It is no surprise to read: 24. So he [Jesus] went with him. Is he not the Savior, and this not only for the soul but for the entire person, soul and body? However, a statement follows which is both closely connected with that which precedes and also introduces what follows in verses 25 34. The statement is: A large crowd was following him and pressing upon him. This was not unusual; see 3:9; 4:1. What adds significance to it in the present situation is a. The very size of the crowd, together with the fact that the people were pressing upon or thronging Jesus, made progress toward the house of Jairus difficult. b. The presence of this crowd explains the action of the woman whose story follows. She thought that because of the enormous crowd she would be able to do what she wanted to do, and escape undetected (Luke 8:47). 2. The first miracle interrupted by the second miracle a. faith concealed It has already been shown that the swirling crowd, delaying the performance of the first miracle and to a certain extent explaining what happened in connection with the second, connects the two stories. Two consecutive verses in Luke's Gospel (8:42, 43) also supply a connection: the daughter of Jairus was twelve years of age; the woman had been suffering for a period of twelve years. But the two narratives can also be viewed as one, namely, the narrative of an interrupted and therefore all the more glorious miracleMark 5:21 43and parallels . In telling the story of Jesus and the woman, Matthew is again very brief. Note his three verses (9:20–22). Luke has nine (8:40–48). Mark, the action Gospel, spreads the various vivid details over ten verses (5:25–34). It is true here, as well as everywhere else in the Gospels, that none of the accounts is mere repetition. Each evangelist contributes something not reported by the others. Thus we would not want to miss Matthew's reference to the woman talking to herself (9:21), or his report of Jesus turning to the woman and saying to her, Take heart. Neither would we want to do without the clever manner in which Dr. Luke (8:43b), without contradicting Mark, yet prevents a possible misunderstanding of what Mark says about the physicians of that dayMark 5:26, a woman &who had suffered much from many physicians . Luke is also the only one who brings Peter into the story (8:45). And as for Mark, neither Matthew nor even Luke presents the details of this story as vividly as he does. See especially 5:29–33. On the other hand, Mark does not even mention the tassel, only the garment (5:27, 28). Contrast Matt. 9:20; Luke 8:44. 25 27. And a woman who had been subject to hemorrhages for a period of twelve years, and who had suffered much from many physicians, and had spent all she had and instead of getting better had grown worse, after hearing about Jesus came from behind in the crowd and touched his garment. While Jesus is on his way to the home of Jairus suddenly there is an interruption. Again and again during his earthly ministry Jesus was interrupted; namely, in his speaking to a crowdMark 2:1ff. , conversing with his disciplesMark 8:31ff.; 14:27ff.; Luke 12:12ff. , travelingMark 10:46ff. , sleeping (Mark 4:38, 39), and prayingMark 1:35ff. . The fact that none of these intrusions floor him, so that for the moment he would be at a loss what to do or what to say, shows that we are dealing here with the Son of man who is also the Son of God! What we would call an interruption is for him a springboard or take-off point for the utterance of a great saying or, as here, for the performance of a marvelous deed, revealing his power, wisdom, and love. What for us would have been a painful exigency is to him a golden opportunity. This time the interrupter is a woman. For twelve years she had been subject to hemorrhages; literally she had been in (a condition of) flow of blood. There are those who believe that the drain was constant. Another view would be that throughout the twelve years an excessive loss of blood, occurring periodically, had made it impossible for her ever to feel strong and healthy, and that at this particular moment she was again suffering as a result of loss of blood. She had suffered much at the hands of many physicians. For the form of the expression cf. Matt. 16:21. An apocryphal book (Tobit 2:10) states, I went to the physicians, but they did not help me. On the other hand read the statement from another apocryphal writing (Ecclus. 38:1), Honor a physician according to your need of him, with the honors due to him; for, indeed, the Lord has created him. Verse 3 of the same chapter speaks of the skill of the physician and states, In the sight of great men he shall be admired. Though it is true that even today doctors sometimes err, as do also men of other professions, it would be difficult to over-estimate the value of a capable and devoted doctor. In the case here reported the results of medical treatment had been anything but favorable. The poor woman's condition had gradually deteriorated, and this partly because of the very care (?) the doctors had bestowed on her. This should not be interpreted to mean that the art of healing in Israel, in comparison with that practiced in the surrounding nations at that time, was very, very poor. It is true that medical science in the technical sense was still in its infancy. Nevertheless, the Jews, at least in some important respects, were ahead of all others. They believed in the efficacy of prayer to the one and only God, Ruler of heaven and earth, hence also of soul and body, and over life and death, health and sickness (II Kings 1; Ps. 116; Isa. 36). To them had been given the Ten Commandments, which have been called the greatest mental hygiene code. The ordinance of circumcision also deserves consideration in this connection. Add to this the many hygienic regulations found in the Pentateuch, the emphasis on the influence of the mind on the health of the body (Prov. 17:22), exhortations against unlovely emotions (Exod. 23:4, 5; Prov. 15:17) with their sinister effect upon physical well-being, the repeated commandment to trust in God and not to worry (Ps. 91; 125; Isa. 26:3, 4; 43:2); and it will be seen that with respect to the care of the body, as well as with respect to many other things, Israel was far ahead of all other peoples. See also Exod. 15:26. Nevertheless in this particular case the doctors had been unsuccessful. Why? Can it be that the very fact, clearly implied in the text, that this woman had been running to many physicians had something to do with this? Even today the custom of some people to run from one doctor to another, and still another, and another, cannot be unreservedly recommended, though there may indeed be certain cases where this is necessary. It would seem, however, that the best answer to the question why this woman was not healed is given by the man who himself was a doctor, namely, Luke, who plainly states that her illness was humanly speaking, and in the light of the therapeutics of that day, incurable (Luke 8:43).^[205] By the time this woman finally decided to cast her lot with Jesus she had spent all her shall we say little? money. She had lost her health, her wealth, and because of the nature of her illness, also her standing in society, particularly in the religious community. Her condition was such that it would make her ceremonially uncleanLev. 15:19ff. . There was this last reason for hope: Jesus! What is so striking in this connection is that not only prominent people, such as Jairus, turned to Jesus in their distress, but so did also proletarians, like this poor woman. They seemed to have sensed that his power and his pity would respond to the needs of people from every social class. It is not surprising, however, that because of her condition she is afraid to come out into the open. She is not going to come into physical contact with Jesus himself. She will merely touch his garment, and even then (see Matthew and Luke), only one of the four wool tassels which every Israelite was ordered to wear on the corners of his square, outer robe (Num. 15:38; cf. Deut. 22:12) to remind him of the law of God. See also N.T.C. on Matt. 23:5.^[206] Naturally the quickest and easiest way to bring oneself into physical contact with a garment without being noticed was to come from behind and touch the tuft swinging freely from the back of the robe. The wearer, so this woman thought, would never even notice what was happening. So, having heard the wonderful reports about Jesus, she came from behind and touched the tassel,^[207] or as Mark has it, his garment. The reason for touching Christ's garment is given in verse 28. For she said, If I touch just his clothes I shall get well. The greatness of this woman's faith consisted in this, that she believed that the power of Christ to heal was so amazing that even the mere touch of his clothes would result in an instant and complete cure.^[208] That this faith was nevertheless by no means perfect appears from the fact that she thought that such an actual touch was necessary and that Jesus would never notice it. But he did notice it, rewarded her faith by restoring her to health (verse 29), and then gave her an opportunity to change faith concealed (Matt. 9:21) to faith revealed (Mark 5:33), which resulted in further encouragement (5:34). b. faith rewarded 29. And at once her bleeding stopped and she felt in her body that she had been healed of her illness. Literally, And at once dried up was the fountain of her blood. The recovery was instant. In one brief moment the hemorrhage stopped completely. Health and vigor were surging through every part of her body. The scourge or illness by which she had been afflicted was gone. For the word which basically means scourge or whip and here refers to the woman's torturing illness see on 3:10.^[209] Not only was her trouble gone; she felt and knew that it was gone. What is striking in this connection is the fact that although this woman's faith, as has been shown, was far from perfect, nevertheless the Lord graciously rewards it. The reward, moreover, affected not only her body but also her soul; or, to state it differently, not only was her faith rewarded, it was also improved, brought to a higher stage of development, so that faith concealed became: c. faith revealed 30. Now Jesus, being well aware in himself that power which issued from him had gone out of him, immediately turned around in the crowd and asked, Who touched my clothes? Jesus was not ignorant of the fact that someone had touched him, and this not accidentally but purposely, and not just with a finger but with faith. He knew that it was to that faith that the power within him and proceeding from him had responded. What Jesus wants is that whoever it was that has thus meaningfully touched him shall now complete the circle. What circle? The one indicated in many passages of Scripture, including, for example, Ps. 50:15: Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, And you shall glorify me. When blessings descend from heaven, they must in the form of thanksgiving be returned to heaven by those who received them. Thus the circle is completed. See also N.T.C. on (Eph. 1:3. This woman, in her own way, had called upon Jesus. He had rescued her, but she had not as yet glorified him. Up to this point she was like the nine cleansed lepers of Luke 17:17, 18: Then Jesus said, Were not ten cleansed? Where are the nine? Was no one found to return and give thanks to God except this foreigner? To be sure, she had believed with her heart. But she had not as yet confessed with her mouthRom. 10:9). It was in order to bring about this favorable change that Jesus immediately turned around in the crowd and asked, Who touched my clothes? Or, as Luke phrases it, Who was it that touched me? (8:45), meaning touched me meaningfully? 31. You see the crowd pressing on you, said his disciples, and you ask, Who touched me? The disciples commit the oft repeated error of interpreting Christ's words in the most starkly literal sense, as if Jesus were thinking of a merely physical touch. These men, and others too, were in the habit of applying the literal interpretation rule to the words of Jesus, the very rule which by certain segments of Christendom is even today recommended so very highly. The following passages are among those that show why this rule, unless it be very substantially modified, is anything but safe: Mark 8:15, 16; John 2:19 22; 3:3–5; 4:10–15; 6:52; 8:56–58; 11:11–13. To be sure, Jesus was not denying the literal touch, but he meant something far more than this, namely, the touch in faith, the very effective touch, so that in response to that touch power had gone forth from him. The response of the disciples led by Peter (Luke 8:45), You see the crowd pressing on you, and you ask &revealed not only lack of insight but even lack of the proper respect, the subdued reverence which these men should have shown to their Master. Briefly, the critical remark was thoughtless and tasteless, crude and rude. It reminds one of Matt. 16:22. The Master showed his greatness by not answering it. 32. But he [Jesus] continued to look around to see who had done it. It was a long and scrutinizing gaze.^[210] Those commentators who have commented on it differ rather widely. There are three main interpretations. According to the first, Jesus already knew who this person was. He was looking around and suddenly his eyes rested on the woman.^[211] Now the fact that according to his divine nature Jesus was omniscient cannot be denied. Also, it cannot be denied that this divine nature at times imparted to the human nature information which that human nature apart from such impartation would probably not have received. See Matt. 17:27; John 1:47, 48. Yet, this does not mean that Christ's human nature was also in itself omniscient. See Matt. 24:36; Mark 11:13. Is not Mark 5:32in the same class? The expression, He continued to look around or: was looking around to see, certainly seems to support the view that the first explanation, namely, that Jesus already knew who the person was that had touched him, is unacceptable. For more on Christ's two natures in the teaching of Mark see Introduction, III. On the basis of the use of the feminine participle in the original,^[212] so that the rendering, But he was looking around to see her who had done this, is acceptable, it has been argued secondly that Jesus at least knew that the person who had touched him was a woman.^[213] But is it not more reasonable to view that feminine participle in the light of what Mark, the Gospel writer, subsequently knew to be the case? All things considered, the most natural interpretation would seem to be the third one, namely, that Jesus, with the tender Savior's heart, wished to bestow an additional favor upon whoever it was that had touched him. He kept looking around to find out (thus A. T. Robertson^[214]) who that person was. 33. Then the woman, trembling with fear since she knew what had happened to her, came and fell down before him and told him the whole truth. The woman had heard Jesus ask, Who touched my clothes? Also, she had noticed his searching eyes. She knew what had happened to her in answer to her touch of faith. She had probably also heard the disciples wholly inadequate reply. Her conscience must have told her that the true answer to Christ's question must be given, and given by her! Nevertheless, it was not easy for her to do what she felt she had to do. At that time and in that country for a woman to speak in public was generally considered improper. This all the more on a subject such as this, the particular physical scourge by which she had been afflicted. And would not even the fact that she, in that condition, deliberately had touched the Master add to the impropriety in the eyes of the bystanders? Yes, and even, perhaps, in the eyes of Jesus himself? Would he scold her perhaps? We can understand, therefore, both why she confessed and why she did this fearing and trembling (II Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; Phil. 2:12). She was scared and shaking all over. But she came, and told the whole truth, probably referring to all the facts stated in verses 25 29. The result was not a reprimand, but the very opposite, as is evident from the very first word Jesus uttered and also from what followed. 34. He said to her, Daughter, your faith has made you well; go in peace, and be healed of your illness. Lovingly Jesus calls her Daughter, even though she may not have been any younger than he was. But he speaks as a father to his child. Moreover, he praises her for her faith, even though that faith, as has been indicated, was by no means perfect; and even though, as verse 27 indicates, it was he himself who, through his earlier marvelous words and deeds, had brought about that faith. Her faith, though not the basic cause of her cure, had been the channel through which the cure had been accomplished. It had been the instrument used by Christ's power and love, to effect her recovery. Cf. Eph. 2:8. Is it not marvelous that Jesus, in speaking to this woman, says nothing about his own power and love, the root-cause of her present state of well-being, but makes special mention of that which apart from him she would neither have possessed nor have been able to exercise? Moreover, by saying, Your faith has made you well, was he not also stressing the fact that it was his personal response to her personal faith in him that cured her, thereby removing from her mind any remnant, however small, of superstition, as if his clothes had contributed in any way to the cure? By means of these cheering words Jesus also opened the way for the woman's complete reinstatement in the social and religious life and fellowship of her people. Now she can go and continue to travel the rest of her life in peace, that is, with the smile of God upon her and the joyful inner knowledge of this smile. Cf. Isa. 26:3; 43:1, 2; Rom. 5:1. Probably even more is included in this encouraging command, Go in peace. In view of the immediately following words, namely, Be meaning Be and remain healed of your illness (literally: your scourge), and in view of the fact that in all probability Jesus spoke these words in the then current language of the Jews (Aramaic), have we not a right to conclude that nothing less than the full measure of the Hebrew Shalom, well-being for both soul and body, is here implied? Although none of the evangelists report the woman's reaction to these gracious words of the Savior, is it unrealistic to affirm that her soul was flooded not only with relief but also with boundless gratitude, the kind of emotion experienced by the inspired composer of Ps. 116(see especially verses 12 19)? Jesus had healed her. He had imparted to her a double blessing: restoring her body and causing her soul to testify, so that faith concealed had become faith revealed. Now she was able to be, and undoubtedly had become, a blessing to others, to the glory of God. A few days after a certain minister preached on this section of ScriptureMark 5:25 34and parallels , he received the following poem from a lady who had composed it after hearing the sermon: Who touched me? Twas the voice of the Master, And the woman's heart beat faster and faster. Trembling she came and bowed her head. I touched thee, Lord, was what she said. But the Master answered, Go thy way, Thy faith has made thee whole this day. Have you touched me? I heard it. Twas the voice of the Master, And O my heart beat faster and faster. You came with the throng to God's house today, But I felt not your touch as you went your way. I was ashamed and bowed my head. Reach out a bit farther next time, he said. 3. The first miracle performed a. a word of encouragement 35. While he [Jesus] was still speaking, some men came from the synagogue ruler's (house). Your daughter is dead, they said. Why bother the Teacher any further. The messengers may have been relatives of Jairus, or they may have been friends. At any rate, they were not very diplomatic about conveying the alarming news. Rather bluntly they said, Your daughter is dead. ^[215] They add, Why bother^[216] the Teacher any further? As these relatives and/or friends saw it, there was not even the remotest possibility that Jesus would be able to restore a dead person. For a while there had been hope, namely, when the child was sick; very sick, to be sure, but Jesus was on the way. But then there had been that tragic interruption (verses 25 34). This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VI Outline of Chapter 6 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 6:1 6a The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth 6:6b 13 The Charge to The Twelve 6:14–29 Herod's Wicked Birthday Party and John the Baptist's Gruesome Death 6:30–44 The Feeding of the Five Thousand 6:45–52 Walking on the Water 6:53–56 Healings in Gennesaret 6:1 6a The Rejection of Jesus at Nazareth Cf. Matt. 13:53–58; Luke 4:16 30^[226] 6 1 He left that place and came to his hometown; and his disciples followed^[224] him. 2 And when the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue. Many listeners were astonished and said, Where did this man get these things, and what sort of wisdom is it that has been given to him, so that even miracles^[225] are done by his hands? 3 Isn t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon? And aren't his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him. 4 So Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own family. 5 And he was unable to do any miracle there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people. 6 And he was amazed because of their unbelief. With the exception of the incidents reported in 5:17 and 5:40, all through chapter 5 faith triumphed; namely, in the case of the cured demoniac, who testified (verse 19, 20), the woman who touched Christ's garment (28, 34), and Jairus, who took to heart Christ's admonition, Fear not, only believe (Matt. 9:18). But if chapter 5 can be called The Faith Chapter, chapter 6 deserves the title The No Faith Chapter. Nazareth lacks faith. So does Herod, many mission objects, and even to a certain extent The Twelve. See verses 6, 11, 16, 52. Nevertheless faith triumphs in the end (verses 53 56). The mourners (5:40) had laughed down (the Greek idiom), and the people of Nazareth look down on Jesus (6:3). Undaunted, he intensifies his efforts in the interest of the good news. Not only does he himself go around among the villages teaching, but he even sends his disciples on a tour of their own. Result? The king hears about Jesus. Did Nazareth criticize? Herod cringes, believing that Jesus is John the Baptist come back to life. It was he, this very Herod Antipas, who had ordered John's execution. The gruesome story of this decapitation is told in 6:14–29. The Twelve return and excitedly report to their Master. He lovingly bids them, Come away by yourselves to a lonely place and rest a while (6:30). For the results and further happenings see 6:32–56. That Matthew should devote an entire chapter to The Charge to The Twelve (ch. 10), summarized in Mark 6:6b 13and Luke 9:1 6, was to be expected, for Matthew specializes in Christ's discourses. There is no agreement on the question why Luke departs from what was probably the historical sequence, and in his Gospel places the account of the rejection at Nazareth in the forefront of his coverage of the Great Galilean Ministry, while Matthew and Mark give a much later place to it. Some have suggested two rejections at Nazareth.^[227] For the rest, see commentaries on Luke. Reasons for accepting the theory that in all three cases the reference is to the same incident: a. The general outline of the story is the same in all three: On a sabbath Jesus enters his hometown. He teaches in the synagogue. Result: astonishment, adverse criticism, rejection. b. Essentially the same dominical saying occurs in all three accounts (Matt. 13:57; Mark 6:4; Luke 4:24). c. The historical background creates no difficulty, since even according to Luke's account (see 4:23) Christ's rejection at Nazareth did not occur at the beginning of Christ's Galilean Ministry but much later. The identification is made easier by the fact that, aside from what is implied in 4:23, there are no time references attached to Luke's account. It is clear from Matt. 13:53, 54that the visit to Nazareth occurred sometime after Jesus spoke his kingdom parables, although how long afterward is nowhere indicated. Did this visit and rejection take place late a.d. 28? This possibility must be granted. As to Mark 6:1 6a and its parallels in Matthew and Luke, details recorded by Mark but not by Matthew and Luke are: a. Jesus disciples accompany him to Nazareth; b. Jesus was amazed because of the people's unbelief; and c. because of this lack of faith in him he could not perform any miracle there; exception: he placed his hands on and healed a few sick people. As to Matthew, except for the already indicated details, his account just about coincides with that of Mark. Luke, in his far richer coverage 15 verses compared to 6 for Matthew and 5½ for Mark, supplies the text and gist of Christ's sermon. In addition to telling us how it was received Luke gives us a much fuller account (than do Matthew and Mark) of the manner in which Jesus answered his critics and of their resulting hostile reaction. 6:1. He left that place and came to his hometown; and his disciples followed him. Sometime we do not know how long after leaving Capernaum Jesus entered his hometown, that is, the place where he had been brought up. Basically the word used in the original and here translated hometown means fatherland, but here the definition the place where he had been brought up is clearly correct, as Luke 4:16proves. See also Mark 6:4; Matt. 13:54, 57; Luke 4:23, 24; John 4:44. Cf. Heb. 11:14. Even though Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:5, 6; Luke 2:4, 15; John 1:45; 7:42; cf. Mic. 5:2), and during a large part of his public ministry had his headquarters in Capernaum (Matt. 4:13), he was and remained Jesus of NazarethMatt. 2:23; 21:11; 26:71; Mark 1:24; 10:47; 14:67; 16:6; Luke 18:37, etc. . It may be of some importance to note that The Twelve are with their Master again; contrast 5:37. There are those who interpret this to mean that the visit to Nazareth was not of a private nature. They could be right. However that may be, Mark continues: 2. And when the sabbath came he began to teach in the synagogue. Many listeners were astonished and said, Where did this man get these things, and what sort of wisdom is it that has been given to him, so that even miracles are done by his hands? See what has been said about the synagogue in connection with 1:39, the special section on this subject. See also on 1:21 ff.; and on 3:1. From Luke 4:17f. we learn that by the synagogue's attendant the scroll of Isaiah had been handed to Jesus. As his text he selected Isa. 61:1, 2a; or else this portion of Isaiah was the haphtarah (lesson from the Prophets) for that particular sabbath. As Luke relates, Isaiah predicts that in the age to come the Spirit would rest upon God's Anointed One, who would proclaim good tidings to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, liberty to the oppressed, the acceptable year of the Lord. At this point, so that evangelist continues, Jesus rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and while all eyes were fixed on him, said, Today, in your very hearing, this passage of Scripture has been fulfilled. He was affirming that by means of himself and his ministry Isaiah's bright promise was being realized. As Mark agrees, the first reaction on the part of the audience was favorable. Jesus had spoken with such inner conviction, freshness, authority, and graciousness that his old acquaintances were struck with astonishment. However, this favorable reaction did not last. Enthusiasm began to be replaced by adverse criticism. Surely, the words were wonderful, but coming from him &from him? How was that possible? Where did this man &one might even translate this fellow &get these things? The man and the things the speaker and the things he spoke seemed to them to be utterly incongruous, to clash. Surely an ordinary, unschooled individual, such as they knew (?) Jesus to be, had no business revealing this kind of ^[228] wisdom! Then also, what about the miracles or works of power reportedly performed by his hands, that is, through him as the agent? The people of Nazareth could not very well deny the facts. The distance between Nazareth and Capernaum was only about twenty miles, and this audience knew that in and around that city many works of power for that is what the word here used for miracles means had been performed by their townsman Jesus. See Mark 1:21 34, 40 45; 2:1–12; 3:1–6; 5:21–43. But what was the source of all this? Cf. Matt. 11:28. That the source of both the words and the works might be God did not seem to occur to them. Besides, if in Capernaum he did all this and they did not reject the reports, then why does he not do something similar here in Nazareth? Let him start his performance! See Luke 4:23. Did he not owe this to his own hometown? The evangelist Mark places special stress on a. the source of Jesus teaching, and b. the nature of the wisdom that even enables him to perform miracles. The derogatory reaction continues in verse 3. Isn t this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Jude and Simon? And aren't his sisters here with us? Jesus, the carpenter! Writing sometime between a.d. 155 and 161, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho LXXXVIII, speaking about Jesus says, He was in the habit of working as a carpenter when among men, making plows and yokes. The word for carpenter, used in the original is tektMn, related to English technician. The cognate verb means to bear, give birth to, bring forth. The tektMn, accordingly, is basically any skilled workman, anyone who brings forth, makes or creates an object. One might say, any craftsman or builder, whether the materials he uses consist of wood, stone, metal, or anything else. In the present case we shall assume that worker in wood, carpenter (see the quotation from Justin Martyr) is correct. It is worthy of note that here in Mark, Jesus himself is called the carpenter, whereas in Matt. 13:55he is called the son of the carpenter. This cannot rightfully be called a discrepancy, since he may well have been called both. In times ancient and even comparatively recent a son would often, as to chosen occupation, follow in the footsteps of his father. What the detractors wanted to say was on this order: What does a mere carpenter know about oratory and particularly about prophetic interpretation and fulfilment? Is he not the son of Mary? Joseph is not even mentioned, probably because by this time he had died. The brothers of Jesus are also mentioned. There was first of all James (Matt. 13:55), a man who after his conversion was to become prominent in the early church, especially in Jerusalem (Acts 12:17; 15:13–29; 21:18; I Cor. 15:7; Gal. 1:19; 2:9, 12; James 1:1; Jude 1). About Joses, mentioned next (Matt. 13:55), not to be confused with the Joses of (Mark 15:40, 47, nothing further is known. Then there was JudeMatt. 13:55; Jude 1); last of all Simon (Matt. 13:55), as unknown to us as is Joses. These were the uterine brothers of Jesus; see above, on 3:31. As to the sisters, they are never mentioned by name. Presumably they were married and still living with their husbands in Nazareth. Familiarity brought contempt, that is, the very fact that the people of Nazareth were so well acquainted with Jesus family, having known them for so long a time, caused them to look down upon him. Who did this carpenter think he was anyway? And they took offense at him, that is, they allowed themselves to become ensnared^[229] into the sin of being repelled by him. 4. So Jesus said to them, A prophet is not without honor except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his own family. See N.T.C. on (John 4:44, where substantially the same proverbial saying is found, with this exception that in that passage, according to its context, the word used in the original, namely patris, refers to the homeland or fatherland, i.e., Galilee, whereas here in Mark 6:4Matt. 13:57) it refers to the hometown, as is clear from its setting and from Luke 4:16. Other translations, such as that a prophet is always honored except, etc., or never fails to be honored except, etc., or is without honor only in, etc., are not precise. Jesus did not say that a prophet is respected everywhere except in his hometown, among his relatives, and in his family. What he did say was to the effect that wherever it might be that a prophet would be honored, certainly not in his hometown, etc. As to this reference to his family, it should be interpreted in the light of such other passages as John 7:5and Acts 1:14. It will then be seen that in the case of Christ's brothers unbelief was by God's grace subsequently changed to faith. Before leaving this passage it should be pointed out that Jesus here definitely implies that he is indeed a prophet, with the right to be honored as such (Deut. 18:15, 18; Matt. 21:11; Luke 24:19; John 9:17; Acts 3:22; 7:37). The result of the rejection at Nazareth was: 5. And he was unable to do any miracle there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people. Because the people of Nazareth rejected Jesus and were in that respect even worse than the Gerasenes (5:17), for the Nazarenes had received more light, greater privileges they did not flock to him to be healed or to bring their sick. So these many grossly rebellious unbelievers were not healed. For them Jesus did not perform any miracle. He did, however, lay his hands on a few sick people. For the expression sick people see on verse 13. These presumably came up to him, or with their consent were brought to him. It is implied that these few were healed. Now even these few may have been moved by considerations below the level of genuine faith, sometimes called saving faith, perhaps better described as faith which, by the grace of God, leads to salvation, the genuine faith to which reference is made in John 3:16; Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8, etc. On the basis of Scripture, theologians speak of historical faith, temporal faith, miraculous faith, as well as of genuine faith that leads to salvation.^[230] In the present case it may well have been merely faith in Jesus as a miracle worker, hence miraculous faith, that caused the few to come to Jesus to be healed. Even then Jesus was not in the habit of refusing to heal. See Luke 17:17b. On the other hand, if these few were true believers a possibility that must not be entirely ruled out, then the situation in Nazareth would remind one of that which at a later time existed in the church of Sardis. See Rev. 3:4. Cf. Isa. 1:9; Jer. 31:7; Joel 2:32; Luke 12:32; Rom. 9:27; 11:5. The remnant doctrine runs as a golden thread through Scripture. But whatever the situation may have been with respect to these few, the Nazareth audience as a whole turned its back upon Jesus. By and large the sick remained unhealed, the sinners unpardoned. However, the form of expression in Mark differs somewhat from that in Matthew. Matt. 13:58reads, And because of their unbelief he did not do many miracles there. Mark has, He was unable to do any miracle there. Probable solution: he could not perform these miracles because, under these circumstances of unbelief and opposition, he did not want to do them. Instead of asserting his almighty power to suppress the people's rebellious stand, he respected their own responsibility for their attitudes and actions. Cf. Matt. 24:37. See also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23. In the soul of Jesus the hostile attitude of the people, an attitude that led to hostile action (Luke 4:28, 29) and was rooted in lack of faith, gave rise to the condition described in verse 6a. And he was amazed^[231] because of their unbelief. Although in the original the verb to be amazed or to marvel occurs thirty times in the four Gospels, in only three instances (Matt. 8:10Luke 7:9); Mark 6:6, representing two separate events, is it used with reference to Jesus. In the one instance he is amazed or astonished at the remarkable faith of a centurion of Gentile origin. In that man's case faith could hardly have been expected, for he was far less privileged than were the Jews. Here in Nazareth, on the contrary, Jesus is amazed about the people's lack of faith. Here faith could have been expected, for Nazareth was a town in Galilee, the very Galilee which had become so highly privileged because of the ministry of Jesus. But rather than dwell in detail on the psychology of Jesus human soul, a subject that is too difficult for the human mind to grasp, the attention should be centered on the fact that the passage under study clearly reveals man's responsibility for his attitudes and actions, a responsibility that is his according to the light he has received (Matt. 11:20–24; Luke 12:47, 48; Rom. 2:12). 6:6b 13 The Charge to The Twelve Cf. Matt. 10:1, 5, 9 14; Luke 9:1 6 And he was going around among the villages, teaching. 7 He called to himself the twelve, began to send them out two by two, and was giving them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He instructed them to take nothing for the road^[232] except a staff, no bread, no traveler's bag, no money in their belt; 9 but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics. 10 And he said to them, Wherever you enter a house, remain there until you leave [that town]. 11 And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, when you leave shake the dust from the soles of your feet, as a testimony to them. 12 So they went out and preached that men should be converted; 13 and they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them. 6b, 7. And he was going around among the villages, teaching. He called to himself the twelve, began to send them out two by two, and was giving them authority over the unclean spirits. Jesus appointed The Twelve after finishing a teaching tour among the Galilean villages. Teaching tour and appointment of these twelve men are combined also in Matt. 9:35 10:4. The appointment as such probably occurred just previous to the preaching of the Sermon on the Mount. See Luke 6:12, 13, 17, 20. And now (perhaps somewhat later during the same summer, namely of the year a.d. 28?) the Master sends out these men on a mission assignment. Note, He began to send them out. One interpretation of this began is that this assignment is of a preliminary nature, the mission to Israel, to be followed by the charge to preach the gospel to the whole world. (Matt. 10:5, 6, contrasted with 18:19Mark 16:16; Luke 24:47) might lend some support to this view.^[233] However that may be, one fact is clear: these men were to be Christ's official ambassadors or apostles, men clothed with authority to represent their Sender. That exactly twelve men, no more and no less, receive this assignment must mean that the Lord designated them to be the nucleus of the new Israel, for the Israel of the old dispensation had been represented by the twelve patriarchs. Cf. Rev. 21:12, 14. Mark he alone relates that the men were sent out two by two. ^[234] This two by two arrangement may well be what Matthew has in mind in 10:2–4. See N.T.C. on that passage. When the question is asked, Why two by two? practical considerations such as a. to help and encourage each other (Eccles. 4:9) and b. to be valid witnesses (Num. 35:30; Deut. 19:15; Matt. 18:16; John 8:17; II Cor. 13:1; I Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28) occur to the mind immediately. At a later time we notice that Peter and John bring their united testimony (Acts 3:1, 4:1, 13, 19); that Barnabas and Saul are sent out together on their missionary journey (Acts 13:1 3); and that afterward Paul and Silas are together commended by the brothers to the grace of God (15:40). And let us not forget Barnabas and Mark! (15:39). To The Twelve was given authority over the unclean spirits; that is, Jesus imparted to them the right and the power to expel these demons from the hearts and lives of men. Cf. verse 13a; Matt. 10:1. For more on demon possession and expulsion see above, on 1:23; also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 436, 437. Although in the summarized charge recorded in Mark 6:7nothing is said about preaching nor about healing the sick, these two functions must have been included in the charge. The order to preach is implied in verse 11 and verse 30; the mandate to heal the sick is implied in verse 13b. Just why these two other matters preaching and healing are not specifically mentioned in the charge we simply do not know. Some answer this question by affirming that the greater gift (authority to expel demons) implies the lesser (preaching and healing the sick), an answer that impresses me as being, for more than one reason, less than satisfactory. See on verses 12, 13. For the phrase unclean spirits see on 5:2. 8, 9. He instructed them to take nothing for the road except a staff, no bread, no traveler's bag, no money in their belt; but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.^[235] Only that which is absolutely necessary must be taken along on the trip. Why? Because God will provide. The disciples, and now also apostles, must place their trust entirely in him. No doubt that is the basic answer. See Matt. 6:19–34; Mark 8:19 21; Luke 22:35. To this may be added Matt. 10:10b, The worker is entitled to his support, meaning: upon those who hear the gospel rests the obligation to provide for those who bring it. This also is in line with the teaching of the Old Testament and the New: Deut. 25:4; I Cor. 9:7, 14; and see N.T.C. on I Thess. 2:9and on I Tim. 5:18. The list of things to be taken along, or (mostly) not to be taken along, consists of the following items, in the order as mentioned here in verses 8 and 9: Staff.^[236] In non-biblical Greek it refers at times to a magic wand. Other meanings are: fishing rod, rodlike streak of light from the sun, etc. In (Ps. 23:4(LXX 22:4) the word refers to the shepherd's rod. Cf. Mic. 7:14. In the New Testament the rod is at times an instrument of punishmentI Cor. 4:21), a meaning which easily connects with the rod of iron of (Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15. Then there is also the ruler's scepterHeb. 1:8); the rod that gives support so that one can lean on it (Heb. 11:21); and Aaron's rod that budded (Heb. 9:4). But here in Mark 6:8and its parallels it is the traveler's staff that is meant. Bread. Here and in Luke 9:3the word is used generically. Traveler's bag. This was a kind of knapsack, a bag for the road or for traveling. It is a bag that, before leaving, a person would fill with supplies which he thinks he might need while traveling. Because of the context, which seems to form a kind of climax: Do not take along any bread, nor even a bag to carry it in, in fact not even money to purchase it, the idea that the reference is to a beggar's collecting bag (A. Deissmann, op. cit., p. 109) lacks probability. Besides, as Matt. 10:10b clearly indicates, Jesus does not look upon the apostles as being beggars! Money. The word used in the original has the basic meaning copper, brass, bronze. In the second place it may refer to anything made from any of these metals. See I Cor. 13:1. Accordingly it may also refer to coins, small change; thus probably here in Mark 6:8; cf. 12:41. Note the expression no money in their belt. By winding or wrapping a belt, of whatever material, around the body a few times its folds would serve admirably as pockets for money or other valuables. Even today those who go abroad will often carry money or traveler's checks, etc., in a belt for security reasons. Sandal; here plural sandals. In Matt. 10:10a synonym, with little if any difference in meaning, is used. See also Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; 10:4; 15:22; 22:35; Acts 13:25. Sandals consisted of flat soles, made sometimes of wood, often of leather, or even of matted grass. By means of straps the sandal was kept from falling off the foot. Tunic; here plural two tunics. This was an undershirt worn next to the skin. It reached almost to the feet and was equipped with arm-holes (Matt. 5:40; 10:10, Luke 3:11, 6:29; 9:3). In Mark 14:63the plural refers to clothes in general. So far we experience no great difficulty. But, as the following summary indicates, there seems to be a discrepancy or conflict with respect to two items: the staff and the sandals. Must the following be taken along on the journey? Item Matt. 10:9, 10Mark 6:8, 9Luke 9:3 staff No Yes No bread No No traveler's bag No No No money No No No sandals No Yes two tunics No No No It would seem then as if according to Mark, Jesus wanted the disciples to take along a staff; according to Matthew and Luke he told them not to take it along. According to Mark, the Master wanted them to wear sandals, but according to MatthewLuke 10:4in the Mission of the Seventy or Seventy-two , he prohibited this. No universally satisfying solution has been offered. Those writers who frequently refer to variant and at times conflicting sources from which, as they see it, the Gospel writers have derived their material, accept discrepancies or contradictions.^[237] Others and there are several conveniently skip the entire problem. Calvin's solution in connection with the staff is that Matthew and Luke refer to a rod that could become burdensome; hence, must be left home; while Mark, though using the same word, is thinking of a walking stick to support and relieve the traveler. The reformer does not show, however, why in two parallel accounts the identical word would have these two different meanings. The solution as this interpreter sees it, is probably found in Matt. 10:9, 10: Don t supply yourselves with gold or silver or copper (money) to put into your belts, nor with a traveler's bag, two tunics or sandals or a staff. What Matthew probably means is, Do not take along an extra pair of sandals. This seems all the more probable in view of the fact that in his Gospel the reference to sandals follows immediately upon the injunction against taking along two tunics. Therefore the warning against taking along extras probably carries over to the next item sandals, and to the next a staff. If this is correct, what Jesus is saying also here in Mark is: an extra tunic, extra pair of sandals, and an extra staff must not be taken along.^[238] The staff you have in your hand must be the only staff you take along; the sandals you wear must be the only ones you have with you. 10. And he said to them, Wherever you enter a house, remain there until you leave [that town]. How the disciples must decide in which home to stay is answered in Matt. 10:11. It was the duty of the hearers to extend hospitality. All the more so when the travelers enrich the people with the pearl of great price. And the visitors themselves must show a co-operative spirit. They must not be so fastidious that whenever some small detail is not to their liking in one home, they immediately leave and enter another where the facilities seem to be more desirable and the food more palatable. The spread of the gospel has the priority over personal likes and dislikes. Hence the missionaries not only traveling but probably also lodging two by two? must remain in the home that was kind enough to extend hospitality to them. A very practical lesson! 11. And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, when you leave shake the dust from^[239] the soles of your feet,^[240] as a testimony to them. After traveling through heathen territory Jews had the custom of shaking the dust off their sandals and clothes before re-entering the Holy Land.^[241] They were afraid that otherwise in their own country levitically clean objects might be rendered unclean. What Jesus is here saying, therefore, is that any place whatever, be it a house, village, city, hamlet, that refuses to accept the gospel must be considered unclean, as if it were pagan soil. Therefore such a center of unbelief must be treated similarly. Paul and Barnabas did exactly that when a persecution was organized against them in the Jewish district of Antioch in Pisidia (Acts 13:50, 51). A colossal responsibility, a heavy load of guilt, rests on such a place. See Matt. 10:15. In the wording of Christ's instruction there are a few variations. These suffice to show that even though the Gospel-writers in all probability used written as well as oral sources, they remained authors or composers, were never merely copyists. Thus in the original Matthew (10:14) and Luke (9:5) use one word for dust, Mark (6:11). another,^[242] but in either case dust is the proper English translation. So also Matthew mentions that house or that city, Mark any place, Luke that city, but there is no basic difference. Matthew in this connection says nothing about a testimony, but see 10:15. Mark has (shake the dust from the soles of your feet) as a testimony to them; Luke: as a testimony against them. But properly interpreted, the meaning is the same. In either case the symbolical action, in obedience to the command of Christ, is a public declaration of the divine displeasure that rests on a place that has refused the gospel. The testimony addressed to them is therefore also a testimony against them &that they might repent. Cf. Rev. 16:9. It is a revelation of God's marked disapproval, for the spreaders of the good tidings are his ambassadors. They are bringing his word. So, by rejecting them, these wicked people are rejecting God; or, if one prefers, Christ. 12, 13. So they went out and preached that men should be converted; and they were casting out many demons and were anointing with oil many sick people and healing them. Note the following: a. They went out and preached. They heralded. Preaching, if it is true to the original meaning of the term, is the earnest proclamation of news initiated by God. It is not the abstract speculation on views excogitated by man. See also 1:4, 7, 14, 38, 45; and N.T.C. on II Tim. 4:2. b. They preached that men should be converted. For the meaning of the important verb used in the original see on 1:15. Repentance, to be sure, is indicated, but the word has a far richer meaning. c. For they preached the original uses one tense; for they were casting out and were anointing another.^[243] This may well indicate that the main task of these disciples was preaching. But from time to time, in connection with the preaching and as a divinely approved and ordered (see verse 7) confirmation of the truthfulness of their message and the genuine character of their calling, these men performed miracles of healing.^[244] d. They were casting out many demons. One might say that they were very successful in this activity. That the disciples were not always successful in expelling these unclean spirits is clear from 9:18. Apart from power granted to them by God they were powerless. That also shows why prayer was of primary significance, a lesson which these men needed to learn. See on verse 7 for demon-possession and expulsion. e. They were anointing with oil.& In Biblical times oil of one kind or another (often olive oil) was used for many different purposes: as a cosmetic (Exod. 25:6; Ruth 3:3; Luke 7:46); as food, instead of butter (Num. 11:8; Deut. 7:13; Prov. 21:17); as an illuminent (Exod. 25:6; 27:20; Matt. 25:3, 4, 8); as a symbol of divine grace and power in consecrating a person for office (Lev. 2:1ff.; Num. 4:9ff.; Ps. 89:20); in connection with offerings (Ezek. 45:14, 24; 46:4–7, 11, 14, 15); and in connection with burial (Mark 14:3 8; John 12:3 8). That oil was also used as a physical remedy appears from Luke 10:34: the good Samaritan poured oil and wine on the wounds of the man who had fallen into the hands of bandits.^[245] It is a fact that in the ancient world oil was used extensively as a remedy. Did not Galen, the great Greek doctor, say, Oil is the best of all remedies for healing diseased bodies? The question, then, is, As mentioned here in Mark 6:13, did the disciples use oil as a medicine? The answer, as this interpreter sees it, is probably not. It was in all probability a symbol of the presence, grace, and power of the Holy Spirit. That oil did at times serve as a symbol of the invigorating presence and power of the Spirit is very clear from Zech. 4:1–6. Matt. 25:2 4also deserves consideration in this connection. In the light of Exod. 25:37and Zech. 4:1 6examine also Isa. 11:2; Rev. 1:4, 12. Now if that is true, then anointing the sick with oil meant, Look to God for healing, not to us. It meant, His Spirit is able to heal both body and soul. Other commentators have shed valuable light on this use of oil, as follows: Oil is a biblical symbol of the Holy Spirit's presence, and thus the very anointing is an acted parable of divine healing. ^[246] Oil must here be viewed as a visible sign of spiritual energies and grace imparted to them [the apostles]. ^[247] The healings were always miraculous and instantaneous olive oil never works in that way. ^[248] Anointing was a frequent specific &in ordinary medical treatment, and this would suggest its use in the symbolism of supernatural healing. ^[249] Jesus en sy dissipels het siekes genees deur die aanraking en die krag van die Woord en nie deur die aanwending van olie nie ( Jesus and his disciples healed the sick through the touch and the power of the Word, and not through the application of oil. ^[250] The very fact that a. in the public mind oil was already connected with healing, and b. as has been shown, was a symbol of the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, made its use understandable, especially during the very early period of gospel proclamation. Hence, we find it mentioned here in what was probably the earliest Gospel, and in James 5:14(for whatever reason) in what may well have been the earliest of the canonical epistles. As time went on, and spiritual knowledge increased, oil is no longer mentioned. It was apparently no longer deemed necessary for instruction. The Roman Catholic sacrament of extreme unction is not even suggested here, for that rite is administered in the expectation of impending death, whereas the anointing mentioned here in Mark 6:13occurs in a context of giving a person a new lease on life. Many sick people were healed. The word used in the original is found also in Matt. 14:14; Mark 6:5; 16:18; and I Cor. 11:30. It looks at sick people from the aspect of their powerlessness. They are weak, feeble, but Jesus, through his Spirit can make them strong. 6:14–29 Herod's Wicked Birthday Party and John the Baptist's Gruesome Death Cf. Matt. 14:1–12; Luke 9:7 9 14 Now King Herod heard (about this), for his [Jesus ] name had become well-known; and some people^[251] were saying, John the Baptist is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him. 15 But others were saying, He is Elijah, and still others, He is a prophet, like one of the prophets (of long ago). 16 But when Herod heard (this) he said, The man whom I beheaded, namely John, he is risen. 17 For, by order of Herod, John had been arrested, bound, and put in prison, on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he [Herod Antipas] had married her. 18 For John kept telling Herod, It isn't right for you to have your brother's wife. 19 So Herodias had it in for^[252] him and wanted to kill him but could not; 20 for Herod was afraid of John, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he listened to him he was greatly perplexed;^[253] still, he used to enjoy listening to him. 21 But an opportunity arrived when Herod on his birthday gave a dinner for his high civil officials and military commanders and the chief men of Galilee. 22 And when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she fascinated Herod and his dinner guests. So the king said to the girl, Ask me for anything you wish, and I'll give it to you. 23 He promised her on oath, Whatever you ask I'll give you, up to half of my kingdom. 24 And she went out and said to her mother, What shall I ask for? She answered. The head of John the Baptist. 25 She rushed right back to the king and made this request, I want you to give me right now on a platter the head of John the Baptist. 26 And although the king was deeply grieved, yet because of his oaths and his dinner guests he did not want to refuse her. 27 So at once the king ordered an executioner to bring his [John's] head. He went and beheaded John in the prison, 28 brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. 29 Now when his [John's] disciples heard about it they came and took away his body and laid it in a tomb. 14, 15. Now King Herod heard (about this), for his [Jesus ] name had become well-known; and some people were saying, John the Baptist is risen from the dead; that's why these miraculous powers are at work in him. But others were saying, He is Elijah, and still others, He is a prophet, like one of the prophets (of long ago). Without any temporal reference this story is introduced; that is, we are not informed as to just how long after the events previously related news concerning the miraculous powers at work in Jesus reached Herod. Nevertheless, we can infer from the words John the Baptist is risen from the dead that we have now reached a time that extends beyond John's execution, which, in turn, probably occurred months after the beginning of his imprisonment. It is not improbable that the murder of Christ's herald took place in or near the beginning of the year a.d. 29.^[254] The Herod to which reference is made here, and everywhere in the Gospels except in (Matt. 2:1 19and Luke 1:5, where his father Herod the Great is meant, had at the latter's death been appointed tetrarch over Galilee and Perea. He continued in that position from a.d. 4 to 39. He was a son of Herod the Great by Malthace the Samaritan. Though in the GospelsActs 4:27; 13:1) he is simply called Herod, elsewhere (see, for example, Josephus, Jewish War I.562) his name is frequently given as Antipas. He may therefore be called Herod Antipas. Mark writes, Now King Herod heard.& The title King is here used in a loose, very general or popular sense, for technically this man was not a king and was never going to become one. See on verse 28. What was it that Herod heard? We are tempted to answer: He heard about Christ's charge to The Twelve and the manner in which they carried it out, for that was the theme of the immediately preceding section. Nevertheless, as the context indicates, the reference is broader and centers in Jesus himself, as is clear from the fact that Mark continues for his [Jesus ] name had become well-known. It is not strange that when at Christ's word even hopelessly sick people were suddenly and completely healed, even lepers cleansed, storms hushed, demons expelled, and a dead child brought back to life, as the preceding sections of Mark's Gospel have indicated, the name and fame of the One who accomplished all this had become well-known. What is somewhat strange is that it took so long for the news to reach the ears of Herod. A possible explanation would be that the palace where he was now staying probably Machaerus, on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea was too far removed from Capernaum for the news to have reached him earlier. The king heard about the miraculous powers ^[255] of Jesus. The reports that reached him were threefold: a. Some people^[256] were convinced that Jesus was John the Baptist restored to life. This may seem somewhat odd, since Scripture nowhere ascribes any miracles to the Baptist. But it is probable that by this group John was held in such high esteem that the ability to perform miracles was attributed to him. b. Another group said, He is Elijah. Had not Elijah's return, as Messiah's forerunner, been predicted by Malachi (4:5)? Cf. Isa. 40:3; and see above, on Mark 1:1 3. c. The third group, not wishing to be very definite, was convinced nevertheless that Jesus was one of the great Old Testament prophets. See also on 8:28. The king perhaps after some hesitation, to which Luke 9:7 9may refer accepted the first of these three opinions, as is clear from the words of verse 16. But when Herod heard (this) he said, The man whom I beheaded, namely John, he is risen. That was the answer of his morbid, feverish imagination, influenced by a guilty conscience. As Matthew shows, it was what he told his servants. Mark realizes that this statement made by Herod namely, The man whom I beheaded &he is risen, requires explanation and amplification. He therefore at this point proceeds to tell the story of the Baptist's imprisonment and execution: 17, 18. For, by order of Herod, John had been arrested, bound, and put in prison, on account of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife, because he [Herod Antipas] had married her. For John kept telling Herod, It isn't right for you to have your brother's wife. Before entering into the details of this narrative a preliminary remark with reference to Mark's contribution may well be in order. We admire Luke's brevity and Matthew's reserve. In fact, Luke (9:7–9) presents what may have been a stage in the historical setting. Briefly he touches upon the ruler's admission, mental confusion, and aspiration. Matthew (14:3–12) furnishes what may be called a rather complete summary with emphasis, over against Luke, on the word complete; and over against Mark, on the word summary of the events leading up to the Baptist's death. For the more detailed story we must turn to Mark (6:17–29). Here alone is plainly stated what in Matthew is only implied, that Herod had married Herodias, his brother Philip's wife. Here alone the wrath of Herodias against the Baptist, who denounced this incestuous and adulterous relationship in courageous, unmistakable terms, is reported. In the entire New Testament is there even one other passage that portrays more vividly the storm raging in a ruler's conscience? See verses 19b, 20. And as to the denouement of the narrative, compare Mark's five direct quotations (in verses 22b 25) with Matthew's one (14:8). To be sure, each Gospel has a beauty of its own. All are fully inspired. It would be rash to praise one Gospel above another. Matthew's reserve is as consonant with that evangelist's aim as is Mark's love for vivid detail, reflecting undoubtedly the preaching of an eye-witness, effervescent Peter. But God be praised for having given to the church, in his wisdom, not only Matthew, Luke, and John, but also the man who as a story-teller is unsurpassed among the four, namely, John Mark! For, by orders of Herod, John had been arrested.& One might also say, For, Herod had ordered or caused John to be arrested,^[257] bound, and put in prison. All this happened on account of Herodias. Who was this Herodias? She was the daughter of Aristobulus, who was a son of Herod the Great by Mariamne I. She had married her half-uncle (her father's half-brother) Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great by Mariamne II. To this Herod Philip she bore a daughter, who in 6:22 is referred to simply as the daughter of Herodias, but who by Josephus is called Salome (Antiquities XVIII.136). Now Herod Antipas, on a visit to Herod Philip, became infatuated with Herodias. The two illicit lovers agreed to separate from their present marriage partners Herodias from Herod Philip; Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas, king of the Nabatean Arabs and to marry each other. This was done. When John the Baptist heard about this he rebuked Herod Antipas. He kept telling Herod, It isn't right for you to have your brother's wife. There was good reason for the rebuke, for such a marriage was incestuous (Lev. 18:16; 20:21). Was it not also adulterous (Rom. 7:2, 3)? Of course, Herodias knew very well that whenever John rebuked the tetrarch he was also, by implication, denouncing her. So to satisfy her, Herod had John arrested, bound, and put in prison. But Herodias was not satisfied with John's imprisonment. She craved nothing less than John's assassination. Even in his imprisonment the Baptist could be and was probably summoned to appear before her husband again and again. She probably feared that Herod might come under John's spell, and who knows what might happen if those words, It isn't right for you to have your brother's wife continued to be dinned into the adulterer's ear! Her yearning to get her spouse to do away with John did not meet with immediate success however: 19, 20. So Herodias had it in for^[258] him and wanted to kill him but could not; for Herod was afraid of John, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man, and he kept him safe. And when he listened to him he was greatly perplexed;^[259] still he used to enjoy listening to him. Various elements enter into the mental state of Herod, as here described: a. Desire to keep peace with Herodias. It was for her sake that he had put John in chains and had shut him up in a terrible, deep, and hot dungeon that formed part of the castle-palace at Machaerus. b. Awe in the presence of John. Herod knew that John was not just innocent of any crime but an outstandingly excellent person, being righteous, that is, an object of God's approval, and holy, that is, a man of upright conduct, separated and consecrated to God and his service. c. Gladness whenever he listened to John. One might say, The ruler admired his accuser. Was this admiration due, perhaps, to the very fact that, in sharp contrast with the flatterers usually found in the company of rulers, here was one man who dared to speak his real mind? Was it John's manly eloquence that caused the tetrarch to hear him gladly? Was that why he kept John safe,^[260] so that Herodias could not harm him? d. Sense of guilt. Herod knew very well that he had sinned by putting away his own wife, by stealing his brother's wife and marrying her, by keeping her as his wife, and by causing the accuser, John the Baptist, to be arrested, bound, and imprisoned. To summarize, the man knew that he was repressing the voice of his conscience. The result of all this: e. Perplexity. He was greatly perplexed, terribly disturbed. In his very interesting and instructive book, Souls in the Making, New York, 1930, p. 114, the author, John G. Mackenzie, states, The worst forms of functional mental disorder arise from a repressed conscience. David, also perplexed and having similarly committed gross sins including adultery, not only relates his experience while in this state of horrible guilt feelings, but also shows the true solution: While I kept guilty silence My strength was spent with grief, Thy hand was heavy on me, My soul found no relief; But when I owned my trespass, My sin hid not from thee, When I confessed transgression, Then thou forgavest me. From Psalms 32, Stanza 2, No. 55 in the Psalter Hymnal (Centennial Edition) of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, 1959. But Herod Antipas refused to follow David's example of humble confession. Instead he became hardened, with the result that he did not prosper (Prov. 28:13). The very fact that even after he, the murderer, heard about Jesus, he did not repent, shows how far he had wandered away from the path of righteousness and truth. In fact, he never chose to walk on that path. Dark forebodings clouded his mind when, with respect to the rumors concerning Jesus he exclaimed, The man whom I beheaded, namely John, he is risen. When at last Herod's desire to see JesusLuke 9:9b was fulfilled, he mocked the Silent Sufferer (23:8–12). For what happened to Herod afterward see on verse 28. So far that is, as pictured in verses 17 20 Herodias had failed to persuade Herod to destroy the Baptist. But at last what she must have considered her lucky day arrived: 21 23. But an opportunity arrived when Herod on his birthday gave a dinner for his high civil officials and military commanders and the chief men of Galilee. And when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she fascinated Herod and his dinner guests. So the king said to the girl, Ask me for anything you wish, and I'll give it to you. He promised her on oath, Whatever you ask I'll give you, up to half of my kingdom.^[261] Herod's birthday was opportune or suitable because it was exactly right for the purpose Herodias had in mind, namely, to settle her score with John the Baptist and to make sure that she would not be cast off. This was her golden opportunity. The dinner served on this day of celebration was, of course, of a festive nature; hence, one might call it a banquet. According to Mark, three kinds of guests were invited: a. the high civil officials, more literally grandees or magnates; b. the chiliarchs, thus literally; according to the basic meaning each was a commander of a thousand men, but the more general sense of military tribunes or commanders must probably be accepted; and c. the chief men of Galilee, probably those socially prominent friends of Herod who did not hold any civil or military position. If what happened at this banquet was similar to what is described in Esther 1:10, 11, Salome entered and danced when the king was merry with wine, therefore toward the end of the banquet. We can well imagine the erotic and suggestive manner in which the probably half-naked girl danced. And her step-father was a typical Herod, as his very marriage if it can be called that with Herodias proves. The guests whom he had invited must have been men of the same class. It is not surprising that both king and guests were enchanted. They looked on with voluptuous delight. The dance over, on impulse Herod tells the girl, Ask for anything you wish, and I'll give it to you. When she hesitates, he quickly repeats his promise, this time under oath, Whatever you ask I'll give you, up to half of my kingdom. It is probably not advisable to interpret this up to half of my kingdom too literally. It is true that the tetrarch was not really a king at all, hence had no kingdom which he could give away. But the phrase cf. Esther 5:3; 7:2must probably be understood proverbially. It was a kind of hyperbole, so that what Herod really meant was something like, I'll give you whatever you ask, no matter how much it costs me. 24, 25. And she went out and said to her mother, What shall I ask for? She answered, The head of John the Baptist. She rushed right back to the king and made this request, I want you to give me right now on a platter the head of John the Baptist. The plot unfolds as if Herodias herself had not only planned every detail but was even pulling all the wires. Her fondest hopes as to what just might happen if her daughter would dance were fully realized. Of course, the girl's mother did not dine with men. But she quickly hears what had transpired. Salome's report to her mother ends with the question, What shall I ask for? ^[262] Bluntly her mother replies, The head of John the Baptist. Without a moment's hesitation the daughter with animated step returns to the generous, profligate promiser, and surpasses even her mother in unabashed and imaginative impudence. She blurts out, I want you to give me right now^[263] on a platter^[264] the head of John the Baptist. She wants it right here (Matt. 14:8) and right now (Mark 6:25). That is the daughter's wish. It is also the mother's wish. Mother and daughter are a perfect match &in cruelty! Right here and now the murder must be committed, because there must be no chance for John to escape, no chance either for the king to escape from the snare in which he has entangled himself. 26 28. And although the king was deeply grieved, yet because of his oaths and his dinner guests he did not want to refuse her. So at once the king ordered an executioner to bring his [John's] head. He went and beheaded John in the prison, brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the girl; and the girl gave it to her mother. The king was distressed, says Matthew (14:9); sorely distressed or deeply grieved says Mark. In answer to the question, What were the reasons for his emotional pangs? the following items deserve consideration: a. He had always admired John, and felt uneasy about killing him. Conscience (see verse 20) told him that murdering John, who was not only innocent but righteous and holy, was terribly wrong.^[265] b. He was aware of the fact that the people in general held John to be a prophet. Therefore he must have asked himself, What will the people think of me if I grant Salome's ardent wish? See Matt. 14:5. c. He must also have realized that his wife had tricked him into this difficult situation and that she, after all, was now getting her way. It can be argued that the way out of his predicament would have been for him to say to Salome, I promised to favor you with a gift; I did not promise to commit a crime. Or else, I promised you, not your mother, a gift. Best of all would have been the way of escape pointed out in Lev. 5:4–6. But Herod's stubborn pride, his dread of losing face before his cronies, the dinner guests who had heard his promise backed up by oaths, kept him from saying. How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God (Gen. 39:9). False pride won the victory over all other considerations, including even the voice of conscience. So he ordered one of his guards, an executioner,^[266] to bring in John's head. Since the prison in which John was kept was in all probability part of the palace at Machaerus (so also Josephus, Antiquities XVIII.119), the executioner did not have far to go. He beheaded John and, as requested, on a plate delivered John's head to the girl, who handed it to her mother. As to the results of Herod's wicked deeds here recorded (rejecting his own wife, marrying Herodias, and murdering John), note the following: a. The increased displeasure of many of the Jews. b. The wrath of Areta, the father of Herod's rejected wife. Aretas bitterly resented what Herod had done to his daughter. He therefore waged war against him and in the ensuing battle the entire army of Herod was destroyed (Josephus, Antiquities XVIII.114, 116, 119, for points a and b). c. Banishment. Herod Antipas later allowed himself to be persuaded by Herodias to go to Rome in order to be elevated to the rank of king, the same rank that had been granted to her brother Herod Agrippa I. However, when the latter informed Emperor Caligula about the aspirant's plotting against the very ruler whose special favor he was now seeking, the result for the conspirator was perpetual exile to Lyons in Gaul. The story of John the Baptist is concluded as follows: 29. Now when his [John's] disciples heard about it they came and look away his body and laid it in a tomb. For John's disciples see on 2:18; also N.T.C. on Matt. 11:1–3, and on John 3:25, 26. From Matt. 11:2ff. we learn that these men had been allowed to visit their teacher in prison. It is not surprising, therefore, that they were also allowed to provide an honorable burial for his decapitated body. What happened to the disciples of John? From (John 1:35, 40it is clear that previously some of Christ's earliest disciples had been disciples of John. Many other disciples of the Baptist must have followed their example. They, too, had become followers of Jesus, which was exactly what John, while still alive, wanted them to doJohn 3:22 30). From (Matt. 14:12 the conclusion can be drawn that now also, in connection with John's death and burial, his disciples were on friendly terms with Jesus; in fact, believed in him. Though it is true that more than twenty years later, in Ephesus hence, far away from Palestine, there were certain followers of Jesus, including even Apollos, who knew only the baptism of JohnActs 18:24, 25; 19:1–5), and had not heard about the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, it is also a fact that when these men received further instruction they were immediately ready to receive Christian baptism. There can be no doubt about the fact, therefore, that John was, as had been predicted concerning him, a true way-preparer for Christ (Matt. 11:11–13; 17:10–13; Mark 1:1 3, 7, 8; 9:11–13; John 1:29 34). Even Paul, in Acts 19:4, implies as much. For John the Baptist and the Qumran movement see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 506. 6:30–44 The Feeding of the Five Thousand Cf. Matt. 14:13–21, Luke 9:10 17; John 6:1 14 30 And the apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all that they had done and taught. 31 He said to them, Come away by yourselves to a lonely place and rest a while. For they did not even have a chance to eat, so many people were coming and going. 32 So by themselves they went away in the boat^[267] to a lonely place. 33 Now many saw them leaving and recognized them. They ran there on foot from all the towns and outwent them.^[268] 34 And, having come out, he [Jesus] saw a great multitude, and his heart went out to them,^[269] because they were like sheep without a shepherd; and he began to teach them many things. 35 And since the day was already drawing to a close,^[270] his disciples came up to him and said, This is a lonely place, and since the day is already drawing to a close, 36 send the people away that they may go to the farms and villages round about^[271] and buy themselves something to eat. 37 But he answered, You give them to eat. They said to him, Shall we go and buy bread for two hundred denarii, and give it to them to eat? 38 Then he asked them, How many bread-cakes do you have? Go and see. When they knew they said, Five, and two fishes. 39 Then he ordered them all to sit down company by company upon the green grass. 40 They reclined group by group, in hundreds and in fifties. 41 He took the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven gave thanks and broke the bread-cakes and kept giving them to his disciples to set before the people, and he divided the two fishes among them all. 42 They all ate and were filled. 43 And they picked up twelve baskets full of broken pieces and of the fishes. 44 And there were five thousand men who ate the bread-cakes. All four evangelists report this event. The similarities and differences are summarized in the chart on pages 244 246. 1. Setting indicated 30. And the apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all that they had done and taught. Having accomplished their mission tour (verses 7 13), The Twelve are gathered around Jesus. Here and probably also in 3:14 Mark calls these men apostles. They must be regarded as men through whom Jesus Christ himself is accomplishing his work on earth. They are his official ambassadors, having been commissioned by him to carry out certain specific tasks: preaching, healing, and casting out demons. He who rejects them rejects Christ himself (Matt. 10:40; Luke 10:16; John 13:20). It is in their capacity as apostles that they have been at work on the tour that is now ended. Therefore the term apostles, also in 3:14, is very appropriate. The Feeding of the Five Thousand Matthew 14:13–21 Mark 6:30–44 Luke 9:10–17 John 6:1–14 1. Setting indicated Jesus hears the report of John's death. Jesus hears the report of The Twelve, returned from their mission tour. Similar to Mark After these things. 2. Rest needed He withdraws [implied: with his disciples] to a lonely place. He invites The Twelve to accompany him to a lonely place, for rest. They are seen, leaving by boat. Jesus takes his disciples to Bethsaida. Jesus [implied: with his disciples] goes to the other side of the Sea of Tiberias. 3. Rest curtailed Crowds follow on foot from the towns. Crowds rush around the top of the lake in order to be with Jesus. Similar to Matthew Jesus, already arrived, from a hill sees the crowd approaching. Passover is near. 4. Compassion shown Jesus, already arrived, comes out of his seclusion, is moved with compassion, and heals the sick. He, the tender Shepherd, having come out, takes pity on the people, the sheep, and teaches them. Jesus welcomes the people, speaks to them about the kingdom of God, and heals their sick. Not in John 5. Hunger anticipated Day drawing to a close, the people need nourishment. The disciples want Jesus to dismiss the people, so that they may buy food. Similar to Matthew Similar to Matthew and Mark Jesus engages in conversation with Philip and Andrew about feeding the people. The lad with five barley-cakes and two fishes. 6. Orders issued: a. to the disciples: b. to the people Jesus to disciples: You give them to eat. They: All we have here is five bread-cakes and two fishes. Jesus to disciples: Bring them here to me. He then orders the people to sit down on the grass. Similar to Matthew. Main additions: a. Question of the disciples, Shall we buy bread-cakes for two hundred denarii? b. Jesus orders the people to sit down company by company. c. They recline, group by group, in hundreds and in fifties. Similar to Matthew and Mark. Slight variations: a. Disciples to Jesus, We have no more than five bread-cakes and two fishes, unless we are to go and buy food for all these people. Luke adds: people to sit down For there were about five thousand men. b. Jesus to disciples, Make them sit down in companies about fifty each. Jesus said, Make the people sit down. Now there was plenty grass in that place. So the men sat down, in number about five thousand. 7. Miracle performed Jesus takes the five bread-cakes and the two fishes, gives thanks, breaks the bread-cakes, and gives them to the disciples, who distribute them among the people. All eat and are filled. Similar to Matthew. Mark adds, and he divided the two fishes among them all. Similar to Matthew. Similar to Matthew and Mark, except for the fact that the disciples are not mentioned as the distributers. 8. Leftovers collected Twelve baskets of broken pieces are collected. There were five thousand men, not counting women and children. Similar to Matthew. Exceptions: a. In addition to the pieces of bread, Mark also mentions the (pieces of) fish that were collected. b. He omits any mention of women and children. Luke is brief: And they pick up what was left over, twelve baskets of broken pieces. Jesus orders his disciples to pick up the broken pieces that were left, so that nothing be wasted. Result: twelve baskets full. People's reaction: a. This is really the prophet who is to come into the world. b. They want to take Jesus by force to make him king. He retires to the hill. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VII: 1 23 Chapter 7:1–23 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do Ceremonial versus Real Defilement 7:1–23 Ceremonial versus Real Defilement Cf. Matt. 15:1–20 7 1 And there gathered together to him the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, 2 and they saw that some of his disciples were eating their food with defiled, that is with unrinsed, hands. 3 Now the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, unless they rinse their hands thoroughly,^[298] do not eat, thus clinging to the tradition of the elders. 4 And (when they come) from the marketplace, unless they ceremonially wash themselves^[299] they do not eat. And there are many other things which they have received in order to cling to, such as ceremonial washings^[300] of cups, pitchers, and kettles.^[301] 5 So the Pharisees and the scribes were asking him, Why don't your disciples live in accordance with the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands? 6 He said to them, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honor me with their lips But their heart is far from me. 7 But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men. 8 You let go the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. 9 And he said to them, How beautifully you are setting aside God's command in order to establish^[302] your own tradition! 10 For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother, and He who curses father or mother must certainly be put to death. 11 But you say, If anyone says to his father or to his mother, (It's) corbn, that is, a gift (set apart for God), whatever it be by which I might benefit you 12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do. 14 And he called the people to him again and said to them, Hear me, all of you, and understand: 15 There is nothing outside a man which by going into him is able to defile him; no, it is the things that come out of a man that defile a man. ^[303] 17 And after he had left the people and had gone home,^[304] his disciples were asking him (the meaning of) this parable. 18 He said to them, Are you also so lacking in understanding? Do you not know that nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, 19 since it does not enter his heart but his stomach and goes out into the latrine? Thus he pronounced all foods clean. 20 He continued, What comes out of a man, it is that which defiles a man. 21 For it is from inside, from men's hearts that the evil schemes arise: sexual sins, thefts, murders, 22 adulteries, covetings, malicious acts, deceit, lewdness, envy,^[305] abusive speech, arrogance, folly. 23 All these evil things proceed from inside and defile a man. The ending of (Mark 6and of Matt. 14pictured Jesus in the plain of Gennesaret, busily engaged in healing the sick. It is probable that from here he with The Twelve proceeded to CapernaumJohn 6:17, 24, 25, 59), where he delivered the discourse on The Bread of Life. It may have been about the same time and place that the event described in Mark 7:1 23took place. See also on verse 17. It is clear (see especially verses 1, 5, 6 ff.) that what is here described is another bitter confrontation between Jesus and the religious leaders of the Jews. Among the many sharp clashes of this character there are several, as the present may well be, where Christ's hostile critics seem to be impatiently waiting for him on the western side of the Sea of Galilee or of the Jordan, ready for the attack. In addition to Mark 7:1 23see also 5:21, Matt. 9:18 (); 8:10, 11; 9:2, 14. Later, after the final crossing of the Jordan from east to west there would occur the series of attacks that finally issued in Christ's crucifixion just outside Jerusalem's gate (Heb. 13:12). Both the episode in connection with ceremonial versus real defilement and Jesus discourse recorded in (John 6resulted in rejectionMatt. 15:12; John 6:66). The crucifixion is in sight. It is going to take place about a year from this point in the narrative. The Great Galilean Ministry, the record of which began at Mark 1:14, may be conceived as ending at 7:23. Taking Mark 7as a unit we notice that this S eventh Chapter is not duplicated in LukeLuke 7is not paralleled in Mark . Mark 7treats three subjects: S cribes and Pharisees question Jesus regarding defilement. The S yrophoenician woman's faith is rewarded. S peech and hearing are fully restored to a handicapped man. 7:1, 2. And there gathered together to him the Pharisees and some of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, and they saw that some of his disciples were eating their food with defiled,^[306] that is, with unrinsed, hands. The beginning of the sentence can mean either: a. Both the Pharisees and some scribes had come from Jerusalem; or b. The Pharisees were local people, Galileans, but the scribes were Jerusalemites.^[307] But Matt. 15:1, the parallel passage, would seem to settle the argument in favor of a. It is proper to speak of the profession of the scribes, and the sect of the Pharisees. The scribes were the law specialists. They studied, interpreted, and taught the law, that is, the Old Testament. More exactly, they transmitted to their own generation the traditions which from generation to generation had been handed down with respect to the interpretation and application of the law, traditions that had their origin in the teaching of the venerable rabbis of long ago. The Pharisees were those Israelites who tried to make everybody believe that they, these Separatists, were living, or at least were trying very hard to live, in accordance with scribal teaching. Naturally many scribes were also Pharisees. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 201–203; and see above, on 1:22; 2:6, 16; and 3:22. Most Pharisees and scribes hated Jesus, because: a. he claimed divine prerogatives; b. he did not honor their traditions with respect to the sabbath, fasts, ablutions, etc.; c. he associated with publicans and sinners; d. he exerted what they considered a baneful influence upon the people; and e. he was their opposite. This last point is in need of emphasis. In their heart of hearts Christ's enemies must have realized that Jesus was infinitely better than they were. His humility (Luke 22:27) contrasted sharply with their pomposity (Matt. 23:5–7); his sincerity (John 8:46), with their hypocrisy (Mark 7:6); his sympathy (Mark 6:34), with their cruelty (Matt. 23:14). To a considerable extent their religion was activity in the interest of self (Matt. 6:2, 5, 16); his ministry was a sacrifice in the interest of others (Mark 10:45) and to the glory of the Father (John 17:1, 4). Did some of these enemies sense that he knew their real character, that he had their number? However that may have been, here they are, having traveled all the way down from Jerusalem, the headquarters of Jewish orthodoxy. Undoubtedly they had come here at the behest of the Sanhedrin. Their aim must have been to discover a ground for pressing charges against Jesus, that they might destroy him. See Mark 3:6; 11:18. Does the reference to some scribes indicate that these particular scribes had been selected because they were considered experts in matters that might come up in controversies with Jesus? This is possible, not certain. The committee's spying was soon rewarded. The men saw that some only some, not even all of The Twelve were eating^[308] with defiled hands, that is, with hands that had not been subjected to ceremonial rinsing, and therefore were not ceremonially clean. Is it possible that if the spies had waited a moment longer they would have noticed that not only some but all of The Twelve had this habit, and in fact Jesus himself also? See Luke 11:38.^[309] The explanatory note that is, with unrinsed (hands) must have been inserted for the benefit of the non-Jewish readers for whom first of all this Gospel was intended. That is true also with respect to the parenthetical passage: verses 3, 4. Now the Pharisees, in fact all the Jews, unless they rinse their hands thoroughly, do not eat, thus clinging to the tradition of the elders. And (when they come) from the market-place, unless they ceremonially wash themselves they do not eat. And there are many other things which they have received in order to cling to,^[310] such as ceremonial washings of cups, pitchers, and kettles. The following points should be noted: a. The Pharisees, in fact all the Jews. Here all, as often in Scripture and even today in daily conversation, is used loosely; see on 1:5 ( And there were going out to him all the land of Judea and all the people of Jerusalem ). The meaning is very many, the people in general. b. &unless they rinse their hands thoroughly. The readings vary between with the fist; often; and absence of any adverb.^[311] Even if the first of these should be correct, which many regard as probable, the interpretation is not entirely certain. Does this mean with the fist twisting and turning in the palm of the other hand? A quotation from a Talmudic tractate^[312] may be helpful: Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the wrist. How so? If he poured the water over the hands as far as the wrist and poured the second water over the hands beyond the wrist and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands nevertheless become clean. In any case the conclusion that a thorough ceremonial affusion or rinsing is indicated seems justified. c. &clinging to or: holding fast^[313] the tradition of the elders. The scribes and their many followers continued to advocate strict compliance with the rules laid down by the prominent rabbis of long ago. These rules had been handed down the very word tradition means what was handed down from one generation to another, and were now again being handed down by the scribes to the then present generation. In fact, ever so many minute ceremonial stipulations regarding hundreds of matters were being handed down as if salvation itself depended on all-out obedience. Thus also the strict Jews refused to eat unless they had first of all subjected their hands to the already indicated thorough ritual cleansing. d. &and (when they come) from the market-place.& The market-place, a gathering center for many people, was naturally looked upon as being especially defiling. A Jew might brush against a Gentile! Therefore, coming from such a place, these Jews did not dare to eat unless they had first of all complied with whatever it was that tradition demanded regarding hand rinsing. e. &unless they ceremonially wash themselves, or simply: unless they ceremonially wash. Here, as in b. above, there is variety in readings. Was the authentic text unless they ceremonially wash themselves or unless they ceremonially sprinkle themselves?^[314] In all probability the first unless they &wash; literally unless they baptize themselves or simply unless they baptize is probably correct. Merely sprinkling the hands would probably not have satisfied the rabbis. Nothing less than a thorough rinsing or ceremonial washing seems to have been required.^[315] That this baptizing to which the passage refers must not be interpreted as an immersion of the entire body is clear from Luke 11:38, where a form of the same verb, baptize, is used: But the Pharisee was astonished (to see) that he [Jesus] did not first wash [lit. baptize] before dinner. It is hardly reasonable to imagine that the Pharisee was expecting that Jesus would first take a complete bath, a bath in which he would have totally immersed himself! The reference is, of course, to the ritualistic cleansing of the hands before a meal. So also here in Mark 7:4. The preceding context supplies the key to the interpretation: the ceremonial baptizing or washing of verse 4 refers to the hand rinsing of verse 3. f. Mark adds that the Jews had been taught to observe many other traditions; such as baptisms or ceremonial washings of cups, pitchers,^[316] and kettles (or: vessels of bronze). 5. So the Pharisees and the scribes were asking him, Why don't your disciples live in accordance with the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands? In a formal manner both the Pharisees and the scribes are asking this question. As in 2:23, 24 they hold Jesus responsible for what his disciples are doing. After all, their purpose is to destroy him. The trouble with these men is that they are constantly stressing man-made rules. Worse even, they are doing this at the expense of the honor they should have bestowed on the divine law. They are devotees of hollow ritualism, as if that could save them! 6, 7. He said to them, Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honor me with their lips But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching (as their) doctrines precepts of men.^[317] In his answer Jesus refers mainly to two Old Testament passages: a. Isa. 29:13, and, b. Exod. 20:12(and similar texts). Matthew (15:4–9) has Exod. 20:12first, followed by a reference to the Isaiah passage. Mark reverses this order. The advantage of this variety in presentation is that thus equal prominence is given to both passages; one might say: to the law and to the prophets, to the prophets and to the law. In substance the reply is the same in both Gospels. Now Mark really Jesus himself as quoted by Mark did not necessarily mean that Isaiah^[318] was thinking of the Pharisees and scribes of Jesus day. He probably meant that what the prophet wrote concerning the people of his own day was still very relevant, for both then and now those condemned were honoring God with their lips, while their hearts were far removed from him. History was repeating itself. Jesus calls these men hypocrites. In Mark this term occurs only in this one passage see, however, also 12:15, but it is found three times in Luke and frequently in Matthew, especially in two of Christ's discourses: The Sermon on the Mount and The Seven Woes (respectively chapters 5 7 and ch. 23). Though the word does not occur in the Old Testament the A.V. passages from the Old Testament which have it are erroneous renderings, the idea as such is found there also (Ps. 10:7; Prov. 26:24, 26). The hypocrite is the man who hides or tries to hide his real intentions under (hypo) a mask of simulated virtue. As the passage now under study presents it: he honors God with his lips but his heart (see on 6:52) is far from God. Also (note last two lines), while pretending to teach doctrines that are divine in origin he is actually teaching precepts of men, fussy rules and regulations laid down by hair-splitting, legalistic ancient rabbis mere men! and passed on from one generation to the next. See Matt. 6:2, 5, 16; 23:23–28. So also at this occasion, these pious (?) critics pretended to be very concerned about that which they presented as an infraction of a divine (?) statute that had been handed down to them. Their real intention was the destruction of the very Son of God. A hypocrite, then, is a fraud, deceiver, phony, snake in the grass, wolf in sheep's clothing. He pretends to be what he is not. Of course, his worship of God is vain, utterly futile; and this for two reasons: a. because the attitude of his heart is wrong, and b. because his emphasis is wrong, as Jesus now indicates by saying: 8. You let go the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. Pharisees and scribes were guilty of placing mere human tradition above divine revelation, a man-made rule above a God-given command. The rabbis had divided the Mosaic law or Torah into 613 separate decrees, 365 of these being considered prohibitions and 248 positive directives. Then, in connection with each decree, by drawing arbitrary distinctions between what they considered permitted and not permitted, they had attempted to regulate every detail of the conduct of the Jews: their sabbaths, travel, meals, fasts, ablutions, trade, relation toward outsiders, etc., etc. One finds an example of their hair-splitting, casuistic reasoning in (Matt. 23:16–18. For many other interesting illustrations see A. T. Robertson, The Pharisees and Jesus, especially pp. 44, 45, 93 ff. Thus, having an eye only for the multiplicity of the decrees and of their myriad applications to concrete life situations, they had piled up precept upon preceptIsa. 28:10, 13) until at last, by most of these scribes and Pharisees, the unity and purpose of God's holy law see Deut. 6:4; then Lev. 19:18; Mic. 6:8; cf. Mark 12:28 34had suffered a total eclipse. Jesus, accordingly, accuses his opponents of having relinquished the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. If anyone but Jesus had voiced this withering criticism against the religious leaders of the day, we might feel inclined to regard it as being possibly a bit extreme. What? Did these Pharisees and scribes actually set their oral law above the written law of the Old Testament? Was not this too harsh a judgment? The answer is: not at all. In fact, there is some evidence in support of the proposition that the rabbis themselves defended that position. They said, To be opposed to the word of the scribes is worthy of greater punishment than to be opposed to the word of the Bible. See Robertson's work to which reference was made in the preceding paragraph, p. 130. They probably reasoned as follows: historically the oral law preceded the law in written form; therefore the oral law has precedence. It is clear, therefore, that the opponents were not in a position to maintain that what Jesus was saying was untrue. How must it be explained that Jesus disagreed with the position of subordinating God's written commandment to oral tradition? The answer is, apart from the obvious fact that, other things being equal, the spoken word is less durable, more subject to change from one generation to another, than the written document, the commandment came from the Holy God, and is therefore infallible, but the tradition, a tradition of interpretation, originated with sinful men, and is therefore fallible. In the present case, as has been shown, it was frequently wretched, misleading, corrupt. It would be entirely wrong to draw the conclusion that Jesus was opposed to tradition, that he wanted to overthrow whatever was old and was in that sense a revolutionist. Passages such as Matt. 5:17, 18; 23:1–3; Mark 10:5 9prove that he was not. What he opposed was any man-made teaching or rule that was in conflict with the divine law. He was old-fashioned in the best sense of the term, for he went back all the way until beyond faulty and misleading tradition he found his Father's original revelation and commandment. In the present passage Jesus refers to the commandment of God, using the singular. If he was even now thinking of the precept which he was about to quote (verse 10) we can see the reason for this singular. However, it may be generic, the one command representing the entire class.^[319] 9. And he said to them, How beautifully you are setting aside God's command in order to establish your own tradition! In a sense Jesus repeats verse 8. However, the sting is even more fiery, the exposure more startling. How beautifully! This is irony. It amounts to: You have a fine way of setting aside.& Note also your tradition, and cf. verse 8. These men are trying to make gods of themselves. They are setting aside God in order to establish themselves. They are nullifying an infallible command in order to confirm their own weak and miserable tradition.^[320] How wicked! Yes, how wicked! But also how foolish! Think of a man who in the midst of a violent storm has found a place of shelter on top of a high rock (Ps. 18:2; 27:5; 92:15; 119:114, 117, 165), where he is entirely safe, but who then jumps off in order, for the sake of protection, to grab hold of a drifting straw. What utter folly. Cf. Jer. 2:13. In order to illustrate what he has in mind and to prove his point Jesus continues: 10. For Moses said, Honor your father and your mother, and He who curses father or mother must certainly be put to death. Moses said. As is clear from verse 13 Jesus regards what Moses said as being the very word of God. Accordingly there is no real difference between Matt. 15:4, For God said, and Mark 7:10, For Moses said. As to the positive commandment to bestow honor on father and mother see Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; Prov. 1:8; 6:20–22; cf. Mal. 1:6; Matt. 19:19; Mark 7:10 13; 10:19; Eph. 6:1; Col. 3:20. To honor father and mother means more than to obey them, especially if this obedience is interpreted in a merely outward sense. It is the inner attitude of the child toward his parents that comes to the fore in the requirement that he honor them. All selfish obedience or reluctant obedience or obedience under terror is immediately ruled out. To honor implies to love, to regard highly, to show the spirit of respect and consideration. This honor is to be shown to both of the parents, for as far as the child is concerned they are equal in authority. In Exod. 21:17; Lev. 20:9the death penalty is pronounced on those who curse father and mother, but see also Exod. 21:15; Deut. 21:18 21and Prov. 30:17. What did these Pharisees and scribes do with this clear and definite teaching of the Word of God? The answer is given in verses 11, 12. But you say, If anyone says to his father or to his mother, (It's) corbn, that is, a gift (set apart for God), whatever it be by which I might benefit you then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother.^[321] Christ's critics, though highly esteemed by the people in general, were guilty of deliberate and detestable chicanery. They were playing ducks and drakes with God's holy law. The commandment with respect to children's duty toward their parents was very clear. But the Pharisees and scribes were telling the children that there was a way to get around the heavy burden of having to bestow honor upon their parents by supporting them. If a son had something that was needed by the parent, all that was necessary was for the son to say, (It's) corbn! For his non-Jewish readers Mark adds the Greek equivalent dMron, gift or offering; that is, a sacred gift or offering, one set apart for God, i.e., for sacred uses. By making this assertion or exclamation and giving it a very wide application whatever it be by which I might benefit you this son, according to Pharisaic teaching based on tradition,^[322] had released himself from the obligation of honoring his parents. In fact, as Mark puts it, permission to help one's parents was then withdrawn. It is even possible that a broader interpretation may be correct. If so, the son would be saying, Whatever it is by which I might benefit you, whether now or in the future, I here and now declare that it is to be considered an offering. The conclusion, as reported by Mark, then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother might support this interpretation. Interpreted either way, it was an example of irresponsible Pharisaic sophistry, a wicked device to deprive parents of the honor and the support due to them. Moreover, what was thus unjustly withdrawn from the parents was not necessarily offered to God at all. The one who shouted, (It's) corbn! could simply keep it for himself. It is not surprising that Jesus, in a sense repeating, but now even strengthening what he had spoken previously (cf. verses 8, 9), adds: 13. Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition which^[323] you have handed down. Not only were these hypocrites (verse 6) ignoring, they were actually invalidating the word of God. They were depriving the fifth commandment of its binding authority, as the original implies.^[324] On the other hand, they were handing down the wicked tradition! Moreover, that was true not only in the present case, as if the Pharisees and scribes were nullifying only this one commandment. No, Jesus immediately adds: And many such things you do. Merely by way of illustration had he referred to the Pharisaic manner of dealing with the fifth commandment. It was but a sample of what was constantly going on. Tradition was regularly being enthroned; God's Word dethroned! A very practical subject indeed, capable of application in any age. Is not the objective principle of Protestantism The Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice? This, in opposition to the Roman Catholic co-ordination of Scripture and ecclesiastical tradition, as the joint rules of faith? Does not the latter position often degenerate into placing tradition above Scripture? And even today should not care be exercised lest subjective decisions and interpretations begin to interfere with unbiased exegesis of the Word of God? There is a striking similarity between Mark 7:14 23and its parallel Matt. 15:10–20. The main differences are as follows: a. Matt. 15:12 14: the question of the disciples and Jesus answer are not found in Mark. b. According to Matt. 15:15it was Peter who asked Jesus to explain the parable. Mark simply says, the disciples. Mark, however, states and Matthew omits that it was after Jesus had left the people and had entered a house that the question was asked. c. Mark's statement (7:19b), Thus he pronounced all foods clean is not found in Matthew. d. Matthew's list of evil things that proceed from within and defile a man (15:19) consists (after an introductory term) of 6 items; Mark (7:21, 22) has 12. If Mark's deceit is tantamount to Matthew's false testimonies, then all of Matthew's 6 items occur, with slight verbal changes, also in Mark's list. These are items 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 12 on Mark's list, occurring therefore from about the middle to the end of that evangelist's enumeration. See chart, pp. 284, 285. Accordingly, the inference that Matthew, with Mark's list before him, was abbreviating, would not seem to be unreasonable. 14, 15. And he called the people to him again and said to them, Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a man which by going into him is able to defile him; no, it is the things that come out of a man that defile a man. It would seem that just before the arrival of the committee consisting of Pharisees and scribes Jesus had been addressing the people. Then, probably out of respect for the delegation that had come to question Jesus, the people had withdrawn a certain distance. But now, the critics having left or having been dismissed, the Lord invites the people to draw close to him again. By means of the words, Hear me, all of you, and understand who does not detect the solemn Old Testament (Ps. 49:1; 50:7; 81:8) ring? Jesus at the very beginning of his resumed message emphasizes the fact that what he is about to say is very important. Again and again the Gospels picture him as the compassionate Savior, the One who feels deeply hurt because the common people are being misled by their leaders. See Matt. 9:36; 11:28–30; Mark 6:34. What Jesus wishes to impress upon the multitude has to do with the contemptuous question of the Pharisees and scribes (see verse 5), Why don't your disciples live in accordance with the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands? The assumption of these critics was: unrinsed hands defile the food and therefore the eater. The defilement, as they saw it, worked its way from the outside to the inside. Jesus shows that the very opposite is true. Not what goes into but what comes out of the man is able to defile him. Note Mark's use of the plural. According to his report Jesus speaks about the things that come out of the man as being those that render him unclean. Now it is true that in Greek such a plural can often be correctly rendered by the use of a singular in English. Nevertheless, in the present case, in view of the lengthy list of things that defile (see verses 21, 22), it is probably better to retain the plural even in the translation. What Jesus is saying, therefore, is that the real defilement is not physical but moral and spiritual. Defilement, in other words, issues from the heart. In our own day, in which so much is said and something is even being done about various types of physical pollution, that is, pollution that works its way from the outside inward, Christ's warning against defilement from within is certainly needed. 17. And after he had left the people and had gone home, his disciples were asking him (the meaning of) this parable. Finally Jesus is alone with his disciples. He has entered his home. It is true that instead of and had gone home another rendering, namely, and had entered a house, or had gone indoors is also possible. Complete certainty about the meaning of the phrase in the original is impossible. Nevertheless, as has been shown, the references in 2:1 and 3:20 are probably to Jesus home in Capernaum. See on these passages. We shall assume, therefore, that the happenings related in Mark 7:1 23took place somewhere in or near Capernaum, where Jesus during his Great Galilean Ministry had his headquarters. Here, then, in Jesus home in Capernaum his disciples, with (as Matthew informs us) Peter as their spokesman, ask their Master for an explanation of this parable. It is clear that the term parable is here used in the sense of a pithy saying, mashal, the aphorism of verse 15. 18, 19a. He said to them, Are you also so lacking in understanding? Do you not know that nothing that enters a man from the outside can defile him, since it does not enter his heart but his stomach and goes out into the latrine? Jesus seems to be saying, That others for example, the Pharisees and scribes, the people in general do not grasp my teaching is not strange, but that you, who have associated with me for so long a period and so closely, are also so dense, that is inexcusable. Cf. John 14:9. Do The Twelve fail to realize that whatever enters a man from the outside is finally eliminated from the body? And since during its journey through the body it enters man's stomach but never his heart, the very core and center of his entire being (see on 6:52), how then can it render the man unclean, polluted, or defiled? 19b. Mark adds his own observation to the words of Jesus. It is the inspired evangelist's interpretation of the significance of Jesus saying regarding ceremonial versus real defilement: Thus he pronounced all foods clean. Actually the original says no more than: declaring or: making, pronouncing clean all the foods. ^[325] The question is, Who or what is it that makes or pronounces the foods clean? As some see it, it is the latrine or privy that does this.^[326] Reasons for accepting the view of most commentators, namely, that what Mark means is that it was Jesus who, by the principle which he laid down in verse 15, made all foods clean, are the following: a. How a privy can make or declare all foods clean is very, very difficult to understand. b. The last time Mark mentioned Jesus by name was in 6:30, but by means of a pronoun, either independent or implied in a verbal form, he made reference to Jesus again and again afterward (6:31, 34, 35, 37, etc., and so again in ch. 7:1, 5, 6, 9, 14, 17, 18). Is it not natural to assume that the reference also in 19b is to Jesus? c. If the widely held opinion that Mark was Peter's interpreter (see Introduction, I) is correct, then we may assume that Peter's own experience recorded in Acts 10:9 16and 11:1–18 (the vision of the great sheet holding all kinds of unclean creatures) was included in his preaching and was by him brought into relation with Jesus saying as recorded in Mark 7:15. Peter's conclusion, we may well believe, was the one which Mark remembered, accepted as his own belief, and reported in Mark 7:19b. Do we not find an echo of Thus he [Jesus] pronounced all foods clean in Acts 10:15(cf. 11:9), What God has cleansed you must not call common [or: unclean]? d. If the One who pronounced all foods clean is Jesus, then the logic is clear, for in Mark 7:15it is he who declares that whatever enters a man from the outside is undefiling. Hence, all foods, also meat from ceremonially unclean animals, is in principle undefiling. Interpreters may differ on the question exactly when, according to God's will, the abolition of the ceremonial laws regarding clean and unclean went into effect. Did it take place right now, at the very moment when Jesus spoke these words? Did it occur when Jesus was crucified? See Col. 2:14. On the day of Pentecost? Whatever be the answer, it remains true that in principle all foods were pronounced clean here and now. Having made clear what is not defiling, Jesus again (cf. verse 15b above) stated what actually defiles a person. Only, this time he combines all the separate defiling items of verses 15b, 21 23 into one contaminating lump, as 20. He continued, What comes out of a man, it is that which defiles a man. He enlarges on this by adding: 21, 22. For it is from inside, from men's hearts that the evil schemes arise: sexual sins, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, malicious acts, deceit, lewdness, envy, abusive speech, arrogance, folly. After what has been said about the heart in connection with 6:52, it is not strange that Jesus describes it here as the source of men's feelings, aspirations, thoughts, and actions; in the present connection, of all his real moral and spiritual defilements. In the New Testament the terms^[327] which, according to Mark, were at this time used by Jesus, in describing man's defiling vices, are distributed as shown in the chart on pp. 284, 285. A detailed item-by-item grouping is impossible to detect. In this respect the parallel passage (Matt. 15:19is different. There after the introductory designation wicked schemes, and thus beginning with murders, the arrangement more or less follows the sequence of the second table of the Decalog. But hereMark 7:21, 22) all we can safely say is that, after what may be regarded as the caption the evil schemes, designs, or devisings ^[329] the first 6 of the 12 items are in the plural, the second 6 retain the singular. The first 6 describe wicked actions; the second 6 the evil drives and words that are related to such and similar actions. Other lists of vices may be found in Rom. 1:18–32; 13:13; I Cor. 5:9–11; 6:9, 10; II Cor. 12:20; Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 4:19; 5:3–5; Col. 3:5–9; I Thess. 2:3; 4:3–7; I Tim. 1:9, 10; 6:4, 5; II Tim. 3:2–5; Titus 3:3, 9, 10; I Peter 4:3; Rev. 21:8, 22:15. To say that Mark's list is Pauline because 8 of the 12 items are also found in Paul's epistles (see chart) is going too far. Would it not be rather surprising if in Paul's more than a dozen lists of vices most of the items mentioned here in Mark 7:21, 22were not included? Besides lists of vices were popular in those days and even earlier. An apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon 14:25 f. includes items 2, 3, 4, 7, and 8 of the list found in Mark 7:21, 22. The Dead Sea Scrolls also have such lists.^[330] And the list of 12 items ascribed to Christ does not bear close resemblance to any single list found in Paul's (or Peter's, etc.) writings. It must have been Christ's own list, reproduced by Mark and abbreviated by Matthew. N. T. Terms Used in Mark 7:21, 22 TERM Mark Matt. Luke John Acts Rom. I Cor. II Cor. Gal. [Greek] 7:21 cf. 15:19 1. [Greek] 7:21 5:32; 15:19; 19:9 8:41 15:20, 29; 21:25 5:1(2) 6:13, 18; 7:2 12:21 5:19 2. [Greek] 7:21 15:19 3. [Greek] 7:21; 15:7 15:19 23:19, 25 9:1 1:29 4. [Greek] 7:22 15:19 8:3^[328] 5. [Greek] 7:22 12:15 1:29 9:5 6. [Greek] 7:22 22:18 11:39 3:26 1:29 5:8 7. [Greek] 7:22; 14:1 26:4 1:47 13:10 1:29 12:16 8. [Greek] 7:22 13:13 12:21 5:19 9. [Greek] 7:22 cf. 20:15 10. [Greek] 3:28; 7:22; 14:64 12:31(2) 15:19; 26:65 5:21 10:33 11. [Greek] 7:22 12. [Greek] 7:22 11:1, 17, 21 N. T. Terms Used in Mark 7:21, 22 Eph. Col. I Thess. I Tim. Heb. I Peter II Peter Jude Rev. TERM the evil schemes or wicked designs 5:3 3:5 4:3 2:21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3; 19:2–1. sexual sins or immoral acts cf. 9:21–2. thefts 11:37 9:21–3. murders 4. adulteries 4:19; 5:3 3:5 2:5 2:3, 14 5. covetings 6:12–6. malicious acts 2:3 2:1, 22; 3:10–7. deceit 4:19 4:3 2:2, 7, 18 4 8. lewdness 9. envy; literally: a sinister eye 4:31 3:8 6:4–9 2:9; 13:1, 5, 17:3–10. abusive speech or slander 11. arrogance 12. folly As to the separate items note the following: The introductory term the evil schemes, designs, or devisings is literally those bad dialogizings. In his own mind a person frequently carries on a dialogue. See (Ps. 14:1; 39:1; 116:11; Dan. 5:29, 30; Obad. 3; Mark 2:6, 7; 5:28; Luke 12:17f.; 15:17–19; 16:3, 4; Rev. 18:7. In three of these instances of talking to oneself namely, Ps. 39:1; Mark 5:28; Luke 15:17 19, such a dialogue or deliberation can be described as being good. One Luke 16:3, 4is half good, half bad, as the context shows. All the rest are wicked. This holds also in such cases where the very word dialogue or dialogizing is used. In nearly every instance Luke 2:35is a possible exception the deliberations, inner reasonings, or devisings are of a definitely sinful nature. In addition to Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:2, see Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:46, 47; 24:38; Rom. 1:21; 14:1; I Cor. 3:20; Phil. 2:14; I Tim. 2:8; James 2:4. Nevertheless what a person says within his heart is tremendously important, probably often even more important than what he says audiblyProv. 23:7). One of the reasons why such dialogizings are so important is that they give rise to actions and stimulate inner drives. They also reveal themselves in spoken words. These several items are now enumerated by means of examples: 6 plurals are followed by 6 singulars; 6 kinds of actions are followed by 6 items that represent drives (or states) of the heart (see Nos. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 on the chart) and speech (No. 10). In the present context, which pictures Jesus in the act of describing what it is that defiles or pollutes a person, all the twelve items are naturally of an evil nature. The first six are as follows: Sexual sins or immoral acts. In its widest sense the term here used indicates sexual sin in general, illicit sexual behavior of any description, whether within or outside of the marriage bond, often but not always the latter. In Matt. 5:32; 19:9the reference is to marital infidelity. In John 8:41unlawful sexual intercourse is indicated. In Acts 15:20, 29; 21:25there may be a special reference to marriage within the forbidden degrees of affinity or consanguinity. See Lev. 18:6f. Paul uses the word frequently (see the chart). It covers a wide range of sinful sexual actions. Today, too, attention should be called to this broad belt of misbehavior. We need only mention such things as rape, the showing and/or reading of pornographic literature, pre-marital sexual intercourse, telling or eagerly listening to off-color jokes, etc. Theft. Though, as the chart shows, in the New Testament this term occurs but seldom, the sin itself is referred to rather frequently. See N.T.C. on Eph. 4:28; Titus 2:9, 10; Philem. 18 20. Many slaves were in the habit of stealing. Even after their conversion they had to be warned against falling back into their evil ways. Today should not warnings be issued against shoplifting? Against loafing on the job? Squandering what God has given us? Intentional withholding from Caesar the things that are Caesar's? And when a government or one of its agencies plays fast and loose with the tax-payer's money, is that not also a form of stealing? And what about withholding from God the things that are God's? Murders. Just why it is that murders are mentioned here in connection with the two preceding items we do not know. There may be a reason for this. Are not murders often committed at the very scene where the immoral act or the theft is occurring? We are horrified by Herod's murder of Bethlehem's infants. Does not the present-day wholesale murder of infants that are still inside the womb (abortion) cry to heaven for vengeance? Can this in any way be harmonized with Scripture? Read Exod. 20:13; Lev. 18:21; 20:2f.; II Kings 23:10; Jer. 32:35; Ezek. 16:21; Amos 1:13; Matt. 7:12; Eph. 4:32; 5:1, 2. Adulteries. This is the violation of the marriage bond: a married man's voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than his wife; or a married woman's voluntary sexual intercourse with someone other than her husband. It should be made clear, however, that Jesus sharpened the edge of every commandment. He taught that hatred is murder (Matt. 5:21, 22), and that a married man's lustful look at another woman is adultery (Matt. 5:28). It has been said that one of the reasons for the downfall for the Roman Empire was that women married in order to get divorced, and got divorced in order to get married. What of conditions today? Covetings. Though we do not know the reason for the sequence adulteries &covetings, yet if there was intended to be a connection we might think first of all of the ravenous self-assertion in matters of sex, at the expense of others: You shall not covet your neighbor's &wife. But Exod. 20:17and Mark 7:22are broad enough to include every form of avarice. Cf. Luke 12:15. When the elders of Israel sinfully asked for a king, they were told that this king would take &take &take &take &take &take (I Sam. 8:11–17). God, in Christ, gives and gives and gives again, without endJohn 1:16; 3:16; 5:26; 17:22; Rom. 8:32; Gal. 1:4; 2:20; Eph. 1:22, 5:25; I Tim. 2:6; Titus 2:14; I John 5:10; etc. . His true followers are not avaricious or greedy. See II Cor. 8:8, 9. Malicious acts. This could well be a summing up of all manifestations of wickedness, both those already mentioned and all others besides. The remaining six are: Deceit. This is the first of the sinful qualities or drives that are here mentioned. With such wicked propensities of the human nature the deeds that have already been enumerated are closely connected. Where Mark says deceit, Matthew mentions false testimonies. It was by deceit that the leaders of the Jews planned to bring about Christ's death (Mark 14:1). According to II Cor. 12:16Paul's enemies accused the apostle of deceit. Did they insinuate that the apostle was going to take for himself some of the money that had been donated for the poor in Jerusalem? Of course, this was the farthest from Paul's thoughts. Cf. I Thess. 2:3. That deceit is very common is clear from John 1:47. A beautiful passage is I Peter 3:10. Lewdness. Other ways of designating the same sinful drive: lasciviousness, licentiousness. By means of the chart note the many references to this sinful propensity of the human nature. The term stresses the lack of self-control that characterizes the person who gives free play to his perverse impulses. It has been remarked that it was not lava but lewdness that buried Herculaneum. And the frescoes found amid the ruins of nearby Pompeii show that this city was not much better. Envy. The true parallel is not Matt. 6:23but Matt. 20:15: Is your eye evil &? means Are you envious because I am generous? Whenever jealousy and envy can be distinguished, jealousy is the fear of losing what one has, envy is the displeasure of seeing someone else have something. One of the most soul-destroying vices is envy. Is it not the eldest born of hell? Rottenness of the bones? (Prov. 14:30). Our English word envy comes from the Latin in-video, meaning to look against, that is, to look with ill-will at another person because of what he is or has. It is interesting to note that the Greek original which is found here in Mark 7:22expresses this idea literally, for its basic meaning is a sinister eye, an eye that views another person with fierce and grudging displeasure. It was envy that caused the murder of Abel, threw Joseph into a pit, caused Korah, Dathan, and Abiram to rebel against Moses and Aaron, made Saul pursue David, gave rise to the bitter words which the elder brother (in the parable of The Prodigal Son) addressed to his father, and crucified Christ. Love never envies. From a sinful drive or quality the text now turns to the wicked work of the tongue: Abusive Speech or Slander. The word used in the original is blasphemy. But see above, on 3:28. In the present connection, since the term occurs here in Mark 7:22between envy and arrogance, it probably has reference to defamation of character, railing, slander, scornful and insolent language directed against another person, whether it be addressed to him directly or spoken behind his back. Sometimes life is filled with troubles Oft its burdens are severe, Do not make it any harder By a careless word or sneer. Button up your lips securely, Gainst the words that bring a tear, But be swift with words of comfort, Words of praise and words of cheer. Effie Wells Loucks Arrogance. The evil tendency of fancying oneself better, abler, or greater than someone else is a universal trait of the human heart as it is by nature. The rulers of the Gentiles in any age make themselves guilty of this sin (Matt. 20:25; Luke 22:25). Note the arrogant language of one of them, as reproduced in (Isa. 14:13, 14. Read also Isa. 37:8–13. But the scribes and Pharisees were bitten by the same bugMatt. 23:5 12: Mark 12:38, 39; and read especially Luke 18:11, 12). And even the disciples had to fight this sin (Matt. 18:1–6; 20:20–27; Mark 10:35 44; Luke 9:46 48.) Over against all this, note the words of Jesus (Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:27; John 13:14, 15). Folly is the term that probably sums up the preceding five drives and words, just as malicious acts summed up the deeds. Cf. Matt. 25:2. Jesus closes this section by saying, 23. All these evil things proceed from inside and defile a man. In view of the biblical conception of the term heart (see above, on 6:52), it is easy to see that if the vices mentioned in Mark 7:21, 22proceed from man's heart, they will indeed pollute his entire intellectual, emotional, and volitional life. What people should do, therefore, is pray for a new, a transformed heart, and not pay so much attention to unrinsed hands. Real defilement is moral and spiritual, not physical. David phrased it beautifully: Create for me a clean heart, O God; And a firm spirit renew thou within me. Summary of Chapter 7:1–23 See also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 619. So far Mark has described five confrontations between Jesus and the leaders. The latter have accused him of assuming divine prerogatives (2:7), closely associating with bad people (2:16), allowing his disciples to desecrate the sabbath (2:24), not keeping the sabbath himself (3:2, 6), and casting out demons by the prince of the demons (3:22). The present (sixth) confrontation centers around the basic question, Human tradition or Word of God, by which should doctrine and life be regulated? The occasion was the arrival probably in Galilee (Capernaum?) of Jerusalemites: Pharisees and scribes. They had come to spy on Jesus. They asked him, Why don't your disciples live in accordance with the tradition of the elders but eat with defiled hands? He answered, You let go the commandment of God in order to cling to the tradition of men. He proved this by showing how they discouraged obedience to the fifth commandment. To the people in general and afterward to his disciples he explained that real defilement does not arise from the outside but from inside men's hearts. CHAPTER VII: 24 37 Outline of Chapter 7:24–37 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do B. The Retirement Plus Perean Ministries 7:24–30 The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman Rewarded 7:31–37 A Deaf and Dumb Man Healed 7:24–30 The Faith of a Syrophoenician Woman Rewarded Cf. Matt. 15:21–28 24 From there he arose and went^[331] to the region of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it, but could not escape notice. 25 In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit came and fell at his feet. 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nationality. And she kept asking him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 He said to her, First let the children eat all they want, for it is not proper to take the children's bread and toss it to the house dogs. 28 Answering she said to him Lord,^[332] even the house dogs under the table eat some of the children's scraps. 29 Then he said to her, Because of this statement of yours, go your way; the demon has left your daughter. 30 And she went home, and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone. The theme of the Synoptics, including Mark, we may conceive to be The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do. The first division under this theme is Its Beginning or Inauguration (Mark 1:1 13). The second is Its Progress or Continuation (1:14 10:52). The first subdivision of this second part, namely, The Great Galilean Ministry (1:14 7:23), has now been completed. The second subdivision, The Retirement plus Perean Ministries, begins at this point (7:24) and continues through 10:52. Reasons for this kind of outline, as also a brief description of the main contents of each division and subdivision, can be found on pp. 8–10 of N.T.C. on Matthew. Tentative dates (certainty is impossible) are as follows: Retirement Ministry a.d. 29, April to October; Perean Ministry a.d. 29, December, to a.d. 30, April. For the intervening Later Judean Ministry, October to December, see especially the Gospel according to John (7:2 10:39). Mark 7:24 (to the end of the ninth chapter covers events that occurred during The Retirement Ministry. The shift to this ministry from the one that preceded it is not abrupt and radical but rather a matter of emphasis. For example, during the lengthy period which to a large extent Jesus spent in Capernaum and vicinityMark 1:14 7:23) he was often surrounded by crowds. Now too (7:24 9:50) he does not escape those multitudes (8:1; 9:14). At times he even invites the throngs to come to him (8:34). But there is a difference in emphasis: generally he is now seen in the presence not of crowds but of his disciples. He is teaching them (8:1, 14 21, 27 33; 9:28, 29, 31 50). He fully realizes that the cross cannot be far away. Accordingly, he is expounding to The Twelve the lessons of the cross (8:31; 9:31). This continues even into the Perean Ministry (10:33, 34). In order to be able to impart this important information effectively Jesus is seeking places of seclusion, apart from the busy centers. A considerable amount of time is spent in predominantly Gentile territory. If allowance is made for areas of relative uncertainty, the map (p. 295) showing Christ's Retirement Ministry (Mark 7:24 9:50) may be helpful. There may, however, have been trips not reported in the Gospels. Cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:25. Fourteen Marcan sections cover events that occurred during this period, in the following places: 1. The region of Tyre (7:24–30). 2, 3. Decapolis (respectively 7:31–37, 8:1–10). 4. Dalmanutha (8:11–13). 5. Sea of Galilee between Dalmanutha and Bethsaida (8:14–21). 6. Bethsaida (8:22–26). 7, 8. Caesarea Philippi (respectively 8:27–30; 8:31 9:1). 9, 10. Mt. of Transfiguration and vicinity (respectively 9:2–13; 9:14–29). 11. Road toward Capernaum (9:30–32). 12, 13, 14. Capernaum (respectively 9:33–37; 9:38–41; 9:42–50). Mark 7:24 30and Matt. 15:21 28tell essentially the same story. Also, the space devoted to it is about the same, Mark's account being shorter by only a few words. In both accounts Jesus has left the place where he had been staying presumably Capernaum and has reached the vicinity of Tyre. Here a non-Jewish woman of that district appeals to him for help because her daughter is demon-possessed. The child's mother is very persistent in her pleas. Jesus does not immediately grant her wish. He tells her, It is not proper to take the children's bread and toss it to the house dogs. She answers, But even the house dogs eat some of the children's scraps. Jesus praises her faith and grants her wish. To this story each of these two evangelists makes his own specific contribution. Nowhere is there any conflict. Each uses his own style and reports the happening so as to suit the needs of his own readers. Matthew calls the woman a Canaanite. The Jews who read Matthew's Gospel had heard much about these wicked peopleGenesis 12:6; 13:7; 38:2; and see especially Josh. 9:1f.; 11:3f. . They had caused a great deal of trouble in the days of Joshua and even later. What? Was there salvation also for them? Matthew's account is somewhat more dramatic than that of Mark. The woman addresses Jesus as Lord, Son of David, and asks him to take pity on her. Though from the very beginning she identifies her sorrow with that of her daughter Take pity on me, my daughter &that process of identification increases in intensity, reaching its climax when the mother drops all mention of her daughter, and simply blurts out, Help me. According to Matthew, the woman addresses Jesus three separate times, and also in each case that evangelist reproduces her very words by means of direct discourse. Mark reproduces only two of her lines, and only once by means of direct discourse. Matthew introduces the disciples. Characteristically they ask Jesus to get rid of the woman. Mark in his account never mentions the disciples. Matthew states that at first Jesus did not answer the petitioner and that afterward he said to her, Only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel was I sent. In view of the people to whom Mark is writing it does not surprise us that Mark does not contain that item. Mark makes his own very valuable contribution. Though he was not himself an apostle, he had probably heard Peter tell the story. To show how famous Jesus had become by now, Mark reports that although, having arrived in the region of Tyre, the Master entered a house and sought seclusion, he could not escape notice. Mark also reports that the woman was a Greek, that is, a born Gentile, a person with a pagan background, and a Syrophoenician by race or nationality. These little touches must have been appreciated by the Gentile readers for whom Mark wrote his Gospel. This evangelist also shows even more clearly than does Matthew that when Jesus compared the woman's situation with that of house dogs, he was not completely shutting the door of hope. He was definitely leaving it ajar (see on verse 27a). Mark, differing also in this respect from Matthew, even relates what happened after the mother returned to her home: she found the child resting calmly in bed, the demon having left. 24. From there he arose and went to the region of Tyre. Also possible is, He left that place and went to [or: into] the region of Tyre. ^[333] The difference is minor. This is the Tyre whose kings in bygone days had formed an alliance with David and Solomon. It furnished timber and skilled artisans for Israel, while the latter shipped to Hiram and later rulers the grain needed by Tyre's people (I Kings 5; Acts 12:20). It was the Tyre that had introduced Baal worship into Israel. It was an island stronghold just off the Mediterranean coast. See Isa. 23: Ezek. 26 28. It was situated south of Sidon and north of Carmel. Alexander the Great took it by building a stronghold to it. It had been predicted that the people of Tyre and vicinity would one day share the blessings of the Messianic age (Ps. 87:4). That prophecy was beginning to be fulfilled when people of these surroundings traveled to Galilee to hear Jesus and to be healed of their illnesses (Matt. 4:24, 25; Luke 6:17). This time it is Jesus who is coming to them. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it, but could not escape notice. Did Jesus coming have a missionary purpose? Commentators have arrived at different conclusions: a. Mission work at this place and time was farthest from his mind. Herod Antipas was ill-disposed toward Jesus (Mark 6:14, 16; cf. Luke 13:31). The Jewish leaders were plotting his death. Many people had left him. The Twelve were in need of instruction. Rest and relaxation is what he needs. So he enters a house. Of a friend? No, more likely, of a stranger in the hope of getting some uninterrupted leisure for confidential intercourse with The Twelve.^[334] b. Jesus went in a northwestern direction into the borders of Phoenicia because he was looking for a more fruitful field of labor. ^[335] c. It is useless to speculate.^[336] d. Jesus endeavored to remain concealed for a time.^[337] There may well be some truth in all of these answers. As to a., it has already been shown that the purpose at least one of the purposes of the Retirement Ministry was indeed to teach The Twelve, to prepare them for what was coming: his death by crucifixion, his resurrection. As to b., it is hard for us to conceive of the compassionate Christ traveling all the way to Phoenicia without any plan to be a blessing to its population. As to c., it is indeed true that a full and definite answer has not been given. And as to d., Calvin may well have a point. It is probable that Jesus desire to be alone with his disciples was only for the time being, to be followed cf. b. by missionary activity (see verses 34 38). But he could not be hid (A.V.). Many sermons have been preached on this passage. It has been pointed out, for example, that when Jesus has once entered a man's heart, this fact will soon reveal itself in the man's words, actions, and attitudes. Or: every attempt to relegate Christ to the background is bound to fail. One generation may forget all about him, but the next will rediscover him, etc. Though, to be sure, there is some value in all this, such thoughts have very little to do with the passage in its present context. For the present all that is necessary is to point out that due to the fact that some perhaps many of the Phoenicians had already had contact with Jesus and/or had heard about him, it was impossible for him to remain concealed for any great length of time. Hence, this period of rest and concealment soon came to an end. He himself, because of his great love for sinners, allowed the discovery to take place. There was a repetition here of 6:34. 25, 26. In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit came and fell at his feet. Now the woman was a Greek, a Syrophoenician by nationality. And she kept asking him to cast the demon out of her daughter. A woman appears upon the scene. Not a word is said about a husband. Was this woman a widow perhaps, and does the scene remind us of a miracle performed centuries earlier, in this same general territory, a miracle that gladdened the heart of another widow (I Kings 17)? However that may be, fact is that one of the qualities that comes to the fore again and again in the Gospels is Christ's kindness toward women, certainly also including widows (Mark 12:4 44; cf. Luke 21:1 4; see also Luke 7:11 18; cf. Ps. 146:9; Prov. 15:25; Isa. 1:17). Now this woman was oppressed with a very deep sorrow. She had a daughter^[338] Mark tenderly says a little daughter ^[339] who was very, very dear to her. But this child was demon-possessed. Demon possession has been discussed earlier: see on 1:23; also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 436–438. Was there hope for this woman and for her child? Was not the door of hope closed for this mother because of her race? She was a Greek, that is a born Gentile, a woman with a pagan background, a Syrophoenician, that is, a native of Phoenicia with its main cities of Tyre and Sidon, called Syrophoenicia because it belonged to the province of Syria, and to distinguish it from the Libyan Phoenicia on the coast of North Africa. She came came at once and fell at his feet. This act of prostration was a revelation of her humility, reverence, submissiveness, and anxiety. Cf. 5:22. She asked, yes asked again and again, pleading with Jesus to rid her dear child of the demon, the unclean spirit. 27. He said to her, First let the children eat all they want, for it is not proper to take the children's bread and toss it to the house dogs. In the plan of God it had been decided that the blessings centering in Christ were to be offered first to the children, that is, to the Jews. The opportunity to be fully satisfied with this food^[340] would first be extended to them, later to the Gentiles. Cf. Matt. 22:1–10; Acts 13:44 48; 18:6; Rom. 1:17. That was the rule. Any wholesale departure from this rule would amount to taking the children's bread and tossing it to the house dogs. Surely, dogs even pet dogs cannot expect to be treated like children. The woman needs to know this, in order that she may understand that if her wish is going to be granted, it will be by way of exception, and thus a very great privilege indeed. Was this rule rigid, no exceptions being allowed, or was it flexible? That was the question. If rigid, and to be literally enforced with respect to all those who did not owe their physical descent to Abraham, then out out are the lights out all (with apologies to E. A. Poe), and this woman might as well go home. Tossing the children's bread to the doggies would in that case not only be highly improper, unbecoming, it would be impossible. Note, however, that Jesus is already slightly opening the door. By saying First let the children eat all they want, he is at least telling this sorrow-filled woman that God did not completely lose sight of the Gentiles. She might well begin to reason: If blessings are in store for the Gentiles tomorrow, why not already today &even if it be by way of exception? Her God-given faith was strong enough to realize that Jesus was not turning her away. Overpowered by his love and tenderness, a compassionate attitude which even his apparent sternness was unable to hide, 28. Answering she said to him, Lord, even the house dogs under the table eat some of the children's scraps. Jesus by referring to house dogs had given this woman a finger. She took the whole hand. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER VIII:1 IX:1 Outline of Chapter 8:1 9:1 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 8:1–10 The Feeding of The Four Thousand 8:11–13 The Craving for Signs Rebuked 8:14–21 The Yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod 8:22–26 The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida 8:27–30 Peter's Confession and Christ's Strict Order 8:31 9:1 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 8:1–10 The Feeding of the Four Thousand Cf. Matt. 15:32–39 8 1 In those days when again a huge crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he [Jesus] called his disciples to him^[357] and said to them, 2 My heart goes out to the multitude,^[358] because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat; 3 and if I send them away hungry to their homes they will collapse on the way, for some of them have come a long distance. 4 And his disciples answered him Where in this uninhabited^[359] region can anyone get bread enough to feed them? 5 He asked them, How many bread-cakes do you have? They said, Seven. 6 So he ordered the people to take their places on the ground. Then he took the seven bread-cakes, and having given thanks he broke them and kept giving them to his disciples to set before the people, and this they did. 7 They also had a few small fishes, and after he had given thanks for them he ordered them as well to be set before them. 8 They ate and were filled.^[360] And they [the disciples] picked up what was left over of the pieces, seven hampers. 9 About four thousand men were present. And he dismissed them. 10 Then immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha. There is a striking, almost word for word, resemblance between the two accounts of this event (Matt. 15:32–39; Mark 8:1 10).^[361] The most reasonable explanation would seem to be that there was a literary relationship: one fully inspired Gospel writer having before him the account of the other, equally inspired. See N.T.C. on Matthew, The Synoptic Problem, pp. 6–54. 1 3. In those days when again a huge crowd had gathered, and they had nothing to eat, he [Jesus] called his disciples to him and said to them, My heart goes out to the multitude, because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their homes they will collapse on the way, for some of them have come a long distance. There is no mention of any traveling that took place between the preceding event (7:31–37) and this one (8:1–10), though there may have been. But since the uninhabited region mentioned in 8:4 can easily have been Decapolis near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (7:31), the conclusion that Jesus is still, or is again, in or near the same place where he healed the man who was deaf and who spoke with difficulty is reasonable. Again a huge crowd. This again may refer to 7:33 (Matt. 15:30, 31) or to 6:31–34, 44, 55, 56. It could even refer to the entire series of multitudes already mentioned by Mark (1:33, 45; 2:2–4, 13; 3:7–10, 20, 32; 4:1, 36; 5:21, 27, 31, etc.), as if to say, again, as so often previously. They had nothing to eat.^[362] So magnetic was the presence of Jesus, so marvelous was he in word and deed, that those who surrounded him regarded it to be almost impossible to leave. In this situation the Master addresses his disciples. Even though during this Retirement Ministry the Lord by no means completely withdrew from the crowds, yet teaching the disciples was now one of his main objectives. Yet, his interest in the multitude is evident from the very words he speaks to The Twelve: My heart goes out to the multitude. Another equally valid rendering is I am moved with compassion for the multitude. Had he not himself experienced the pangs of hunger? See Matt. 4:2; cf. Heb. 4:15, 16. Note what was said previously (1:41) about the tender, moving, deep, and earnest sympathy of Jesus, a sympathy that expressed itself not only in words but also in deeds. In the present case the occasion for the feeling and outpouring of compassion was that these many people had been with Jesus for three days and that whatever food they may have had with them upon arrival was now completely used up. If under these circumstances they should simply be dismissed, they would not even be able to reach home but would collapse^[363] on the way. This all the more because some, as Mark reports, had come from afar. What is so strikingly evident is that Jesus is not only himself the Great Sympathizer but also wants the disciples to share this compassion. The reason why he now turns to them is not that he himself is at a loss what to do. Is he not the One who has previously taken care of a similar situation? See Mark 6:30 44. Besides, does not John 6:6He himself knew what he was about to do apply also in the present case? The Master addresses his disciples in order to awaken them to their responsibility. So thoroughly must the disciples take to heart the problem faced by the hungry multitude that they, these twelve men, will say, It is our own problem. We must do something about it. Without compassion can a person be a true follower of Christ? The least these men could and should have done was to beg the Master to repeat what he had done before, and then to inform the crowd that help was on the way. That they failed is clear from verse 4. And his disciples answered him, Where in this uninhabited region can anyone get bread enough to feed them? This region to the east or southeast of the Sea of Galilee was a desolate place, a veritable wilderness. The scene of the feeding of the five thousand was somewhat more favorable, for in that case food could be purchased from the surrounding farms and in the nearby villages (6:36), but that was not the case here. Apart from Jesus and his power to perform miracles, the present terrain was worthless as a source of needed food supply. And strange but true the disciples had failed to take to heart the lesson they should have learned. That is why they said what they did, namely, that in this desolate region it would be entirely impossible for anybody to find bread, particularly to get enough of it to satisfy the needs of so huge a crowd. It strikes us that Jesus does not even rebuke them. Instead, 5. He asked them, How many bread-cakes do you have? They said, Seven. He wants them to fix this number firmly in their minds, so they will never forget it. The accurate knowledge of the (humanly speaking) totally inadequate supply will cause the miracle to stand out all the more strikingly. A little later (see 8:19, 20) Jesus is going to remind them again of the numbers that figure in this pair of miracles: 5, 5,000, 12; and 7, 4,000, 7. 6, 7. So he ordered the people to take their places on the ground. Then he took the seven bread-cakes, and having given thanks he broke them and kept giving them to his disciples to set before the people, and this they did. They also had a few small fishes, and after he had given thanks for them he ordered them as well to be set before them. Note the following: a. Jesus ordered the people to sit on the ground, not on the green grass, as in 6:39. It is later in the season now. b. seven bread-cakes. Not loaves as we think of them, but flat cakes or sheets, such as could easily be broken into pieces of edible size. c. Jesus gave thanks. See the explanation of 6:41, 42. The same interchangeable use of two Greek verbs occurs in the present narrative: Matthew uses having given thanks (thus literally, 15:36); Mark in verse 6 having given thanks, in verse 7 having blessed. Both can be translated having given thanks or after he had given thanks. d. Mark leaves the distinct impression that Jesus gave thanks twice: first for the bread and then for the fishes. Although Matthew does not say this, there is nothing in his narrative that is in conflict with it. e. Note the very graphic manner in which what Jesus does with the bread-cakes is described (here both in Matthew and in Mark); he broke them and kept giving them.& f. Literally Mark states that Jesus kept giving the broken pieces to his disciples to set (them) before, and they set them before the people [or: the crowd, the multitude]. Matthew states the same fact thus, &and the disciples (kept giving them) to the people. Exactly when did the miracle occur? Under his hands, that is, while he was breaking off edible pieces and handing them to the disciples? That is probably what happened, though not stated in so many words. g. Mark points out that what occurred in the case of the bread took place also with respect to the few more than two; contrast 6:38 small fishes. Prepared fish was a regular side dish with bread in a region where fish abounded. The detailed, item by item, description of what occurred shows that underlying these accounts there was the observation of an eyewitness. Matthew was there and reported in his Gospel what he had himself observed. This by no means excludes the possibility probability even that before depositing his thoughts in writing he had read Mark's report. Mark had heard the story from the lips of another eye-witness, namely, Peter. 8. They ate and were filled. See on 6:42. And they [the disciples] picked up what was left over of the pieces, seven hampers. Note the twelve baskets of broken pieces that were picked up in connection with the feeding of the five thousand, as compared with the seven hampers filled with such pieces that were collected now. The distinction between the two words used in the original is maintained consistently in the New Testament; that is, in connection with the leftovers from the feeding of the five thousand the New Testament always uses one word (Matt. 14:20; 16:9; Mark 6:43; 8:19; Luke 9:17; John 6:13); in connection with the leftovers from the feeding of the four thousand, it always uses the other (Matt. 15:37; 16:10; Mark 8:8, 20).^[364] That the basket used in connection with the feeding of the four thousand was probably larger would seem to follow from the fact that a similar basket or hamper was large enough to hold Paul and to lower him from the wall (Acts 9:25). 9. About four thousand men were present. And he dismissed them. As Matthew reports, in addition to these four thousand there were women and children. Having provided for the needs of these people probably both for their spiritual needs (he had been with them three days!) and their physical, Jesus sends them away, and he himself also departs: 10. Then immediately he got into the boat^[365] with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha. There is some evidence to support the belief that Dalmanutha was located south of the Plain of Gennesaret, on the southwestern side of the Sea of Galilee. In this vicinity a cave was found bearing the name Talmanutha. Whether Matthew's Magadan was simply another name for the same place or the name of a nearby place is not known. Is the account of the feeding of the four thousand a near-repetition of the earlier miracle, so that had it been omitted entirely we would not have been any poorer? Definitely not. Two additional points are now made clear: a. Jesus is able not only to perform but also to repeat his mighty works; and b. his sympathy is shown not only to the people of the covenant but even to those outside of it. As to the latter that this was predominantly Gentile territory see N.T.C. on Matt. 15:31. 8:11–13 The Craving for Signs Rebuked Cf. Matt. 16:1–4 See also Matt. 12:38–42; Luke 11:29 32; 12:54–56 11 Now the Pharisees came out and started to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, tempting him. 12 And sighing deeply in his spirit he said, Why does this generation seek a sign? I solemnly declare to you, no sign shall be given to this generation. 13 Taking leave of them he again embarked and went away to the other side. 11. Now the Pharisees came out and started to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven, tempting him. Jews demand signs, that is, proofs that Jesus is all he claims to be.^[366] See John 2:18; 4:48; I Cor. 1:22. Here again we meet those bitter enemies, the Pharisees! We have met them and the scribes before. See on 1:22; 2:6, 16; 3:22; 7:1, 2. Matthew informs us that in connection with the present confrontation the Pharisees were accompanied by the Sadducees. How it was possible for these two opposing sects to combine against Jesus is explained in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 201–204, 636. The Pharisees came out! Now that Jesus has arrived once more on the western, more Jewish side of the Sea of Galilee, another encounter with the Pharisees is not surprising. It is they who take the initiative, not Jesus. They start to^[367] argue^[368] with Jesus. Had they become informed about the miracles he had performed on the eastern side of the sea, including that of the multiplication of the bread-cakes? Was it this that had nourished afresh their ever-present envy? They try to convince themselves that what happened in Decapolis was not a true sign of greatness on the part of Jesus. After all, what he had provided was earthly bread, not bread from heaven, as Moses had done. Let him then produce a sign from heaven. Yes, let him do what Moses had done (Exod. 16; cf. John 6:32). Or, like Joshua, let him cause the sun and the moon to stand still (Josh. 10:12–14). Let him repeat what Samuel had done (I Sam. 7:10), or Elijah (I Kings 18:30–40; cf. James 5:17, 18). As if, had be done any of these things, or anything of similar sensational nature, they would not have ascribed also such a sign to Beelzebul as its source! See Luke 16:31. Their purpose was to tempt Jesus, to get him to attempt to produce such a sign. They hoped that he would try and fail, so that he might be publicly discredited. 12. And sighing deeply in his spirit he said, Why does this generation seek a sign? I solemnly declare to you, no sign shall be given to his generation. Note the following: a. sighing deeply Jesus had filled the land with infallible proofs (Acts 1:3) of the fact that he was indeed the One who had been sent by the Father, as predicted by the prophets. These signs had been of various kinds: restoration of the handicapped, healing of the sick, cleansing of he lepers, stilling of the waves, feeding of the hungry, and even raising of he dead. Asking for still another sign was clearly an insult. It implied that the miracles already performed were insufficient as credentials. So it was no wonder that Jesus greeted the request for a sign by sighing deeply^[369] in his spirit. Deeply, because the hardness of heart revealed by this request wounded him sorely. b. in his spirit The anguish which Jesus experienced came from deep down inside him. Here the word spirit is used in a sense not much different from heart or inner being. ^[370] So also in 2:8; cf. 14:38. c. this generation Jesus is perplexed and perturbed because these Pharisees and their many followers, a very large percentage of his contemporaries, are demanding a sign. The term generation in such passages as Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19refers to the people among whom one is living. By and Large those people, especially here on the western side of the Sea of Galilee, were Jews, though this point is not stressed here. It is not surprising that when this national or racial characteristic is emphasized, the word generation can attain the meaning the Jewish nation or people, as in 13:30; cf. Matt. 24:35. d. I solemnly declare See on 3:28. Here in 8:12, also, the solemn introduction leads to a statement that deserves very careful consideration. e. no sign shall be given.^[371] In the light of the parallel passage in Matthew (16:4) the meaning is, No sign such as you are demanding shall at all be given. See N.T.C. on (Matt. 16:4. The triumphant resurrection of Jesus from the dead, foreshadowed in the experience of JonahJonah 1:17; 2:10), would mark the doom of all sin-hardened Pharisees. As for the sign these men are now requesting, Jesus solemnly assures them that they will receive nothing of the kind.^[372] 13. Taking leave of them he again embarked and went away to the otherside. They are abandoned to the destiny which they, by their hardness of heart, have chosen for themselves. 8:14–21 The Yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod Cf. Matt. 16:5–12 14 Now they [the disciples] had forgotten to take along bread, and had only one bread-cake with them in the boat. 15 And he [Jesus] was warning them, Look out! Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. 16 And they began to reason among themselves, (It's) because we have no read. 17 Now when he noticed this he said to them, Why are you reasoning among yourselves about the fact that you have no bread? Do you still lack understanding? Do you still fail to grasp? Are your hearts hardened? 18 Having eyes, do you not remember? 19 When I broke the five bread-cakes for the five thousand, how many baskets full of pieces did you pick up? They answered, Twelve. 20 When (I broke) the seven bread-cakes for the four thousand, how many hampers full of pieces did you pick up? Seven, they replied. 21 He said to them, Do you still fail to grasp? The incident here reported probably took place on the Sea of Galilee, during the trip from Dalmanutha to Bethsaida. See the map on p. 295. 14. Now they [the disciples] had forgotten^[373] to take along bread, and had only one break-cake with them in the boat. From a purely human standpoint i.e., when the power of Jesus is discounted, this oversight was bad, for it was easier to obtain bread on the populous western side of the sea than on the eastern, though, as indicated previously, around Bethsaida it was less difficult to obtain provisions than farther south. One bread-cake would never do for thirteen men! 15. And he [Jesus] was warning^[374] them, Look out! Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. Jesus was undoubtedly still thinking about the hardened unbelief of the Pharisees who had requested a sign from heaven, as if no sign of any significance had been furnished. See 8:11–13. But what had brought about that insulting request? Answer: the contrast between Jesus teaching and that of the Pharisees: his emphasis on the law of God, hence on genuine worship of God, over against theirs on tradition. According to Matt. 16:1, in this wicked attempt to discredit Jesus, the Pharisees had been joined by the Sadducees. Matthew does not mention Herod in this connection. Mark, on the other hand, here omits any reference to the Sadducees but links the yeast of the Pharisees with the yeast of Herod. Since there was a close connection between the Herodians and the Sadducees, there is no contradiction between the two accounts. The Sadducees were the sacerdotal party, the party to which the highpriests, etc. generally belonged. The priestly oligarchy was for its very existence and continuity dependent upon the favor of the Herods. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 159, 162. But there was an even closer connection. The Sadducees, though ostensibly clinging to the law of God, were not at all opposed to the spread of Hellenism. Since they rejected both the resurrection of the body and the immortality of the soul, their interests were absorbed in the here and now. They were worldly, and in this respect resembled Herod and his friends. The characteristic yeast or teaching, whether by precept, example, or both, that is indicated in the Gospels with respect to the three groups is as follows: The Pharisees, traditionalism (Mark 7:4, 8). Herod and his followers, the Herodians, secularismMark 6:17ff. . The Sadducees, skepticism (Mark 12:18; cf. Acts 23:8). There was, of course, considerable overlapping. In a sense secularism marked all three. See N.T.C. on Matt. 16:6. Both imperatives Look out! and Be on your guard against are durative in character. Therefore the meaning is: Keep on looking out (or being on the alert); Always be on your guard against. The Twelve needed this warning. In spite of their daily association with Jesus, they were constantly in danger of paying too much attention to the views of those whose teachings were opposed to his. See Matt. 5:12; 19:3–10; Mark 7:1, 17 23; 10:2–12, 35 45; Acts 1:6. 16. And they began to reason among themselves, (It's) because we have no bread. These men began to carry on or were carrying on a dialogue with each other.^[375] Jesus had mentioned yeast. He meant teaching. See (Matt. 16:11, 12. In view of what is recorded in Mark 8:11 13and in earlier accounts of confrontations between Jesus and his opponents, this meaning should have been clear to the disciples. Also, these men had heard the parable of The LeavenMatt. 13:33). This too, should have taught them that the word yeast or leaven must not always be taken literally. Yeast and teaching resemble each other in several respects: a. both operate invisibly, b. are very potent, and c. have a tendency gradually to augment their sphere of influence. For the figurative use of the term yeast see also (I Cor. 5:6ff.; Galatians 5:9. Just nowMark 8:15) Jesus used this word in an unfavorable sense: evil teaching, considered as a very powerful, increasingly corrupting influence. The disciples, however, failed to consider carefully and to ponder seriously the meaning of Christ's warning to be on their guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. They quickly ascribed a literal meaning to yeast, and probably concluded that the Master was forbidding them to accept bread from Pharisees and from people associated with Herod. What we have here, then, is another instance of erroneous literal interpretation of dominical sayings. Cf. John 2:19, 20; 3:3, 4; 4:13–15; 6:51, 52; 11:11, 12. These men were guilty of still another error, as is clear from Christ's reaction as recorded in verses 17 21. They thought that Jesus was very displeased with them because they had forgotten to take along read and they were worried about this lack of bread-cakes. Their basic error, then, was lack of sufficient faith. This is exactly what, according to Matt. 16:8, Jesus on this occasion told them when he called them men of little faith. With Jesus in their midst, the very One who had given proof of his power in the two miraculous feedings, should they not have been optimists? But no, they were pessimists. We can say, therefore, that the section Mark:14 21, in combination with its parallel Matt. 16:5–12, warns against four errors: the traditionalism of the Pharisees, the secularism of the Herodians, he skepticism of the Sadducees, and the pessimism of the disciples. The back and forth worried whispering of the disciples was met by the Master's frank and open reply. It was a reply that consisted of several closely knit questions, reproachful to be sure but also helpful, their purpose being to rouse The Twelve out of their inexcusable pessimism and to revive in their hearts the spirit of trust and optimism: 17 21. Now when he noticed this he said to them, a. Why are you reasoning among yourselves about the fact that you have no bread? b. Do you still lack understanding; do you still fail to grasp? c. Are your hearts hardened? d. Having eyes, do you not see; and having ears, do you not hear? e. And do you not remember? f. When I broke the five bread-cakes for the five thousand, how many baskets full of pieces did you pick up? They answered, Twelve. When (I broke) the seven bread-cakes for the four thousand, how many hampers full of pieces did you pick up? Seven, they replied. g. He said to them, do you still fail to grasp? In Matt. 16:8 10this touching paragraph occurs in considerably reduced form, retaining only a, b (in part), e, and f of Mark's report. Matt. 16:11, 12reflects on the disciples literal interpretation of Christ's warning. It reports that the words of Jesus had the favorable result of ridding the disciples of their misinterpretation, a result that is not recorded by Mark. A few remarks on each element in the series a g: a. Concern about the lack of bread is unnecessary. b. The disciples should have used their heads (cf. 7:18; 13:14). They should have put two and two together (cf. 4:12; 6:52; 7:14). Failure to take to heart the lessons which Jesus had taught them earlier by word and deed was inexcusable. c. For the meaning of the word heart and the latter's central significance see on 6:52. Hardened is here used not in the sense of the obstinacy and resulting imperviousness that marked the Pharisees, but of spiritual sluggishness. Again see on 6:52. d. This reference to eyes that do not see and ears that do not hear (Jer. 5:21; Ezek. 12:2; Mark 4:12) is very closely related to the immediately preceding item. The hardened heart had brought about this condition. e. This item may be considered transitional. It can be linked either with the immediately preceding, inability to recall in the present instance also being considered an indication and result of hardness of heart (A.V., A.R.V., R.S.V.); or with the immediately following ( And do you not remember, when I broke &; N.A.S., cf. Williams). The disciples should have paid more attention to these miracles, should have taken time to ponder their meaning in relation to the greatness of Christ. Memory can indeed be aided by spiritual reflection, meditation, and where possible translation into action. It is reported that an Oriental convert to Christianity confessed that committing to memory the Sermon on the Mount had caused him great difficulty until by the grace of God, he had begun to put its principles into daily practice! It should be added that Jesus did more than reproach the disciples for their lack of memory. See John 14:25, 26. f. Note the distinction which, as in every instance, is made in the Gospels between the two kinds of baskets. See above, on 8:8. The argument is basically as follows: if five bread-cakes more than sufficed for five thousand people, and seven bread-cakes more than sufficed for four thousand facts which the disciples here and now reaffirm, then would not Jesus be able to feed himself and The Twelve with one (8:14) bread-cake? In fact, would he not be able, even without any bread-cake, to provide all that was necessary? g. There is no good reason to interpret this final Do you still fail to grasp? in any other sense than as asked previously (see b.). Christ's question was sufficiently important to justify repetition. The words and works of Jesus must be pondered and taken to heart. They must not be quickly forgotten. Dwelling on them prayerfully will increase faith and abolish pessimism. 8:22–26 The Healing of a Blind Man at Bethsaida 22 They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man to him, and begged him to touch him. 23 He took the blind man by the hand, led him outside the village, and after spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on him, asked him, Do you see anything? 24 He looked up and said, I can make out the people, for I see them as trees, walking around. 25 Then he [Jesus] again laid his hands on the man's eyes, and he opened them wide, was fully restored, and was seeing everything clearly. 26 And with the warning, Do not go into the village he [Jesus] sent him to his home. The present section is found only in Mark's Gospel. 22. They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man to him, and begged him to touch him. The boat landed on the northeastern side of the sea, near the entrance of the Jordan. See map on p. 295. The place of arrival was Bethsaida Julias, where the miracle of the feeding of the five thousand had occurred (Luke 9:10). Mark calls it a village (verse 23). Luke, in the passage to which reference has just been made, states that it was a city. There is nothing unusual or disturbing about this seeming discrepancy. For a long time Bethsaida had been a mere village. Then Philip the tetrarch (Luke 3:1) enlarged and beautified it. It now became a city, and in honor of Julia, the daughter of Emperor Augustus, was named Bethsaida Julias. However, having been a village for so long a time, it is not surprising that the designation village continued for some time to be applied to it. The same thing happens even today. When West St. changes to Westnedge Avenue it continues for several years to be called West St. Similarly what today is Marne (Mich., U.S.A.) continued for a while to be called Berlin, and one still occasionally hears, He lives in The Brickyard, when the real brickyard is today but a faint memory. As to the two Bethsaidas see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, pp. 216, 217, 225. At Bethsaida a blind man was brought to Jesus. His guides begged Jesus to touch^[376] him. As to the significance of this touch see on 1:41. 23. He took the blind man by the hand, led him outside the village, and after spitting on his eyes and laying his hands on him, asked him, Do you see anything? It is a striking fact that among those healings of blind men which in the Gospels are described in some detail not two are alike. This shows that in his love and wisdom the Master dealt with each case individually. His heart went out to the needy ones not just in general but to each one in particular, so that his treatment of a case was never a mere duplication of what had been done before. Anyone can see this for himself by studying and comparing the following passages: Matt. 9:27–31; Mark 8:22 26; 10:46 52(and parallels); John 9. See also on Mark 7:33, 34. First, Jesus took this man by the hand. Not as if the handicapped individual did not have any guides. He did, and these guides had brought him to Jesus. But the latter wishes to impart his own very personal attention and love to this man. Therefore he himself now becomes the Guide. Secondly, Jesus led him out of the village. For village see on verse 22. Commentaries are divided on the question why this man had to be led away from the village. Was it because Jesus did not wish to see a large crowd running up to him for cures? Or was it in the interest of the blind man himself, to make him feel more at ease and able to concentrate all his attention on his Benefactor? Both are possible, or either is. In harmony with what was said in connection with 7:33, the second reason seems best. Thirdly, Jesus spat on the man's eyes. Here, too, compare the cure of the deaf-mute (7:31–37). In that case Jesus applied saliva to the man's tongue; in the present, since this man's trouble was in the eyes, he spat on his eyes. Cf. John 9:6. The meaning again was clear: Something will be done for your eyes &and I will do it. Fourthly, reassuringly the Master laid his hands on the man, an action that often preceded healing, and was therefore a hopeful sign to the blind person. Fifthly, Jesus asked him, Do you see anything? ^[377] It is clear that the Lord wants this individual to become involved in his own cure, step by step. 24. He looked up and said, I can make out the people, for I see them as trees, walking around. Three different words are used in the original of this verse, all having to do with vision.^[378] The man looked up, involuntarily he raised his eyes. He said, I can make out the people. This refers here to outward, rather vague, discernment. He added, for I see them as trees, walking around. He perceives that certain objects which to him resemble trees differ from trees in one important respect: they are walking around, and must therefore be people. He may well have been looking at the disciples of Jesus. His outward vision was still blurred, but his perception or mental observation was correct: those moving objects were indeed people. What made him all the more certain of this was the fact high probability at least that he had not been born blind. Accordingly, he knew how people looked. Nevertheless, when men resemble trees except for the fact that men move, trees do not, something is still wrong. Since Jesus always completes his work (John 17:4; Phil. 1:6), there follows: 25. Then he [Jesus] again laid his hands on the man's eyes, and he opened them wide, was fully restored, and was seeing everything clearly.^[379] This time when the man focused his eyes intently, opening them wide, people no longer looked like trees. Vision had been fully restored. He saw and continued to see distant objects as if they were nearby. It should be emphasized that this act of healing is by no means in line with slow present-day healings that require several visits to the healer. In the case here recorded the entire healing process was accomplished within a few moments, with the result: a change from complete blindness to perfect vision. Exactly why it was that in this particular case the healing process occurred in two stages has not been revealed to us. Was it, perhaps, because especially this person was in need of understanding the inestimable nature of the blessing that was being bestowed upon him? The reason cannot have been initial lack of power on the part of Jesus. Surely, he who was able instantly to raise the dead was also able to impart instant recovery to this blind man. For a reason known to the Healer the present restoration occurred in two stages. 26. And with the warning, Do not go into the village he [Jesus] sent him to his home. Why this warning? Perhaps for the same reason as mentioned in connection with earlier miracles. See on 1:44; 7:36. It was not the purpose of Christ's coming to create excitement and encourage false expectations of approaching political deliverance. It is possible, however, that in sending this man directly to his home Jesus also had in mind the interest of this man, namely, that he might calmly meditate on the great blessing he had received, and that he would have an opportunity without interference to talk about it to those nearest and dearest to himself, so that together they might glorify God. Cf. 5:19. 8:27–30 Peter's Confession and Christ's Strict Order Cf. Matt. 16:13–20; Luke 9:18 21 27 Jesus along with his disciples went away to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he was asking his disciples. Who do the people say I am? 28 They answered him, John the Baptist; and others (say) Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets. 29 Then he was asking them, But you, who do you say I am? Peter answered him, Thou art the Christ. 30 And he [Jesus] warned them to tell no one about him. The resemblance between Mark's account of this happening and the reports, respectively, of Matthew and Luke, is striking, as is also the contrast. First, the resemblance; note the following parallels: Mark Matthew Luke 8:27 16:13 9:18 8:28 16:14 9:19 8:29a 16:15 9:20a 8:29b 16:16 9:20b 8:30 16:20 9:21 Except for Matt. 16:17–19, in all three the sequence is the same, and even the phraseology is to a considerable extent almost identical. Literary relationship between the three accounts would seem to be the most logical explanation. Nevertheless, there is enough variation to show that the evangelists were not mere copyists. Each Gospel writer tells the story as the Spirit guides him, which implies that each employs his own style. The variations, however, except for Matt. 16:17–19, are minor. 27. Jesus along with his disciples.& The fact that these men were with their Master is also definitely stated by Luke and implied by Matthew. Continued: went away to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. See the map on p. 295. Here Matthew has in the district of Caesarea Philippi, and Luke as he was praying. Obviously there is no conflict. And on the way he was asking his disciples, Who do the people say I am? So also Luke, except that he substitutes the multitudes for the people, or men. Instead of I am Matthew reads the Son of man is, with no difference in meaning. 28. They answered him, John the Baptist; and others (say) Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets. Matthew's and others (say) Jeremiah is not found in Mark and Luke. It may be regarded as included in one of the prophets. It is clear from this answer that in general the crowds believed that Jesus was a very prominent messenger from God, that he was someone who had died and in the person of Jesus had arisen from the dead. Luke makes special mention of this fact when he states, and others that one of the old prophets had risen. 29. Then he was asking them, But you, who do you say I am? The phrasing is exactly the same in all three. With tremendous emphasis Jesus places this But you, who do you say &? over against Who do the people say &? Peter answered him, Thou art the Christ. Peter's answer, representing the conviction of The Twelve, is by Matthew reproduced in fuller form, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God; by Luke more concisely, The Christ of God. And the warning, 30. And he [Jesus] warned them to tell no one about him, is expressed in language that is essentially the same for all three, yet varies slightly. If the reader will bear in mind these generally slight variations, he will find the explanation of the contents of Mark 8:27 30in N.T.C. on the parallel passage, Matt. 16:13–16, 20, pp. 641–643, 652 of that volume. The three columns of parallel passages see above p. 324, also clearly indicate a contrast no contradiction between Matthew, on the one hand, and Mark and Luke, on the other. The noticeable contrast consists in this, that verses 17 19 of Matthew's sixteenth chapter are absent from Mark and Luke. These verses are: Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood but my Father who is in heaven who has revealed this to you. And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. For the possible reason of this omission from Mark and Luke, as well as for the explanation of this exclusively Matthean passage, see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 644–652. Before leaving this subject, special attention should be called to the fact that the words of Jesus, But you, who do you say I am? convey a very important lesson, namely, that a true believer is one who is willing, whenever necessary, to fly in the face of popular opinion and openly to express a conviction that is contrary to that of the masses. In the best sense of the term, the believer is willing to come forth boldly in the interest of the truth. The kingdom is for vigorous people (Matt. 11:12); for strong and sturdy men like Joseph (Gen. 39:9); Moses (Exod. 32:31, 32); Joshua and Caleb (Num. 13:30; 14:6–10); Samuel (I Sam. 7:5); David (I Sam. 17:41–49; Ps. 27); Nathan (II Sam. 12:7); Elijah (I Kings 18:21); Jehoshaphat (II Chron. 20:5–12); Daniel and his three friends (Dan. 1:11–13; 3:16–18; 6:10, 21 23); Mordecai (Esther 3:4); Peter (Acts 4:20); Stephen (Acts 6:8; 7:51); Paul (Phil. 3:13, 14); Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:15–30; 4:18); Onesiphorus (II Tim. 1:15–18); and the apostle John (Rev. 1:9). It is for such valiant women as Ruth (Ruth 1:16 18); Deborah (Judg. 4:9); AbigailI Sam. 25:14ff. ; Esther (Esther 4:16); and Lydia (Acts 16:15, 40). Conformity with the world, compromise on basic issues, the unwillingness to be distinctive, is strongly condemned in Scripture (Rom. 12:2; II Cor. 6:14; I John 2:15 17). When the sons of God marry the daughters of men (Gen. 6:1, 2), the result is the deluge. When Israel worships a golden calf, three thousand Israelites lose their lives (Exod. 32:28). When Israel, with the purpose of being like other nations, demands a king, the final result is shameful defeat in a battle in which that king commits suicide (I Sam. 31:4). When the compromiser Jeroboam institutes calf-worship at Bethel and Dan, he is leading the people into a path that finally results in shameful deportation into a pagan countryI Kings 12:26–30; 14:16, 19, 26, 31; II Kings 3:3; 10:29, 31, etc. . Not being of the world (John 17:16), believers are shining lights in the midst of the world (Matt. 5:14; Phil. 2:15). They are spiritually different from the world, in order to be a blessing to the world. So also here in Mark 8:28, 29, while everybody else is saying that Jesus is but a man whether John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the (other) prophets, it makes no essential difference, for all these were but men, the true follower of Jesus answers, Thou art the Christ (thus Mark), the Son of the Living God (adds Matthew). 8:31 9:1 The First Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Matt. 16:21–28; Luke 9:22 27 31 And he [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32 He was telling them this fact without any reservation. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33 But turning around and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, Get out of my sight, Satan, for you are looking at things not from God's point of view but from men's. 34 And having called the people to him along with his disciples, he said to them, If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. 35 For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. 36 For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 For what shall a man give in exchange for his life? 38 For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the Glory of his Father with his holy angels. 9: 1 And he was saying to them, I solemnly declare to you that there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power. The resemblance between Mark and its parallels is again rather striking. As to the relation between Mark and Matthew, the main differences are as follows: Matt. 16:21substitutes he for Mark's the Son of man, and adds must go away to Jerusalem. Matthew's verse 22 reports the very words used by Peter in rebuking Jesus; verse 23 adds that Jesus told Peter, You are a trap to me; verse 24 mentions only Jesus and his disciples, not also the people; verse 25 omits Mark's and the gospel's sake. After minor grammatical variations in verse 26 (=Mark 8:36, 37), Matt. 16:27, differing rather strikingly from Mark 8:38, reads, For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father, with his angels, and then shall he render to each according to his deeds. Finally, Matthew's verse 28 ends with the phrase until they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom or in his royal dignity; Mark's 9:1 with the essentially similar until they see the kingdom of God come with power. Luke's parallel (9:22–27) is clearly an abbreviation. Sometimes it resembles Mark more closely, sometimes Matthew. Thus in verse 22 Luke speaks of Jesus as saying that the Son of man [thus also Mark] must be raised up on the third day [thus also Matthew]; Mark has after three days. In verse 23 Luke adds the word daily [ let him take up his cross daily ]. In verse 24 Luke, like Matthew, omits Mark's and the gospel's sake. In verse 25 Luke has lose or forfeit. Luke's verse 26 resembles Mark 8:38more closely than it does Matt. 16:27. Finally, Luke 9:27continues this close resemblance to Mark (9:1), though Luke abbreviates. Obviously there are no essential differences, no contradictions. Turning now to Mark's own account, the reader is referred to its parallel in Matthew. See N.T.C. on that Gospel, pp. 653–660, bearing in mind the (on the whole) slight differences that have been pointed out between the two reports (Mark's and Matthew's). Here in N.T.C. on Mark observations for the most part not found in N.T.C. on Matthew will be added. 31, 32a. And he [Jesus] began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. He was telling them this fact without any reservation. The prediction here given has the following characteristics: a. It was necessary. When the disciples, by the mouth of Peter, had said, Thou art the Christ (verse 29), Jesus by not contradicting this had obviously assented to it. Therefore, in view of the fact that messiahship was by many interpreted in an earthly and political sense, it was necessary that the disciples be taught what it meant to be the Christ. b. It was startling. The Son of man see on 2:10; N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 403–407 that is, Jesus himself, the Messiah &about to suffer and to die! Actually to be killed! And not only was this going to happen; it must happen. He must be subjected to suffering and must be killed, because of the Father's will (John 3:16; Rom. 8:32), his own promise (Ps. 40:7), prophecy (Isa. 53), and basically the demands of the law (Gen. 2:17; Rom. 5:12–21; II Cor. 5:21). He must do what he himself also wanted to do (John 10:11; II Cor. 8:9; Gal. 2:20). However, note also: after three days meaning on the third day he must rise again. See Isa. 53:10; Luke 24:26, 27. But in view of Mark 9:32; cf. Luke 18:34it is very doubtful whether this optimistic climax was even fully appreciated by those who heard it. c. It was revealing. Elders, chief priests, and scribes, the men who were supposed to be watchmen for the people, those from whose circles the Sanhedrin was chosen, are going to kill Israel's own Messiah! d. It was kind and wise. In order to spare the feelings of the men who are so very dear to him, Jesus does not at this time tell them the details of his gruesome approaching passion. Cf. John 16:12; Ps. 103:12. e. It was clear. Before this time Jesus had spoken in a veiled manner about his coming suffering and resulting victory (Mark 2:20; cf. Matt. 12:39, 40; 16:4). Now he speaks plainly.^[380] 32b. There follows Peter's rebuke (32b) and Christ's reaction to that rebuke (33). And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. For Peter the very idea of messiahship excluded suffering and execution. This disciple, as also the others, had been walking behind Jesus. Now he pulls the Master aside and begins to rebuke him. What the others may have thought he uttered. He was the man of words and action. What they may have wanted to do he did. According to Matthew, Peter said, Mercy on thee, Lord, this shall never happen to thee. Of course, Peter should have known better. Had he never read Isa. 53? Did he not remember that John the Baptist had described Jesus as the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world? What Peter did was therefore inexcusable. But if that be true, what shall we say about those critics today who are constantly pointing to Jesus as the Example to follow but reject the fact that he cannot be our Example unless first of all and most of all he is our Lord and Savior, who by his voluntary, sacrificial, substitutionary death saves his people from their sin and brings them to glory? Christ's reaction was prompt, decisive, and forceful. He fully realized that back of Peter stood Satan, who was attempting once more, as he had done previously (Matt. 4:8, 9), to turn the attention of Jesus away from the cross. Not for a moment does the Savior dilly-dally. He puts into practice the advice he gave to others (Matt. 5:29, 30): 33. But turning around and seeing his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, Get out of my sight, Satan, for you are looking at things not from God's point of view but from men's. In speaking to Peter, Jesus is actually addressing Satan; or, if one prefers, is addressing whatever in Peter has been perversely influenced by the prince of evil. With speed and finality he rejects the implied temptation. True, from the human point of view being subjected to suffering and being killed is unacceptable. From God's point of view, however, this course was absolutely necessary, as has already been shown (see on verse 31). Divinely ordained also was the subsequent reward, the glorious resurrection. Be gone, Satan, or Get out of my sight, Satan, says Jesus, using language which the devil had heard before from the same lips (Matt. 4:10). To man as he is by nature the cross is indeed offensive. He is unwilling to accept the fact that without the shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. 9:22). Christ crucified is to the Jews a stumblingblock, and to the Gentiles foolishness. Yet, in this very cross is revealed the power of God and the wisdom of God, a fact which those alone are able to appreciate who are saved, whether Jews or Gentiles (I Cor. 1:18, 24). Jesus now shows an enlarged audience that what was true for himself holds also for everyone else, namely, that it is the way of the cross that leads to glory. This statement must not be misinterpreted. Christ's humiliation and his people's differ by a whole heaven. His death is unique, for it has atoning value (Mark 10:45; cf. Matt. 20:28). Ours does not (Ps. 49:7). Nevertheless, the principle as such, that the cross leads to the crown, holds not only for Christ (Heb. 12:2) but also for his people (Acts 14:22; II Cor. 4:17; II Tim. 3:12). In fact, between Christ's afflictions and his people's there is a close connection, so that the believer is a partaker of Christ's suffering. He is hated because he serves a Master who is also hated (Matt. 10:24, 25; John 16:33; Col. 1:24; Heb. 13:13; I Peter 4:13; Rev. 12:4, 13). This introduces verses 34 38. The brief but beautiful little paragraph begins with: 34a. And having called the people to him along with his disciples, he said to them.& Jesus at this point called the multitudes to himself, to be with his disciples. The earnest exhortation which follows has significance for all; in fact, is for all a matter of life or death, everlasting life versus everlasting death. Hence, all not only The Twelve must hear it. The essence of the exhortation is that everyone should become a disciple of Jesus, who points out what one must do in order to be a disciple, that is, a follower, a true believer: 34b. If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. To come behind Jesus means to attach oneself to him as his disciple. The figure is based on the fact that Christ's followers not only The Twelve but also many others often accompanied the Master, frequently literally came on behind him. What, then, must a person do in order to be considered a true disciple? Well, if he wishes to come behind me, says Jesus, then first, he must deny himself; that is, he must once and for all say farewell to the old self, the self as it is apart from regenerating grace. A person who denies himself gives up all reliance on whatever he is by nature, and depends for salvation on God alone. He turns away in dismay not only from whatever thoughts and habits are patently sinful but even from reliance on religious for example Pharisaic thought patterns that cannot be harmonized with trust in Christ. See II Cor. 10:5. He must be willing to say with Paul, Such things that once were gains to me these have I counted loss for Christ.& See Phil. 3:7–11. Secondly, he must take up his cross. The underlying figure is that of a condemned man who is forced to take up and carry his own cross to the place of execution. However, what the convict does under duress, the disciple of Christ does willingly. He voluntarily and decisively accepts the pain, shame, and persecution that is going to be his particular note: his, not someone else's lot because of his loyalty to Christ and his cause. Finally, he must begin to follow and must keep on following Jesus. Here following the Master means trusting him (John 3:16), walking in his footsteps (I Peter 2:21), and obeying his commands (John 15:14) out of gratitude for salvation in him (Eph. 4:32 5:2).^[381] We must be careful, however, not to conceive of this self-denial, etc., in a chronological fashion, as if the Lord were exhorting his hearers to practice self-denial for a while, then after a lapse of time to take up and carry the cross, and, once having shouldered that burden for another time-period, to follow Jesus. The order is not chronological but logical. Together the three indicate true conversion, followed by life-long sanctification. A second error to be guarded against is the notion that a person would be able in his own power to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow the Savior. Conversion (as well as the process of sanctification that follows it), though certainly a human responsibility, is impossible without regeneration (John 3:3, 5), which is the work of the Holy Spirit in man's heart. Moreover, that Spirit does not leave man to his own resources once the latter has been reborn, but remains with him forever, enabling him to do what otherwise he would not be able to do. It is, nevertheless, human responsibility and activity upon which the emphasis falls here in verse 34 ff. In the next four verses (35 38) the obligation to be converted, etc., and the reward that results are brought into sharp contrast with the loss experienced by those who refuse to deny themselves, to take up their cross, and to follow Jesus. Each of the four verses begins with For. ^[382] These For sentences or verses may therefore be considered as presenting, in a way, the basis for the urgent command of verse 34. What we have here is a phenomenon often occurring in Scripture and also in daily conversation, namely, abbreviated expression.^[383] Fully expressed, the meaning of verses 35 38 would be somewhat as follows, with implied words in parentheses: 35 (Let him not refuse) For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. 36(Let him not follow the wrong course) For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? 37 For (once that life is lost) what shall a man give in exchange for i.e., to buy back his life? 38 (Let him not refuse, therefore) For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with his holy angels. Accordingly, with an implied Let him not refuse, there follows in verse 35. For whoever would save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it. Meaning: the individual who would or should wish to ^[384] save his life shall lose it. Exactly what is it that he wishes to save? Answer: his life, that is, himself.^[385] Here, however, we must make a distinction. In the present case the life, soul or self which this person presumably wishes to save is his own immaterial and invisible being considered apart from regenerating grace. This man clings to that sinful life of his, holding on to it tenaciously. He reminds us of the rich fool described in Luke 12:16 21. See also Luke 16:19 31. He piles up material goods, thinking all the while of self, never of others. He imagines that material possessions, or else pleasure, prestige, fame, can bring him the inner peace and satisfaction he is looking for. But this selfish narrowing of his horizon makes his soul narrower and narrower. He loses it; that is, he loses whatever remnant of the higher, nobler life was left in him at the beginning. On the other hand, whoever loses^[386] his life for my sake and the gospel's note the gospel's sake, a reference to the good tidings, so characteristic of Mark (1:1, 15; 10:29) shall save it. One loses his life in the present sense by devoting oneself completely to Christ, to the service of those in need, to the gospel. Note that Christ lays claim to such absolute devotion. This proves that he regards himself as Lord of all, and that the evangelist was fully aware of this! The person who offers this devotion saves his life, that is, his soul, or as we can also say, himself. The self here indicated is the inner being as influenced by divine grace. It is only by losing oneself looking away from self in order to serve the Master and his little ones (Matt. 25:40) that one can ever be saved. The soul with wide horizons expands, becomes wonderfully enlarged. It overflows with peace, assurance, joy, etc. In helping others, it helps itself. In loving, it experiences love, that of others, especially that of God. Consequently, Jesus urges upon every person in his audience not to follow the wrong course, the course of turning inward upon oneself, in an attempt to hang on to all one's earthly treasures. To do so would amount to stupendous and, if persisted in, incurable folly. 36. For what good does it do a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Imagine for a moment that a person should gain the whole world all its hidden gems and resources, whatever good things grow on it, the cattle upon a thousand hills, all the world's splendor, prestige, pleasures and treasures, but in the process of doing this should forfeit, i.e., lose the right to possess, his own (higher) life or self, what good will this do him? Implied answer: no good whatever, only evil. This becomes even clearer when attention is focused on the fact that merely earthly goods lack permanence. When the person dies, he cannot take any of them along with him. But the soul, the self, exists on and on and on &in all its wretchedness and horror. All the selfish person's treasures are gone now. But even if he still had them, they would not be able to be exchanged for peace of heart and mind. Nothing, no absolutely nothing, will ever be accepted in exchange for the life, the real life, he so badly needs: 37. For what shall a man give in exchange for his life? The loss he has suffered is simply irreparable. Nothing will compensate for it. Here, and throughout, the underlying implication is that of yearning, wooing love: O that each person in the audience might deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me! The urgent appeal of verse 34 is never lost sight of. Let no one therefore reject this appeal. Let no one disobey the command or refuse the implied invitation, 38. For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with his holy angels. To be ashamed of Jesus means to be so proud that one wants to have nothing to do with him. Thus, for example, Heb. 2:11states, He is not ashamed (i.e., not too proud) to call them brothers. Jesus knew that not only his sworn enemies, the scribes and Pharisees, but also their many followers were in that sense ashamed of him and of his teachings; hence, he speaks of this sinful and adulterous generation. Christ's Jewish contemporaries were adulterous, unfaithful to Jehovah, Israel's rightful HusbandIsa. 50:1ff.; Jer. 3:8; 13:27; 31:32; Ezek. 16:32, 35ff; Hos. 2:1ff. . Cf. Matt. 12:39; 16:4. They were definitely sinful, having completely missed the goal of serving and glorifying God. Having been ashamed of Jesus, the latter is going to be ashamed of them. Cf. (Matt. 7:23; Luke 13:27. At his return he will reject and condemn them. Cf. Matt. 25:41 46a. Note Christ's self designation, the Son of man, derived from Dan. 7:13, 14Mark 14:62). See above, on verse 31; also on 2:10; and N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 403–407. The Son of man is the One who, coming from above and therefore intrinsically glorious throughout, here on earth suffers. But through his vicarious suffering he attains to a glory that is not only inward but also outward. He shall come in the glory of his Father with his holy angels. Meaning: at his second coming the Father will impart his own glory to him, and will give to him his own angels, to function as his brilliant retinue. Cf. Matt. 25:31. 357 Or: summoned his disciples. 358 Or: I am moved with compassion for the multitude. 359 Or: desolate. 360 Or: They ate as much as they wanted. 361 Thus, if from Mark's report as found in 8:1–3 we subtract the introductory words, In those days when again a huge crowd had gathered and they had nothing to eat, and the final clause, for some of them have come a long distance, what remains is almost exactly identical: Matthew Mark Jesus called his disciples to him and said to them, My heart goes out to [or: I am moved with compassion for] the multitude, because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, lest they collapse on the way. He [Jesus] called his disciples to him and said to them, My heart goes out to [or: I am moved with compassion for] the multitude, because already for three days they have remained with me and have nothing to eat; and if I send them away hungry to their homes, they will collapse on the way. The disciples answer of near-despair is also almost identical. Except for the transposition of two words in the original, the immediately following question of Jesus, How many bread-cakes do you have? is again identical. In Matthew the answer is, Seven, and a few fishes. Mark introduces the little fishes somewhat later (8:7), as an item in his own report and not indirectly as information supplied by The Twelve. Both evangelists in almost identical language report that Jesus ordered the people to take their places on the ground. The rest of the story is also very similar in Matthew and Mark. Matthew stresses the fact that the four thousand were males, and after mentioning the four thousand adds not counting women and children. Finally, the concluding item in both states that Jesus dismissed the crowd and stepped into the boat. Here, however, Mark adds with his disciples, and calls the place of arrival Dalmanutha; Matthew calls it Magadan. N.T.C. W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary 362 Note the genitive absolute extending to [Greek]. The participle [Greek] is pl. because [Greek] is a collective noun. As to [Greek] (cf. esophagus), third per. pl. aor. subjunctive of [Greek], this can best be construed as a deliberative subjunctive that is retained in the indirect question. 363 [Greek], third per. pl., fut. indic. passive of [Greek]. In the passive this means to have one's strength loosened or relaxed; hence, to be weakened to the point of complete exhaustion; to collapse. 364 The two words are [Greek], a wicker-basket, and [Greek], a larger wicker-basket or a hamper. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ 9:1. And he was saying to them, I solemnly declare to you that there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the kingdom of God come with power. For I solemnly declare see on 3:28. To taste death means to experience it, that is, to die. Here in 8:38; 9:1 Jesus regards the entire state of exaltation, from his resurrection to his second coming, as a unit. In 8:38 he refers to its final consummation; here in 9:1 to its beginning. He is saying that some of those whom he is addressing are going to be witnesses of this beginning. They are going to see the kingdom or kingship or reign of God come with power. The reference is in all probability to Christ's glorious resurrection, his return in the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and in close connection with that event his position, with great power and influence, at the Father's right hand. Changes so vast would then begin to take place on earth that, as outsiders were going to remark, the world would be turned upside down (Acts 17:6). Momentous events would occur: the becoming of age of the church, its extension among the Gentiles, the conversion of people by the thousands, the presence and exercise of many charismatic gifts, etc. Jesus predicts that all this will begin to take place during the lifetime of some of those whom he is now addressing. That, too, was literally fulfilled. For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 659, 660. The coming of Christ's royal reign with power is foreshadowed in the transfiguration, recorded in the next paragraph, Mark 9:2 8. There are those who believe that this event was included in Christ's prediction recorded in 9:1. Certainty on this point is probably unobtainable. Summary of Chapter 8:1 9:1 The six sections may be summarized as follows: a. Verses 1 10 record the miraculous feeding of the four thousand. Jesus and his disciples are still in a desolate region east of the Sea of Galilee. A huge crowd has been with him three days. There is no more food. So, the Master tells the disciples, My heart goes out to the multitude.& The disciples merely answer, Where in this uninhabited region can anyone get bread enough? They had only seven bread-cakes. For these hungry people Jesus then performs a miracle that is largely similar to that of the previous feeding (6:30–44). Seven hampers full of broken pieces are left after everybody has had plenty to eat. The fact that Jesus was able to repeat his miracles shows his greatness. Also, the present miracle reveals wide-embracing divine love. b. According to verses 11 13, after arriving on the western shore Christ's miracle-working power was challenged by the Pharisees, who demanded a sign from heaven, as if all the previous miracles amounted to zero. Sighing deeply because of their stubborn unbelief, Jesus refused. c. The incident reported in verses 14 21 took place on the sea from Dalmanutha to Bethsaida Julias. The disciples had forgotten to take along bread, only one bread-cake remaining. Jesus warned them against the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod. The Twelve thought that he was referring to literal bread and was finding fault with them for not having provided it. By means of a series of questions Jesus exhorts them to trust in him. d. Only Mark records the miracle found in verses 22 26. It took place at Bethsaida Julias. A blind man was brought to Jesus, with the request that he be healed. After Jesus for the first time laid his hands on him the handicapped individual saw men as trees, walking. After he again laid his hands on the man's eyes, his sight was fully restored. Among the detailed restoration of sight narratives not two are alike, showing that divine love touches people individually, not only in the mass. e. According to verses 27 30, near Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asked his disciples, Who do the people say I am? They answered, John the Baptist &Elijah &one of the prophets. There followed, But you, who do you say I am? Peter answered, Thou art the Christ. Jesus warned the disciples not to reveal this fact to anyone. He knew that popular misconceptions concerning messiahship could have brought his public ministry to an untimely end. For the full story see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 641–652. f. Jesus now makes his first clear prediction of the approaching passion and resurrection (verses 31 9:1). He says, The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. Jesus the Messiah? Yes, but the Suffering Messiah. Peter's attempt at rebuking the Master for this interpretation an attempt in which Jesus discerns a temptation by Satan received a decisive rebuff. To an audience consisting of The Twelve plus many others Jesus explains that his true disciples are partakers of his suffering: If anyone wishes to come behind me, let him deny himself, take up his cross and follow me, For fuller explanation of 9:1 see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 659, 660. CHAPTER IX: 2 50 Outline of Chapter 9:2–50 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 9:2–13 The Transfiguration of Jesus on a High Mountain 9:14–29 The Healing of an Epileptic Boy 9:30–32 The Second Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 9:33–37 Who Is the Greatest? 9:38–41 He Who Is Not against Us Is for Us 9:42–50 Guard the Little Ones and Do Not Yield to Temptation 9:2–13 The Transfiguration of Jesus on a High Mountain Cf. Matt. 17:1–13; Luke 9:28 36 9 2 Six days later Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain by themselves; and he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than any bleacher on earth could bleach them. 4 And there appeared to them, Elijah and Moses, who were engaged in conversation with Jesus. 5 Then Peter spoke up and said to Jesus, Rabbi, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah. 6 For he did not really know what to say, so frightened were they. 7 Then there came a cloud that covered them; and out of the cloud there came a voice: This is my Son, my Beloved; listen to him. 8 And suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them, except Jesus. 9 And when they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to tell anyone what they had seen, until after the Son of man had risen from the dead. 10 They scrupulously kept the charge, meanwhile questioning among themselves what rising from the dead meant. 11 And they asked him, saying, Why do the scribes say that first Elijah has to come? 12 And he said to them, Elijah does come first, and restores everything; and yet, how is it (that it is) written about the Son of man that he must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? 13 But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come, and they treated him as they pleased, just as it is written about him. Touchingly beautiful is the connection between chapters 8 and 9. In the closing paragraph of chapter 8 (really the paragraph embracing 8:31 9:1) Jesus was pictured as the One who withstood Satan's temptation to avoid the cross. He said, Get out of my sight, Satan. By means of this reaction to the devil's sinister attack he reasserted his decision to be the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world. Speaking in human terms, this deeply touched the heart of the father (see 9:7b), who therefore now, on the Mount of Transfiguration (9:2–13) responds by imparting to his Son glory and honor. He did this, as Mark states, by a. enveloping his body, including even his clothes, with heavenly brilliance (verses 2, 3); b. sending him two heavenly messengers, Elijah and Moses, who conversed with him (verse 4), about his coming passion and (probably also) subsequent rewardLuke 9:31b ; and c. proclaiming, in the hearing of Peter, James, and John, This is my Son, my Beloved; listen to him. Once we grasp this connection between the two chapters, not only will the transition from chapter 8 to chapter 9 be easier to remember, but also and this is more important we shall have a better insight into the real meaning of the transfiguration, as indicated in II Peter 1:16, 17. From the manner in which this story is treated in the Synoptics it is clear that although even here written as well as oral source material is probable at least for the later Gospels, no evangelist is slavishly dependent upon any other: each of these parallels contributes items not found in the others. Note the following individual contributions: Matthew alone reports that the face of Jesus shone like the sun. Luke merely says that the appearance of his countenance was changed. Mark omits this item entirely. It is also Matthew alone who states that when a voice spoke from the cloud the disciples fell on their faces, that Jesus came and touched these frightened men, and that he told them not to be afraid. Note also Matthew's vivid and dramatic touches in 17:5: while he was still talking, lo, a bright cloud.& It is Luke who reports that the transfiguration occurred when Jesus was praying, and when Peter and those with him were heavy with sleep. The theme of the conversation between Jesus and the heavenly messengers is also reported only by Luke. Note also the slight difference among the three in the wording of the Father's address in commending his Son to the disciples: Matthew: This is my Son, my Beloved, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him! Mark: This is my Son, my Beloved; listen to him. Luke: This is my Son, my Chosen One; listen to him. As to Mark, after a brief explanation of 9:2–8, together with reference to N.T.C. on Matthew for fuller exegesis, certain points of special interest will be discussed. The same treatment will subsequently be given to verses 9 13. 2 8. Six days later i.e., six days after Peter's confession and Christ's first prediction of the passion and the resurrection Jesus took with him Peter and James and John so that after the great event of Easter they might bear witness of what they had seen, and led them up a high mountain Jebel Jermak in Upper Galilee? by themselves the other nine disciples stayed behind; cf. verse 14; and he was transfigured his outward appearance was changed before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than any bleacher fuller or launderer on earth could bleach them. And there appeared to them Elijah and Moses probably representing respectively the prophets and the law, both of which Christ had come to fulfill, who were engaged in conversation with Jesus. They talked with him about his fast approaching departure in Jerusalem (Luke 9:31). Then Peter spoke up and said to Jesus, Rabbi, how good it is for us to be here! Let us make three shelters, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah as if heavenly visitors needed earthly shelters. For he did not really know what to say, so frightened were they. Besides, they were, at least had been, heavy with sleep (Luke 9:32). Then there came a cloud that covered them often in Scripture the presence of God is indicated by means of a luminous cloud; see (Exod. 16:10; and out of the cloud there came a voice: This is my Son, my Beloved; listen to him. For voices of encouragement and approval spoken by God the Father to his Son, the Mediator, see also Matt. 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 9:35; John 12:28. The Father, by calling his Son my Beloved, and by telling the trio to listen and keep on listening to him, is honoring his Chosen OneLuke 9:35) before them. And suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them, except Jesus. What an act of divine kindness toward the three men, that the dazzling brilliance did not last very long, so that presently they were again with Jesus, alone with him. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 663–669 (the explanation of 17:1–8). Attention should be called to points of special interest: verse 3 While all three accounts report the effect of the transfiguration on the clothes Jesus was wearing, each does this in his own way. According to Matthew his clothes became white as light. Luke says that Christ's apparel flashed like lightning. Mark uses a term found nowhere else in the New Testament.^[387] In the Septuagint it indicates the radiance of the stars. A good translation here in Mark 9:3is, His clothes became dazzling white. Moreover, Mark is the only evangelist who reports that no fuller on earth would have been able to make these garments as white. A fuller is one who cards and cleans woolen clothes. In the present instance of its use the emphasis falls on cleaning, making white; hence, a bleacher. Another rendering that deserves consideration would be, &as white as no laundryman on earth could make them. verse 4 The word appeared ^[388] does not indicate mere subjective or mental appearance. It has reference to an objective manifestation. It is used in connection with the coming into view of angels (Luke 1:11; 22:43; Acts 7:30, 35), the risen Christ (Luke 24:34; Acts 9:17; I Cor. 15:5–8); etc. It was with their physical eyes that Peter and his companions saw these visitors from heaven. Note also: (Elijah and Moses) were talking with or were engaged in conversation with. ^[389] We receive the distinct impression that for Elijah and Moses this speaking with an exalted being like Jesus Christ was not something unusual. These two messengers from heaven were filled with reverence, of course, as they stood there on the Mount of Transfiguration, talking with Jesus. But it was a reverence which excluded any earthly fear and alarm. Does not the description offered to us here in Mark 9:4and parallel passages shed some light on the character of heavenly fellowship? verse 5 Literally this verse begins as follows, And Peter answering said to Jesus. However, no question had been asked; so how could Peter be answering? The solution is that the word used in the original for answering has a very broad meaning. Here as often it simply means that Peter reacted or responded to a situation, namely, that of (what he conceived to be) the need of Jesus and of the two men who had suddenly arrived from heaven. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 84, footnote 89. According to Mark 9:5Peter addresses Jesus as Rabbi; according to the parallel passage in Matthew (17:4), as Lord; and according to Luke (9:33), as Master. Clearly, in the present passages these three terms must be considered synonyms: all aim to do justice to the exalted character of the Savior. Each evangelist offers his own translation of the Aramaic word which Peter must have used. Compare let us make with I will make of Matt. 17:4.^[390] Solution: Peter's idea was that under his own direction all three disciples would construct these tents. verse 6 Peter's suggestion was ill-considered: his condition was that of a man who makes a hasty remark. He was not really knowing, did not really know,^[391] what to say. Under such circumstances it is generally best not to say anything. This, however, would hardly have been in character for loquacious Simon, especially for a Simon just awakened out of sleep, and, like James and John, filled with fear. But before we begin to criticize this apostle too severely, would it not be in order to take to heart the warning of James 1:19?^[392] Matthew connects the fear of the three disciples with the voice that came out of the cloud (17:6); Luke (9:34) with the experience of entering the cloud; but Mark (verses 2b 6) with the entire scene. Conclusion: the reaction of the disciples was that of increasing awe, to which every item contributed its quota. The real lesson of the transfiguration, a lesson indicated earlier, must have dawned upon them gradually, after subsequent reflection. Even though it is generally Mark's Gospel that is the most dramatic, at times Matthew's excels in this respect. So also here: cf. Mark's and Luke's there came a cloud with Matthew's lo or: suddenly a bright cloud. verse 7 Note: listen to him, an exhortation occurring in all three. Here the Father joins the Son see above, on 4:9 in emphasizing the importance of hearing and taking to heart; only now it is specifically the Son who is indicated as the One to whom men should give heed. The exhortation was certainly necessary. In general, how had the words or messages of Jesus been received? It is only fair to emphasize that tremendous interest had been shown (Matt. 7:28, 29). Christ's teaching answered a need. Moreover, it was penetrating, refreshing, and original, not like that of the scribes. But though, by God's grace, many hearts had been changed and lives transformed, often the reaction had been that of disobedience (1:44, 45), unbelief (6:2–6), and even ridicule (5:39, 40). From the side of his sworn enemies, Jesus had met with contradiction (2:5, 6) and hot resentment (3:4–6). Even the disciples had at times expressed disbelief (5:30, 31), had revealed misunderstanding (8:15, 16), and once, in the case of Peter, had even descended to the level of flat, breathtaking contradiction (8:32b). The parable of The Sower was being constantly re-enacted in the reaction of individuals and audiences: many heard, few heeded. Nevertheless, faith is induced by hearing, is awakened by the message (Rom. 10:17); and without faith it is impossible to please God and to be saved. We can therefore appreciate the voice from heaven, Listen to him. And is it not true that this earnest exhortation proves the fact that God the Father as well as God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit takes delight in men's salvation? See Ezek. 18:23; 33:11; John 3:16. The Three are One. 9. And when they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them not to tell anyone what they had seen, until after the Son of man had risen from the dead. This verse is almost literally the same as its parallel Matt. 17:9. The latter, however, uses direct discourse in recording Christ's charge, while Mark has indirect discourse. Jesus knew that the time for public disclosure of his glory as about to be revealed in his death and resurrection, and as even now foreshadowed in his transfiguration had not yet arrived. When the first open announcement to his people, as represented by their leaders, must be made, he himself will make itMark 14:61, 62: note Son of man in that passage as also here in Mark 9:9, 12; and see on 2:10 . After his resurrection the disciples would be free and duty-bound to relate far and wide whatever they had seen and heard on the Mount of Transfiguration. The very fact of Christ's death followed by his resurrection would illumine the account, setting it in its proper perspective. Note what they had seen. It is clear that neither Jesus himself nor his reporter, John Mark, viewed what had happened on the mount as being a merely subjective vision or worse even a figment of the imagination. And the three disciples, too, were thoroughly convinced that they had been eye-witnesses of his majesty (II Peter 1:16). 10. They scrupulously kept the charge, meanwhile questioning among themselves^[393] what rising from the dead meant. These men sedulously observed the order literally, the word Jesus had given them. They as it were fastened on to it, clung to it.^[394] Luke 9:36is in full agreement: They kept silence and told no one in those days anything of what they had seen. As to the words of Jesus &until after the Son of man had risen from the dead, they asked each other questions about that. They were utterly baffled. As if the very idea of the Messiah being tormented and even put to death were not sufficiently exasperating, their minds had now been burdened by this added conundrum: that same Messiah rising again! Perhaps their questions were somewhat along this line: Peter, what do you think he meant by this? John, do you think he was referring to the resurrection at the last day? James, why is the Master going to die at all if he is going to rise again? Another question may have been, Was he referring to a physical resurrection? But these are merely guesses. 11, 12a. And they asked him, saying, Why do the scribes say that^[395] first Elijah has to come? And he said to them, Elijah does come first, and restores everything.& An almost exact parallel to these words is found in Matt. 17:10, 11. Therefore see N.T.C. on that passage, p. 669 ff. Meaning in brief: Jesus just now had predicted his resurrection from the dead, implying his imminent death. What bothers the disciples is that such a death would seem to leave Messianic prophecies unfulfilled. Are not the scribes constantly saying that Messiah's coming would be preceded by that of Elijah? See Mal. 4:5, 6. But even though on the one hand the Tishbite obviously has not as yet reappeared upon the scene of history, restoring everything, yet on the other hand Jesus, the Messiah, not only has already arrived but even declares that he is about to die. How is this possible? in his answer Jesus first of all declares that the scribes were right in maintaining that Elijah's coming would precede that of Messiah. In verse 13 Jesus adds that Elijah did actually come. See further on verse 13. This, however, creates another problem in the minds of the disciples, as Mark now points out. Granted that this was true, namely, that the scribes were right about Messiah's arrival being preceded by that of Elijah, who restores everything, then where does the idea of a suffering and dying Christ fit in? Jesus now points out that this, too, had been predicted. He therefore continues: 12b. and yet, how is it (that it is) written about the Son of man that he must suffer many things and be treated with contempt? This, says Jesus as it were, is a very important prediction, one that must not be ignored. He does not quote any particular prophecy, but may it not be safely concluded that he was thinking of such passages as Ps. 22:1–18; 69:8, 9, 11, 20, 21; 118:22a; and especially of Isa. 53:3? Yes, the predictions had been clear enough, but they had been by-passed! Jesus concludes his answer as follows: 13. But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come, and they treated him as they pleased, just as it is written about him. It is Matthew's Gospel that supplies the commentary: But I say to you that Elijah already came. But they failed to recognize him, and treated him as they pleased. Similarly the Son of man is about to suffer at their hands. Then the disciples understood that he had spoken to them about John the Baptist. See N.T.C. on Matt. 17:12, 13, pp. 671, 672. By and large the people had not taken to heart the preaching of John the Baptist. They had failed to recognize him as the fulfilment of prophecy (Matt. 11:16–48). The religious leaders of the Jews had turned against him (21:25). At the instigation of wicked Herodias, Herod Antipas had killed John (14:3, 10). Instead of asking, How does God want us to treat John the Baptist? they had done to him whatever they pleased. And the same combination was about to kill Jesus. The Tishbite &John the Baptist &Jesus, by and large none were accepted; all were treated with contempt. Note as it is written about him. That writing begins already at I Kings 19:2, 10b. All were able to say, They seek my life, to take it away. This very fact that it was written, hence divinely planned is filled with comfort. It shows that without in any way erasing human responsibility and guilt, these murderous intentions and (in the case of the Baptist and Jesus) deeds happened in accordance with the divine decree. In the end, therefore, God always triumphs. His truth is victorious. Cf. Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23, 24. See also Isa. 53:4–6. 9:14–29 The Healing of an Epileptic Boy Cf. Matt. 17:14–20; Luke 9:37 43a 14 And when they came to the (other) disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. 15 Now as soon as all the people saw him [Jesus], they were greatly amazed and were running forward to welcome him. 16 He asked them, What are you arguing about with them? 17 And one of the crowd answered him, Teacher, I brought my son to you, for he is possessed by a spirit that has deprived him of the ability to speak.^[396] 18 Moreover, whenever it seizes him, it dashes him to the ground, and he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not. 19 He answered and said to them, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him to me. 20 So they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him [Jesus], it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and was rolling around, foaming at the mouth. 21 And he [Jesus] asked the boy's father, How long has this been happening to him? He answered, From childhood. 22 Again and again it has thrown him into fire or into water in order to kill him; but if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us. 23 Jesus said to him, As to that if you can, all things are possible for him who believes. 24 Immediately the boy's father cried out, I do believe, help my unbelief. ^[397] 25 Now when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, You deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and don't you ever enter him again. 26 Shrieking and throwing the boy into terrible convulsions, it came out. To such an extent did the boy resemble a corpse that most people were saying, He is dead. 27 But Jesus grasped his hand and lifted him to his feet, and he stood up. 28 And after he [Jesus] had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, Why couldn't we cast it out? 29 He told them, This kind can come out only by prayer. When we compare Mark's account of this miracle with that of Matthew, it is the difference rather than the resemblance that stands out. Of Mark's 16 verses devoted to this event only 18b, 19, 28 plus a trace here and there in the remaining part clearly suggest literary relationship. When Mark's account is laid alongside of Luke's the result is about the same. With one exception, namely, Mark 9:29; cf. Matt. 17:20, Mark's account is by far the most detailed of the three. Contrast Mark's 16 verses with Matthew's 7 and with Luke's [Greek]. It cannot be denied that the shorter accounts contain important items not found in Mark. Thus Matthew records that the father of the grievously afflicted boy approached Jesus and kneeling before him said &; and also that the Master pointed to lack of sufficient faith as the cause of the disciples failure to heal this boy (17:14, 20). And Luke a. indicates the time when the miracle occurred on the next day, that is, the day after the transfiguration b. reproduces a significant item of the father's moving appeal he is my only child; and c. closes his account by stating, All were astonished at the majesty of God (9:37, 38, 43). For the rest, it is to Mark that we turn for the most detailed and vivid report. 14. And when they came to the (other) disciples, they saw a large crowd around them, and scribes arguing with them. Having completed their descent from the mountain, Jesus and the three, on the day after the Master's transfiguration, were approaching the place where they had left the other nine disciples. They saw a large crowd surrounding the nine, and soon were close enough to notice some scribes in argument.^[398] with the nine. If the Mount of Transfiguration was Jebel Jermak in Upper Galilee, not far from Capernaum, which was reached soon afterward (Matt. 17:24), the presence of this crowd and of these scribes is understandable. Nor is it surprising that these scribes were filled with chortling, malicious glee^[399] because of the inability of the nine to cure an epileptic boy. So, to use a slang expression, they were rubbing it in. The nine were having a difficult time in defending themselves before all these people. 15. Now as soon as all the people saw him [Jesus], they were greatly amazed^[400] and were running forward to welcome him. As far as the crowd and the disciples were concerned, Jesus sudden appearance was most welcome. They had not yet expected him; hence, were greatly amazed. They ran to receive him into their midst. The scribes could not very well stay behind; neither did they want to. For the theory of some, that the transfiguration brightness was still visible on the face of Jesus, and that it was this that gave rise to the crowd's amazement, there is no proof whatever. Moses and Jesus, Mount Sinai and the Mount of Transfiguration, how different they were in this respect! See Exod. 34:29f.; II Cor. 3:7. Jesus rushes to the defense of his disciples. He does this by turning his attention to the scribes: 16. He asked them, What are you arguing about with them? He was fully aware of the weaknesses of his disciples (see verses 28, 29; also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 246, 247, 455). Yet &he loved them, and came to their rescue! For the scribes the fun they were having suddenly ends. So embarrassed are they that they do not know what to say. So the arguing and jeering suddenly stops. Not even one of the law-experts was anxious to answer Christ's question. Nevertheless, the silence does not last very long; for out of the crowd one man steps forward, as is clear from verses 17, 18. And one of the crowd answered him, Teacher I brought my son to you, for he is possessed by a spirit that has deprived him of the ability to speak. Moreover, whenever it seizes him, it dashes him to the ground, and he foams at the mouth, grinds his teeth, and becomes rigid. Thus spoke the father of a grievously afflicted only child (Luke 9:38). Compare this with the only son of the widow at Nain (Luke 7:12), and with the only daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:42). The heart of God's only Son went out to these only children, to their parents, and to many, many others besides! Respectfully the father addresses Jesus as Teacher (thus also in Luke), as Lord (thus in Matthew). In the course of his speech the man may well have used both titles, or else each evangelist is giving his own translation of an Aramaic form of address. I brought to you my son should be compared with I asked your disciples (verse 18). Evidently the man's original intention had been to bring his grievously stricken son to Jesus to be healed. But when he noticed that Jesus was not in the company of the disciples, he had asked the latter to heal the afflicted one. And why not? Did not casting out demons and healing the sick belong to the task that had been assigned to the disciples? See 6:7; cf. Matt. 10:1. And is it not true that to a certain extent these men had been successful in fulfilling this mandate? See Mark 6:13, 30; Luke 9:6 10. But in the present case for a reason mentioned later (verse 29) the disciples had failed: I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they could not. When we carefully review the various symptoms of the affliction endured by this boy, we are forced to conclude that we are dealing here with a case of epilepsy. Verses 18, 20, 26 make mention of the very conditions commonly associated with this disease: seizures, convulsions, falling to the ground, foaming at the mouth, teeth grinding, rigidity. However, we hasten to add, This was not an ordinary case of epilepsy. It was far worse. This boy, in addition to being plagued with the convulsive disorder called grand mal, was also a deaf-mute. He has a dumb spirit, says the father, making use of abbreviated discourse; hence, really meaning, He is possessed by a spirit that has deprived him of the ability to speak (and to hear, as Jesus adds in verse 25). The boy was therefore an epileptic, a deaf-mute, and worst of all, a demoniac, his grievous physical condition having been brought about by an unclean spirit. This was therefore not a case of simple epilepsy; no, it was a very complicated condition, in which the boy did not merely fall to the ground but was actually again and again knocked down by the evil spirit.^[401] For more about demon-possession see above, on 1:23. Deeply moved note O: 19. He answered and said to them, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you?; How long shall I put up with you? By means of this exclamation Jesus expressed his pain and indignation. The fact that he directed his complaint to the generation shows that he cannot have been thinking only of the nine disciples who had failed in this emergency. He was evidently deeply dissatisfied with his contemporaries: with the father, who lacked sufficient faith in Christ's healing power (9:22–24); with the scribes, who, instead of showing any pity, were in all probability gloating over the disciples impotence (9:14); with the crowd in general, which is pictured in the Gospels as being generally far more concerned about itself than about others (John 6:26); and, last but not least, with the nine disciples, because of their failure to exercise their faith by putting their whole heart into persevering prayer (9:29). To a greater or lesser extent all were faithless, lacking in the exercise of true, warm, enduring faith, a faith operating effectively. When Jesus adds, How long shall I be with you; how long shall I put up with you? he shows that in view of his own trust in the heavenly Father, a confidence that was faultless, and in view of his own love which was infinite and tender, it was painful for him to put up with (the exact meaning of the original) those who lacked these qualities or who failed to exercise these virtues in a sufficient degree. His ministry had lasted almost three years by now. He was longing for the end. By means of the heart-warming and positive command, Bring him to me, Jesus gave the perfect example of proper behavior during annoying and distressing circumstances. In what he was about to do he revealed not only his power but also, as always, his love. The story continues as follows: 20. So they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him [Jesus], it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and was rolling around, foaming at the mouth. The remark made earlier, namely, that this was not an ordinary case of epilepsy but one brought about and aggravated by a demon, is clear from these facts: a. the convulsion occurs at the very moment when the demon sees Jesus; and b. it was not a cerebral disorder operating by itself that produced the muscle spasms, etc.; no, it was the demon that convulsed^[402] the lad, so that presently he was rolling^[403] on the ground, foaming at the mouth. 21, 22. And he [Jesus] asked the boy's father, How long has this been happening to him? He answered, From childhood. Again and again it has thrown him into fire or into water in order to kill him; but if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us. Like a sympathetic physician Jesus asks the father how long the boy has been in this condition. Not that Jesus needs this information in order to bring about recovery, but the father needs to reflect on the lengthy period of time during which his son has been in this condition, in order that he may be all the more thankful for the miracle that is about to take place. Such a reflection will also have a wholesome effect on those standing around. The father's state of mind and heart is revealed by the fact that he not only answers Christ's question but also supplies further details, beyond those already reported in verses 17, 18. Clearly, the father's soul is wrapped up in that of his son: tender and intense was his love for this boy. And note here again see also verse 20 it is not the falling into fire or water that is stressed but the being thrown into these potential killers, with the sinister purpose, on the part of the evil spirit, to destroy him. But though the situation was very grievous, it was not entirely hopeless, not even to the mind of this father. An inkling perhaps not more of hope was left. He is convinced that Jesus wants to help him. The question is, Can he? Contrast this father's implied If you can,^[404] you will with the leper's If you will, you can (1:40). The demoniac's father grants the possibility that Jesus might be able to help, but he is not sure: he lacks sufficient faith in the power of the Savior. Note Take pity^[405] on us. It is the pity or active sympathy of Jesus that stands out in the Gospels. See above, on 1:41, including footnote 57. &and help us. The word help is very meaningful and touching. In the original it consists of two smaller words: a cry and run.^[406] In any context in which this word is used it is an earnest and moving request that the Lord, or whoever the potential helper happens to be, may rush toward the person who is in need, and may help him. A detailed study of the various specific contexts in which this verb is used is rewarding. Besides Mark 9:22, 24see also Matt. 15:25; Acts 16:9; 21:28; II Cor. 6:2; Heb. 2:18; Rev. 12:16. How thoroughly this loving father identifies himself with his only son! He says, Take pity on us &help us. In heart and mind he is as close to his son as is the Syrophoenician woman to her daughter. See Matt. 15:22, 25. If the suppliant's wife was still alive, this us would also embrace her. It would then mean, Take pity on and help our distressed little family. 23. Jesus said to him, As to that if you can, all things are possible for him who believes. It is interesting to notice how quickly and dramatically Jesus turns the tables on this man. The question is not whether I am able but whether you believe, the Lord is, as it were, saying. Though it is not true that Jesus never healed anyone unless that person manifested genuine faith, it is true that he placed great emphasis on faith. See 1:15; 5:36; 6:5, 6; 11:23; cf. Matt. 17:20. 24. Immediately the boy's father cried out, I do believe, help my unbelief. Very striking is this answer in which the tempest-tossed father pours out his very heart. He was certain of two things: a. that he did indeed have the kind of faith Jesus demanded; and b. that this faith was imperfect, beset by fears and doubts. Only five words (in the original), but these five comprised a. a sincere profession of faith: I do believe, and b. an earnest, moving petition, Help my unbelief, meaning, Continue moment by moment and day by day to come to my aid,^[407] so that I may overcome my unbelief. 25. Now when Jesus saw that a crowd came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, You deaf and dumb spirit, I command you, come out of him and don't you ever enter him again. A crowd was again gathering and running toward the scene.^[408] There had been a crowd of considerable size, a multitude of spectators, curiously watching the quarrel between the scribes and nine disciples of Jesus (verse 14). On seeing Jesus approach, these same people had rushed forward to welcome him (verse 15). Is it not reasonable to suppose that out of respect in the case of some even reverence for Jesus and out of consideration for the distressed father and his pathetic son, the crowd had at first stepped back a little (see on 7:14), but that now that a miracle seemed to be in sight everybody drew nearer, so as not to miss out on what was about to happen? On the other hand, Jesus never encourages such vain curiosity, nor does he wish to be viewed as being first and most of all a miracle-worker; so he now very quickly brings this incident to a conclusion. So he rebuked^[409] the unclean spirit. Mark uses this designation more often than either Matthew or Luke. For explanation see on 3:11; and for more on demon-possession see on 1:23. In expelling this demon, Jesus addresses it as You deaf and dumb spirit. What he meant was that the demon had caused the possessed person to be in that condition. As always, so also here, the depth of Christ's tender sympathy for the boy and for his father is evident from the peremptory nature of the expulsion order, Come out of him and don't you ever enter him again. ^[410] 26, 27. Shrieking and throwing the boy into terrible convulsions, it came out. To such an extent did the boy resemble a corpse that most people were saying, He is dead. The scene of 1:26 is virtually repeated here. Exceptions: in 1:26 the demon's shriek is emphasized; here in 9:26 the convulsions are: in leaving, the unclean spirit convulsed the boy terribly. ^[411] What a vivid description of the manner in which the boy was cured! Mark alone has all the details. He must have listened very carefully as Peter (and/or others) told the story. There was the shriek uttered by the demon who made use of the boy's vocal organs. Along with it there were those ghastly, horrible muscle spasms. And then there was rigidity. Deathly still is the body, stiff and still. Even respiration seems to have stopped. All this, coupled with the body's ashen pallor, convinces the majority literally the many of the people that the lad has died. He is dead, they are saying. But Jesus grasped his hand and lifted him to his feet. The Master was always doing things of this nature, it mattered not whether the one in need was Peter (Matt. 14:31), Peter's mother-in-law (Mark 1:31), Jairus daughter (5:41), or whoever it might be. Is he not, in a very glorious sense, doing the same even today? See C. H. Gabriel's inspiring hymn He Lifted Me. It was not a lifeless body that Jesus was lifting. On the contrary, the boy was now vibrant with life and energy: and he stood up.^[412] By means of the strength that Jesus imparted to him when he lifted him up, the boy himself was now also able to get up and to stand erect, for from the very moment when the demon left, this lad was completely cured (Matt. 17:18). 28, 29. And after he [Jesus] had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately, Why couldn't we cast it out? He told them, This kind can come out only by prayer. After he had performed the great miracle of rescuing this demon-possessed boy from the clutches of an unclean spirit, and restoring to him the ability to hear and to speak, Jesus went indoors. ^[413] In the present case this translation is probably the best, especially since the Lord had not as yet reached Capernaum (see verse 33). Did he, as presumably often during his travels, receive lodging at the home of one of his followers? However that may be, it was at this time that his disciples think of the nine came to him with the question, Why^[414] couldn't we cast it out? It was a reasonable question, for though these men had successfully handled many a case of demon-possession, in the present case they had failed.^[415] According to Matthew, Jesus answers this question by saying, Because of your little faith.& Essentially Mark's report of Christ's answer amounts to Because of your little (slack, slapdash) prayer. Of course, these two go together. Where there is little faith, there is little prayer. Conversely, where there is an abundance of genuine, persevering faith, there is also fervent, unrelenting prayer: My faith looks up to thee, Thou Lamb of Calvary, Savior divine! Now hear me while I pray.& Lowell Mason This kind says Jesus, can come out only by prayer. He is saying, therefore, that in the world of the demons there are differences: some are more powerful and more malignant than others. The disciples, therefore, should not have allowed their faith to flag, their prayers to take a holiday. Not only does Jesus urge his followers to pray; he also encourages them to persevere in prayer (Matt. 7:7; Luke 18:1 8; 21:36).^[416] So does Paul (Col. 1:9; I Thess. 5:17; II Thess. 1:11). Beautifully Luke adds, And he [Jesus] gave him back to his father. In the Savior's works of pity and love nothing is lacking. Not only does he love, he loves to the uttermost (John 13:1). 9:30–32 The Second Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection Cf. Matt. 17:22, 23; Luke 9:43b 45 30 After they had left that place they were making a trip through Galilee, and he did not want anybody to know it; 31 for he was teaching his disciples, and telling them, The Son of man is about to be betrayed^[417] into the hands of men, and they shall kill him. But three days after he has been killed he shall rise again. 32 But they did not know what to make of this statement and were afraid to ask him about it. 30a. After they had left that place they were making a trip through Galilee.& See the map on p. 295 for the possible route Jesus and The Twelve may have traveled from the high mountain (9:2) to Capernaum (9:33). The route as there indicated has in its favor that it represents the little company as indeed making a trip through Galilee, yet not through the most thickly populated part of Galilee. This, too, is in harmony with what follows, namely, 30b, 31. and he did not want anybody to know it; for he was teaching his disciples, and telling them, The Son of man is about to be betrayed into the hands of men, and they shall kill him. Clearly, the Retirement Ministry is still continuing, though it is hastening to its close. It has already been pointed out (p. 294) that this was the period during which Jesus was in a very special way devoting himself to the task of training The Twelve. That was why he did not want the general public to know his whereabouts. He needed privacy, so as to have the time and the opportunity for teaching The Twelve, so that they in turn, especially after his resurrection, would be able to convey the truths concerning Jesus and his kingdom to others. Specifically, he was teaching them the lessons of the cross. In the main these lessons were delivered on three separate occasions. To be sure, this instruction may well have been given right along, for by no means everything that took place has been recorded. Cf. John 20:30; 21:25. But the record as found in all three Synoptics calls attention to three consecutive lessons. They are found in Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:33, 34; and their parallels in Matthew and Luke. Of these three the present is the second. It bears a close resemblance to the first. In both Jesus calls himself the Son of man (Matt. 8:20), predicts that he is going to be killed, and that three days later he is going to rise again. Yet, there is a difference. In this second prediction it is not so much the necessity as the certainty of this impending death that is stressed. Also, this time Jesus states that he is about to be betrayed handed over, delivered into the hands of men. Though the name of Judas, the betrayer, is not mentioned, yet in the light of 14:18, 20, 21 the finger of accusation is beginning to point at him. The glorious Son of man is being delivered probably meaning is about to be delivered (Matt. 17:22; Luke 9:44) into the hands of men, wicked men, those described in the first lesson: the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, the Sanhedrin. The very men who should have been leaders in honoring the long-awaiting Messiah were about to kill him. But three days after he has been killed he shall rise again. How these three days must be counted has been discussed in N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 534. In fulfilment of this prophecy the body of Jesus actually rested in the grave during three day-and-night periods: part of Friday, all of Saturday, and part of Sunday. Mark represents Jesus as predicting that he shall rise again; Matthew, be raised up. ^[418] These are not in conflict. Both are true. What Mark reports Jesus as saying is that he is going to rise again by his own power. This is in harmony not only with Christ's own teaching as found elsewhere but also with other passages of Scripture. (John 10:17, 18is very clear on this point: I lay down my life in order that I may take it again.& I have the right to lay it down and I have the right to take it again. Cf. John 10:11, 14. Thus also John 2:19, &in three days I will raise it up. Is not he himself the resurrection and the lifeJohn 11:25); And does he not hold the keys of Death and Hades (Rev. 1:18)? On the other hand, what Matthew represents Jesus to have said is just as factual. The Father was indeed going to raise the Son from the deadActs 2:32; 3:26; 10:40; 13:34; 17:31; Rom. 4:24, 25; 6:4; etc. . And the Holy Spirit also had a part in this great event. Was it not especially by means of Christ's resurrection from the dead that the Spirit fully vindicated the claim of Jesus that he was the Son of God (I Tim. 3:16)? Moreover, the Spirit imparts life. See Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30; Rom. 8:11. The outgoing works of God must be ascribed to all Three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These Three are One. The disciples reaction to this prediction is reported in verse 32. But they did not know what to make of this statement and were afraid to ask him about it. The mental condition of these men, as they again heard Jesus speaking about his approaching rejection, was one of sorrow, bewilderment, and fear. Matthew registers the sorrow: And they were deeply distressed (17:23).^[419] Luke reports the bewilderment and fear, and does this in a most impressive fashion: But they did not understand this statement, and it was concealed from them, so that they might not grasp it; and they were afraid to ask him about this statement (9:45). In thus expressing himself, Luke may well have had a copy of Mark's Gospel before him. It is clear at least that Mark, too, describes the men's befuddlement and apprehension.^[420] There may well be merit in the suggestion of Robertson (Word Pictures I, p. 344) that the fear of the disciples, so that they did not dare to ask Jesus any questions about this prediction of impending suffering and death, was with a bitter memory of the term Satan hurled at Peter when he protested the other time when Jesus spoke of his death (Mark 8:33= Matt. 16:23). 9:33–37 Who Is the Greatest? Cf. Matt. 18:1–5; Luke 9:46 48 33 They came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house,^[421] he was asking them, What were you discussing on the road? 34 But they kept still, because on the road they had been disputing with each other who was the greatest. 35 So he sat down, called the twelve to him, and said, If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all. 36 And he took a little child and had him stand in the midst of them. And taking him in his arms he said to them, 37 Whoever in my name welcomes one of such little children welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but him who sent me. 33, 34. They came to Capernaum. And when he was in the house, he was asking them, What were you discussing on the road? But they kept still, because on the road they had been disputing with each other who was the greatest. With respect to this incident the accounts of the three Gospel writers resemble each other to a considerable degree both in phraseology and with respect to the sequence in which the various items follow each other. All three stories tell how among the disciples an argument developed anent the question, Who is the greatest? To set them straight Jesus takes a child so that by means of its humble trustfulness these men may learn the lesson of true greatness. The Master concludes by saying, according to Matt. 18:5, The person who in my name welcomes one such little child as this, welcomes me. See also Matt. 10:40. With slight verbal variations and augmentations this conclusion is also found in Mark 9:37and in Luke 9:48. Particularly close is the resemblance between Mark 9:36, 37and Luke 9:47b, 48a. It is, however, on what some consider discrepancies that the attention is often focused. These discrepancies are said to be so formidable that the attempt to read Mark 9:33 37as a consistent, in every respect historical, account is given up. It is assumed that what we now have is a jumbled narrative, drawn from various discordant sources.^[422] The assumed items of conflict are: a. Matthew and Luke omit any reference to Capernaum, while Mark places the event in Capernaum and thus in a Galilean context. b. According to Matthew the disciples take the initiative. It is they who ask Jesus, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? In Mark, however, it is Jesus who takes the initiative. It is he who asks them, What were you discussing on the road? c. According to Mark 9:33Jesus is present with his disciples. They are together in a house. Nevertheless, according to verse 35 these men seem not to have been with him, for he has to call them. The following answers certainly deserve consideration: As to a. While it is true that Luke, as so often, does not locate the event, Matthew has just mentioned Jesus arrival in Capernaum. Note: And when they had come to Capernaum (17:24). The story of the payment of the temple tax follows. And then we read, At that moment or: in that hour the disciples came to Jesus asking, Who then is greatest &? (18:1). As to b. The very fact that Matthew phrases the disciples question thus, Who then note this then is greatest &? may well indicate that something has preceded the asking of this question. The sequence of events may have been as follows: On the way to the house an argument concerning rank develops among the disciples (Luke 9:46). Indoors Jesus asks them, What were you discussing on the road? But they kept quiet, etc. (Mark 9:33, 34). Jesus, however, knows (Luke 9:47). When they become aware of this, they ask him, Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? (Matt. 18:1). In any event the assumption of a discrepancy is unwarranted. As to c. Was it not natural for men oppressed by a sense of guilt to remain at some distance from their Master? And was it not just as natural for him, when he was about to impart needed instruction to them, to sit down as their Teacher (Matt. 5:1; 13:1; Luke 5:3; John 8:2) and to summon them into his immediate presence? Jesus is back in Capernaum again, the very city which for so long a time had been his headquarters. He was in the house, or at home, as in Matt. 8:6; see also on the synonymous phrase in Mark 2:1. His disciples have by this time also entered this house. Jesus was questioning or: began to question^[423] them, What were you discussing on the road? Evidently he knew that a subdued conversation had been carried on among these men as they were walking behind him. Did he know more than this? The very topic and nature of the conversation? It is useless for us to try to comprehend the exact manner of Christ's acquisition of knowledge. Three considerations must be borne in mind, however: a. His human nature was not in and by itself omniscient (Mark 13:32; cf. Matt. 24:36); b. his divine nature would at times impart information to his human nature which the latter apart from that impartation would not have received (Matt. 17:25, 27; John 1:47, 48; 2:25; 21:17); and c. at times Jesus received information in a thoroughly human way, by asking questions or by search (Mark 5:32; 6:38; 11:13). In the present instance (Mark 9:33), as already indicated, we must probably think of b. See also 2:8. He already knew before they told him, but he asked the question so that they might begin to reflect on what they had done, and might feel thoroughly ashamed. In answer to Christ's question deathly silence prevailed. It was a silence that was not immediately broken. Clearly, the disciples were embarrassed. It seems strange that one of the first recorded results of Christ's second prediction (9:30–32) of his rapidly approaching agony should have been the disciples debate about rank! How quickly their sorrowMatt. 17:23b caused by this prediction had given way to craving for exaltation! Yet such men as these Jesus had chosen to be his disciples! For such as these he was going to lay down his life. Thus the sovereign character of God's electing love is made to stand out. Cf. Ps. 103:14; 115:1; Ezek. 16:1–14; Dan. 9:7, 8; I John 4:19; and see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:4. There may well have been a connection, however, between Christ's prediction and the dispute among the disciples. Though Jesus had spoken about his passion, in the same breath he had also mentioned his resurrection. Moreover, shortly before this he had promised that some of the disciples were going to see the kingdom of God come with power (9:1). So, since earthbound thoughts had not as yet been completely erased from the minds of these men not even for a long time afterward; see Acts 1:6, the very predictions which Jesus had made may have caused them to start thinking and arguing about the relative degree of eminence which each disciple would enjoy in that kingdom. Besides, especially of late Peter had been in the limelight. Was the highest rank reserved for him? See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 684, 685. The solemn moment has now arrived for Jesus to show his disciples what should be the true attitude of any kingdom citizen. 35. So he sat down, called the twelve to him, and said, If anyone would be first, he must be^[424] last of all and servant of all. Having summoned the men into his immediate presence, Jesus, by means of the gesture of sitting down, as already explained, indicates that as their Teacher, he is about to give them a very important lesson. That lesson is this: their idea of what it means to be great must be changed; in fact, radically reversed. True greatness does not consist in this, that from a towering height a person, in a self-congratulatory manner, has the right now to look down upon all others (Luke 18:9 12); but in this, that he immerses himself in the needs of others, sympathizes with them and helps them in every way possible. So, if any person whether he be one of The Twelve or anyone else wishes to be first, he must be last; that is, servant^[425] of all. Jesus must have repeated this lesson many a time throughout his ministry, probably at various places and in slightly varying ways. See also Matt. 20:26, 27; 23:11; Mark 10:43, 44; Luke 9:48b; 14:11; 18:14. In fact, is not this a lesson that is stressed throughout Scripture? See Job 22:29; Prov. 29:23; Isa. 57:15; James 4:6; I Peter 5:5. As to self-centered ambition and vanity, Before downfall goes pride; and before stumbling, a haughty spirit (Prov. 16:18). Was not this the experience of Sennacherib (II Chron. 32:14, 21), of Nebuchadnezzar (Dan. 4:30–33), and of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:21 23)? On the other hand, note what is said about the commended centurion (Matt. 8:8, 10, 13), the humble Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:29; cf. Matt. 15:27, 28), and the penitent tax-collector (Luke 18:13, 14). One reason why the lesson taught by Jesus is unforgettable is that he himself was constantly exemplifying it in his own life (Mark 10:44, 45; Luke 22:27; John 13:1 15; Phil. 2:5–8). Another reason why this lesson of being humble and trustful instead of inordinately ambitious has become very familiar is the fact that by means of a most delightful and impressive living illustration Jesus stamped it indelibly upon the minds and hearts of his followers: 36a. And he took a little child and had him stand in the midst of them. What Jesus did at this occasion revealed not only his thorough understanding of the nature of the kingdom and of the way of entering it, but also his tenderness toward the little ones. What he said deserved all the praise that has ever been ascribed to it, and far more than that. But was not the amazing glory of the Mediator's soul revealed also in his restraint, that is, in what he did not do and did not say? He did not even scold his disciples for their callousness, their insensibility with respect to this approaching agony, the non-lasting character of their grief, their quickness in turning the mind away from him to themselves, their selfishness. All this he passed by, and addressed himself directly to their question. It is pleasing to note the frequency with which the presence of children around Jesus and/or his love for them is mentioned in the Gospels. See (Matt. 14:21; 15:38; 18:3; 19:13, 14Mark 10:13, 14; Luke 18:15, 16); 21:15, 16; 23:37 (Luke 13:34). Undoubtedly children felt attracted to Jesus, wanted to be with him. Whenever he wanted a child there was always one present, ready to do his bidding, to come when he called him. So also here. To speculate who this child was is useless. The point is that this was indeed a child, endowed with all the favorable and amiable qualities generally associated with childhood in any clime and at any time. The Lord calls this little one to his side, and places him in the midst of all these big men, perhaps in such a position that the child faced them while they were arranged in a crescent before him. The child was not afraid, for it stood by the Lord's very side (Luke 9:47). Mark now adds a precious touch not found in the other Gospels: 36b. And taking him in his arms^[426] he said to them.& In these arms the little one would feel perfectly at ease and would be able trustfully to look into the face of Jesus. Continued: 37. Whoever in my name welcomes one of such little children welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but him who sent me. This dominical saying fits into the present context, just as it is also suitable to the context of Matt. 10:40; see N.T.C. on that passage. Here in Mark 9:37the logic is somewhat as follows: Jesus is telling his disciples to forget all about rank, pre-eminence, prominence. Instead, they should concentrate their attention on the needs of one, any one, even just one, of such little ones; for example, the child which Jesus is now holding in his arms, or any similar one. They should welcome such a child in Christ's name. The name of Christ is Christ himself viewed in his glorious self-revelation. Therefore, to welcome such a little child in Christ's name means to treat it with all the love and consideration which he, Christ, in accordance with the manner in which he has revealed himself in word and deed, has a right to expect of his followers. In doing this, they will be welcoming the child or anyone who in his weakness, need, and humble dependence, resembles a child for Christ's sake (cf. 10:29). Now if this is done with all the sincerity, warmth, and enthusiasm that can be put into it, it will certainly tend to benefit the one on whom this affection is bestowed. And that is what Jesus wants, for he loves the little ones. But it will do more than this. It will also benefit those who bestow such care. In the process of identifying themselves with these children will they not themselves also become childlike? Moreover, obedience to Christ's command glorifies Christ; for, as Jesus continues to point out, since the relation between himself and one such child is very close, therefore whoever in his name welcomes one of these little children welcomes their Redeemer, that is, Jesus Christ. Finally, since the relation between Jesus and his Sender, the FatherMark 12:6; cf. Matt. 15:24; Luke 10:16; John 3:16, 17; etc. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER X Outline of Chapter 10 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 10:1–12 Teaching about Divorce 10:13–16 Jesus and the Children 10:17–31 The Peril of Riches and the Reward of Sacrifice 10:32–34 The Third Prediction of the Passion and the Resurrection 10:35–45 The Request of the Sons of Zebedee 10:46–52 The Healing of Blind Bartimacus at Jericho 10:1–12 Teaching about Divorce Cf. Matt. 5:31, 32; 19:1–12 10 1 He departed from that place and came into the region of Judea [and]^[445] beyond the Jordan. Again crowds were flocking toward him, and again, as his custom was, he began to teach them. 2 Then some Pharisees came up to him, and tempted him by asking,^[446] Is it lawful for a man to divorce (his) wife? 3 He answered, What did Moses command you? 4 They said, Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away. 5 But Jesus replied, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, 6 but from the beginning of creation he [God] made them male and female. 7 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife,^[447] 8 and the two shall be one flesh. It follows that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. 10 And in the house the disciples were again asking him about this. 11 He said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman is committing adultery^[448] against her; 12 and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. Mark 10is a lengthy chapter. Only chapters 6 and 14 surpass it in length. Its material that is paralleled in Matthew is there distributed over two chapters: 19 and 20. Moreover, with two Matthean exceptions, namely, 19:10–12 (about eunuchs) and 20:1–16 (The Laborers in the Vineyard), Mark 10and Matt. 19, 20not only contain substantially the same material but even present this material in the same sequence. Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of Mark 10are paralleled in Matt. 19; paragraphs 4, 5, and 6 in Matt. 20. As to Luke, because of the rule 10+8=18 see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 13, 15 we expect to find Mark 10s parallel in Luke 18; and we do actually discover that more than half of Mark 10is paralleled there. Luke lacks the paragraph on divorce and the one on the request of the sons of Zebedee. As if to make up for this, Luke 18begins with two beautiful little parables, peculiar to that Gospel. One is about The Widow and the Judge, the other about the Pharisee and the Publican. For minor differences between Mark's material and its parallels see the treatment of the separate paragraphs. The Retirement Ministry has ended. Mark 10contains that evangelist's account of the Perean Ministry. It will be recalled that The Great Galilean Ministry and The Retirement and Perean Ministries together make up that large division of the Synoptics to which we have given the name The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do, Its Progress or Continuation. See the Outline, pp. v, 26. In all probability, however, the Perean Ministry did not immediately follow that of The Retirement. Intervening was the Later Judean Ministry, lasting from the final October to December of Christ's life on earth. See John 7:2; 10:22. Consequently the Perean Ministry probably fell within the period December of the year 29 to April of the year 30. Mark is rather vague with respect to the time when the event indicated in 10:1–12 took place. He writes: 1. He departed from that place.& The place from which Jesus (and The Twelve) departed is clearly indicated. It must have been Galilee (9:30); better still, Capernaum (9:33). As to the time? The text does not say that from Capernaum Jesus immediately started his ministry in Perea. All we can safely affirm is a. that rather soon after the events recorded in chapter 9 Jesus entered the region east of Jordan; and b. that the events selected for narration by Mark lead from there, by way of Jericho, to Jerusalem; and from Jerusalem's temple, via the various stations of The Passion Week (Mt. of Olives, Bethany, large upper room, Gethsemane, house of the highpriest, Judgment Hall, Pilate's Praetorium, Golgotha), to the tomb, from which the Lord arose gloriously. See 10:1, 32, 33, 46; 11:1, 11, 12, 27; 13:1, 3; 14:3, 15, 32, 53; 15:1, 2, 16, 22, 46; 16:1 ff. For any mention of a return to Galilee after the resurrection we must turn to the Gospel according to Matthew (28:16). Continued: and came into the region of Judea [and] beyond the Jordan. Another possible translation is: and came to the boundaries of Judea, beyond the Jordan. Whether, with some, one thinks of Judea as extending politically somewhat beyond (that is, to the east of) the Jordan; or, with others, one interprets the evangelist as meaning that Jesus went to the Perean or trans-Jordanic region, bounded by Judea, in either case we find the Lord, together with his disciples (verse 10), traveling south through Perea hence Perean Ministry, east of the Jordan, which he subsequently recrosses, arriving in Jericho (10:46). Mark continues: Again crowds were flocking toward him, and again, as his custom was, he began to teach them. It deserves attention that in its general chracter this Perean Ministry (chapter 10)^[449] in certain respects resembles The Great Galilean Ministry more closely than it resembles The Retirement Ministry. No longer does Jesus generally withdraw himself from the multitudes. In fact, as is evident from the present passage (10:1) and also from 10:46; cf. Matt. 19:2, 13; 20:29, 31; Luke 18:15, 36, 43, great multitudes assemble to hear him. He heals their sick, just as he had done previously in and around Galilee. Always he is ready to heal, and his love overleaps every boundary. However, here in Mark 10:1it is not, as in Matt. 19:2, the healing that is mentioned but the teaching. We see, therefore, that during this ministry, as often, healing and teaching go hand in hand. Whenever a crowd gathered around Jesus it was his custom^[450] to teach them. It must not be overlooked, however, that though the present passage refers to teaching the multitudes, nevertheless even the intensive teaching and training of The Twelve, which was a characteristic of The Retirement Ministry, continues during The Perean Ministry. See verses 10 12, 14, 15, 23 27, 29 31, 32 34, 38 45. 2. Then some Pharisees came up to him, and tempted him by asking, Is it lawful for a man to divorce (his) wife? We have met the Pharisees before and have become acquainted with their hostility toward Jesus (2:16, 24; 3:6, 22; 7:1–5; 8:11). Their present intention is to catch him in their trap, to put him on the spot, and thus to discredit him in the eyes of the public, so that the crowds would turn away from him. They were convinced that their question, answered either way, would create a serious difficulty for Jesus. To understand this, the following facts should be taken into consideration: Among the Jews there was a difference of opinion as to what Moses had taught with respect to the problem of divorce. He had written, When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found erwath dbhr in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce &(Deut. 24:1). But what is meant by erwath dbhr? Does it mean a scandalous thing? Other guesses are some indecency, something improper, improper behavior, something offensive, a shameful thing (LXX), etc. According to Shammai and his followers the reference was to unchastity or adultery. According to Hillel and his disciples the meaning was far broader. They emphasized the words, If then she finds no favor in his eyes, and accordingly would allow divorce for the flimsiest reasons, so that the husband could reject his wife if she accidentally served him food that had been slightly burned, or if at home she talked so loud that the neighbors could hear her. If Jesus endorsed the more strict interpretation, favored by Shammai, he would be displeasing the followers of Hillel. Moreover, there seem to have been very many perhaps even these Pharisees (Matt. 19:7) who agreed with Hillel's liberal opinion. Even the disciples may have shared this view; see Matt. 19:10. Besides, if the Lord sided with Shammai the Pharisees might have accused him, though not justly, of being inconsistent when he nevertheless consorted with sinners and ate with them. On the other hand, if Jesus endorsed the lax anything will do as ground for divorce interpretation, what would the disciples of Shammai think of him? Would not the more serious and conscientious people charge him with tolerating moral looseness? And what would the female part of the population think of him? Jesus shows that the underlying emphasis of the question is wrong. Why all this talk about the possibility of divorce, as if to say, If this marriage does not work out I can always divorce my wife? Why not go back beyond Deut. 24to God's marriage ordinance recorded in such passages as Gen. 1:27and 2:24? 3, 4. He answered, What did Moses command you? They said, Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away. At first glance there might seem to be a conflict between Matthew and Mark. The true situation, however, is as follows: in both Gospels it is the Pharisees who raise the question about divorce (Matt. 19:3with Mark 10:2). In Mark Jesus replies by asking them a question, namely, What did Moses command you? They answer, Moses allowed.& Jesus then concludes the conversation by answering, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, but from the beginning of creation he [God] made them male and female.& What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. Matthew abbreviates. He omits Christ's question, What did Moses command you? This omission is not at all serious, because the position of the Pharisees, Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce &is recognized in both accounts (Matt. 19:7with Mark 10:4), though it is only Mark who makes clear that it was in answer to Christ's question that this position was first put into words. There was nothing to prevent these Pharisees from restating that position in the form of a question, Why then did Moses command &? (Matt. 19:7). Also, while Matthew, as he does frequently, tells the story in one breath, as a connected whole, Mark shows that the dictum, Whoever divorces his wife, &(verse 11) was pronounced by Jesus while he was in a house and in answer to a question by his disciples (verses 10, 11). Matthew (19:9) also includes this authoritative pronouncement in his report, but as spoken to the Pharisees. However, Jesus may have spoken these words twice; first to the Pharisees; later to the disciples. For commanded see on Mark 13:34. The Pharisees answered Jesus question by saying, Moses allowed (a man) to write a certificate of divorce and send (her) away. This Mosaic regulationDeut. 24:1ff. was by many probably including several of these Pharisees interpreted as meaning. If you wish to divorce your wife for any reason whatever, go right ahead, but be sure to hand her a divorce certificate. The real meaning of the passage, however, is this, Husband, you better think twice before you reject your wife. Remember that once you have put her away and she has become the wife of another you cannot afterward take her back; not even if that other husband should also have rejected her or should have died. Moses had mentioned the bill of divorce only in passing, but the scribes and Pharisees placed all the emphasis on it. While they were always stressing the Mosaic concession, Jesus constantly emphasized the principle, namely, that husband and wife are and must remain one. This becomes clear from what follows in verses 5 8. But Jesus replied, It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses wrote you this commandment, but from the beginning he [God] made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh. Moses had done everything in his power to discourage divorce. It was only because of^[451] the hardness or stubbornness of heart,^[452] the coarseness and harshness of the people, that Moses had made a concession. It was a merciful concession made for the sake of the wife, for without this regulation a harsh man might be inclined to dismiss his wife even without giving her any written evidence that she was now no longer married. Now in this concession of Deut. 24the Pharisees are far more interested than in the creation and marriage institution of Gen. 1:27(cf. 5:2); 2:24. Jesus points back to the original ordinance, that is, to the way things had been from the beginning of creation. It was then that God, even though he created Adam before Eve, at once created him as a male; hence, with a view to intimate union with Eve, who was created later on from the very body of Adam, and as a female. Each, accordingly, was made for the other, with the definite purpose of joining together one man to one woman. Those who are eager for divorce ignore this fact. Moreover, God ordains that for this very reason that is, because the union between the two was intended to be so intimate and they were designed for each otherGen. 1:27and 2:23 a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall do this with a view to a more intimate and more lasting attachment, namely, and shall cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh; yes, no longer two but one flesh, says Jesus. It is clear that Jesus viewed (Gen. 2:24Gen. 1:27) as a divine ordinance, and not as a mere description of what generally takes place on earth. And since one is not doing injustice to the Hebrew original of (Gen. 2:24by bringing out this divine institution idea in the translation hence a man shall leave &and shall cleave, not merely a man leaves and cleaves what good reason can there be for not expressing it? On this passageGen. 2:24), therefore, the translation adopted by A.V. and A.R.V. is to be preferred to some of the more modern versions. That Jesus did indeed so regard marriage, namely, as an indissoluble union, changing what used to be two into what has now become one note: It follows that they are no longer two but one flesh, a union until death parts the two, a definitely divine institution that must not be tampered with, is clear from the following: a. Otherwise his argument would lose its force; b. the audience hardly needed to be told that it is customary for men to get married; and c. this is in line with the words immediately following, namely, 9. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate. This does not mean that a man is committing a sin by not getting married. Rather, it means that those who decide to marry must view marriage as a divine institution, a state in which they must so conduct themselves that true union sexual, to be sure; note shall cleave to his wife, but also intellectual, moral, and spiritual is not only established but more and more firmly cemented. It was God who made this union possible (Gen. 1:27); God also who issued the command, Be fruitful &(Gen. 1:28). It was he, again, who said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help fit for him (Gen. 2:18). It was also God who brought Eve to Adam, to be the latter's wife (Gen. 2:22). Indeed, from every angle, it was God who established marriage as a divine institution (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:5, 6). Marriage is therefore indeed an honorable estate. Therefore, let not man separate what God has joined together!^[453] The indissolubility of marriage is stated by Jesus in a very forceful manner. The word Therefore or For this reason shows that he is summarizing the divine revelation concerning the marriage bond. Note joined together. ^[454] According to Christ's teaching, then, husband and wife form a team. They work, plan, pray, play, pull, etc. together. For a man to separate that which God has yoked or joined together means arrogantly to defy an act of God! In a world where one divorce follows another in rapid succession, so that it is difficult at times to count the number of times a person has been divorced, the teaching of Jesus deserves to be repeated and emphasized. 10 12. And in the house the disciples were again asking him about this. He said to them, Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman is committing adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.^[455] Between verses 2 9, on the one hand, and 10 12, on the other, there are these differences: a. In the former passage Jesus is addressing Pharisees, in the latter his disciples; b. in the former he is outside, in the latter inside a house; and c. in the former he is discussing divorce, in the latter divorce followed by marriage to someone else. Matt. 19:10 (may indicate that Christ's disciples were inclined to favor the lax marriage-and-divorce position of Hillel. So, again the Master is questioned about this matter, this time not by the Pharisees but by his own disciples. As shown previously, he gives them essentially the same answer as he had given the PhariseesMatt. 19:9with Mark 10:11). This time, however, he omits the exception found in Matt. 5:32; 19:9. See N.T.C. on these passages. The exception does not change the basic fact, taught in both Gospels, that in the eyes of God, hence ideally considered, marriage is indissoluble. What Jesus is saying here in verse 11 is that a husband who rudely divorces his wife, thereby separating what God has joined, is committing a grievous sin, and that he aggravates this sin by marrying someone else. Such a husband is sinning against God not only but also against his wife: he is involving himself in adultery against her; or, is exposing her to adultery, as the same thought is recorded in Matt. 5:32. At this point Mark adds something that is not found in Matthew. Mark points out that in the house Jesus applied the same rule also to the wife who without regard to the divine ordinance divorces her husband. Why this difference between Matthew and Mark? Answer: Matthew was writing primarily for Jews, among whom rejection of a husband by a wife was so rare that the law had not made any provision for this possibility. Nevertheless, among the Jews, or those who stood in close relation to them, such dismissals of husbands by their wives were not entirely unknown. For example, with reference to Salome, the wicked sister of Herod the Great (see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 165), Josephus writes: Sometime later Salome had occasion to quarrel with [her husband] Costobarus, and soon sent him a document dissolving their marriage, which action was not in accordance with Jewish law. For it is (only) the husband who is permitted by us to do this (Jewish Antiquities XV.259). Salome, in turn, had a grandniece named Herodias. See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 189, the chart. It has already been pointed out (Mark 6:17, 18) that she had rejected her husband Herod Philip and had married Herod Antipas. Herodias was partly Jewish. But what was exceptional among Jews was very common among Greeks and Romans (I Cor. 7:10, 13) &and is common today also. The principle which Jesus here enunciates is that such violations of the sacred institution of marriage, whether committed by the husband or by the wife, is adultery, an abomination in the eyes of the One who issued the creation and marriage ordinance (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; 5:2). Thus, by means of a few simple words, Jesus discourages divorce, refutes the rabbinical misinterpretation of the law, reaffirms the law's true meaning, censures the guilty party, defends the innocent, and throughout it all upholds the sacredness and inviolability of the marriage bond as ordained by God. A few additional remarks are in order: a. In verses 11, 12 the rights of the husband and the wife are equally balanced. Before God they are the same in worth. Is the husband an heir to the grace of life? The wife is a fellow-heir (I Peter 3:7). She is not her husband's property. She is his partner. To be sure, the husband remains the head of the wife (Eph. 5:22, 23), but before the Lord both are equally precious. A wife who has by sovereign grace accepted Jesus as her Lord and Savior does not feel any need to join the so-called Women's Liberation Movement. The Bible offers her something far better. b. On the one hand Jesus regards the break-up of a marriage to be a most serious matter, an abomination. Yet, on the other hand that same uncompromising Lord is also the merciful Savior, who comforts the heart of the penitent sinner by saying, Go, and from now on sin no more (John 8:10, 11).^[456] c. Is there any thought connection between the end of Mark 9And be at peace with each other and the opening paragraph (verses 1 12) of Mark 10? Probably not. Nevertheless, is not Christian marriage the divine institution in which peace and love, harmony and devotion, are most marvelously displayed &as every supremely happy Christian couple can testify? 10:13–16 Jesus and the Children Cf. Matt. 19:13–15; Luke 18:15 17 13 And they were bringing little children to him, for him to touch. But the disciples rebuked (those who brought) them. 14 Now when Jesus saw this he became indignant, and said to them, Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. 15 I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it. 16 And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his bands upon them. So closely do the three accounts resemble each other that literary relationship is probable. Yet, so distinct is each, in comparison with the other two, that it is once again apparent that, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, each evangelist selected his material as he saw fit. As to Mark 10:13, where Mark and Luke have touch, Matthew provides a fuller explanation by expanding this into lay his hands (on them) and pray. Mark's statement (verse 14) that when Jesus saw his disciples rude behavior he became indignant is not paralleled in Matthew and Luke. Neither is Luke's remark, But Jesus called them [the infants with those who brought them] to him duplicated in Matthew and Mark. Our Lord's gracious invitation, Let the little children come to me, &is reproduced almost identically in all three Gospels. Mark 10:15= Luke 18:17, not found in Matthew, but cf. Mat. 18:3. At this point Luke's report of this incident ends. Matt. 19:15adds, And he laid his hands on them and went away from there. Mark alone has retained the unforgettably beautiful touch, And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his hands upon them (verse 16). Whatever one may think about the possibility of a connection between the last clause of 9:50 and the opening paragraph of chapter 10, the appropriateness of the sequence marriage (10:1–12), children (verses 13 16), and property (verses 17 31) is readily apparent. 13. And they were bringing little children to him, for him to touch. Note complete absence of time or place indications. On the basis of 10:1, 32, a reasonable assumption is that the incident here reported took place in a house in Perea while Jesus and The Twelve were traveling south toward Jerusalem. Was it perhaps the house mentioned in 10:10, and did the two incidents (verses 1 12; 13 16) happen in close succession? Luke 18:15makes clear that the little children that were brought^[457] to Jesus were actually infants. These little ones were brought to Jesus, presumably by their parents or other close relatives, that he might touch them, or for him to touch, meaning, as has been indicated, for him to place his hands on them while asking the Father to bless them. There was nothing magical about Christ's touch. It was mainly by means of his further action, his word of prayer, that these infants were blessed. All the same, the touch must have been a very tender one. It was far more than a mere touch, as verse 16 clearly indicates. It may therefore be considered part of the blessing the children received. See also on 1:41. But the disciples rebuked^[458] (those who brought) them. They rebuked not the children, of course, but their parents and in general all who brought them. Were these disciples standing at the doorway of a house (cf. 10:10) and were they with angry gestures shooing away those who approached with children in their arms? The reaction of these disciples was rather characteristic of them: they did not want to be bothered; also, they did not want their Master to be bothered by such unimportant (?) creatures as infants! See above, on 6:37a. 14. Now when Jesus saw this he became indignant.& Jesus took note of this reaction on the part of The Twelve, and did not like it at all. In fact, he became indignant. ^[459] Cf. 3:5, where a synonym is used. See also what is said about Christ's sighing (8:12) and cf. 14:33 f. Of course, this indignation of our Lord was a concomitant of his love. He was angry with his disciples because he loved so deeply and tenderly the little ones and the ones who brought them. Continued: and said to them, Let the little children come to me, and stop hindering them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. Let^[460] the little children come to me. The reason Jesus gives for ordering the disciples to allow the little children to come to him and to stop hindering them is for to such that is, to them and to all those who in humble trustfulness are like them belongs the kingdom of God. For the meaning of the kingdom of God see on 1:15. In the present case the verse means that in principle all the blessings of salvation belong even now to these little ones, a fact that was to be realized progressively here on earth and perfectly in the hereafter. 15. I solemnly declare to you, whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall never enter it. For the introductory formula see on 3:28. Receiving the kingdom of God as a little child means to accept it with genuine trustful simplicity, with unassuming humility. The gold pieces were piled up on the outside windowsill. Take One, said the sign. All day long people passed by thinking, This fellow can t fool me. Evening fell, and the owner was about to remove the pile. But just before he did, a child came by, read the sign, and calmly, without the least hesitancy, took one! There has been some dispute about the exact meaning of the words as they occur in the original. Grammatically, the saying could be read to mean, Whoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as one receives a little child shall never enter it. But the very context and also such near-parallels as (Matt. 11:25; 18:3John 3:3, 5) clearly show that Jesus is talking about the simple, humble, unquestioning, trustful manner in which a child accepts what is offered to him. Another attractive interpretation that is probably also wrong is this, Whoever does not receive the present kingdom as a gift shall never enter the future kingdom. This division of the kingdom idea into two phases, within a short sentence, is rather unnatural. Far more simple is the meaning: the only possible way to enter the kingdom is by accepting it readily and trustfully, as a child accepts it. The kingdom is the rule of God in heart and life, together with all the blessings that result from this rule. The parallelism of (Mark 9:45; 9:47see on those passages has made clear that entering the kingdom means entering life, that is, everlasting life. And a comparison between Matt. 19:24and 19:25 shows that entering the kingdom of God amounts to being saved. According to John 17:3This is everlasting life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou didst send. Such knowledge of or fellowship with God implies having freedom of access to his throne of graceRom. 5:2; Heb. 4:16), experiencing the love of God that is poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5), being transformed into the image of Christ (II Cor. 3:18), being illumined by the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Cor. 4:6), possessing the peace of God that passes all understanding (Phil. 4:7) and the joy unspeakable and full of glory (I Peter 1:8). At Christ's return a transformed body and a new heaven and earth for both body and soul are addedRom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; Phil. 3:21; II Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1f. . 16. And having taken them in his arms he tenderly blessed them one by one, laying his hands upon them. By means of a careful use of tenses^[461] Mark draws a delightful picture, as will become clear. Not only has Jesus rebuked the disciples for their attempt to prevent the little ones from being brought to him, but he has also actually called to himself these infants together with those who wanted to bring them to him (Luke 18:16). And now each mother or father, etc., carries his little child into the very presence of Jesus; that is, each does this in turn. The Master takes the first child in his arm and places the hand of his other arm upon its head. Then he tenderly or fervently blesses it, by means of uttering a brief but earnest prayer to the Father, that his blessing may be bestowed on it (Matt. 19:13). While he does this, his heart, filled with love and compassion, goes out to this little one. Finished, he returns the child to the one who had brought it. He then treats the next little one in the same manner, and the next, until all have been blessed. It must have been a most impressive, comforting, and memorable scene. The fact that the Lord regarded these little children that were brought to him as being already in the kingdom, as being even now members of his church, must not escape our attention. He definitely did not view them as little heathen, who were living outside of the realm of salvation until by an act of their own they would join the church. He regarded them as holy seed (I Cor. 7:14). How wonderful that in later years believing parents would be able to say to such a child, now arrived at the age of understanding, Think of it, when you, my child, were just a suckling, Jesus took you in his arms and blessed you. Then already you were the object of God's tender love. And he has been with you ever since. What, then, is your response? On the basis of such a passage as Mark 10:13, 14to which should be added Gen. 17:7, 12; Ps. 103:17; 105:6–10; Isa. 59:21; Acts 2:38, 39; 16:15, 33; I Cor. 1:16; Col. 2:11, 12the belief that since the little children of believers belong to God's church and to his covenant, baptism, the sign and seal of such belonging, should not be withheld from them, must be regarded as well-founded. In later years, through parental, etc. instruction applied to the heart by the Holy Spirit, the divine blessing received earlier becomes a mighty incentive to wholehearted personal surrender to Christ. What Jesus Did for the Family 1. He honored the marriage bond, declaring its indissolubility as a divine institution (Mark 10:5 9). 2. To husband and wife he accorded equal standing before God (Mark 10:11, 12). 3. He assumed that parents would be kind to their children, and would provide them with whatever was best for them (Matt. 7:9–11). 4. Over against Pharisees and scribes he re-emphasized the divine rule that children should honor their parents (Mark 7:6 13). 5. He reinforced this rule by his own example, being obedient to his parents, and even on the cross tenderly providing for his mother (Luke 2:51; John 19:26, 27). 6. He loved the little ones, took them into his arms, and tenderly blessed them (Mark 10:13 16). 7. When children shouted Hosannas in his honor, he defended them over against the chief priests and the scribes (Matt. 21:15, 16). 8. He insisted, however, that the ties that pertain to earthly family life are superseded by those that knit together the members of the spiritual family (Mark 3:31 35; cf. Matt. 7:11; 10:37; and see N.T.C. on Eph. 3:14, 15). Consequently, he regarded the earthly family as a training school for the heavenly. 10:17–31 The Peril of Riches and the Reward of Sacrifice Cf. Matt. 19:16–30; Luke 18:18 30 17 And as he [Jesus] started out on the road a man ran up to him, fell on his knees before him, and was asking him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? 18 Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except One God. 19 You know the commandments: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not defraud, honor your father and your mother. 20 Teacher, he said to him, All these things have I observed ever since I was a child. 21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. One thing you lack, he said to him, Go, sell whatever you have and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. 22 But he, crestfallen because of these words, went away sorrowful,^[462] for he possessed much property. 23 Looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 24 The disciples were startled at these words. But Jesus continued and said to them, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. 26 Shocked even more they said to each other, Then who can be saved? 27 Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible. 28 Peter began to say^[463] to him, Look, we have given up everything, and followed thee. 29 Jesus replied, I solemnly declare to you, there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for the gospel's sake, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold; now in this time: houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, along with persecutions; and in the age to come everlasting life. 31 But many that are first shall be last, and (many) last first. With reference to Mark's account of this event, as compared with Matthew's, a controversy has been raging for many years. It is therefore important that even before entering into the exegesis of the individual passages certain statistics be disclosed. A comparative study at once reveals that Mark's account is by far the longest and most detailed of the three. According to Grk.N.T. (A-B-M-W) Mark uses 270 words, Matthew Matt. 19:28is subtracted from the total , and Luke 201. It is immediately apparent, therefore, that both Matthew and Luke may be considered abbreviated reports. This process of abbreviation concerns not just one item for example, Matt. 19:16, 17a; cf. Mark 10:17b, 18but the entire report, from beginning to end. As to the passage just mentioned, see below, on Mark 10:17, 18. Continuing with (Matt. 19, we notice that in verses 18, 19 the former publican omits you shall not defraudMark 10:19), but adds the summary of the second table of the decalog, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. In verse 20 Matthew again abbreviates, leaving out Mark's ever since I was a child, but adding, (The young man said) &what do I still lack? Or, more accurately, according to Matt. 19:20this lack is first of all a matter about which the young man makes enquiry. Christ's command follows in verse 21. According to Mark 10:21it is simply a matter in connection with which Jesus issues a command. Verses 21, 22, and 23 in both Gospels (Matt. 19; Mark 10) are almost the same in substance, though each evangelist employs his own phraseology. In verse 21, however, Matthew represents Jesus as having prefaced the command to the young man with the words, If you wish to be perfect. Cf. Matt. 5:48. Mark, on the other hand, makes the verse begin with the unforgettable words, Jesus looked at him and loved him. This is followed by, One thing you lack &Go, sell.& The young man's sorrowful departure is described in verse 22, the meaning being identical in both Gospels. Mark's language, however, as often, is more descriptive and striking: the young man departs crestfallen. Similarly, in verse 23, which according to both of these Gospels records the saying of Jesus that it will be hard for a rich man (thus Matthew), or for those who possess wealth (thus Mark), to enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew), or of God (Mark), it is again Mark who most vividly portrays the scene by writing, Looking around, Jesus said.& The saying How hard or it will be hard &is by Matthew reported once (19:23), but by Mark twice, though with variation (10:23, 24). Similarly, the startled reaction of the disciples is by Matthew reported once (19:25), by Mark twice (10:24, 26). Christ's saying, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God (verse 24 in Matthew) is almost identical with the one found in Mark (verse 25). The disciples exclamation Then who can be saved? is found both in Matthew (verse 25) and Mark (verse 26). According to Mark (verse 27) Jesus replies, With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible, a reply found also in Matthew, but again in abbreviated form (verse 26). Finally, though it is true that Matthew, in verse 27, adds, What then shall we have? (only four words in Greek), a question not found in Mark, nevertheless when Matthew's 29th verse is compared with its parallel, verses 29 and 30 in Mark, it will become apparent that after shall receive a hundredfold, Matthew has and in the age to come everlasting life, while Mark has no less than 26 words (in the original): now in this present age: houses and brothers.& Compare also verse 29 of both Gospels (Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29): Mark's for my sake and for the gospel's sake is in Matthew shortened to for my name's sake. When we now turn to Luke's account (18:18–30), what strikes us immediately is that no less than three-fourths of that evangelist's words are those that occur also in Mark's report. The theory according to which Luke, in composing his book, actually had Mark's Gospel in front of him, and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit adapted it to his own use, seems altogether probable. As to the differences between Mark's account and Luke's, in the main they are as follows: When Mark 10:17is compared with Luke 18:18, it becomes clear that the beloved physician omitted the graphic description by means of which Mark introduced the rich young man. Yet, it is to Luke that we owe the information that this rich man was a ruler. In verse 20 Luke mentions the command You shall not commit adultery before You shall not kill. He omits Mark's You shall not defraud. In verse 22 Luke omits Mark's interesting statement, Jesus looked at him and loved him. In verse 23 Luke pictures the disappointed ruler as being very sad but does not repeat Mark's graphic touch, His countenance fell. Luke has nothing that corresponds to Mark's (10:23) Looking around he [Jesus] said.& The remark of Jesus, How hard it is &is mentioned only once by Luke, not twice (with variations) as in Mark 10:23, 24. Mark mentions the disciples startled reaction twice (10:24, 26), Matthew once (19:25), Luke (see 18:24–26) not at all. The latter uses a different word (in the original) for needle (see the original of verse 25 in both Mark and Luke). Verse 27 in both Mark and Luke illustrates the manner in which Luke abbreviates: Mark has, Fastening his eyes on them Jesus said, With men (this is) impossible but not with God, for with God all things are possible. Luke writes, What is impossible with men is possible with God. In verse 29 of both Gospels Luke reduces Mark's list of seven items to five, omitting any reference to sisters and to fields, and also leaving out with persecutions. Also, Luke does not repeat the list of promised goods, as Mark virtually does in 10:30. And instead of Mark's longer expression for my sake and for the gospel's sake Luke writes the shorter for the kingdom of God's sake. Finally, in verse 30 Luke substitutes many times as much for Mark's a hundred times as much or hundredfold. It has become clear, therefore, that both in Matthew and in Luke the event described in Mark 10:17 31appears in greatly reduced form. Luke's account is the shortest of all three, but even Matthew omits much of that which is found in Mark. Here, however, we should be careful. The remark is often made that these Matthean and Lucan omissions were made because Mark's additional material was considered superfluous, merely repetitious, and therefore altogether unnecessary. In so judging, are we not in danger of belittling Mark and along with this, in rejecting divine inspiration? Read Mark's account again, including, for example, the supposedly repetitious passage 10:23–27. Does this passage not immediately strike the unbiased reader as being a very true and natural report of what actually happened? Why should it be difficult to believe that Jesus, having first said, How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God!, and having taken note of the startled expression in the eyes of The Twelve, then continued by saying, Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God!? Similarly, it certainly is not at all unnatural for the disciples to have been startled when the Master pointed out how difficult it was for the rich to enter the kingdom, and a little later to have been shocked even more when Jesus added, It is easier for a camel.& Similarly, it should not at all be hard to believe that the statement regarding things given up (Mark 10:29) was repeated and gloriously expanded in the next verse. What Mark writes must therefore be considered vivid, beautiful, historical, fully inspired. The fact that Matthew and Luke did not deem it necessary to repeat all this material was not because they considered it superfluous or unworthy, but because in their respective Gospels they wanted to save space for other material; for example, Matthew, for Christ's discourses; Luke, for many unforgettable parables. They therefore reproduced only the main outline of the story. The Holy Spirit guided all three. 17. And as he [Jesus] started out on the road a man ran up to him, fell on his knees before him, and was asking him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? It may well have been from the very house mentioned in 10:10 that Jesus and The Twelve (see verse 23) now proceed on their way. Mark's Gospel leaves the impression that the event recorded in verses 17 31 took place immediately, or almost immediately, after the bestowal of a blessing upon the little children. If so, then the sequence marriage, children, and material possessions, a very natural chain, becomes even more unforgettable. As the little group was leaving, someone^[464] ran or rushed up to Jesus. Less dramatically Matthew says came up to him. The stranger who did this is by Matthew called a young man (19:20), by Luke a ruler (18:18), and is by all three described as a very rich person, one who owned much property (Matt. 19:22; Mark 10:22; Luke 18:23). Therefore the composite title rich young ruler is generally applied to him. He was probably one of the officials in charge of the local synagogue. Mark's description of this ruler's action is the most vivid of the three accounts. As he tells it, not only did this young man run up to Jesus, he also dropped to his knees in front of him, just as the leper had done (1:40). As he did this he was asking ^[465] him a question. In view of this ruler's highly emotional state, shown by his running and dropping to his knees, he may well have been gasping out the question that was disturbing his heart and mind. He addresses Jesus as Good Teacher, by Matthew abbreviated to Teacher. Since his manner of addressing Jesus is intimately linked with the latter's reply (verse 18), I shall for the moment reserve any further comments on it. The young man continues, &what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life or, according to the order of the words in the original, life everlasting? The present passage and verse Matt. 19:16 (, 29; Luke 18:18, 30, but see also, in a different context, Luke 10:25) are the only ones in which Mark makes use of the full term life everlasting. It is the very term which the apostle John uses again and againJohn 3:15, 16, 36, etc. . However, the simple term life occurs in (Mark 9:43, 45, probably in about the same sense as life everlasting. Hence, for the meaning of this term in the teaching of Jesus see above on theseMark 9) passages. It would be erroneous, however, to assume that the term life everlasting, as used by the rich young ruler, had the same fulness of meaning as it has in Christ's teaching. Exactly what the anxious enquirer meant by it we do not know. In order to discover what it may have meant to him it should be borne in mind that he had undoubtedly been instructed by the Pharisaic scribes. The best informed among them knew that the concept life everlasting had its origin in what we now call the Old Testament. Dan. 12:2mentions it in connection with the resurrection of God's faithful children: And many that shall sleep in the dust of the earth shall awaken, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And, to give but one example from apocryphal literature, II Macc. 7:9 states, The King of the world shall raise us up &unto an everlasting renewal of life. It may be taken for granted, therefore, that by those who were well acquainted with Jewish religious literature the term life everlasting was associated with the resurrection. The rich young ruler's question can therefore perhaps be paraphrased as follows, What must I do in order to become a partaker of salvation at the close of the age? Coupled with this was undoubtedly the yearning to gain assurance in the here and now that he was indeed headed in the right direction toward that ultimate destiny. For the moment at least he seemed to be willing to do most anything that was necessary to reach this goal. He wanted peace of mind for the present and never-ending blessedness for the future.^[466] It is time now to return to the manner in which this rich young ruler opens the conversation. It has been mentioned that he addresses Jesus as Good Teacher. The designation Teacher or Master (cf. 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:20, 35; 12:14, 19, 32; 13:1; 14:14) was entirely proper. See above, on 4:38b, including footnote 172. Jesus was and is indeed The Teacher (Matt. 26:55; Mark 14:49; Luke 11:1; John 3:2; 7:35; Acts 1:1). To a certain extent this fact was even acknowledged by his opponents (Matt. 22:16). He was indeed The Prophet sent from God. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 82, 83. According to Mark's report, however, the enthusiastic enquirer attaches an adjective to the noun: he addresses Jesus as Good Teacher. Of course, this too was true, but evidently not in the sense meant by the young man. At least, as will now be shown, Jesus is not at all satisfied with the manner in which the man addressed him. 18. Jesus said to him, Why do you call me good? No one is good except One God. Does Jesus by means of this statement disclaim goodness and deity? Does he mean, You should not have called me good, for God alone is good. I am not God; therefore I am not good? Many have so interpreted Christ's answer. They have concluded with variations in minor details that Jesus is here drawing a tacit contrast between the absolute goodness of God and his own goodness as subject to growth and trial in the circumstances of the incarnation. ^[467] It will be recalled that the opening statement of Matthew's report is different. The converted publican writes as follows: And look, a man came up to him and asked, Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may possess everlasting life? He answered him, Why are you asking me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good, and if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments (19:16, 17). In the opinion of many^[468] this means that for doctrinal reasons Matthew toned down Mark's statement. By no means is there agreement on this point, however. My own view agrees with that of those who say: Jesus says in effect, you are not conceiving of goodness in an adequate way when you so lightly address me as Good Teacher. If you wish to contemplate goodness, you should think of God who alone is good and of the keeping of his commandments. Jesus concern is not to glorify himself but God: it is not to give any instruction concerning his own person whatever, but to indicate the published will of God as the sole and perfect prescription for the pleasing of God. Christ wants the questioner to realize: Do not lightly that is, without knowing to whom you are speaking ascribe to me that which pertains alone to God. Jesus intimates that the thoughtless use of the word good in addressing one whom he regards as a human teacher, is an index of his [the ruler's] superficial view of goodness. ^[469] Jesus knew that the rich young ruler, in addressing him as Good Teacher, was being very superficial. If this young man had really believed with all his heart that Jesus was good in the highest sense of the term, he would have obeyed the command the Lord was about to give him (see verses 21, 22). That same shallowness is evident also from the praise he bestows on himself (verse 20). The Master knew very well that if this enquirer was going to be saved, he must be confronted with the absolute standard of goodness, namely, the perfect law enacted by The Perfect One, God. That explains Christ's answer. Reasons why I accept this view and not the other: a. Matthew's omission of Christ's reflection on the ruler's manner of addressing him is in line with the fact that this Gospel writer, as has been shown, is constantly abbreviating. Matthew knew that this particular point, though important, was not of the highest importance. So he omits it. b. If it were true that Matthew was trying to correct Mark, and this for doctrinal reasons, how is it to be explained that Luke, who was probably the last of the three to write a Gospel, retained Mark's passage? He omitted even more than Matthew, but he took care that in substance his 18:19 was identical with Mark 10:18. c. If it were true that Mark had a lower estimate of Jesus goodness and of his deity than did Matthew, this would be evident also elsewhere in Mark's Gospel. But everywhere in that Gospel not only the spotless morality but also the divinity (in the highest sense) of Jesus is taught. See above, under Introduction III; also on 1:1; and N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 57–60. In fact, even in the present account Mark's Christology is very high indeed: Jesus is the One to whom men must render unquestioning obedience, and for whose sake they must be willing to give up everything (verses 21, 29). In answer to the ruler's question, &what shall I do that I may inherit everlasting life? Jesus now continues as follows: 19. You know the commandments: You shall not kill, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not defraud, honor your father and your mother.^[470] Just why it was that in all three accounts Honor your father and your mother is made the last of the regular Decalog commandments we do not know. Was there a special reason why in this particular case Jesus placed this commandment at the very close (except for the summary in Matthew)? Neither do we know why Jesus mentioned only the commandments of the second table. To the many guesses I wish to add one more: It was not necessary for Jesus to include the commandments relating to man's duty with respect to God; for, failure to observe the second table implies failure to observe the first: He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen (I John 4:20). According to Mark, in his recitation of these commandments Jesus also included You shall not defraud. Reasonable is the suggestion that this directive, not taken from the decalog but probably derived from such passages as Lev. 19:13; Deut. 24:14, 15; cf. James 5:4, represents the commandment You shall not covet. ^[471] When a person covets the goods belonging to another, does he not in heart and mind defraud the neighbor of that which belongs to him? This interpretation, though reasonable, is not entirely certain, however. The indicated passagesLev. 19:13, etc. refer to the evil of withholding from the laborer that which is due to him; that is, they refer to the sin of not paying (or underpaying) him. Considered in this light, You shall not defraud might be viewed as a modification of You shall not steal. ^[472] However, in that case the reason why this command follows You shall not bear false witness instead of You shall not steal is not clear. Still another suggestion is that You shall not defraud is Mark's method of reproducing Christ's summary of the entire second table of the law. Cf. You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 19:19).^[473] Thus interpreted, the meaning would be, Do not withhold from your neighbor the love you owe him. Interpreted in any of these various ways, the basic idea remains that the rich young ruler is reminded that both in heart and by deed he must give the neighbor whatever is due to him. In view of the fact that the enquirer was a very rich man, one who probably employed many people, and was besides, as will become clear, a person who clung tenaciously to all his possessions, the appropriateness of this command becomes clear. The order has wide application in every age. Not only should we refrain from stealing another person's possessions; we must also see to it that we do not withhold from the neighbor whatever should be his; whether that be his reputation, wages, knowledge of the gospel, assurance that he is being loved, help in time of need, etc., a big order indeed! It is understandable that in answering the young man's question Jesus starts out by referring him to the law of God, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin (Rom. 3:20; cf. Gal. 3:24). However, not only does the law make us conscious of our sinful state, it also is a rule or norm of life or of gratitude for believers, constantly reminding them of their duties and serving as their guide while they gratefully tread salvation's path.^[474] However, the law does not make us conscious of our sins if we fail to discern its real meaning, its depth, as set forth by Jesus in Matt. 5:21–48. That the young man's attitude toward the law was of a superficial nature is clear from his reaction: 20. Teacher, he said to him, all these things have I observed ever since I was a child. Here superficial smugness is struggling with deep discontent, the latter made very clear by Matthew's addition, what do I still lack? This young man tries to make himself believe that all is well; yet on the inside he is pathetically perturbed. Has he really loved his neighbor as himself, and not defrauded the neighbor by keeping from him that which was rightfully his? Why then this lack of peace of mind and heart that made him rush up to Jesus with a question borne of anxiety? He seems to be saying, What additional good deed must I be doing over and above all those very many that I have already done, and this from my youth? The rich young ruler's attitude toward the law reminds one of those who today are saying, Inasmuch as I am now a saved person I have nothing whatever to do with the law. Now it is indeed true that a genuinely regenerated and converted individual is free from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and in that sense is able to sing, Free from the law, O happy condition, Jesus hath bled and there is remission.& P. P. Bliss Nevertheless, day by day is it not the duty even of the man who has already been saved by grace to go back to the law, so that over and over again it may remind him of his sinfulness and drive him back to Christ for added strength and assurance? Is not that the Lesson of Rom. 7:7 25? Should not his daily confession be: Wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death? But thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord? And can the rule Love God above all, and your neighbor as yourself ever become outdated? An inspiring song indeed, this Free from the law.& But it should be sung in conjunction with O how love I thy law. It is my meditation all the dayPs. 19:7, 14, according to the versification of James McGranahan . If anyone thinks that Mark 12:30, 31; Luke 10:27; Rom. 13:8 10are no longer applicable to believers, is he not just as superficial as was the rich young ruler? The latter thought that he had already observed the entire law and that he now needed to do something that went beyond it. Continued: 21a. Jesus looked at him and loved him. Just what can this mean in the present connection? There are two ideas which require a word of comment: a. Because Mark used a particular Greek verb and not another, the love here indicated is of the highest kind, far beyond mere affection. ^[475] But see footnote. b. The meaning is: Jesus fell in love with this young man.^[476] The Lord here and now began to love him. This possibility cannot be denied, but we must be careful. Otherwise a strange situation results, as if immediately after this man revealed his very superficial attitude toward God's holy law, Jesus fell in love with him! Is not the following explanation to be preferred? As the Savior allowed his gaze to rest on the rich young ruler, he loved him; that is, a. he admired him for not having fallen into gross outward sins and for having gone to the best possible source to obtain a solution to his problem; and b. he deeply, sorrowfully, ruefully pitied him, and decided to recommend to him a course of action which, if followed through, would solve his problem, and would give him the rest of soul he needed. After saying, Teacher, all these things I have observed ever since I was a child, the young man had added, what do I still lack? (Matt. 19:20). Jesus is now about to answer that question. However, while linking his answer to the young man's phraseology, the Master is not at all agreeing with that enquirer's philosophy of life. To the young man, supplying this lack was a matter of addition. He wanted to know which meritorious deed he had to add to all the other fine deeds he had already performed. But to Jesus, taking care of this lack was a matter of substitution. Cf. Gal. 2:19–21; Phil. 3:7f. It is in that sense that Mark now writes: 21b. One thing you lack,^[477] he said to him. Go, sell^[478] whatever you have and give (the proceeds) to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven^[479] & The question may be asked, But by thus instructing the young man was not Jesus endorsing the salvation by good works doctrine? Should he not rather have told him, Trust in me? The answer is that Trust completely in me was exactly what the Lord was telling him, for certainly without complete confidence in and self-surrender to the One who was issuing the order, the rich young ruler could not be expected to sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor. This was the test. If he sustains it he will have treasure in heaven. The reference is to all those blessings that are heavenly in character, are in full measure reserved for God's child in heaven, and of which we experience a foretaste even now. For more about this concept see N.T.C. on Matt. 6:19, 20. It is important to note that Jesus added, and come, follow me. Such following, to be accompanied by and to prepare for active witness-bearing, would imply that the young man must learn to deny himself and take up his cross, and would therefore no longer be able to devote himself to the service of Mammon. The young man's response was tragic. It showed that Christ's command had been the arrow that wounded his Achilles heel, his most vulnerable spot, love of earthly possessions: 22. But he, crestfallen because of these words, went away sorrowful, for he possessed much property. Because of Christ's command and the young man's ingrained materialism, his countenance fell. It resembled a lowering cloud (Matt. 16:3). As enthusiastic as he had been at first, so sad and sullen^[480] he was now, so that he departed sorrowful and aggrieved, probably thinking, This requirement is not fair. None of the other rabbis would have demanded this much of me. The demand which Jesus had made on this bewildered man was suited to his particular circumstances and state of mind. The Lord does not ask every rich person for example Abraham (Gen. 13:2), or Joseph of Arimathea (Matt. 27:57) to do exactly this same thing. There are those opulent individuals who, speaking by and large, are living for themselves. What they contribute to the cause of others is wholly out of proportion to what they keep for themselves. There are other wealthy persons, however, who are willing to go all out in helping others, including even the ungenerous (Gen. 13:7–11; 14:14); and who, motivated by gratitude, are constantly building altars and bringing offerings to God (Gen. 12:8; 13:18; 15:10–12; 22:13). The young man had much property. He had it; it had him, holding him tightly in its grasp. It is clear that this young man needed exactly the treatment Jesus gave him. Did the rich young ruler persist forever in his deplorable refusal? The answer has not been revealed. Some reason as follows: Scripture tells us that Jesus loved him (Mark 10:21). God loves the elect, no one else. Conclusion: this young man must have become converted. But this amounts to superimposing an erroneous theological idea upon the text. If those who cling to it would be satisfied with the proposition that God loves in a peculiar way all those who place their trust in him (Ps. 103:13; I John 3:1), their teaching would be on firm ground. But when they go beyond this and deny that there is a love of God which extends beyond the sum-total of the elect, we must part company with them. See Ps. 145:9, 17; Matt. 5:45; Luke 6:35, 36. And since this is true, there is no basis whatever for believing that the rich young ruler must have become a believer before he died. Instead of speculating about what may or may not have happened, the lesson of Luke 13:23, 24should be taken to heart. It is in that vein that Mark's account now continues: 23. Looking around, Jesus said to his disciples, How hard it will be for those who possess wealth to enter the kingdom of God. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ Its Climax or Culmination Chapter 11:1 16:8 CHAPTER XI Outline of Chapter 11 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do A. The Week of the Passion 11:1–11 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem 11:12–14 The Cursing of the Fig Tree 11:15–19 The Cleansing of the Temple 11:20–25 The Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree 11:27–33 Christ's Authority: Question and Counter-Question 11:1–11 The Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem Cf. Matt. 21:1–11; Luke 19:28 40; John 12:12 19 11 1 And when they were approaching Jerusalem (and came) to Bethphage and Bethany near the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, 2 and said to them, Go into the village opposite you, and at once as you enter it you will find a colt tied up, on which no one ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. 3 And if anyone says to you, Why are you doing this? answer, The Lord needs it and will return it shortly. ^[520] 4 They went away and found a colt outside in the street, tied up near the door, and they untied it. 5 And some people who were standing there were asking them, What are you doing, untying that colt? 6 They answered as Jesus had directed them, and were then allowed to take it.^[521] 7 They brought the colt to Jesus and laid their outer garments on it, and he took his seat on it. 8 And many people spread their outer garments on the road, while others spread leafy branches they had cut from the fields. 9 Those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting: Hosanna! Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord! 10 Blessed (is) the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest! 11 He entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And having looked around at everything, since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve. The account of The Perean Ministry has ended, and so has the entire second division of Mark's story concerning the work which the Father gave the Mediator to do. The evangelist has told us all that he, guided by the Holy Spirit, wanted to relate concerning the Progress or Continuation of Christ's work. At this point, therefore, the narrative of The Week of the Passion begins. It covers chapters 11 15 and is followed by the story of The Resurrection, chapter 16. The preceding paragraph of Mark's Gospel described what Jesus did when he was going out of Jericho (10:46–52). From Jericho the little party continued on its way toward Jerusalem (cf. 10:32, 33). On reasonable grounds it may be assumed that Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem (John 11:18), was reached before sunset on Friday, that on the sabbath (Friday sunset to Saturday sunset) Jesus enjoyed the sabbath rest with his friends, that on Saturday evening a supper was given in his honor at the home of Simon the leper (Mark 14:3 9), and that the next day, being Sunday, the triumphal entry into Jerusalem occurred. Beginning, then, with Saturday evening, the main events in the conclusion of the story of Jesus, as recorded by Mark, are as follows: Saturday evening Supper in Bethany at the home of Simon the leper (14:3–9). Sunday Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem and return to Bethany (11:1–11). Monday Cursing of the fig tree, cleansing of the temple, and exit from the city (11:12–19). Tuesday Conversation between Peter and Jesus, who teaches The Twelve the lesson of the withered fig tree. Confrontation between Jesus and his enemies, who ask him a series of questions which he answers, concluding with a question of his own. Parable of the Wicked Tenants. Denunciation of the scribes. Observation in the temple regarding a widow's offering. Prediction of Jerusalem's destruction, the great tribulation, and the second coming. Collusion for the purpose of killing Jesus. For this entire series of events, from Conversation through Collusion see 11:20 14:2. Wednesday No events reported, unless the agreement between Judas and the chief priests (14:10, 11) took place on that day, but this may also have occurred a little earlier. Thursday (including the night from Thursday to Friday) Preparation for the Passover. Celebration of this feast; prediction regarding the betrayer. Institution of the Lord's Supper. Departure for Gethsemane; prediction that all will forsake Jesus and that Peter will deny him thrice. Experiences in the garden of Gethsemane: Jesus agony, prayers, betrayal by Judas, seizure, desertion by all. Episode of the young man who fled. Denial by Peter, in connection with Jesus trial before the Sanhedrin resulting in Condemnation. For all these events, from Preparation to Condemnation see 14:12–72. Friday Trial before Pilate. The people's choice of Barabbas for release. Jesus sentenced to be crucified; the scourging. Mockery by the soldiers. Simon of Cyrene forced to carry the cross. Crucifixion of Jesus between two criminals. Calvary Scenes: bystanders blaspheme, chief priests and scribes scoff, robbers rail, women watch. Calvary Signs: from noon until 3 o clock darkness over the entire land. At three o clock: Christ's loud voice, the veil of the temple rent from top to bottom, the testimony of the centurion: all this in connection with Jesus Death. Jesus Entombment. See Mark 15for all of these Good Friday events, from Trial to Tomb. Saturday No events reported in Mark; but see Matt. 27:62–66. Sunday Jesus Resurrection. A young man dressed in a white robe tells women who had come to anoint the body, He is risen &Go, tell his disciples and Peter &(16:1–8). For post-resurrection appearances see the disputed verses 9 20. * For the arrangement of the various items pertaining to Christ's Triumphal Entry, showing how these items are distributed among the four Gospels and what each of them contributes, see the first 9 points in either N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 761, 762; or N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 184–186. * 1, 2. And when they were approaching Jerusalem (and came) to Bethphage and Bethany near^[522] the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples, and said to them, Go into the village, opposite you, and at once as you enter it you will find a colt tied up, on which no one ever sat. Untie it and bring it here. Jesus and The Twelve are now approaching Jerusalem. They have reached a point not far away from the villages of Bethphage and Bethany.^[523] Bethany is situated on the eastern slope of Mt. Olivet, and Bethphage exact location unknown has by tradition been located northwest of Bethany. It would seem that from Bethany or, if one prefers, from Mt. Olivet's eastern slope Jesus this Sunday morning sends two of his disciples to Bethphage. His instruction was, Go into the village opposite or: over against you, hence, just ahead of you. ^[524] He assures them that immediately upon entering the village they will find a colt tied up. What kind of colt? Of a camel, a horse, a donkey? It is natural to expect of a donkey. Cf. Gen. 49:11; Judg. 10:4; 12:14. Besides, from Matt. 21:5we know that this answer is correct and in harmony with the prophecy of Zech. 9:9(according to the Hebrew). See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 764, footnote 722. And for a discussion of the problem that arises from the fact that Matthew mentions two animals, Mark and Luke only one, see the same commentary, pp. 763, 765. It will be a colt upon which no one ever sat, hence, an unbroken or unbacked colt, by God reserved for sacred use. Cf. (Num. 19:2; Deut. 21:3; I Sam. 6:7. Is not this also in line with the fact that Mary, too, was still unusedRom. 1:26, 27), still a virgin, when Jesus was conceived within her womb and even at his birth? See (Matt. 1:25; Luke 1:34. The tomb, too, in which the body of the dead Jesus was laid had never been usedLuke 23:53). We notice, therefore, that there is nothing haphazard about the triumphal entry. Everything has been carefully planned and is orderly and appropriate, exactly as it should be. How did Jesus know that the two disciples would find everything as he had predicted? The possibility that this knowledge had come to him in a very natural way, the owners of the colt having conveyed it to him whether directly or indirectly, cannot be entirely ruled out. Nevertheless, in view of the somewhat similar prediction recorded in 14:13, the theory that this bit of information had reached Christ's human consciousness in a supernatural manner may well be preferable. Note also that Luke 19:33can be interpreted as meaning that there had been no previous understanding with respect to this incident between Jesus and the owners of the colt. However that may be, the fact as such that Jesus did at times receive information in ways which surpass human comprehension is clear from such passages as Matt. 17:27; John 1:48; 2:4, 25. See also on Mark 10:33, 34. The two disciples are told to untie the colt and bring it to Jesus. The instruction continues as follows: 3. And if anyone says to you, Why are you doing this? answer, The Lord needs it and will return it shortly [literally: and will send it back here shortly]. This is one of the most controversial passages of Mark's Gospel. The argument centers around two closely related questions: a. What is the meaning of the words here translated and will send it back here shortly? And b. Who is the kurios mentioned here? Should we render this word Lord or lord? If Lord, is the reference to the Triune God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, or is Jesus referring to himself? There are, however, also those who prefer to spell the English equivalent of kurios with a small letter l and who accordingly accept the theory that the reference is to the owner of the colt.^[525] Now there can be no question about the fact that the Greek word kurios, as used in the New Testament and elsewhere, has a variety of meanings Sir, owner, master, Lord (the reference being to God or Jehovah), Lord (the reference being to Jesus), but in the present case we shall limit ourselves to the question, Here in Mark 11:3does the word refer to the owner of the colt or to Jesus? From the information supplied in the footnote it has become evident that by far the most commentators prefer the rendering Lord. They interpret the entire passage to mean that Jesus is here instructing the two disciples, who while engaged in untying the colt are presumably asked, Why are you doing this? to answer, in substance, The Lord that is Jesus needs this colt and will send it back to Bethphage as soon as he has reached Jerusalem. With slight variations for example, some substitute Master for Lord translators, too, are well-nigh unanimous in supporting this view. See A.R.V., Beck, Berkeley, Dutch (both Staten and Nieuwe Vertaling), Goodspeed, Jerusalem Bible, N.A.S., N.E.B., N.I.V., Norlie, Phillips, R.S.V., Weymouth, Williams . How, then, is it that the opposite view, according to which kurios refers to the owner of the colt, has found defenders? The main reason given by those who adopt this interpretation is that, as they see it, not only is kurios, as a name for Jesus, not used anywhere else by Mark or by Matthew, but also the acceptance of Jesus as Lord is of later date, reflected in the Gospels written last of all, Luke and John. The argument continues along this line: Faith in Jesus as Lord, and addressing him as such, was not current in the primitive Jerusalem church. Jesus, during the state of his humiliation, did not regard himself as Lord, nor was he called Lord. That was a later development. It arose after the belief in his resurrection had become firmly established. Answer: a. Only by very specious reasoning is it possible to interpret kurios here in (Mark 11:3as having reference to anyone else than Jesus. It should be borne in mind that according to the context the two disciples are pictured as untying the colt. They will presumably be interrupted by the shocked ownersLuke 19:33), but their explanation must amount to: We are doing this because the Lord Jesus needs it. However he will not keep the colt any longer than needed but will see to it that it is speedily returned. According to Matt. 21:3the owners, having received this assurance, will then allow the colt to be taken away. Now this explanation makes sense. Those who favor the opposite view have failed so far to supply an equally reasonable explanation of their view. Let the reader see this for himself by carefully examining Vincent Taylor's treatment and be it said to his credit! the difficulties pertaining to it, which he himself admits! b. Though Mark 11:3and Matt. 21:3are in perfect harmony, the one supplementing the other, it is useless to attempt to make them say the same thing, as is sometimes done. The phrase back here in Mark but not in Matthew makes identification impossible.^[526] c. Passages such as (Matt. 7:21–23, Not everyone who says to me, Lord, Lord, will enter the kingdom of heaven &; Mark 12:35 37Matt. 22:41–46; Luke 20:41 44), see on that passage; I Cor. 16:22, Maranatha, meaning O Lord, come! and, because it is Aramaic, proving that the ascription of the appellation Lord to Jesus goes back to the earliest, still Aramaic speaking church; and Gal. 1:18, 19, where in an early Jerusalem context James is called the brother of the Lord, demonstrate that the theory according to which the designation Lord for Jesus was a later development is erroneous. The explanation adopted by most commentators must therefore be considered correct. In the heat of the discussion regarding the meaning of kurios in Mark 11:3the practical lesson is apt to be overlooked. That lesson is this: If even the Lord Jesus, who was and is God as well as man, and has a right to claim for himself anything and everything on earth, returned the colt he had borrowed, should not his followers return what was lent or entrusted to them? The reference is not only to the obligation of returning borrowed books, money, clothes, etc., but also to that of yielding hearts and lives to the One who gave them. Must stewardship become an empty term? See I Cor. 4:1, 2; 6:20; 15:50 16:1; II Cor. 8:8, 9; I Peter 4:10. Everything turned out exactly as Jesus had predicted: 4 6. They went away and found a colt outside in the street, tied up near the door, and they untied it. And some people who were standing there were asking, What are you doing, untying that colt? They answered as Jesus had directed them, and were then allowed to take it. Immediately upon entering the village what did the two disciples see? The colt, tied up near a door! It was the door at the end of the corridor leading from the outer court (of the house) to the outside. As the two men started to unhitch the colt, some of the bystanders the owners (Luke 19:33) understandably protested. They asked, What are you doing, untying that colt? But when, in accordance with Christ's instruction (verse 3), the disciples were heard to say, The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly, objections quickly vanished. The mere mention of the fact that Jesus needed the colt was enough to secure immediate and unqualified assent.^[527] A very important practical application must not escape our attention. It is clear from this passage and from many others; e.g., Mark 15:40 16:1; Luke 6:13; 10:1; John 12:19; John 19:38 20:1that in addition to The Twelve Jesus had many other disciples, men and women who stood ready to serve him in various ways. There must have been a large number of supporters in Judea, Galilee, Perea, and wherever the Lord went. Whether it was a place of lodging, a colt, a room in which to celebrate the Passover, or even at last a tomb, whatever it was that he needed, if they had it these friends were ready to provide it. That one word, The Lord needs it was all that was required. Today, too, such a broad body of true followers of the Lord and supporters of his causes is urgently needed, and this not only to follow directions that are handed down to them from the top, the ecclesiastical authorities, but also to act independently: to pray, to study, to guide, to support the poor by word and deed, to encourage the fearful, to bear testimony concerning the goodness of God in providing salvation for sinners, etc. etc. These tasks should be performed willingly, eagerly, and without any thought of acclaim or promotion. They should be undertaken in the spirit of the poem Your Mission by Ellen M. H. Gates, beginning with the lines: If you cannot on the ocean Sail among the swiftest fleet, Rocking on the highest billows, Laughing at the storms you meet, You can stand among the sailors Anchored still within the bay, You can lend a hand to help them As they launch their boats away. See A. L. Byers and Eva R. Johnson (editors and compilers), Treasures of Poetry, Anderson, Ind., 1913, p. 267. Permission having been obtained by the two men, 7, 8. They brought the colt to Jesus and laid their outer garments on it, and he took his seat on it. And many people spread their outer garments on the road, while others spread leafy branches they had cut from the fields. The two now a. brought the colt to Jesus, b. in conjunction perhaps with the other ten disciples placed their long, thin, quadrangular robes on the colt so as to provide as comfortable a seat as possible for Jesus; and c. mounted him on the colt (Luke 19:35), he himself co-operating by taking his seat on it. By this time a large crowd, accompanying Jesus from Bethany, not wishing to be outdone by The Twelve, began to carpet the road with their outer garments or with leafy branches cut from the fields.^[528] At this point it is important to take note of the fact that the crowd that accompanied Jesus as he started out from Bethany does not remain the only one that participates in the activities pertaining to the triumphal entry. A caravan of pilgrims had arrived at Jerusalem previously. Having heard that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead and was now on his way toward the city, these people came pouring out of the eastern gate to meet him. With fronds cut from palm trees they go forth to welcome Jesus (John 12:1, 12, 13a, 18). Having done so they turn around and, as it were, lead Jesus down the western slope of the mount of Olives and so into the city. The crowd from Bethany continues to follow. This explains Mark's mention of the two crowds. 9, 10. Those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting: Hosanna! Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord! Blessed (is) the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the highest! We must try to get into the spirit of the occasion when these two crowds met. How impetuous and exuberant their enthusiasm! How unrestrained and tumultuous their shouting! What exactly did they shout and what was its meaning? Hosanna means save now, or save, pray. The attitude of the people toward God was perhaps about as follows: We beseech thee, O Lord, save now, grant victory and prosperity at this time, since because of thy goodness the appropriate moment has arrived. Hence, in this Hosanna exclamation, the two elements: supplication and adoration, or if one prefers: prayer and praise, are combined. It is clear that the source of (Mark 11:9, 10is Ps. 118Ps. 117), which from beginning to end is filled with prayer and praise; see especially verses 22 26a. It is in essence a Hallel Psalm, one of the series Ps. 113 118, sung at Passover. See N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 121. It is also one of the six Psalms most often quoted or referred to in the New Testament; the others being Pss. 2; 22; 69; 89; and 110. Ps. 118is distinctly Messianic. It speaks about the stone rejected by the builders but destined to become the cornerstone. See on Mark 12:10; cf. Matt. 21:42; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; and I Peter 2:7. As to Blessed (is) the One coming in the name of the Lord! this is a quotation from (Ps. 118:26. Combined with the Son of David, as in Matt. 21:9, it must refer to Jesus as the Messiah. It was deplorable, however, that by far the most of these people did not go one step farther: they should have combined Ps. 118with Isa. 53and with Zech. 9:9; 13:1. Then they would have recognized in Jesus the Messiah who saves his people from their sinsMatt. 1:21). As to Blessed (is) the coming kingdom of our father David! a clause preserved by Mark alone, though it is true that Jesus had often referred to the kingdom of God or the kingdom of heaven, and had linked this phrase with his own coming to earth (Mark 1:14, 15), and with the near at hand manifestation of his power and glory (9:1), and though he had even taught his disciples to pray, Thy kingdom come (Matt. 6:10), it is hard to believe that the crowd's mention of the coming kingdom of our father David was entirely pure and wholesome. A few facts must be borne in mind in this connection: a. These people were pilgrims on their way to celebrate Passover, the very festival that reminded every Jew of the deliverance of their ancestors from Egyptian bondage. At such an occasion the thought, How long will it be before we ourselves are delivered from foreign oppression? occupied everybody's mind. b. The possibility that among this huge crowd, containing many Galileans, there were those who had intended on a former occasion to take Jesus by force in order that they might make him king (John 6:15) cannot be considered remote. c. The attempt to make Jesus an earthly king had been made because Jesus a few moments before had by means of a miracle fed the hungry multitude. And now, a few days before Christ's death on the cross, an even more astounding miracle raising Lazarus from the dead was one of the main reasons for the present vociferous adulation by this double crowd, as John 12:17, 18makes clear. We cannot be far amiss, therefore, when we state that the cry, Blessed (is) the coming kingdom of our father David was, at least to a considerable extent, an expression of the hope of national restoration, the revival of the Davidic kingdom conceived of in an earthly, political sense. Finally, as to Hosanna in the highest! this shows that Messiah was regarded as a gift from God, the One who dwells in the highest heaven and is worthy of the prayers and the praises of all, including even the angels. One cannot help thinking of Ps. 148:1, 2and of Luke 2:14. When the people hailed Jesus as the Son of David (Matt. 21:9), that is, the Messiah, they were right, and those who were going to find fault with the children (Matt. 21:15) or with the disciples (Luke 19:39) for thus addressing him, were wrong and worthy of being rebuked. But when the crowds in general failed to discern the spiritual nature of his messiahship, they were wrong. Their tragic mistake was committed with tragic results for themselves. How this failure to accept Jesus for what he really was must have hurt him. It is not surprising therefore that Luke pictures a weeping King in the midst of a shouting multitude (19:39–44), nor is it strange that, a little later, when the crowds begin to understand that Jesus is not the kind of Messiah they had expected, they, at the urging of their leaders, were shouting, Crucify (him). There was, moreover, no excuse for this deplorable misunderstanding on the part of the people and their leaders. a. The very fact that Jesus was riding into Jerusalem not on a high-spirited war steed or prancing white stallion but on a colt, the foal of an ass, an animal associated with the pursuits of peace, should have been sufficient to show that it was as the Prince of Peace that he had come. b. Besides, in doing so he was fulfilling a prophecy in which he was associated with peace, meekness, and salvation (Zech. 9:9). c. Again, in several other prophecies, too, the peaceful character of the Messiah had been set forthIsa. 9:6, 7; 35:5, 6; 40:11; 42:1–4; 60:1–3; 61, the entire chapter but see especially verses 1 3 . d. Then there was Isa. 53, in which in a most striking and unforgettable manner the Messiah was portrayed as the One who would by means of substitutionary suffering and death, make atonement for the sins of his people. e. Finally, during his entire ministry did not this Son of David reveal himself as being filled with thoughts of peace? Did not his heart go out to the multitudes? Did he not on every occasion show tenderness toward the sick, the oppressed, the weak, the poor, the little ones, the widows, etc.? Did he not again and again urge sinners to come to him and find real and lasting peace? See Matt. 11:28–30; 12:17–21; 23:37; Luke 12:32; John 10:14 16, to mention only a few passages out of the many that could be cited. Never shall we be able to understand Palm Sunday unless we perceive that, viewed from the aspect of many of the shouters, it was a Tragedy! Nevertheless, it was also a Triumph, namely, of Christ's love! Did he not deliberately evoke a demonstration? He fully realized that the enthusiasm of the masses would enrage the hostile leaders in Jerusalem, so that they will now carry out their plot to put him to death. But he had actually come from heaven to die, to die the most cruel and painful death in fact, eternal death in the place of those given to him by the Father! So intensely did he love sinners that he came from heaven to earth yes, to hell on earth in order to save them! From the aspect of Jesus, therefore, and of all those who, by sovereign grace, adored him for what he really was and is, Palm Sunday was a Triumph! 11. He entered Jerusalem and went into the temple. And having looked around at everything, since it was already late he went out to Bethany with the twelve. What happened at the very moment when the Lord entered Jerusalem, and perhaps shortly afterward, is related in Matt. 21:10, 11; see N.T.C. on that passage. Mark takes up the story again when it was already late^[529] in the day, that is, late Sunday evening. He makes mention of only a brief visit to the temple. For Jesus presence there see also 11:15 f., 27; 12:35; 13:1, 3; 14:49. Although the word used here for temple is all-inclusive it may embrace the entire temple complex, this does not mean that Jesus actually entered every part of it. The reference here is probably to the spacious court of the Gentiles and its adjoining porches. See the diagram, p. 448. While in the temple Jesus looked around at^[530] everything. He made a quick, all-around, sweeping survey. Nothing escaped his purview. He gathered the impressions that would lead to actions on the following day. Since it was already late this Sunday evening, he leaves the city in order, in the company of The Twelve, to spend the night in Bethany. See also on verse 19 and cf. Matt. 21:17. He knows that the Jewish authorities are inflamed against him, and also that his time to die has not yet arrived. So, for both of these reasons, he cannot during this night remain in Jerusalem. Also, by leaving the city he will escape the hurly-burly of the crowds, will have opportunity for prayer and meditation, and perhaps even for some moments of fellowship with his disciples. 11:12–14 The Cursing of the Fig Tree Cf. Matt. 21:18, 19 12 On the following day, as they were leaving Bethany, he was hungry. 13 And noticing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went (to see) if he could perhaps find anything on it. When he reached it, however, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. 14 He spoke up and said to it, Never again may anyone eat fruit from you! And his disciples were listening. While the narrative of Christ's triumphal entry is found in all four Gospels, that of the cursing of the fig tree is found only in Matthew and Mark. The former treats this story topically, the latter chronologically. For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 273–275. When Mark 11:12 14is compared with Matt. 21:18, 19, the following variations come to light: a. Matthew states, Now in the morning, when he was returning to the city &; Mark, On the following day, as they were leaving Bethany.& However, the fact that Jesus was returning from Bethany to Jerusalem is clear from the immediately preceding accounts in both cases. b. According to Matthew, Jesus saw a fig tree by the side of the road. As Mark records the incident, from a distance Jesus noticed a fig tree in leaf. c. The interesting detail that Jesus went (to see) if he could perhaps find anything on it is reported only by Mark. d. Though both Gospels inform the reader that Jesus went up to the tree and found nothing on it but leaves, it is Mark who adds, for it was not the season for figs. e. The difference between the words of the curse as found in the two stories is slight. According to Matthew, Jesus said, Never again let there be fruit from you; according to Mark, Never again may anyone eat fruit from you. The two are in perfect harmony. f. Finally, while Matthew calls attention to the fact that the process of withering began at once, a fact not denied by Mark, the latter directs our attention to The Twelve, stating, And his disciples were listening. What has been pointed out before can be repeated here: the Gospel-writers were not mere copyists; each tells the story in his own way. The two do not conflict in any way. By supplementing each other they enrich the reader. 12. On the following day,^[531] as they were leaving Bethany, he was hungry.^[532] If it was at the home of his friends that Jesus had spent the night of Sunday to Monday, it is not clear why he should be hungry this Monday morning. Had he arisen very early, before breakfast (cf. 1:35)? Or had he and The Twelve spent the night under the stars that shone on the slopes in the vicinity of the village? How thoroughly human is this Jesus, how close to us: even becoming hungry at times. Cf. (Matt. 4:2; Heb. 4:15. This, too, was part of Christ's humiliation in the place of and for the sake of his peopleII Cor 8:9; Ga. 3:13; Phil. 2:8). Very effectively and beautifully the inspired author of Hebrews makes clear the comfort that can be derived from what is here revealed with reference to Christ (4:15). Consider also the poetic lines: Hast thou been hungry, child of mine? I, too, have needed bread. 13. And noticing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went (to see) if he could perhaps find anything on it.^[533] But was not Jesus omniscient? The present passage seems to imply that the Master would at times gather information in ways similar to ours. At other times his knowledge was wholly supernatural. This subject has been discussed earlier. See on 2:8; 5:32; 9:33, 34; 10:33, 34; 11:1, 2. See also on 13:32. Continued: When he reached it, however, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In the region referred to here in Mark, the early or smaller figs, growing from the sprouts of the previous year, begin to appear at the end of March and are ripe in May or June. The later and much larger figs that develop on the new or spring shoots are gathered from August to October. It is important to point out that the earlier figs, with which we are here concerned, begin to appear simultaneously with the leaves. Sometimes, in fact, they even precede the leaves. Passover (about April) was at hand. Accordingly, the time when either the earlier or the later figs are ripe had not yet arrived. It was therefore not the season for figs. But Jesus notices that this particular tree, growing by the side of the road and thus probably in a sheltered place (Matt. 21:19), was something special. It had leaves, was most likely in full foliage, and could therefore be expected to have fruit. Yet, it had nothing but leaves! It promised much but provided nothing! 14. He spoke up^[534] and said to it, Never again may anyone eat^[535] fruit from you! It is impossible to believe that the curse which the Lord pronounced upon this tree was an act of punishing it, as if the tree as such was responsible for not bearing fruit, and as if, for this reason, Jesus was angry with it. The real explanation lies deeper. The pretentious but barren tree was a fit emblem of Israel. See (Luke 13:6 9Isa. 5). Jesus himself would interpret the figure the next day (Tuesday); see on Matt. 21:43. In fact, the disciples did not even have to wait until the next day for the explanation: The pretentious fig tree had its counterpart in the temple where on this very day (Monday) a lively business was being transacted so that sacrifices might be made, while at the same time the priests were plotting to put to death the very One apart from whom these offerings had no meaning whatever. Plenty of leaves but no fruit. Bustling religious (?) activity, but no sincerity and truth, tremendous promise but a very poor performance! In cursing the fig tree and in cleansing the temple Jesus performed two symbolic and prophetic acts, with one meaning. He was predicting the downfall of unfruitful Israel. Not that he was through with the Jews, but that in the place of Israel an international and everlasting kingdom would be established, a nation bringing forth not just leaves but fruits, and gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. And his disciples were listening. They were deeply impressed. This very Jesus, whose heart was accustomed to go out to the multitudes, the One who yearned to comfort ad cheer, to help and heal, to seek and save, was actually heard to pronounce a withering curse upon a fig tree! Did these men even at this time surmise the meaning of this curse? Did they intuitively guess that they had been witnessing an acted parable, one somewhat similar to those acted out by some of the Old Testament prophets? See (Jer. 13:1–11; ch. 19, especially verses 1, 2, 10; Ezek. 3:1–11; 12:1–16; ch. 24; Hos. 1:1–9; 3:1–5; etc. Surely, if they had attentively read Jer. 8:13, had studied Isa. 5, and taken to heart the parable of The Barren Fig TreeLuke 13:6 9), they could hardly have missed the point. One fact must not escape us. With the exception of such multiple miracles as are recorded in 1:32–34, 39; 3:10, 11; 6:53–56, and the greatest miracle of all, Christ's triumphant rising from the dead (16:1–8), this Gospel records 18 miracles. Of these 18 the blasting of the fig tree is the last. Moreover, not only is it last, it is also destructive, in fact totally destructive. See verses 14, 20, 21. The miracle recorded in 5:1–20 was only partly destructive (5:13). Do not these couple exceptions cause all the other miracles those in which the divine mercy is displayed to stand out all the more conspicuously? Among the many lessons taught by these signs of power and pity, are not the following two to be included? The two are: a. God hence Jesus Christ (John 14:8, 9) takes delight in showing mercy, healing, saving (Isa. 1:18; 5:1–2; 45:22; ch. 55; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8; Matt. 11:28–30; 23:37; Rev. 22:17; and b. The man who, having been often reproved, hardens his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and this without remedyProv. 29:1; cf. Isa. 1:19, 20; 5:3–7; Ezek. 18:24; Matt. 11:20–24; 23:38; Rev. 14:9–11). Miracles of Jesus Recorded in Mark According to Mark, Jesus performed miracles on the following, as recorded in: MARK CHAPTER Mark alone Mark &Matthew Mark &Luke Mark, Matthew & Luke Mark, Matthew & John All Four 1: 21 28 demoniac in synagogue 30, 31 Peter's mother-in-law; 40 45 a leper 2: 1 12 a paralytic 3: 1 6 a withered hand 4: 35 41 a storm 5: 1 20 a Gerasene demoniac; 21 24, 35 43 the daughter of Jairus; 25 34 the woman who touched Christ's robe 6: 45 52 boisterous waves: a double miracle 30 44 5000 hungry people 7: 31 37 deaf-and-dumb man 24 30 Syrophoenician woman's daughter 8: 22 26 the blind man of Bethsaida 1 10 4000 hungry people 9: 14 29 an epileptic boy 10: 46 52 Blind Bartimaeus 11: 12 14 a barren fig tree Of Mark's 18 miracles 16 have parallels in one or more of the other Gospels; as follows: MARK PARALLELS IN MATTHEW LUKE JOHN 1:21–28 4:31–37 1:30, 31 8:14, 15 4:38, 39 1:40–45 8:1–4 5:12–16 2:1–12 9:1–8 5:17–26 3:1–6 12:9–14 6:6–11 4:35–41 8:18, 23 27 8:22–25 5:1–20 8:28 9:1 8:26–39 5:21–24, 35 43 9:18, 19, 23 26 8:40–42, 49 56 5:25–34 9:20–22 8:43–48 6:30–44 14:13–21 9:10–17 6:1–14 6:45–52 14:22–33 6:15–21 7:24–30 15:21–28 8:1–10 15:32–39 9:14–29 17:14–20 9:37 43a 10:46–52 20:29–34 18:35–43 11:12–14 21:18, 19 11:15–19 The Cleansing of the Temple Cf. Matt. 21:12–17; Luke 19:45 48 15 They came to Jerusalem, and having entered the temple he began to drive out those buying and those selling in the temple, and he turned upside down the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. 16 And he would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple. 17 He was teaching and saying to them, Is it not written: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a robbers den. 18 The chief priests and the scribes heard (this) and were looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because everybody was astonished at his teaching. 19 And whenever evening arrived, they^[536] went out of the city. For an earlier cleansing see John 2:13 22 This striking event recorded by all three occurred on Monday of the Passion Week, after the cursing of the fig tree. The main differences in the three accounts variations in reporting, not conflicting items are as follows: It is Mark alone who states that Jesus refused to allow the temple to be used as a travel or transportation short-cut. It is also he alone who in quoting the words of Jesus derived from Isa. 56:7b includes the phrase for all the nations. Because it was Mark's primary purpose to influence the Romans, hence the nations, while Matthew's primary objective was to reach the Jews, this difference is understandable. Luke's omission of the phrase is harder to explain. However, it must be borne in mind that his record of this event is very brief (only four verses). The omission may therefore fall into the general pattern of leaving out much in order to have room for other material (parables, etc.). Mark mentions the reaction of the Jewish leaders, who were looking for a way to destroy Jesus, a fact noted also by Luke. And Mark indicates that Jesus evening departure from the city was customary during Passion Week. Matthew pictures the compassion and healing power of Jesus directed toward the blind and the lame; also his defense of the children's hosannas, sincere and joyful acclamations that were resented by the religious authorities. Luke reports that Jesus was daily teaching in the temple, and that during the early days of this week the opponents desire to kill Jesus was thwarted by their fear of the people. For the arguments against identifying this temple cleansing with the one recorded in John 2see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 120. 15. They came to Jerusalem, and having entered the temple he began to drive out those buying and those selling in the temple, and he turned upside down the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those selling doves. From the Mt. of Olives Jesus had gone to Jerusalem, had spent the night in Bethany, and was back in Jerusalem now. Here he enters the temple. The summit of nearby Mt. Olivet is about 250 feet higher than the hill on which the temple stood. Between Olivet, to the east, and the city lies the Kidron Valley. Description of the Temple In order to grasp the meaning of the temple cleansing and of many other New Testament references to this building, note the following main facts: It was David who conceived in his heart to build a temple for the Lord. But for the reason stated in (I Chron. 28:3not to David but to his son Solomon was given the privilege to build it. He began to do so in the fourth year of his reign, hence in or about the year 969 b.c. See I Kings 6:1. It was finished seven years laterI Kings 6:38). Cedar and cypress wood from Lebanon, and white hard limestone were used in its construction. Because the level area of Moriah, on which it was built, was too small, the foundation had to be laid very deep and the space between hilltop and outer wall filled in. For an account of the furniture of this temple and of the manner in which it was dedicated see I Kings 6 8. This temple experienced stress and strain. In the course of the centuries it was plundered, renovated, desecrated, purged. See (I Kings 14:26; 15:18; II Kings 14:14; 15:35; 16:17f.; 23:4f. Its treasures were carried to BabylonII Kings 24:13). Finally, about the year 586 b.c. the Chaldean army destroyed Jerusalem, including Solomon's beautiful temple. About fifty years later, at the return of a remnant from Babylonian captivity, an altar for a new temple was immediately built (Ezra 3:3). Sometime later work was begun in earnest on the building itself. It was completed about twenty years after the return. However, since it became clear that it would not be nearly as imposing and beautiful a structure as that of Solomon, the older people, who had known that first building, wept (Ezra 3:12, 13). It was this temple that was plundered and desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168 b.c. Approximately three years later it was cleansed and rededicated by Judas Maccabaeas. Pompey captured and entered this temple but did not destroy it. However, Crassus deprived it of its treasures in 54, 53 b.c. Herod the Great altered and enlarged the temple complex. He expanded and beautified it to such an extent that the result could be called a new temple, though devout Jews probably refused to consider it such. In an eloquent address to the people the king, if we can trust Josephus, divulged his plan to make a thankful return, after the most pious manner, to God, for the blessings I have received from him, who has given me this kingdom, and to do this by making his temple as complete as I am able. He began to build it about the year 19 b.c. Long after his death it had not yet been entirely completed. See John 2:20. The grandeur and beauty of the temple which Herod started to build and on which he had made very considerable progress is evident from Mark 13:1, 2; cf. Matt. 24:1, 2; Luke 21:5, 6. See also Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9. It is interesting to note that this elaborate structure was not finished until &just a few years before it was destroyed by the Romans, a.d. 70. Here follows a brief description of Herod's temple complex. It should be studied in connection with the diagram. The entire huge area on which it stood a square measuring not much less than a thousand feet on each side was enclosed by a massive outer wall. Those coming from the north for example from the suburb of Bethesda could enter by the north gate. The east wall overlooked the Kidron Valley. By way of what in later years was called the Golden Gate one was able from the temple area to cross the brook, and thus go to the Garden of Gethsemane, Bethany, and the Mount Ground Plan of the Temple in the Days of Jesus^[537] H = Holy Place with Table of Showbread, Incense Altar, and Candelabrum H of H = Holy of Holies B = Burntoffering Altar L = Laver (Washbasin) P = Porch N? = Nicanor's Gate (location disputed) B G = Beautiful Gate G G = Golden Gate of Olives; or vice versa. See Mark 11:1, 11; John 18:1. See also on Mark 11:16. Coming from the south for example, from the Lower City it was possible to reach the Court of the Gentiles by means of the two Gates of Huldah. One of these was a double, the other a triple gate. Of all the gates that led from or to the outside these were the most widely used. Finally, from the Upper City one was able, by means of the four western gates, to enter the temple area. Very useful also were the two bridges with which two of these western gates were linked. Their remnants have been preserved to this very day. Lining the outer wall were rows of high pillars. Each consisted of a single block of pure white polished marble. On the east, west, and north there were three parallel rows of columns, on the south four. This meant that three sides had two parallel halls, while the Royal Porch, where according to tradition the palace of Solomon used to be, had three. John 10:23states, It was winter, and Jesus was walking inside the temple, in Solomon's Porch (Portico or Colonnade). This covered porch probably derived its name from the fact that of the temple which that king had built, this was in the days of Jesus the only remaining part. Cf. Acts 3:11; 5:12. It is understandable that the various ample and beautiful colonnades provided every opportunity for teachingMark 12:41 44and parallels; Luke 19:47, etc. . Beyond these colonnades that is, farther away from the outside wall, there was the very spacious Court of the Gentiles, also extending all around. It was paved with variegated marble of the finest quality. This court was given its name because, though both Jews and Gentiles were welcome here, the latter were not allowed to proceed any farther toward the interior. In order to remind them of that restriction, the smaller area immediately enclosed by the Court of the Gentiles was surrounded by a 4½ ft. high balustrade furnished with slabs on which was written, both in Greek and in Latin, this warning: Let no man of another nation enter inside the barrier and the fence around the temple. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame that his death follows. For a picture of the recovered part of a slab with Greek lettering see Kollek and Pearlman, op. cit., p. 124. Proceeding westward from Solomon's Porch the person privileged to do so would, after crossing a portion of the Court of the Gentiles, via the Beautiful Gate enter the Women's Court. Men as well as women were allowed here. Just as Court of the Gentiles meant that Gentiles were not permitted any closer to the interior, so Women's Court was thus named in order to indicate that this was as far as women were allowed to go. It was equipped with large chambers and gave access to treasure vaults. Against the walls stood thirteen trumpet-shaped chests for gifts and dues. (Mark 12:41 44Luke 21:1 4); and John 8:20come to mind at once. Male Israelites were allowed to proceed even farther, namely, into Israel's Court, a relatively narrow one. Between that and the Priests Court there was only a low partition, so that by some authors these two are considered one. It was the Priests Court that encompassed the inner sanctuary with its Holy Place and Holy of Holies. To the east of it stood the very large altar of burnt-offering. Nearer to the sanctuary and a little farther to the south could be seen the laver, a colossal brazen reservoir that rested on the back of 12 big lions. Finally, there was the sanctuary itself. As to measurements, Josephus states that its ground floor was 60 cubits in height, the same in length, and 20 cubits in breadth. But the 60 cubits of its length were again divided. The first portion [the Holy Place] was partitioned off at forty cubits &the innermost recess This magnificent sanctuary must have been a marvelous sight to behold, since it was built of white marble, richly set off with gold on its front and sides. It was entered by means of a huge double-winged porch or vestibule, as indicated on the diagram. In front of the doorway to the Holy Place hung a beautifully colored Babylonian veil or curtain. There was also the second veil, the one that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. See Matt. 27:51; Heb. 6:19; cf. 9:3; 10:20. As it was during the old dispensation so also now, the Holy Place contained A lampstand, a table, and an altar of incense, thus again Josephus, who adds, But in this [that is, in the Holy of Holies] stood nothing at all.& The candelabrum or seven-branched lampstand was among the temple treasures which by Titus and Vespasian were displayed in the triumphal procession which they conducted in Rome after the fall of Jerusalem, a.d. 70. See the picture in the aforementioned book, Jerusalem, A History of Forty Centuries, p. 131, and in many other sources. I have purposely left to the last for special emphasis, one very important point, namely, the height of the various parts. Now before proceeding any further it is only proper to call attention to the fact that we cannot be entirely certain about the dimensions mostly length and breadth given thus far. The Bible furnishes no information on this point. Josephus and the Mishnaic tractate by no means always agree. It is not surprising, therefore, that the secondary sources even our best textbooks disagree among themselves on several points. See W. S. Caldecott and James Orr, The Temple of Herod, I.S.B.E., Vol. V. 2937 2940. The general picture is clear enough; conjecture sometimes probable, sometimes improbable or at least fruitless enters into the determination of many details. This holds also with respect to the height of the various parts. With that reservation, it can now be pointed out that there were especially three features that made this temple unforgettable: a. Its vastness From east to west or northwest the temple complex increased in height. From the Court of the Gentiles to that of Women there was an ascent of 14 steps; from there to the Court of Israel a rise of 15 steps. A few more upward steps would bring one to the Priests Court; and 12 more, to the entrance of the sanctuary. Accordingly, highest of any of the buildings of this entire complex was the temple or sanctuary. It soared high above the vast Court of the Gentiles. Some of the stones in the building were forty-five cubits [67½ feet] in length, five [Greek] in height, and six [9] in breadth (Josephus). The sanctuary, moreover, occupied the most elevated ground, and was buttressed by very formidable sub-structures. Its height was no less than sixty feet, instead of forty-five for the temple of Solomon (I Kings 6:2). To this should be added another sixty feet for the upper chamber that covered the entire sanctuary. The whole temple, with the exception of the porch, was covered with a gabled roof of cedar wood. From its summit protruded sharp golden spikes to prevent birds from settling upon and polluting the roof (Josephus). From all this it follows that the best pictorial map of Herod's vast temple complex is the three-dimensional. See, for example, the reconstruction by the Comte de Vogue (Jerusalem, p. 100) or the Schick model, reproduced in several English and other language encyclopaedias and archaeological texts, or Lazar Halberthal's colorful drawing. Vastness, by reminding man of his littleness, inspires awe. b. Its beauty Says Josephus, The exterior of the building lacked nothing that could astonish either the soul or the eyes. For, being covered on every side with massive plates of gold, the sun had no sooner risen than it radiated so fiery a flash that those straining to look at it were forced to avert their eyes as from the solar rays. To approaching strangers it appeared from a distance like a snow-clad mountain, the reason being that whatever was not overlaid with gold was purest white (Jewish War V.222). Beauty is conducive to worship. c. Its purpose That purpose is clearly stated in (I Kings 8:13, 31 61; 9:3; and especially in Isa. 56:7, for even though these passages pertain to the temple of Solomon, they clearly have meaning also with respect to the temple as it existed in the days of Jesus. Even the child Jesus called it my Father's houseLuke 2:49). And during his earthly ministry Jesus, quoting from Isaiah, declared the temple to be a house of worship. He said, Is it not written: My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nation.& * Jesus, then, has entered the Court of the Gentiles. What a sorry spectacle greets his eyes, ears, and even nostrils! He notices, as had happened also in the early part of his ministry, that this court, hence the temple, was being desecrated. It now resembled a market-place. Business was booming, lucrative too. Some men were selling oxen and sheep. At this time of the year, with Passover so close at hand and pilgrims crowding into the court from everywhere, there were many buyers. They paid high prices for these sacrificial animals. True, a worshipper could bring in an animal of his own choice. But if he did that he was taking a chance that it would not be approved. The temple merchants had paid generously for their concession, which they had bought from the priests. Some of this money finally reached the coffers of sly, wealthy Annas and of clever Caiaphas. It is therefore understandable that the tradesmen and the priestly caste were partners in this business. As Jesus enters he notices the hustle and bustle of all those buyers and sellers; also the noise, filth, and stench produced by all the animals. Could this, in any sense whatever, be called worship? Notice the buyers and the sellers. ^[538] This may be somewhat difficult to understand. Sellers? Yes, these were guilty of swindling the pilgrims, fleecing them. But why should the poor, innocent buyers be included in the number of those against whom the Lord vented his keen displeasure? The answer is probably as follows: these people were too docile. They were weaklings, like Eli. Cf. (I Sam. 2:22–25; 3:13. They accepted conditions as they were. It was surely far more convenient to buy your animal in the court than to bring it along with youLev. 17:1–6; Jer. 17:26) and run the risk that it would fail to pass the official inspection. Consequently the seller's concession had become the buyer's convenience, and the receiver was about as bad as the (seller who in many cases because of the exorbitant price he charged was also the) deceiver.^[539] Among the buyers were pilgrims from countries far away. See (John 12:20; Acts 2:5 13. They carried with them Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc. currencies. But in the temple area foreign money was not accepted in payment. So in evidence were the money-changers, sitting cross-legged behind their little coin-covered tables. Also, the temple tax of half a shekelExod. 30:13; cf. Matt. 17:24–27) had to be paid in Jewish coin. And Jewish money was needed to fulfill the various rites of purification (Acts 21:24). So the money-changers would exchange foreign money for Jewish, charging a small fee for the favor. This business, too, was very profitable. It presented abundant opportunity for cheating the unsuspecting pilgrim. It is not difficult to picture the righteous indignation that must have flashed from the eyes of Jesus when he drove out all who were engaged in this nefarious business, and overturned the tables of the money-changes and the seats of those selling doves. Whether also at this time, as in the first temple cleansing, he made a whip out of cords that were lying around and then let fly with that scourge, we do not know. One thing is certain: Jesus revealed himself as being indeed Lord of the temple (Matt. 12:6). In line with all this is Mark's added note: 16. And he would not allow anyone to carry^[540] merchandise through the temple. With the help of the diagram of Herod's temple and of the explanation that follows it, the meaning becomes clear. By means of the gates it had become rather easy and convenient to use the temple area as a shortcut; for example, between the city and the Mount of Olives. The sacred place was being used for a purely secular purpose. Did not even the rabbis disapprove of this? What reverence is due to the temple? That no one go into the mountain of the house with his staff, shoes, purse, or dust on his feet. Let no one make a crossing through it, or degrade it into a place of spitting. ^[541] What Jesus saw was that for the sake of convenience worldly-minded people were carrying all kinds of vessels objects used for profane purposes through the temple area, thereby degrading it. Now if even the inhabitants of Europe's large cities resent seeing their cathedrals used as thoroughfares, and Americans place No Through Traffic signs at the entrance of some of their parks and university grounds, we can understand the wholly inappropriate character of the practice which Jesus here condemns. The lesson here conveyed applies today as it did then. When the practice of religion, so-called, becomes nothing but a means to what people are really interested in such as convenience, social advancement, pecuniary gain, etc. there is nothing left of genuine devotion. The house of prayer becomes a source of personal profit, not real profit, of course, but what is so regarded. It is not surprising, therefore, to read, 17. He was teaching and saying to them, Is it not written: My house shall he called a house of prayer for all the nations? But you have made it a robbers den.^[542] The quoted words are found in Isa. 56:7b. Their quotation in full that is, including for all the nations [or: peoples] is peculiar to Mark. It is clear from this that the temple was intended to be the place where God met with his people, a sanctuary for quiet, spiritual devotion, prayer, meditation, and fellowship, in connection with sacrifice. See I Kings 8:29, 30, 33; Ps. 27:4; 65:4; cf. I Sam. 1:9–18; Luke 18:10; Acts 3:1. The second part of the statement is Christ's own comment, in which he contrasts the divine ideal for worship as described in Isa. 56:7b with the present situation, a condition that reminded him of Jer. 7:11, which he quotes. In the days of Jeremiah, too, as is proved by that prophet's famous Temple Discourse, the Jews were oppressing aliens, stealing, murdering, etc. Nevertheless, they continued to offer their sacrifices in the temple; as if such merely formalistic worship of Jehovah would do any good, and as if the very presence of the temple would protect them from the outpouring of God's wrath. It was then that Jeremiah had said, Do not trust in lying words, saying, The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah is this,.& Has this house that is called by my name become a den of robbers in your eyes? In the days of Christ's sojourn history was repeating itself: the temple had again become a cave of thieves, an allusion, perhaps, to the rocky caves in the hills of Judea, where thieves and robbers would often assemble. The thieves were crowding out the Gentiles or nations. The lessons taught by this cleansing of the temple can be summarized as follows: a. Jesus punished degradation of religion and insisted on reverence. b. He rebuked fraud, in the present connection especially religious (?) racketeering, and demanded honesty. c. He frowned upon indifference toward those who desired to worship God in spirit and truth, and, by declaring that the temple must be a house of prayer far all the nations, gave his endorsement to the wonderful cause of Christian Missions. Cf. I Kings 8:41–43; Matt. 28:19. d. By means of all this he glorified his heavenly Father. Was not the temple his Father's house? If it be true that even in general vastness inspires awe, and beauty is conducive to worship, the conditions for awakening both of these feelings being amply present in the temple complex as has been shown, then all the more, in view of the fact that by the Lord this area had been specifically set aside for the purpose of prayer and devotion, it was not at all the proper place to conduct a business enterprise, a fraudulent one at that. So Jesus cleansed it. The reaction of Christ's bitter opponents was as follows: 18. The chief priests and the scribes heard (this) and were looking for a way to kill him, for they were afraid of him because everybody was astonished at his teaching.^[543] Of course, an act as open and public as the cleansing of the temple could not remain hidden from the attention of the chief priests and the scribes, to which Luke adds the leaders or chief men of the people. The entire Sanhedrin is deeply affected, is filled with vehement resentment. So these men now more than ever look for a way to bring about Jesus death. But why do they not simply go right ahead, capture him, and kill him? Answer: because fear holds them in check, curtailing their actions against their enemy. There must have been at least two reasons for this fear: a. the Hosannas of the crowds on the previous day, in honor of Jesus; and b. the astonishment of the people displayed as a result of his teaching. See (Mark 14:49; cf. Matt. 26:55; Luke 19:47; 20:1; 21:37. Note that not only in GalileeMark 1:22; cf. Matt. 7:28, 29) but also in Jerusalem the people were knocked out of their senses by the teaching of Jesus. And his enemies knew it! That is why they could not see their way clear to destroy him immediately. But they were looking for a way to change all this. The present paragraph ends as follows: 19. And whenever evening arrived, they went out of the city.^[544] We know that Sunday evening Jesus and The Twelve had gone to Bethany (11:11). The day of the temple cleansing was Monday. That evening, too, Jesus went to Bethany and spent the night there (Matt. 21:17). The rendering spent the night is broad enough to leave room for either of two possibilities: a. He lodged with his friends in their hospitable home (Mark 14:3; cf. Matt. 26:6–13; Luke 10:38 42; John 11:3; 12:1–8); or b. he spent the night under the stars somewhere in or near the village, perhaps on a slope of the Mount of Olives (Luke 21:37). It remains true that Sunday night, Monday night, and so also probably Tuesday night and Wednesday night, Jesus and his disciples went out of the city, though it is impossible to be precise in every case. And did they not even go out of the city Thursday night? See John 13:30; 18:1, 3. Further speculation about the reason for these excursions from the city leads nowhere. 11:20–25 The Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree Cf. Matt. 21:20–22 20 In the morning, as they were passing by, they saw the fig tree withered from the roots. 21 Peter remembered and said to him, Rabbi, look! the fig tree you cursed has withered! 22 In response Jesus said to them, Have faith^[545] in God! 23 I solemnly declare to you that whoever says to this mountain, Be lifted up and thrown into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart but believes that what he says will happen, it will indeed be done for him. 24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believing that you received it, it shall be yours. 25 And whenever you stand praying, forgive if you have anything against anyone, that your Father who (is) in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. ^[546] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XII Outline of Chapter 12 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Me To Do 12:1–12 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel 12:13–37 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question 12:38–40 Denunciation of the Scribes 12:41–44 A Widow's Offering 12:1–12 The Parable of the Wicked Tenants, and Its Sequel Cf. Matt. 21:33–46; Luke 20:9 19 12 1 He began to speak to them in parables: A man planted vineyard, He set a fence around it, dug a trough for the winepress, and built a tower. Then he leased the vineyard to sharecroppers,^[570] and went abroad. 2 At the proper time he sent a servant to the sharecroppers to collect from them his share of the vineyard's fruit. 3 But they seized him, beat him and sent him away empty-handed. 4 Then he sent another servant to them. They struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. 5 He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed. 6 He had still one other, a beloved son. He sent him last of all, saying, They will have regard for my son. 7 But those sharecroppers said to each other, He is the heir; come on, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours! 8 So they took him and killed him and cast him out of the vineyard. 9 What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those sharecroppers and give the vineyard to others. 10 Have you never read this passage of Scripture: The stone which the builders rejected This became the cornerstone; 11 By the Lord was this done; And it is wonderful in our eyes? 12 And they were trying to arrest him, for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them. But they were afraid of the crowd. So they left him and went away. In its main traits the parable is the same in all three Synoptics. The minor differences present no real conflicts. The most important variations in telling the story are as follows: a. Luke abbreviates, as he often does. He omits any mention of fence, winepress, and tower. On the other hand, he does mention one fact not found in the others: the owner of the vineyard, having gone abroad, stays away a long time. b. In Matthew the servants are represented as being sent group by group; in Mark and Luke singly. However, here again we must figure with the fact that Luke abbreviates. Besides, the one servant of Mark and Luke may represent a group. And Mark also recognizes group sending. c. In Matthew and Luke what happens to the son is described as follows: They cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. In Mark the order is reversed. In other words, Matthew and Luke are giving us the historical order; Mark, the climactic, as if to say, They killed him, and this in a most shameful manner, casting him out of the vineyard as an accursed one. Again, there is no contradiction or conflict. d. In Matthew the question, What will the owner of the vineyard do to these sharecroppers? is answered by the audience, Jesus himself as the subsequent context shows being in thorough agreement with the answer given. Hence, in the other two Synoptics the answer is described as Christ's own. Well, it was! e. In Luke the doom pronounced on the wicked sharecroppers evokes the audience's response, God forbid! Also, the passage which in Matt. 21:44(A.V.) is probably unauthentic is authentic in Luke 20:18. Interesting variation amid essential unity. Inspiration all along the line! 1. He began to speak to them in parables. Jesus was in the temple. Cf. 11:27, 28. It is still Tuesday. In fact it was probably still rather early in the day, closer to the time indicated in 11:20 than to that implied in 13:1. It will be recalled that Christ's opponents had asked him to give an account of his actions. They resolutely refused to acknowledge his greatness and authority. For such people the parabolic form of teaching had special significance. At the same time it was adapted to the needs of his true followers. See above, on 4:11, 12. Mark uses the plural: parables. Yet in the present connection he records only one, the one about the vineyard, clearly based on Isa. 5:1–7. Matthew, on the other hand, in 21:28 22:14 presents a trilogy of closely connected parables. Therefore Mark has every right to use the plural, for he knew that Jesus at this particular time uttered more than one parable. The parable here recorded was that of the wicked tenants or sharecroppers. It begins as follows: A man planted a vineyard. He set a fence around it, dug a trough for the winepress, and built a tower. This man reserved a portion of his ground for a vineyard. He planted vines in that plot, enclosed it with a fence or hedge as a protection against thieves and animals, and equipped it with a winepress and a watch-tower. The winepress generally consisted of two excavations dug into the earth and lined with stonework, or hewn out in a cliff. The upper cavity, wide and shallow, served as a receptacle for the grapes. Here they were crushed by the feet of the grape-treaders (Isa. 63:2, 3). Through a pipe the juice would run into the lower, narrow and deep compartment. Afterward it was put into jars (Hag. 2:16). The watch-tower may have been constructed from the very stones that had been gathered when the ground set aside for the vineyard was cleared (Isa. 5:2). A watchman had to be stationed in such a tower to warn of any danger from pillagers, jackals, and foxes (Sol. 2:15). The tower could also be used for storage. When the owner had thus fully prepared his vineyard, Then he leased the vineyard to sharecroppers, tenants or lessees who, as the parable indicates, had to give the owner a definite amount of the vintage. Having made this arrangement the owner went abroad, that is, went away from home. ^[571] 2. At the proper time he sent a servant to the sharecroppers to collect from them his share of the vineyard's fruit. This servant must be distinguished from the tenants or sharecroppers. The latter are the vinegrowers with whom the owner has made a contract, amounting to this: I will let you manage this vineyard and harvest its crop for yourselves provided that at the time of the vintage you give me this or that definite portion of the grapes. The servant, on the other hand, was commissioned by the owner to collect and carry to the master's home the portion of the fruit that belonged to him. Having been delegated by him, it follows that the servant was invested with the master's authority. He made his demand or request in the owner's name. The request was altogether proper, for a definite agreement had been made, and the proper time, that is, the time of the vintage had arrived. 3. But they seized him, beat him, and sent him away empty-handed. The tenants proved to be wicked men, scoundrels, dishonest and cruel. When the servant asked for the portion of the grape harvest to which the owner had a legal claim, he was refused. Not only that, but he was even seized and beaten. When he was finally released, he returned to the owner emptyhanded. One might have expected that the owner would have responded most vigorously to the cruel treatment his servant had received, treatment which at the same time was an insult to himself. But he did not. He decided to give the sharecroppers another chance to do their duty, and still more opportunities after that, for the story continues as follows: 4, 5. Then he sent another servant to them. They struck him on the head and treated him shamefully. He sent still another, and that one they killed. He sent many others; some of them they beat, others they killed.^[572] The parable now reaches a dramatic climax: 6 8. He had still one other, a beloved son. He sent him last of all, saying, They will have regard for^[573] my son. But those sharecroppers said to each other, He is the heir; come on, let's kill him, and the inheritance will be ours! So they took him and killed him, and cast him out of the vineyard. Still one other, a son beloved (John 3:16)! What intense feeling emotion, love, pathos is implied in He sent him last of all, saying, They will have regard for my son, meaning. They will be ashamed of hurting him. They will respect him. So, he decided to make even this sacrifice. But what happens? When these wicked tenants see his son approaching they begin to plot. They enter into a consultation with each other. Accordingly, what they are going to do to him is not a matter of impulse. On the contrary, it is malice aforethought, the result of wicked deliberation, of corrupt, selfish scheming. It is premeditated murder. They reason as follows: This is the heir. When we kill him, there will be no other heir to worry about. So the inheritance which he would have obtained will be ours. In their sinister folly they forget that the owner, the son's father, is still alive, and will certainly wreak vengeance. How blatantly foolish is sin! How absurd! He who dwells in the heavens will laugh. The Lord will hold them in derision (Ps. 2:4). The villains carry out their wicked plan. When the son arrives they take him, cast him out of the vineyard and kill him. On a previous page the sequence killed him and cast him out of the vineyard instead of cast him out of the vineyard and killed him (as in Matthew and Luke) has already been commented upon. The story is finished. Jesus has told it but has not yet explained it. So he now asks his audience, 9. What then will the owner of the vineyard do? The answer, here in Mark presented as given by Jesus himself, is: He will come and kill those sharecroppers and give the vineyard to others. In other words, not the sharecroppers but the owner of the vineyard triumphs in the end. And so does his son, as will be shown. Here the meaning of the parable is surfacing. The owner is God, and his Son is Jesus, the Christ. This is the key to the explanation of the words which immediately follow in verses 10, 11. Have you never read this passage of Scripture: The stone which the builders rejected This became the cornerstone; By the Lord was this done; And it is wonderful in our eyes? Jesus surprises his audience, particularly his bitter opponents the chief priests and the scribes and the elders (11:27, 28) by reminding them of this passage from (Ps. 118(LXX 117):22, 23. There a similar transaction had been described. Builders had rejected a stone; meaning: leaders, prominent men of other nations, had scoffingly denigrated Israel. Nevertheless, Israel had become in a very true sense the cornerstone, the head of the nationsPs. 147:20). This, moreover, had not happened because of Israel's own intrinsic moral and spiritual excellence or because of its own power. On the contrary, by the Lord this wonderful thing had been accomplished. Jesus now shows that the words of Ps. 118reach their ultimate fulfilment in the owner's son, that is, in himself, the true Israel. He is that stone that was being rejected by the chief priests, scribes, elders, and their followers; at Calvary, by the nation as a whole. See John 1:11. But something marvelous was going to happen: the rejected stone would become the cornerstone: Christ crucified would rise again triumphantly. And what about the nation, namely, the old unconverted Israel, the rejectors of the Messiah? From you, says Jesus, the kingdom of God, that is, the special kingdom privileges the special standing in the eyes of God which this people had enjoyed during the old dispensation, to which had now been added the blessed words and works of Jesus will be taken away. Why? Because they had not lived up to their obligations. They had been like the sharecroppers who at the time of the vintage had refused to render to the owner that portion of the vintage that was his due. So, in the place of the old covenant people there would arise was it not already beginning to happen? a nation producing its fruit, a church international, gathered from both Jews and Gentiles. Briefly, therefore, the thrust the one main lesson of the parable can be expressed in the words of Ps. 2:12: Kiss [or: pay homage to] the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way; for soon shall his wrath be kindled. Blessed are all those who take refuge in him. As to the subsidiary meaning of the separate items of this parable, to the extent in which a figurative meaning can be attached to them, see N.T.C. on Matthew, bottom of p. 786. In addition to what is said there, note the following: God's precept Among the fruit-producing growths that are frequently mentioned in Scripture three are outstanding: the olive tree, the fig tree, and the grapevine. Sometimes they are mentioned in close succession (Judg. 9:8–13; and, in a different order, Hab. 3:17). Also in connection with the events of Passion Week we are reminded of all three: the olive tree (Mark 11:1; 13:3; 14:26), the fig tree (11:12–14, 20, 21; 13:28), and the vine (vineyard, 12:1 ff.). Their purpose was, of course, to bear fruit. In this respect they symbolize God's precept for human life: Herein is my Father glorified that you bear much fruit (John 15:8). When plants or trees do not enrich their owner with a bounteous harvest, they have failed to reach their goal. Whether they yield worthless fruit (Isa. 5:2), fruit that is unjustly withheld from the owner (the present parable), or no fruit at all (Mark 11:13, 14; Luke 13:6, 7) makes no basic difference. In all these cases God, who distributes his gifts lavishly, fails to receive his due from the hearts and lives thus symbolized. The circle is broken. The blessings poured down by him are not returned to him in the form of happy thanksgivings, surrendered hearts, rescued lives. The precept stands: Bear much fruit. Cf. Gal. 5:22. God's patience In the present parable, when the first servant returns to the owner empty-handed, what does the latter do? At this point the parable becomes very touching, and this not because it is so true to life, but because it is not! In fact, it far surpasses what the average person's reaction would have been. Unless a person is so very familiar with the parable that for him its keen edge has worn off, he is surprised, perhaps even somewhat shocked, to read that when this servant returns from his errand, he not only carries with him no grapes but in addition shows the evidences of the physical abuse he has received. Nevertheless, the owner does not immediately fly into a rage and punish the offenders. No, he simply sends another servant. And when that one is killed, the owner sends others. Finally, he even sends his own son, whom he dearly loves. And the owner symbolizes God! This is the God who manifested his longsuffering at the time of the deluge (I Peter 3:20). He is the God whose throne-chariot, with its accompanying cherubs, stood still at the door of the east gate of the house of the Lord, so reluctant was he to leave his chosen Zion (Ezek. 10:18, 19). His marvelous restraint in inflicting punishment is symbolized, in another parable, by the vinedresser's plea, Leave that tree alone this year also until I dig around it and fertilize it (Luke 13:7). He even gives notoriously corrupt Jezebel time to repent (Rev. 2:21). Touchingly Peter writes (II Peter 3:9), He is longsuffering toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should make room for repentance. See also Gen. 18:22–33; Isa. 1:18; 55:6, 7; Hos. 11:8; Mic. 7:18, 19; Matt. 23:37. God's punishment The present parable also shows that it is entirely wrong to emphasize God's love at the expense of his holiness, righteousness, and avenging wrath. Note: He will come and kill those sharecroppers (12:9). See also Prov. 29:1; Isa. 5:5–7; 6:1–5; Nah. 1:1–6; Zeph. 1(the entire chapter); Matt. 23:1–36; John 15:6Heb. 12:29; Rev. 6:12–17; 14:17–20; 18:1 19:21. But this outpouring of wrath and punishment does not in any way imply the frustration of God's plan of salvation. Note that in the parable the owner's action or reaction does not cease when he has killed the wicked sharecroppers. No, he adds &and give the vineyard to others. The vineyard must be given away. The house must be filled (Luke 14:23). And see also Esther 4:14; Acts 13:46. It must not be supposed that what, in its main features, is symbolically described in this parable never actually happened. On the contrary, God did indeed send his servants often called by this very name to his people Israel. In various ways these prophets were indeed scorned, wounded, and rejected (Matt. 23:29–37; Luke 6:23; 11:49–51; 13:31–35; Acts 7:52). See also N.T.C. on Matt. 5:12. But even then God did actually send his only-begotten, beloved SonLuke 19:10; Rom. 8:32; etc. . He sent him first of all to Israel (Matt. 10:5, 6; 15:24). He, too, was rejected by the Jews (Mark 15:12, 13; John 1:11; 12:37–41; Acts 2:23; 4:10); exception: the believing remnant destined for everlasting glory (John 1:12; Rom. 11:5). The privileges once granted to Israel were subsequently transferred to the church universal (Matt. 21:41; 28:19; Acts 13:46), a truth whose realization was already foreshadowed when Jesus walked on earth (Matt. 8:11, 12; 15:28; John 3:16; 4:41, 42; 10:16; 17:20, 21). The parable, accordingly, is not an abstraction. It pictures reality. To a certain extent even Christ's opponents sensed this. Hence, Mark continues: 12. And they were trying to arrest him, for they knew that he had spoken this parable against them. The pronoun they refers to the men mentioned in 11:27: the chief priests and the scribes and the elders; that is, the body of the Sanhedrists. Some of these men were Pharisees (Matt. 21:45). Again and again they were looking for a way to arrest Jesus. Now especially, since they realized that it was against^[574] them that Jesus had spoken the parable. They must have sensed that, as Jesus saw it, they were symbolized by the wicked sharecroppers, destined for destruction. What prevented them from carrying out their plan at this particular moment is stated in these words: But they were afraid of the crowd. That is not very surprising, for: a. these people held Jesus to be a prophetMatt. 21:46b ; b. on the preceding Sunday they had been shouting hosannas in his honor (Mark 11:8 10); c. on a previous occasion they had tried to make him their king (John 6:15); d. for many, Passover Week was a period during which political enthusiasm ran high, and hero worship would be difficult to control; and e. very recently many believers whether their faith was genuine or whimsical had been added to the ranks of those who sided with the Prophet of Galilee, for he had brought back to life Lazarus, who had been dead four days (John 11:39, 43, 44; 12:10, 17 19). Result of all this was that, for the moment at least, Christ's opponents recognized that they had not as yet found what they were looking for: a way to destroy Jesus. So they left him and went away. 12:13–37 Captious Questions and Authoritative Answers also Christ's Own Question verses 13 17 Cf. Matt. 22:15–22; Luke 20:20 26 verses 18 27 Cf. Matt. 22:23–33; Luke 20:27 40 verses 28 34 Cf. Matt. 22:34 40^[577] verses 35 37 Cf. Matt. 22:41–46; Luke 20:41 44 13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14 They came to him and said, Teacher, we know that you are truthful and court no one's favor, for you are not partial to anyone but truthfully teach God's way. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay? 15 But Jesus, aware of their hypocrisy, said to them, Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius that I may look at it. 16 So they brought it. He said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? Caesar's, they told him. 17 Jesus said to them, What is due to Caesar render to Caesar, and what is due to God render to God. And they were amazed at him. 18 Then some Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came up to him and asked him this question, 19 Teacher, they said, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving behind a wife but not leaving a child, that man must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one took a wife and when he died left no children. 21 The second took her and died, leaving no children; and so did the third. 22 None of the seven left any children. Last of all the woman herself died. 23 In the resurrection^[575] whose wife shall she be, since all seven had her as wife? 24 Jesus said to them, Is not this the reason you are deceiving yourselves, that you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? 25 For when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven. 26 Now concerning the dead, that they are raised up, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? 27 He is not the God of the dead but of the living. You are badly mistaken. 28 Then one of the scribes, on hearing them arguing, came up, and recognizing how well Jesus had answered them, asked him, Of all the commandments which is the foremost? 29 Jesus answered The foremost is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 31 The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. 32 The scribe said to him Right! Teacher,^[576] you have truthfully stated that he is one, and there is no other but he. 33 Moreover, to love him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, means far more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. 34 And when Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, You are not far from the kingdom of God. And from then on no one dared to ask him any more questions. 35 Now while Jesus was teaching in the temple he asked, How can the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David? 36 David himself, moved by the Holy Spirit. declared: The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand Until I put your enemies under your feet. 37 David himself calls him Lord. How then can he be his son? The huge crowd enjoyed listening to him. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? This little paragraph can be divided into a. introduction, b. body, and c. conclusion. Mark's introduction is very brief: A committee consisting of Pharisees and Herodians is sent to Jesus to catch him in his words. Matthew adds that the mission of this committee was undertaken after a more or less formal decision. Lengthiest of all is Luke's introduction: the enemies watch Jesus and send spies. These spies are insincere. Their purpose, and also that of their sponsors, is to discover some pretext that would enable them to deliver Jesus to the governor. As to number of words devoted to this incident, the conclusion reveals similar diversity. Mark is again shortest: Christ's answer results in amazement. Matthew adds that the committee left Jesus and departed. Luke reports the committee's also the sponsors discomfiture, amazement, and silence. His conclusion, like his introduction, is again the lengthiest. As to the body of the paragraph the committee's question and Christ's answer, here Matthew and Mark are closely parallel, while Luke abbreviates. Nowhere is there even a semblance of disagreement. 13. And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. It is necessary to keep the context in mind. The Sanhedrists had bluntly questioned Jesus authority. This attack had failed. By means of a counterquestion Jesus had silenced them. Not only that, but by means of the parable of The Wicked Tenants he had predicted their doom. So, more than ever they were determined to kill him. But they were afraid of the crowd (12:12). So they now decide to use the opposite method. For implied accusation they substitute adulation. At the same time they probably figured that their clever device would result in discrediting their enemy in the estimation of the people, at least of a large group. They no longer criticize him for what he did yesterday cleansing the temple; instead, they try to catch ^[578] him in what he says today. Note the combination Pharisees and Herodians. So also in Matthew (22:16, a parallel passage), though that Gospel points out that the committee which was sent to Jesus consisted not of the veteran leaders but of the younger disciples of both of these groups. Mark does not deny this. It just happens to be a little touch which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was jotted down by Matthew. According to Luke these men were spies. In Mark's Gospel this combination of Pharisees and Herodians was mentioned also in an earlier connection (3:6). What was said there can be repeated here: it was a strange coalition between the sanctimonious and the sacrilegious. Well, not so very strange after all, and this for the reason already stated in the explanation of 3:6; see on that passage. The Herods were lovers of pagan art, architecture, athletics, etc. The Herodians followed in their train. Only in a very external sense did these people practice the Jewish religion. Their real philosophy was that of Hellenism. So now the two groups, Pharisees and Herodians, combine against Jesus. Those who were or made believe that they were very concerned about keeping God's law, and those who were easy-going and cared little about the divine commandments, promote a common aim: getting rid of Jesus. Each group had its own reason for wishing to destroy him. Did not his teaching imply a denunciation of the self-righteousness of the Pharisees and of the worldlimindedness of the Herodians? Besides, the Herodians cannot have been happy with Jesus royal entry into Jerusalem, nor the Pharisees with his entry as the Son of David, the Messiah. Also, both envy Jesus because, as they see it, his influence over the people is becoming too pronounced. 14. They came to him and said, Teacher, we know that you are truthful and court no one's favor, for you are not partial to anyone but truthfully teach God's way. As to Teacher, this form of address was certainly correct. Not only do the evangelists constantly describe Jesus as such, but so do also many othersMark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20, 35; John 3:5; etc. . In fact, Jesus himself stated that teaching was one of his main activities (Mark 14:49; cf. Matt. 26:55; Luke 21:37; John 18:20). He was the greatest Teacher ever to walk the earth. Being God's true Prophet he taught men as the Father had taught him (John 1:18; 3:34; 8:28; 12:49). It was a pity that those who now addressed him as Teacher did not accept his teaching. And now the flattery. These men tell Jesus that he is truthful and that he truthfully teaches God's way. The word way, as here used, indicates manner of faith and conduct. The way of God is the manner in which God wants people to think and to live. It is his will for man's heart, mind, and behavior. They are saying, therefore, You are a teacher on whom people can depend; you faithfully declare the will of God for doctrine and life. In further explication of what they have in mind they say, You court no one's favor; literally, and not is it a care to you concerning no one, that is, You speak your own mind, without trying to cater to any person's likes or dislikes. Along the same line is, You are not partial to anyone; literally, You do not look on anyone's countenance, They meant, No matter to whom you speak, what you say is still the same. You do not allow yourself to be swayed by rich or poor, learned or unlearned, master or slave.& ^[579] Thinking, perhaps, that by means of their kind (?) words they have completely disarmed Jesus, having dispelled any suspicion which he might otherwise have entertained with respect to their motives, they now spring their question, Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?^[580] The tribute to which the present passage refers was a capitation tax which, after the deposition of Archelaus (a.d. 6), was collected by the procurator from every adult male in Judea, and was paid directly into the imperial treasury. Since this coinage bore the image of the emperor, who ascribed divinity to himself and claimed to possess supreme authority not only in political but even in spiritual affairs, and since, in addition to this, it reminded the Jews that they were a subject nation, it is understandable that payment of this tax was very distasteful to many a freedom-loving, devout Jew. It was in connection with the introduction of this imposition that Judas of Galilee had vehemently proclaimed, Taxation is no better than downright slavery. He had blasted it as being no less than high treason against God. See Acts 5:37; Josephus, Jewish War II.117, 118; Jewish Antiquities XVIII.1 10. The question put to Jesus was therefore a very clever scheme. If he answered affirmatively, he would be alienating ever so many devout, patriotic Jews; but a negative reply would be exposing himself to the charge of rebellion against the Roman government (Luke 20:20; 23:2). 15. But Jesus, aware of their hypocrisy, said to them, Why put me to the test? Jesus was aware of a. their wickedness (Matt. 22:18), unscrupulousness, readiness to do anything, no matter how wicked, to attain their purpose (Luke 20:23), and specifically (Mark) b. their hypocrisy or duplicity. Their question, after an introduction of honeyed words, sounded like a pious request for direction in deciding what to do in a difficult matter of ethics, but their real intention was the destruction of Jesus. It is not surprising that Jesus, fully aware of their dishonesty, called them hypocrites (Matt. 22:18). Why, says Jesus, do you put me to the test? See on Mark 1:13. Their action was diabolical. While feigning innocence, they thought they had lured their enemy in a trap from which, as they saw it, he would not be able to escape. Jesus continued, Bring me a denarius that I may look at it. The denarius or denar, a small silver coin equal to a laborer's average wages for one day's work, was the amount fixed by law for the payment of the poll-tax. It is held by many that Christ's asking for this coin implied that he himself was so poor that he did not possess that much. To this observation some add that it showed that even his disciples did not have any denarius. But perhaps this is reading into the account something that is not really there. One could, for example, advance an entirely different explanation for this request, namely, that Jesus wanted the coin to come from the pockets of his opponents, so as to impress upon them the fact that they themselves were using this coinage, were benefiting from its use, and had accordingly accepted the resulting obligations. That explanation has in its favor that it fits into the succeeding context. But this point need not be pressed. That I may look at it implies that Jesus is going to direct his own attention and that of the audience to what was shown and written on this coin. Continued: 16. So they brought it. He said to them, Whose likeness and inscription is this? Caesar's, they told him. A denarius from the reign of the then ruling emperor Tiberius pictures on its obverse side the head of that ruler. On the reverse side he is shown seated on a throne. He is wearing a diadem and is clothed as a highpriest. The inscriptions, with abbreviations as indicated and with V representing our present U, are as follows: Obverse TICAESARDIVI AVGFAVGVSTVS Translated: TIBERIUS CAESAR AUGUSTUS SON OF THE DIVINE AUGUSTUS Reverse PONTIF MAXIM Translated: HIGHEST PRIEST The tension must have been very high when 17. Jesus said to them, What is due to Caesar render to Caesar, and what is due to God render to God. Explanation: a. Jesus was not evading the issue, but was clearly saying, Yes, pay the tax. Honoring God does not mean dishonoring the emperor by refusing to pay for the privileges a relatively orderly society, police protection, good roads, courts, etc., etc. one enjoys. At this particular time the Roman Empire had brought peace and tranquility to the people under its sway, and this to a degree seldom if ever experienced either before or afterward. Such a blessing implies a responsibility. Cf. I Tim. 2:2; I Peter 2:17. Thus, no truthful charge of sedition could be made against Jesus. b. He was qualifying his yes answer by stating that the emperor should be paid (given back) only what was his due. Hence, the divine honor which the emperor claimed but which is due to God alone must be refused. How could the Pharisees find any fault with that? Besides, this word was a warning to all from the most exalted emperor to the subject lowest in rank not to claim undue honors. Cf. II Kings 18:19 19:37II Chron. 32:9–23; Isa. 36, 37 ; Dan. 4:28–32; 5; Acts 12:20 23. c. By adding and to God what is due to God Jesus was stressing the fact that all the service, gratitude, glory, etc. due to God should be constantly and gladly accorded to him. Nothing must be withheld. See, for example, Ps. 29; 95; 96; 103 105; 116; John 17:4; Rom. 11:33–36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; 16:1, 2; II Cor. 9:15. One does not give God what is his due by plotting to destroy his beloved Son! But this was exactly what these spies and their teachers were trying to do. d. By drawing a distinction between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God Jesus was rejecting the very claim of Caesar, a claim made on the coin and otherwise, to the effect that his was not only a physical kingdom but also a spiritual. Cf. (John 18:36. Naturally God is Sovereign over allDan. 4:34, 35), even over the emperor. Cf. John 19:11. The emperor, to be sure, should be respected and obeyed whenever his will does not clash with the divine will. See Rom. 13:1–7. But when there is a clash the rule laid down in Acts 5:29must be followed. By means of this answer Jesus had discomfited his enemies. We are not surprised to read: And they were amazed at him. They had not expected this kind of answer. Jesus had frankly and courageously answered their question. The answer implies: Yes, the tax must be paid. There must be an adequate response to privileges enjoyed. But though the emperor must receive his due, he must not receive more than that; that is, he must not receive the divine honor he claims. At the same time, God must receive all the glory and honor In all candor, who could find fault with this answer? Certainly no one. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be? The same interesting variety amid unity, witnessed in Mark 12:13 17and its parallels, is again clear. Between Matthew's report and Mark's there is very little difference. Matthew alone, however, relates that question 1 and question 2 were asked on the same day. He reports the reaction of the people to Christ's answer: They were astounded at his teaching; Luke has, Well said, Teacher! (the reaction of some scribes); also, They no longer dared to ask him any question. Mark and Luke have in common the indication of the source of the words, I am the God of Abraham.& The words themselves are recorded in all three (direct discourse in Matthew and Mark, indirect in Luke). The source, not given in Matthew, is the book of Moses &the passage about the bush. Mark alone reports that Jesus ended his argument with the Sadducees by saying, You are badly mistaken. Remarkable is the difference in the length of the three accounts. Often Luke's coverage is the shortest, but not in this case. Shortest of all is Matthew's. Note especially the difference in the length of the words ascribed to Jesus. In the original, about 60 words in Matthew, 70 in Mark, 75 in Luke. The corresponding figures in A.R.V. are: Matthew 78, Mark 97, Luke 109. Words of Jesus reported by Luke alone are: The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage; but those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age, even to the resurrection from the dead (neither marry, etc.) &for they can no longer die &being sons of the resurrection &for all live to him. 18, 19. Then some Sadducees, who say that there is no resurrection, came up to him and asked him this question, Teacher, they said, Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies, leaving behind a wife but not leaving a child, that man must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother. It should be emphasized that those who now approach Jesus in order to undermine his influence differed in many respects from those who had put him to the test a moment ago. On one point all the adversaries were in agreement: Jesus must be destroyed! In connection with the discussion of Mark 7:1, 2we have given five reasons showing why it was that the Pharisees hated Jesus (reasons a-e). As to the Sadducees, it should be borne in mind that this was the priestly party, from whose ranks the highpriest was selected. The temple was their special domain, the very temple which only yesterday Jesus had cleansed! The crass materialism of the Sadducees was as repugnant to the heart of Jesus as was the pompous ceremonialism and loveless legalism of the Pharisees. As to both Pharisees and Sadducees see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 201–203. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Sadducees now, in turn, attack Jesus. This time, however, the attack is not an attempt to impale him on one of the horns of a dilemma, as was the case with respect to the preceding question (12:14), but rather to ridicule his faith in the afterlife. In fact, it must be considered altogether probable that these men intended to strike a double blow. In exposing what they regarded as the foolishness of Christ's teaching regarding the glory awaiting himself and his followers on the other side of death, would they not at the same time triumph over the Pharisees, who likewise believed in a resurrection from the dead? If we are permitted to assume that news of the victory of Jesus over the Pharisees (and their allies) soon reached the ears of the Sadducees in view of Matt. 22:34not an unreasonable assumption, may we not also assume that the latter were already saying to each other, We ll show the Pharisees that we can do better? Were they perhaps already chuckling over the prospect of killing two birds with one stone, that is, of exposing to ridicule both Jesus and the Pharisees? For their word of address, Teacher see on verse 14. They continue with an appeal to the great law-giver Moses. It should be borne in mind that the Sadducees regarded the Pentateuch as being higher in value than the other books of the Old Testament. They now make (Deut. 25:5, 6the springboard of their question. In that passage the law of levirate^[581] marriage is given to Israel. According to this law, if a wife loses her husband before any male child has been born, the brother of that husband or else the nearest of kin must marry the widow, so that the first child born of this marriage may be counted as a child of the deceased, and the latter's line may not die out. Disobedience to this command was frowned uponDeut. 25:7–10). Half-hearted obedience, so that a man was willing to marry the widow but not to raise offspring by her since such a child could not be counted as his own, was in the case of Onan punished with death (Gen. 38:8–10). For an interesting application of the law of levirate marriage see Ruth 4:1 8. To what extent this law was still being obeyed during Christ's sojourn on earth is not clear. The Sadducees, then, make use of this commandment in order to show how thoroughly absurd, as they see it, is belief in the resurrection of the body. Whether the story which they are about to relate was a report on an actual event, as some commentators believe, let the reader judge for himself. I, for one, am inclined to believe that they fabricated it. They continue: 20 23. Now there were seven brothers. The first one took a wife, and when he died left no children. The second took her and died, leaving no children; and so did the third. None of the seven left any children. Last of all the woman herself died. In the resurrection whose wife shall she be, since all seven had her as wife? Provided that their basic assumption namely, that married life continues in the hereafter was correct, two husbands would have been sufficient to prove their point. But seven makes the story more interesting and might also make belief in the resurrection seem even more absurd. Think of it: when the dead arise, this woman husband-killer? will have seven husbands! Of course, that cannot, must not, be. She is allowed to have only one, but which one? It is clear, of course, that the entire representation was absurd. It was atrociously unfair; for Jesus, though believing in the doctrine of the physical resurrection, did not believe that for people who before they died had become married, this married state would continue after the resurrection. What the opponents were doing, therefore, was setting up a man of straw, to be bowled down very readily. Not the doctrine of the resurrection but the assumption from which the Sadducees were proceeding was false. In fact, it was grotesquely fictitious. In his masterful reply Jesus does four things: He a. shows why it is that the Sadducees commit such a glaring error (verse 24); b. proves this assertion by demolishing their false assumption that marriage is resumed at the time of the resurrection (verse 25); c. proves the doctrine of the resurrection from Scripture (verses 26, 27a); and d. draws the only possible conclusion and states it, using exactly two words. a. 24. Jesus said to them, Is not this the reason you are deceiving yourselves, that you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? Had they known the Scriptures, they would have known that there is nothing in (Deut. 25:5, 6that makes it applicable to the life hereafter, and they would also have known that the Old Testament in various passages teaches the resurrection of the body. And had they recognized the power of GodRom. 4:17; Heb. 11:19), they would have understood that God is able to raise the dead in such a manner that marriage will not longer be needed. The proof of this assertion, a proof that demolishes the false assumption from which the Sadducees have proceeded is now furnished: b. 25. For when the dead rise, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven. The glorious resurrection body Jesus says nothing about the resurrection of the wicked is going to be immortal. Since there will be no death, the race will not have to be reproduced. Marriage, accordingly, will be a matter of the past. In not marrying and not being given in marriage the blessed will therefore resemble the angels, for they too do not marry. The saved will be like the angels in this one respect; yes, like the angels whose very existence the Sadducees also deny (Acts 23:5), and this in spite of the fact that the Pentateuch, accepted by them, teaches their existence (Gen. 19:1, 15; 28:12; 32:1)! Does not verse 25, taken in its entirety, and in connection with what is known of the beliefs of the Sadducees, prove that these men know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God? Although the Sadducees ridicule a wonderful truth accepted and taught by Jesus, namely, that of the resurrection of the dead, he does not refuse to impart needed instruction to them on this very subject: c. 26, 27a. Now concerning the dead, that they are raised up, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Have you not read? says Jesus. Certainly those who try to base their argument on Scripture (Deut. 25:5, 6) should know Scripture! They should be acquainted with Scripture as a whole, not just with one passage, which they then misapply. Now it is true that the Sadducees did not have the New Testament, which mentions or implies the resurrection (whether of Jesus himself or of his people, or even of all the dead) again and againMark 16:1 8; Luke 24; John 5:28, 29; 11:24; 20; 21; Acts 2:24 36; 4:10, 11; 17:31, 32; Rom. 1:4; I Cor. 15; Phil. 3:20, 21; I Thess. 4:16; I Peter 1:3; Rev. 20:11–15, to mention but a few of all the many passages in which this doctrine is taught . But even the Old Testament is not lacking in references to the bodily resurrection. Clearest, perhaps, are (Ps. 16:9 11Acts 2:27, 31) and (Dan. 12:2. Worthy of consideration are also Job 14:14; 19:25–27; Ps. 17:15; 73:24–26; Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37:1–14; Hos. 6:2, 13:14I Cor. 15:55); passages which, though not always directly teaching the resurrection of the body, may well imply belief in this truth. Take for example, (Ps. 73:24–26, which clearly teaches the blessed after-death existence of the believer's soul in heaven. Does not this very existence of the soul in the intermediate state demand the resurrection of the body? Two facts certainly point in that direction: a. the creation of man as body and soulGen. 2:7), and b. this very passage, He is not the God of the dead but of the living. Note also that Abraham surely believed in the possibility of a physical resurrection (Heb. 11:19). Jesus, however, refers to another passage, I am the God of Abraham &, and implies that since God is not the God of the dead but of the living, the conclusion is that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are still alive, and are awaiting a glorious resurrection. Mark (followed by Luke), but not Matthew, reports Jesus as saying that the quotation is found in the book of Moses, that is, in the Pentateuch, the very book which by the Sadducees was esteemed above all others. More precisely, Jesus points out the very place in the Pentateuch where the quoted words are found, namely, in the passage about the bush, ^[582] that is, the burning bush that was not consumed. The reference is, of course, to Exod. 3:1ff; see verse 6, and cf. verses 15, 16. Attempts have been made to rob Christ's argument of its value. It has been said, for example, that the expression, the God of Abraham simply means that while Abraham was on earth he worshiped Jehovah. However, a study of the context in which (Exod. 3:6and all similar passages occur, quickly proves that the One who reveals himself as the God of Abraham &is the unchangeable, eternal covenant God who blesses, loves, encourages, protects, etc. his people, and whose favors do not suddenly stop when a person dies but go with that person beyond deathPs. 16:10, 11; 17:5; 73:23–26). Another fact must be mentioned in this connection. The men with whom the immutable Jehovah (Exod. 3:6, 14; Mal. 3:6) established an everlasting covenant (Gen. 17:7) were Israelites, not Greeks. According to the Greek (and afterward also the Roman) conception, the body is merely the prison-house of the soul. See N.T.C. on I and II Thessalonians, pp. 110, 111. The Hebrew conception, product of special revelation, is entirely different. Here God deals with man as whole, not only with his soul or merely with his body. On the contrary, when God blesses his child he enriches him with physical as well as spiritual benefitsDeut. 28:1–14; Neh. 9:21–25; Ps. 104:14, 15; 107; 136; and many similar passages . He loves him body and soul. He is going to send his beloved Son in order to ransom him completely. The body, accordingly, shares with the soul the honor of being the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19, 20). The body is for the Lord, and the Lord for the body (I Cor. 6:13). God loves the entire person, and the declaration, I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob (note the triple occurrence of the word God, mentioned separately in connection with each of the three to stress personal relationship with each) certainly implies that their bodies will not be left to the worms but will one day be gloriously resurrected. The burden of proof is entirely on the person who denies this. See also H. W. Robinson, The People and the Book, Oxford, 1925, p. 353 f. Jesus now states the only possible conclusion: d. 27b. You are badly mistaken.^[583] The original uses only two words to express this conclusion: one of them is badly, the other is you-are-mistaken, all one word in Greek. Instead of you-are-mistaken, this can be rendered you-are-deceiving-yourselves. The verb is the one also used in verse 24. If one wishes to retain the two word sentence, You blunder might not be a bad rendering. When a person departs from the Scriptures he is bound to blunder, to be badly mistaken, to wander. See also on 13:5. Some other words and deeds of Jesus regarding the resurrection a. He restored some from death to life: the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:41, 42), the son of the widow of Nain (Luke 7:14, 15), and Lazarus (John 11:43, 44). b. Some were raised at the moment of his death (Matt. 27:52, 53). c. He predicted his own resurrection on the third day (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). d. In fulfilment of these predictions, he himself rose gloriously (Matt. 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20, 21). e. With reference to the spiritual resurrection he said, The hour is coming yes, has already arrived! when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear shall live (John 5:25; cf. Luke 15:32). f. With respect to the physical resurrection he said, The hour is coming when all who are in the tombs shall hear his voice and shall come out; those who have done good, for the resurrection of life, and those who have practiced evil, for the resurrection of condemnation (John 5:28, 29). Cf. Acts 24:15. Note the close connection between e. and f. in John's Gospel. g. In every sense Jesus Christ is himself the cause of his people's resurrection: I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live; and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never, never die; do you believe this? (John 11:25. 26). Yet a little while, and the world no longer sees me, but you see me. Because I live, you too shall live (John 14:19). h. Filled with significance is also Christ's statement, No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day (John 6:44). For at the last day see also 6:40, 54, and compare Martha's use of the same phrase (11:24). * Of all the commandments which is the foremost? The present incident is reported only by Matthew and Mark. Luke has no parallel, although there are similar features in Luke 10:25ff. It is immediately clear that as between Mark's account and Matthew's, the former is the most comprehensive by far. It includes the Shema, contains and with all your strength in the summary of the first commandment, and above all, describes in some detail the scribe's reaction to the words of Jesus. It even reports what, in turn, was the Master's encouraging reply to that reaction. None of this material can be found in Matthew. On the other hand, Matthew, in his very brief report, mentions a few details not found in Mark. He leaves the impression that the scribe who now asks Jesus a question did not act solely on his own accord. He seems to have been delegated by the Pharisees in a meeting held with that purpose in new (22:34, 35). Also, according to Matthew, after Jesus had given his summary of the law he said, On these two commandments depend the whole law and the prophets. Here Mark has Jesus saying, There is no other commandment greater than these. The two accounts are mutually complementary. 28. Then one of the scribes, on hearing them arguing, came up, and recognizing how well Jesus had answered them, asked him, Of all the commandments which is the foremost?^[584] Jesus had silenced the Sadducees (Matt. 22:34). His victory pleased the Pharisees, for the latter, as well as Jesus himself, believed in a bodily resurrection, a doctrine denied by the Sadducees. See Acts 23:7, 8. We can well imagine how triumphantly the Pharisees gloated over the defeat suffered by the deniers of the resurrection. Yet, from another point of view, the Pharisees cannot have been too pleased, for they did not want Jesus influence with the general public to be strengthened. They still wanted to kill him! So, once again they decided to put him to the test. See Matt. 22:35.^[585] For this purpose they select a certain scribe, a law expert. We receive a favorable impression of him. Having learned from many previous passages in Mark's Gospel how very hostile most scribes and Pharisees were toward Jesus (2:7; 3:2, 6, 22; 7:1, 2, 5; 8:31; 10:33; 11:18; 12:13), and how he, in turn, condemns them, a fact of which we are reminded again in the present chapter (see verses 38 40), we find it surprising that this not unfriendly scribe was chosen to represent the Pharisees in testing Jesus. Was it because they did not really know this man? Or did they indeed know him rather thoroughly, and did they send him, thinking, him Jesus will not suspect, and we may still be able to trip up our enemy because of the answer he will give? We do not know. What we know is that this man, too, had taken note of the fact that Jesus had answered the Sadducees very well. Is it not possible that his own motivation and that of those who put him forward did not entirely coincide; that is, that with him approval had triumphed over misgiving and a desire to discredit? The question asked by this scribe, this expert in the knowledge of the whole body of Jewish religious literature God's written law and its oral interpretation and application, could be expected of him. The rabbis, devoted to hairsplitting legalism, carried on lengthy debates about the commandments, arguing whether a particular one was great or small, heavy or light. It was natural, therefore, that they debated the question, Which of the 613 commandments, 248 of them positive, 365 negative [according to their count] is foremost of all? ^[586] Among the Jews two contrary tendencies were at work. One was to analyze the law, dividing it into ever so many hairsplitting ramifications. A good example is Matt. 5:33–37; 23:16–18. The other tendency was the very opposite, namely, to synthesize, that is, to express the summary of the law in one brief sentence. Even before the time of Jesus several famous rabbis had tried to do this, with varying success. In a way this latter attempt was excellent. Religion is, after all, a matter of selecting the right priorities. If that is not done, it easily degenerates into majoring on minors. In Matt. 23:23Jesus very concisely contrasts the good way with the bad: Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, but have neglected the more important requirements of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. 29 31. Jesus answered, The foremost is, Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. The second is this, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these. Jesus here teaches that: a. The whole duty of man, the whole moral-spiritual law, can be summed up in one word: love. Cf. Rom. 13:9, 10; I Cor. 13. b. This love must be directed first of all toward God. In this connection Mark reports that Jesus began his summary of the law by quoting Deuteronomy 6:4, 5: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart.& In the original Hebrew, the first word of this quotation is Shema, ^[587] meaning Hear. In English literature the Hebrew form is often transliterated Shema, and the entire quotation is generally called the Shema. Today, the ancient custom of beginning the synagogue service with the recitation of the Shema is still being observed. This holds, too, with respect to the Jewish phylacteries. These contain the Shema in its longer form (Deuteronomy 6:4 9; 11:13–21). For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 823. Finally, we should make mention of the mezuzah, a rectangular piece of inscribed parchment enclosed in a metal or wooden case, and attached to the upper section of a Jewish dwelling's right hand door post. The inscribed material consists of the Shema in its longer form. It is written in twenty-two lines, in accordance with definite rules It is readily understood that the Shema was and is the very foundation of monotheism. Not only that, but it stresses the fact that this one and only God wants to the loved!. This is in harmony with the fact that he himself is a loving God. This is a truth taught not only in the New TestamentJohn 3:16; Rom. 5:8; 8:32; etc. but also, either directly or by implication, in such Old Testament passages as Deut. 33:27; Ps. 27:10; 87:2; 103:8–14; 145:8, 9; 146:8; 147:1–3; Prov. 3:12; Isa. 1:18; 55:7; Jer. 31:31–34; Hos. 11:8; Jon. 4:11; Mic. 7:18–20; etc. c. Heart, soul, mind, and strength must co-operate in loving God. The heart is the hub of the wheel of man's existence, the mainspring of all his thoughts, words, and deeds (Prov. 4:23). The soul the word used in the original has a variety of meanings (see on 8:12, footnote 370) is here probably the seat of man's emotional activity; the mind is not only the seat and center of his purely intellectual life but also of his dispositions and attitudes. In the Hebrew original (and also in the LXX) of Deut. 6:5the reading is heart, soul, and might (or power). Mark 12:30has heart, soul, mind, and strength. Cf. Luke 10:27No essential difference is intended. We must not begin to over-analyze. What is meant in all these passages is that man should love God with all the faculties with which God has endowed him. d. Moreover, man must use all these powers to the full. Note fourfold all &all &all &all. The point is that God's wholehearted love must not be answered in a halfhearted manner. When God loves, he loves the world; when he gives, he gives his Son, hence himself. See N.T.C. on (John 3:16. He gives him up. He does not spare himRom. 8:32). Greater love,^[588] more marvelous self-giving, is impossible (John 15:13; Rom. 5:6–10; II Cor. 8:9). Surely, the response to such love must not be less than that indicated in Rom. 11:33–36; I Cor. 6:20; 10:31; II Cor. 9:15; Eph. 5:1, 2; Col. 3:12–17. e. This love must be directed not only toward God (Deut. 6:5) but also toward man (Lev. 19:18). The question whether or not Jesus was the first to combine these two passages,^[589] which in the Old Testament are separated, is not very important. If this point is pressed, the objection might be raised, What about the author of The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, where Issachar (5:2) is introduced as saying, Love the Lord and love your neighbor? It should be pointed out, however, that Issachar's statement is not nearly as full as is Mark 12:29 31, and besides, that it is hard to determine how much in this writing, falsely ascribed to the twelve patriarchs, is original and how much is Christian interpolation. A stronger argument for the position that Jesus may not have been the first to combine these two Old Testament passages into one is found in Luke 10:27. But this does not necessarily imply that the combination of Deut. 6:5with Lev. 19:18originated with the lawyer there mentioned. There are those for example, C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, London, 1927, Vol. II, p. 464 who believe that the combination was apparently a commonplace, equally familiar to Christian and to Jew. That, too, cannot be proved. What is, however, far more important is that Jesus, not only by word but also by very deed, was the first to set forth the true meaning of perfect love toward God united with perfect love toward man. When two say the same thing, they may not actually be saying the same thing. What a vast contrast between the two speakers in Mark 12:30, 31and Luke 10:27! Yet, both say essentially the same thing. The context of these two passages indicates Christ's big-heartedness and the lawyer's small-mindedness. f. The second commandment resembles the first in this respect: both require love. Moreover, love toward the neighbor, who is God's image bearer, flows forth from love toward God (I John 4:20, 21; cf. Matt. 5:43; 7:12; 19:19). Conversely, the love which from the heart of God radiates toward his children, helps them to love their fellows (Ephesians 4:32 5:2). g. Love your neighbor as yourself. Man has been created with love for himself. That love for self should be the measure whereby he decides how to love his neighbor. This is a very practical precept, a rule of thumb. And that neighbor, moreover, is anyone who has been providentially placed in his path for sympathy and help. A person should really never ask, And who is my neighbor? Instead, be himself should be a true neighbor to those in need, even though they be his enemies. See Matt. 5:43–48; Luke 10:30 37. h. Jesus brings his answer to a climax by declaring, There is no other command greater than these. And why are these two commandments the greatest? First, faith and hope take, love gives. Faith appropriates the salvation that is in Christ. Hope accepts the promise of the future inheritance. Love, however, means self-giving, self-impartation. Secondly, all other virtues are included in love. See I Cor. 13. According to that chapter active, intelligent, voluntary love implies patience, kindness, and humility (verse 4), unselfishness (verse 5), faith and hope (vase 7). Thirdly, human love, in its noblest expression, is patterned after God, for God is love. The all-surpassing character of love is clearly taught in Scripture (Col. 3:14; I Peter 4:8; I John 3:14; 4:8). 32, 33. The scribe said to him, Right! Teacher, you have truthfully stated that he is one, and there is no other but he, Moreover, to love him with all your heart and with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself, means far more than all burnt-offerings and sacrifices. It was with delighted, unqualified approval that this scribe accepted the answer given by Jesus. The law-expert's reaction begins with an exclamation, Right! Teacher.& ^[590] For Right! one might substitute Excellent! or even Beautiful! For Teacher see on 12:14. It is clear that the words of Jesus had made a very deep impression upon this man, and that he is honest enough to admit it, even doing this with joy and enthusiasm. He adds that Jesus had spoken truthfully, and he then virtually repeats what the Master had just said. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIII Outline of Chapter 13 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do Christ's Discourse on The Last Things 13:1–4 The Occasion. The Temple's Destruction Foretold 13:5–13 The Beginning of Woes or Birth Pains 13:14–23 The Great Tribulation 13:24–27 The Coming of the Son of Man 13:28–31 The Lesson from the Fig Tree 13:32–37 The Necessity of Being Ready Always, in View of the Unknown Day and Hour of Christ's Coming 13:1–4 The Occasion. The Temple's Destruction Foretold Cf. Matt. 24:1–3; Luke 21:5 7 13 1 Now as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples remarked to him, Look, Teacher, what huge stones and what magnificent buildings! 2 Jesus said to him, Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down. 3 And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives facing the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were asking him privately, 4 Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished? It was with a word of commendation for a poor but generous widow that Jesus left the temple, probably late Tuesday afternoon. This may well have been his final departure, though in view of Luke 21:37we cannot be absolutely certain about this. In the company of his disciples Jesus started off for the Mount of Olives. The discourse on The Last Things which he delivered at this time is found in its most complete form in Matt. 24, 25.Matt. 24:1 35has a rather close parallel in Mark 13:1 31.Matt. 24:36parallels Mark 13:32, and even Matt. 24:37 44has something, though little, in common with Mark 13:33 37, as will be shown when we study the Marcan verses. The Lucan parallel of Matt. 24:1 35is found in 21:5–33 (or more loosely in 21:5–36). By comparing the six sections into which Mark 13can be divided (see the Outline of Chapter 13) with the ten sections of Matt. 24, 25see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 848, 849 it becomes clear that, by and large, Mark's six sections run parallel with the first six of Matthew's ten sections. When there are important variations these will be indicated in connection with the discussion of Mark's individual sections. 1. Now as he was going out of the temple, one of his disciples remarked to him, Look, Teacher, what huge stones and what magnificent buildings! One of the disciples, says Mark. Cf. Matthew's his disciples, and Lukes some, probably meaning some of his disciples. Discrepancy hunters can add these variations to their long lists of Gospel Contradictions. In reality there is more than one way of solving this little puzzle: a. One disciple Peter perhaps?, in his enthusiasm about the grandeur and beauty of the temple, may have been the first to burst into exuberance; others followed until all joined in; or b. the voice of the one may have been louder than that of the rest. Again, while according to Mark, the attention of Jesus was called to huge stones and magnificent buildings, and according to Matthew, to buildings, Luke mentions goodly stones and votive offerings, as the objects that gave rise to the disciples enthusiastic exclamations. Certainly all these objects of wonder must have been included. As to these huge stones and magnificent buildings that formed the temple complex, after what has already been said about these in connection with the explanation of 11:15 see The Description of the Temple nothing need be added. The reason why just at this particular moment these men were thinking of the temple may well have been that Jesus had just said, Behold, your house is left to you a deserted place (Matt. 23:38; cf. Luke 13:35). Though it is probable that the expression your house meant Jerusalem, its temple was certainly included. It is as if the disciples were saying, Is it true that also this glorious structure is going to be entirely deserted? In substance Jesus answers, Not only deserted but totally destroyed. 2. Jesus said to him, Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.^[613] The hyperbolic figure not one stone upon another spelled the totality of the predicted destruction. As to the fulfilment, when the Jews rebelled against the Romans, Jerusalem was taken by Titus, son of the emperor Vespasian (a.d. 69 79). The temple was destroyed. It is believed that more than a million Jews, who had crowded into the city, perished. As a political unit Israel ceased to exist. As a nation specially favored by the Lord it had reached the end of the road even long before the beginning of the Jewish War. An ex-combatant and eye-witness, Josephus, almost immediately after the struggle between the Jews and the Romans had ended, began to write his History of the Jewish War. On the whole his narrative may be described as trustworthy, although a definitely pro-Roman bias cannot be denied. Of the seven books into which this work is divided one should read especially books IV VI. A few excerpts from Josephus may illumine the fulfilment of (Mark 13:2Matt. 22:7; 24:2; Luke 21:6, 20 24), and thus also the passage itself: That building [the temple at Jerusalem], however, God long ago had sentenced to the flames; but now in the revolution of the time-periods the fateful day had arrived, the tenth of the month Lous, the very day on which previously it had been burned by the king of Babylon.& One of the soldiers, neither awaiting orders nor filled with horror of so dread an undertaking, but moved by some supernatural impulse, snatched a brand from the blazing timber and, hoisted up by one of his fellow soldiers, flung the fiery missile through a golden window.& When the flame rose, a scream, as poignant as the tragedy, went up from the Jews &now that the object which before they had guarded so closely was going to ruin (VI.250 253). While the sanctuary was burning &neither pity for age nor respect for rank was shown; on the contrary, children and old people, laity and priests alike were massacred (VI.271). The emperor ordered the entire city and sanctuary to be razed to the ground, except only the highest towers, Phasael, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and that part of the wall that enclosed the city on the west.& All the rest of the wall that surrounded the city was so completely razed to the ground as to leave future visitors to the spot no reason to believe that it had ever been inhabited (VII.1 3). In addition to Josephus see also the vivid description of The Revolt and its results, in T. Kollek and M. Pearlman, op. cit., pp. 125–135. 3, 4. And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives facing the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were asking him privately, Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished? The variety in the reporting is again clear. All three inform the reader that there were those who asked Jesus a question. They asked it privately, away from the crowd. Luke merely states, They asked, obviously referring to the disciples. Matthew has, The disciples came to him privately, saying [or: asking].& Mark mentions the very names of the disciples who took the lead in asking the question. They were the three Peter, James, and John who are seen together on more than one occasion (5:37; 9:2; 14:33), plus Andrew, Peter's brother (1:16), the one who had brought Peter (=Simon) to Christ (John 1:40 42). Also, Mark here as often is the most descriptive. He not only states, as does Matthew, that Jesus and his disciples were sitting on the Mount of Olives, but adds the little touch, facing the temple. Sitting there, we can imagine how, looking across the valley, a truly fascinating view disclosed itself to the eyes of the little company. There was the roof of the temple bathed in a sea of golden glory. There were those beautiful terraced courts and also those cloisters of snowy marble which seemed to shine and sparkle in the light of the setting sun. And then to think that all this glory was about to perish! The minds of the disciples reeled and staggered when they pondered that mysterious and awesome prediction. All this glory! Beautiful for elevation, the joy of the whole earth, is Mount Zion &the city of the Great King.& Walk about Zion, and go round about her: count her towers. Mark well her bulwarks. Consider her palaces (Ps. 48:2, 12, 13). This surely was true no less with respect to the greatly enlarged and lavishly adorned temple which King Herod I had started to build. See above, in connection with 11:15. Nor has there been, either in ancient or modern times, a sacred building equal to the temple, whether for situation or magnificence. ^[614] Rabbinic literature is not particularly favorable to Herod. Nevertheless, concerning Herod's temple it states, He who never saw Herod's edifice has never in his life seen a beautiful building. We can picture the disciples riveting their eyes on Jerusalem's pride, in deep silence and sorrow meditating on the words of doom spoken by Jesus. Finally that silence is broken by the four. Stepping up to Jesus they ask, Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished? In the light of the immediately preceding context here in Mark, the words, When will this happen&? would seem to refer to the destruction of city and temple, to that and to nothing else. Nevertheless, a second look at the phraseology note particularly all these things points to a broader, more comprehensive, meaning. Also, in his answer Jesus by no means limits himself to the events that were to occur about the year a.d. 70. See especially verses 6, 10, 21, 26, 27. His prophetic eyes scan the centuries that lie ahead, and he definitely includes his own glorious parousia (second coming) among the things predicted. All in all, therefore, it would seem best to regard the question as reported by Mark (Luke 21:7) to be an abbreviation of that which Matthew states more fully, namely, Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the age? One might perhaps say that Matthew, with Mark's wording before him, explains it by means of amplification. The very form in which, according to Matthew, the question is cast seems to indicate that, as these men (spokesmen for the rest of The Twelve) interpret the Master's words, Jerusalem's fall, particularly the destruction of the temple, would mean the end of the world. In this opinion they were partly mistaken, as Jesus is about to show. A lengthy period of time would intervene between Jerusalem's fall and the culmination of the age, the second coming. Nevertheless, the disciples were not entirely wrong: there was indeed a connection between the judgment to be executed upon the Jewish nation and the final judgment on the day of the consummation of all things. The first was a type, a foreshadowing or adumbration, of the second. With the prediction of the destruction of city and temple, especially the latter, and the immediately following question asked by the four disciples, the occasion or setting has been indicated for Christ's answer, that is, for his discourse on The Last Things. As to the disciples question about the sign, see on verses 14 and 26. 13:5–13 The Beginning of Woes or Birth Pains Cf. Matt. 10:17–22; 24:4–14; Luke 21:8 19 5 Jesus began to say^[615] to them, Take care that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, saying, I am he, and will mislead many. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not b e disturbed. (Such things) must happen, but (that is) not yet the end. 8 For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. But these things are (merely) the beginning of birth pains. 9 But be on your guard. They will hand you over to councils, and in synagogues you will be flogged. On my account you will have to appear before governors and kings, as a testimony to them. 10 And to all the nations the gospel must first be preached. 11 Whenever you are arrested and taken to trial, do not worry beforehand about what you should say. On the contrary, whatever is given you at that time, that you must say, for it is not you who are speaking but the Holy Spirit. 12 Brother will deliver up brother to death, (the) father (his) child, and children will rise up against (their) parents and will kill them. 13 And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But he that endures to the end, he will be saved. There is a close resemblance between this entire section and Luke 21:8 19. The main differences are: a. In addition to earthquakes and famines, as in Mark and Matthew, Luke mentions pestilences, terrors, and signs from heaven. Moreover, according to Luke's report, the signs and earthquakes are going to be great. Continuing Luke's additions (b., c., d.): b. Affliction awaits the disciples not only in synagogues but also in prisons. c. The adversaries will be unable to contradict God's persecuted children. d. Not a hair of their head will perish (Matt. 10:30). e. On the other hand, Luke has no parallel to Mark 13:10, nor to 13:13b. Addressing ourselves now to the first part of this section, that is, to verses 5 8 of Mark's thirteenth chapter, we notice that this passage and verses 4 8 of Matthew's twenty-fourth chapter are almost identical, and that Luke 21:8 11is a close parallel. 5 8. Jesus began to say^[616] to them, Take care that no one deceives^[617] you. Many will come in my name, saying, I am he, and will mislead many. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be disturbed.^[618] (Such things) must happen, but (that is) not yet the end. For nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes^[619] in various places; there will be famines, But these things are (merely) the beginning of birth pains. Jesus now proceeds to correct his disciples mistaken inference. He shows them that not everything that seems to be a sign of the end of the world is in reality such a sign. In other words, there are also signs which only in a very general sense are deserving of that name. Whenever these separate happenings are interpreted as being infallible indications that the end of the age is immediately in sight, they deserve the name mistaken signs. Thus, Jesus predicts the coming of those who will say, I am the Christ. They will mislead many. Those who persist in being misled show that they never belonged to Christ's true flock (I John 2:19; cf. I Cor. 11:19). There have always been deceivers and deceived. This also holds true with respect to wars and rumors of wars (13:7). When Jesus speaks these words, the Roman empire has been enjoying a long era of peace. But about four decades later political turmoil will upset the great realm from one end to the other, so that Rome will see four emperors in one year: Galba, Otho, Vitellus, and Vespasian. But these violent revolts and insurrections cannot by any stretch of the imagination constitute definite indications that the Lord will return immediately. This is evident at once when one considers the fact that wars and rumors of war did not cease with Jerusalem's fall, Throughout the centuries the prophecy attains fulfilment: nation will rise up in arms against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (verse 8a). One author counted three hundred wars in Europe during the last three hundred years. And these wars are increasing in intensity. It is perfectly clear that when any particular war is singled out as a help for date-fixers another mistaken sign has been produced. Jesus also speaks about earthquakes in various places and &famines (verse 8b). As was true with respect to other predicted events, so it is here. These disturbances in the physical realm are indeed foreshadowings and portrayals of that which, on a much more extensive and intensive scale, will take place in the realm of nature at the end of the age; but except in that very general sense they cannot be correctly termed signs. Not any single one of them could ever give anyone the right to make predictions with reference either to the date of Jerusalem's fall or to the time of the Parousia (Christ's second coming). It is true that during the period a.d. 60 80 famine, pestilence, fire, hurricane, and earthquake ravaged the empire, as Renan points out in l Antichrist. Vesuvius erupted violently in the summer of 79, destroying Pompeii and its surroundings. But, as is already clear from the preceding sentence, these catastrophes were not limited to the decade preceding the fall of Jerusalem in the year 70. Moreover, throughout the centuries there have been violent earthquakes. Ancient historians and philosophers such as Thucydides, Aristotle, Strabo, Seneca, Livy, and Pliny describe similar seismic phenomena in their days. And as early as the year 1668 Robert Hooke wrote his work bearing the title, Discourse on Earthquakes. A certain author counted no less than seven hundred disturbances of this nature, great and small, which had occurred in the nineteenth century! Famines, too, occur constantly. Now with respect to events such as these here described Jesus says in verse 8c, These things are (merely) the beginning of birth pains. They mark the beginning, says Jesus. They do not mark the end. Therefore, do not be alarmed. In spite of this clear warning which our Lord gave to his disciples, many present-day church members are filled with admiration for the minister or evangelist who speaks learnedly about The Signs of the Times, and strives to show his audience that this or that terrible battle, serious earthquake, or devastating famine on the basis of prophecy is the infallible sign of Christ's imminent return. To be sure, the events here indicated have significance. They are stepping stones leading to the final goal. By means of them the end of the age is both foreshadowed and brought closer, and God's eternal plan is being carried forward. Moreover, when we realize that toward the end of the present dispensation the indicated disturbances will occur together (Matt. 24:33), will probably be more numerous, extensive, and fearful than ever before (Luke 21:11, 25, 26), and are going to take place in connection with the great tribulation that will usher in the parousia, we may conclude that it would not be unreasonable to call the final outbreak of these terrors concurrent or accompanying signs. The paragraph Mark 13:9 13is paralleled in Matthew and Luke as follows: 9. But be on your guard. They will hand you over to councils, and in synagogues you will be flogged.^[620] On my account you will have to appear^[621] before governors and kings, as a testimony to them. Matt. 24:9a reads, Then you will be handed over to tribulation and you will be put to death. Matt. 10:17, 18, And beware of men, for they will hand you over to councils, and in their synagogues they will flog you. On my account you will be dragged before governors and kings for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. Arraignment before councils, synagogues, governors, and kings, such is going to be their lot. As to councils, these probably indicate the local Jewish courts, climaxed in the Sanhedrin. It was in the synagogue that those who by the court had been convicted of this or that definite crime were scourged. Jewish sources contain detailed regulations regarding such scourging. One judge would recite an appropriate passage from Deuteronomy or from the Psalms, a second would count the blows (Deut. 25:1–3), a third would issue a command before each blow, etc.^[622] From the book of Acts (22:19) we learn that Saul (=Paul) of Tarsus caused believers in Christ to receive this horrible punishment. After his conversion be himself was going to be similarly tortured. He was going to write, From the Jews five times I received forty lashes less one (II Cor. 11:24). It was the servant of the synagogue (Luke 4:20) who was charged with the responsibility of delivering the blows. As to governors, think of such procurators as Pontius Pilate, Felix, and Festus; as to kings, of Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:1) and of Agrippa II (Acts 25:13, 24, 26). Even Herod Antipas, who technically was not a king, is also given that title at times (Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:14). It was Pontius Pilate who sentenced Jesus to die on the cross, after he had sent him to king Herod Antipas (Mark 15:15; Luke 23:6 12). It was King Herod Agrippa I who killed James (son of Zebedee, and brother of the apostle John). See Acts 12:1. From Acts 25:13it appears that Paul was brought before King Agrippa II and the procurator Festus. He gave a wonderful testimony as he had also done previously before the procurator Felix. It is understandable that such testimonies were also given before other Gentiles, namely, those who were either present or subsequently heard what had been said. Cf. Phil. 1:12, 13; 4:22. Thus the good news would continue to spread. Thus, a. the initial fulfilment of this prophecy was a matter of the immediate future, as is clear from already existing conditions and attitudes; and b. details concerning its subsequent fulfilment are recorded in the book of Acts and in the epistles. See also Rev. 1:9; 2:8–11; 6:9–11; 12:6, 13 17; etc. What is all-important is the fact that Jesus says this will happen on my account. When anyone persecutes Christ's disciple he is persecuting Christ himself, a fact that was stamped so indelibly upon the mind and heart of Paul (and through him upon Luke's consciousness) that, however much the accounts of Paul's conversion may vary, the words, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? are found in all three (Acts 9:4, 5; 22:7, 8; 26:14, 15). That means that the persecuted one is never separated from Christ's love and from the strength and the comfort he imparts. 10. And to all the nations the gospel must first be preached. The parallel passage, Matt. 24:14, reads, And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then will come the end. The following points deserve special attention: a. The gospel indicates God's message of salvation by his grace through faith in Jesus Christ. For the special section on What is the Gospel? see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 81–85. b. All the nations, the whole world. In spite of (Matt. 10:5; 15:24which passages merely indicate that God intended to have the good tidings proclaimed first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles, it must be maintained that from the very beginning the Gentiles were included in the divine plan of redemption. Jesus knew this. He wanted it. His sympathies were certainly just as wide as those of the inspired authors of the Old Testament books. From the very beginning salvation was intended to be for all those who, by sovereign grace, placed their trust in him, whether Jew or Gentile. John 3:16, with its whosoever believes doctrine expresses this exactly. For the Old Testament see not only Ps. 72:8–11, 17; 87; 96:1–10; Isa. 42:1 7Matt. 12:15–21); 49:6–12; 52:10; 60:1–3, 6; but also Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 26:4; 28:14; to which many others could be added. c. must &be preached. Matt. 24:14 (stresses what was going to happen. In how far this prophecy has already been fulfilled, and also the extent to which it is still unfulfilled, has been described in N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 855, 856. Our present passage, Mark 13:10, emphasizes the must aspect of this truth. The world-wide proclamation of the gospel is a divine must. It must occur, for this is God's will, his decree from eternity. See Eph. 1:11; 2:11–22. That decree, moreover, includes the believers responsibility to see to it that, by strength and grace from above, God's will is carried out. Moreover, God has so commandedMatt. 28:18–20; Luke 24:47). Also, the world sorely needs this gospel (Acts 4:12; Rom. 1:16; 3:21–24; I Cor. 1:21–24). Add to this the fact that we have this gospel, and more and more we are coming into possession of the tools that enable us to proclaim it unprecedented progress in the knowledge of foreign languages and dialects; transportation and travel facilities beyond anything the world has ever known; the material means to provide missionaries, to care for them, house them, and to build chapels. We have the radio, television, and recording facilities. The time is now! To be sure, we are not able to look into hearts, but if lives mean anything, they seem to indicate that the gap between a. the curve showing those dying unsaved, and b. the curve, indicating those who during the same time period (week, month, year, decade) are being converted, is not narrowing but is adversely widening. This is a thought that should weigh very heavily upon the conscience of every believer. Finally, many doors are still open. They will not always remain open. See Matt. 24:21, 22, 29; Mark 13:19, 20; Rev. 11:7–10; 20:3, 7 9a; and cf. John 9:4. d. must first be preached. In view of verses 21, 26 and Matt. 24:3, 14, 30, this means: before Christ returns. e. must &be preached. See on 14:9. Even though the most bitter persecution of believers will not occur until just previous to the Lord's return, hard times are in store for his disciples even now. They should be mentally prepared for them. Despair, for example, in connection with the question how they should answer their tormentors, should never enter their hearts: 11. Whenever you are arrested and taken to trial, do not worry beforehand about what you should say. On the contrary, whatever is given you at that time, that you must say, for it is not you who are speaking but the Holy Spirit. How to conduct oneself before judges, including even governors and kings (see verse 9), how to address them, and what to say in defense, might well fill these men with apprehension and horror. Very strikingly Jesus says, Do not worry beforehand, in other words, Fight that habit. Continue to arm yourselves against it. Stop this tendency of being distracted, with your mind being drawn in opposite directions, from faith to fear, and from fear to faith. ^[623] The reason given is: the Holy Spirit will supply the necessary words, incontrovertible words of wisdom (Luke 21:14, 15). This does not mean that the mind of the persecuted apostle is a tabula rasa (blank tablet) and that then in some mechanical fashion God will suddenly begin to write words upon that blank space. On the contrary, neither when these witnesses are brought to trial nor when they write books or epistles will their personality be suppressed, or will the previous apostolic training which they received from Jesus be nullified. All this will be enlivened and sharpened and raised to a higher plane of activity. It is in the organic sense that what they must speak will be given to them in that hour. The Father's Spirit will be speaking in them, and that very Spirit, namely, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Holy Trinity, will remind them of everything that Jesus himself said to them (John 14:26). That Spirit was at work already long before Pentecost (Ps. 51:11). But on and after Pentecost he was going to be poured out in all his fulness. That this prophecy, too, was gloriously fulfilled is evident from the speeches of Peter, or Peter and JohnActs 4:8 12, 19, 20, with the effect upon the audience described in 4:13, 14 and from those of Paul (Acts 21:39 22:21; 23:1, 6; 24:10–21; 26:1–23). Confessing Jesus will create division even within the family circle: 12. Brother will deliver up brother to death, (the) father (his) child, and children will rise up against (their) parents and will kill them. True, this last clause can also be rendered, and cause them to be put to death. Basically, however, this makes little difference. The person who unjustly causes someone to be put to death is as guilty as if he had committed the act with his own hand. See II Sam. 11:15, cf. 12:9; I Kings 21:13, cf. verse 19; and Mark 6:27, cf. and turn back to verse 16. Jesus here predicts that the Christ-hating son is going to hand over his own brother to be put to death; the father his child; children their parents. History supplies numerous illustrations of the kind of fratricide, filicide, and parenticide here indicated. Because of basic religious differences, intra-family relationships were often far from ideal. Did not Cain slay his brother Abel (Gen. 4:8; Heb. 11:4)? The fact that children would at times in large numbers abandon (in the sense explained below; see on verse 13a) the faith of their fathers is implied in such passages as (Josh. 24:31; Mic. 7:6; Mal. 4:6. Conversely, the parents of a son, who was born blind and who with his vision restored accepted the Healer as his Lord, behaved in a cowardly manner. They refused to join their son in his frank and precious confession. They feared expulsion from the synagogueJohn 9). So sometimes it was a brother who was at fault, sometimes a father, sometimes a child. It is clear that at bottom the cleavage took place on account of Christ. See verse 9. The same fact is established by verse 13a. And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. The meaning is, You will continue to be hated.^[624] The form of the expression may well imply that Jesus was not thinking only of what would happen to The Twelve but also of the persecutions to be endured by their successors in future years, in fact until his return. See also John 16:33; II Cor. 4:8–10; I John 3:13. The expression hated by all must mean, by men in general, regardless of rank, station, race, nationality, sex, or age. Is not the same true also with respect to the use of all in Mark 1:37; 5:20; 11:32; Luke 3:15; John 3:26; I Tim. 2:1; and Titus 2:11? Because the world hates Christ it also hates his representatives. There is comfort, however, in the assurance, 13b. But he that endures to the end, he will be saved. He who remains loyal to Christ throughout the period of persecution will enter into glory. For himself this period of persecution will last until death delivers him from this earthly scene. For the church in general it will last until Christ's return in glory. Note this victorious ending. Moreover, the essence of this being saved is set forth beautifully in such passages as (Rev. 2:7, 17, 26, 27, 28; 3:5, 12, 20, 21; 7:9–17; 14:13; 21:1–7. In times of most bitter persecution by no means all covenant children would become untrue to the faith. In fact, not any of those who had been truly regenerated perish in unbeliefJohn 4:14; 10:28; Rom. 8:37–39; Phil. 1:6; I John 2:19). But in times of persecution many of those whose worship of God had been of a merely outward character would be quick to join the forces of the enemy, some of them even becoming informers against members of their own families. The truly regenerated were going to remain loyal to the very end. And those faithful until death would include boys and girls of tender years. Of the traditional ten persecutions (from Nero to Diocletian) the last one was also the most violent. Its aim was to terminate the church, to destroy it once for all. Appropriately it began with the festival of Terminalia, Feb. 23, a.d. 303. But even this supreme effort was in vain. Tertullian was right, Go on, rack, torture, grind us to powder: our numbers increase in proportion as you mow us down. The blood of Christians is their harvest seed. With Constantine remember in hoc signo vinces; i.e., in this sign you will conquer paganism, at least officially, met its doom, a.d. 312. Nothing, but nothing not even Hades can prevail against the church. That church is safe because it is what Christ calls my church. ^[625] 13:14–23 The Great Tribulation Cf. Matt. 24:15–25; Luke 21:20 24 14 Now when you see the desolating sacrilege, standing where he has no right to be let him who reads understand, then let those in Judea flee to the hills; 15 let him who (happens to be) on the housetop not go down or enter his house to get something out; 16 and let him who is in the field not go back to get his coat. 17 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who nurse babies in those days! 18 And pray that it may not occur in winter, 19 for those will be days of tribulation, such as there has never been since (the) beginning of (the) creation which God created, until now, and never again will be. 20 And unless the Lord had cut short those days, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he elected for himself, he shortened the days. 21 At that time if anyone should say to you, Look, here (is) the Christ! or Look, there (he is)! do not believe (him); 22 for false Christs will arise and false prophets, and will perform signs and miracles, so as to mislead, if possible, the elect. 23 But as to yourselves, be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time. As for the parallel passages, Luke 21:20 24has little to say on this subject. Nevertheless, what it does say contains points of special interest, items not or not as clearly found in Matthew and Mark. Jerusalem is going to be surrounded by armies (verse 20; cf. 19:43). Not only should those who are in Jerusalem get out, but also those in the country must not enter the city (verse 21). Predictions of punishment will be fulfilled (verse 22). Cf. Dan. 9:27b; Rom. 11:25b; I Thess. 2:16b. Similarly, the people will fall by the edge of the sword, and Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (verse 24). It is clear that according to Luke what Jesus was predicting spanned the entire new dispensation, reaching to its very end. Matthew's parallel (24:15–25) matches Mark's passage (13:14–23) almost exactly. The most important variations are as follows: a. While both mention the desolating sacrilege, and contain the words, let him who reads understand, Matthew adds which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet. Also Mark's rather obscure phrase standing where he ought not is clarified by Matthew's standing in the holy place. b. Instead of Mark's, And pray that it may not occur in winter, Matthew reads, Pray that your flight may not occur in winter or on the sabbath. c. Where Mark has, &so as to mislead, if possible, the elect, Matthew has so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. No doubt, this even is also implied in Mark. Up to this point Matthew in these few cases seems to express Christ's words somewhat more fully than does Mark. But now notice d. According to Matthew's report Jesus said, See, I have told you ahead of time. Mark presents this same idea in the more expanded form, But as to yourselves, be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time. Finally, e. Matthew continues for a few more verses (24:26–28) after Mark leaves off. For Matt. 24:26, 27see also Luke 17:23, 24, and with verse 28 cf. Luke 17:37. For the rest see N.T.C. on Matt. 24:26–28, pp. 861, 862. 14. Now when you see the desolating sacrilege, standing where he has no right to be let him who reads understand, then let those in Judea flee to the hills. The disciples had asked, Tell us, when will this happen, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished (verses 3, 4)? Jesus has already shown that many disturbances will occur (verses 5 9). These, however, do not mark the end. Instead, they are the beginning of birth pains. He has also predicted that a lengthy period of gospel proclamation will intervene before the day of his return (verse 10). He has warned his disciples to stand firm, even though the opposition against them should come from the members of their own families. He has assured them that at their trials the Holy Spirit will give them words to speak, and that, though hated by all for his name's sake, those who endure to the end will be saved (verses 11 13). The end will come at last. The end for what? For Jerusalem? For the world in general? One fact is clear: Christ's discourse is gradually bending towards its close. In verse 26, which belongs to the next section, there is mention of the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. The tribulation, described in verses 14 23 see especially verses 14 20, and mentioned again in verse 24, will pave the way for the Son of man's brilliant return.& Nevertheless, do not verses 14 18 describe what will happen in Judea? A parallel passageLuke 21:20, and cf. also verse 24 even speaks about Jerusalem surrounded by armies! How, then, must we interpret these words? Among theories that deserve consideration are the following: a. Verses 14 18 refer to the woes that were to befall Jerusalem and Judea, resulting in Jerusalem's fall, a.d. 70. The remainder of the passage (verses 19 23, at least verses 19, 20) describes the great tribulation that will immediately precede Christ's return. Objection. It is impossible thus to separate these verses. They are too closely connected for this manipulation. Proof: with reference to what has just been said in verses 14 18, verse 19 continues, for those will be days of tribulation such as there has never been since the beginning of creation &and never again will be. b. The entire section, verses 14 23, being a unit, describes Jerusalem's fall. It refers to that, to nothing else. Objection. In verse 19 the tribulation is described as has just been indicated. We know that what befell Jerusalem and Judea in a.d. 70 was indescribably horrible. Nevertheless, can it be truly maintained that it was more frightful than that which took place under Hitler, who ordered the extermination of an entire race, so that an estimated five or six million Jews were most cruelly murdered? Is it possible to forget Auschwitz, Mauthausen, and Dachau? Besides, the fact that the tribulation here referred to cannot exclusively point to a.d. 70 is clear from verses 24, 26, for the coming of the Son of man in clouds with great power and glory follows this tribulation; in fact, follows it immediately (Matt. 24:29). c. The entire section, verses 13 23, exclusively describes the great tribulation that will immediately precede Christ's return. It has nothing to do with Jerusalem's fall in the year a.d. 70. Objection. As already mentioned, (Mark 13:14Luke 21:20) clearly refers to the days of woe that were going to result in the fall of Jerusalem a.d. 70. It is impossible to interpret that verse and in fact all of verses 14 18 as if no reference is made to Judea's impending disaster. Now if, as we have seen, none of the aforementioned theories satisfies, what then? Answer: We are dealing here with prophetic passages. The only safe and sound way to interpret them is in line with other similar passages. Two or even more events are viewed as if they were one. The prophet whether Isaiah, Joel, Micah, Malachi &Jesus Christ views the future as a traveler beholds a distant mountain range. He sees one peak rising right behind another. And from where he stands, he describes the future exactly as he sees it. Yet, the closer one gets to the first peak, the greater the distance is seen to be between peak No. 1 and peak No. 2. Thus, for example, Messiah's first coming with good tidings and his second coming unto judgment are combined in Isa. 11:1 4and in 61:1, 2. So are also Pentecost and the great and terrible day of Jehovah, in Joel 2:28 31. For other illustrations of this prophetic foreshortening.^[626] study II Sam. 7:12–16; Mal. 3:1, 2. So also here, in Mark 13:14ff., (at least) two momentous events are intertwined: a. the judgment upon Jerusalem, leading to its fall in the year a.d. 70, and b. the tribulation climaxed by the final judgment at the close of the world's history. Our Lord predicts the city's approaching catastrophe as a type of the tribulation at the end of the new dispensation. Or, stating it differently, in describing the brief period of great tribulation at the close of history, ending with the final judgment, Jesus paints in colors borrowed from the clearly foreseen destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.^[627] It is not claimed that any exegete is able completely to untangle what is here intertwined, so as to indicate accurately for each individual passage exactly how much of its contents refers to Jerusalem's fall and how much to the final great tribulation. All that is claimed is that by following the rule here stated that of the recognition of prophetic foreshortening and closely related multiple fulfilment the passage is placed in its own prophetic category where it belongs, and is thus interpreted. We referred in the preceding paragraph to a twofold fulfilment: a. In a.d. 70 and b. just previous to Christ's return. But the traveler of the illustration may see more than two peaks. So it is also with the prophet. In our present passage there is reference first of all to what Daniel predicted when he spoke about the desolating sacrilege. It is called a sacrilege because it defames or pollutes what is holy. Because of this it renders desolate. See especially Dan. 11:31; 12:11. In accordance with that prophet's prediction Antiochus Epiphanes (175 164 b.c.), unaware that he was indeed fulfilling prophecy, and being thoroughly responsible for his own wicked deed, erected a pagan altar over the altar of burnt-offering, thus polluting the house of God and rendering it desolate and unusable. This had happened long ago. See I Macc. 1:54, 59. Nevertheless, Jesus says, Now when you see the desolating sacrilege. The implication is that a divine oracle may apply to more than one historical situation. The sacrilege that results in the desolation of city and temple takes place more than once in history. Let the man who reads Daniel's prophecy understand this! Just as in the past the holy places of the Lord had been desecrated, so it will happen again. And it did indeed take place when the Roman armies, with the image of the emperor on their standards, an image and an emperor worshiped by them^[628] laid siege to the city of Jerusalem (Luke 21:20). With respect to this second fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy other interpreters think of the attempt of emperor Caligula (Gaius Caesar) to have a statue of himself erected in the temple at Jerusalem. The contemplated desecration, which as a result of massive Jewish resistance was postponed by proconsul Petronius, was subsequently prevented by the assassination of the insane emperor (January of the year a.d. 41).^[629] But to see in this episode a further fulfilment of Daniel's prophecy, and to conclude that Jesus was thinking of that mad emperor's plan, is probably wrong; for, a. both Daniel and Jesus predict actual events, not threats that were never carried out; and b. Jesus has in mind a personal agent standing where he has no right to be, ^[630] not just a statue. But just as the pagan altar and the swine offered upon it in the very temple of Jehovah in the second century b.c. pointed forward to the idolatrous legions of Rome, so these in turn foreshadowed the final anti-christ's desecration of all that is sacred. It is for this reason that in verses 24 26 Jesus is able to say, But in those days, after [Matthew immediately after ] that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light.& And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. With respect, then, to the second fulfilment of this prophecy, namely, in the days just previous to Jerusalem's fall, Jesus warns his followers that when the Roman armies are arriving, his followers in Judea should flee to the hills. By all means they must not try to enter Jerusalem. Those in the country must not try to enter the city (Luke 21:21). When the time of bitter trial arrived, what actually happened? The Jews in general did the very opposite: they rushed into the city. This resulted in a terrible blood bath. But did Christ's followers heed his exhortation to flee to the hills? According to many commentators they did, and finally found refuge in Perean Pella. But this is a theory for which there is no undisputed historical evidence. For more on this see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 858. Let us hope that many believers obeyed their Lord's kind and urgent warning, which continues as follows: 15, 16. Let him who (happens to be) on the housetop not go down or enter his house to get something out; and let him who is in the field not go back to get his coat. The man who is on the flat roof, from which by an outside ladder he is able to descend in order as quickly as possible to flee to the hills, must not, after descending, go into the house to recover any of his goods. Similarly, the laborer, dressed only in his tunic, and thus working in the field, must not go back from the field into his house to get his coat, but should immediately take off for the hills. Delay, in either case, might mean being captured, turned back, or perhaps even being killed. The sympathetic heart of our Lord, revealed on so many previous occasions as recorded in this Gospel (1:41; 2:15, 17; 5:34, 41 43; 6:50; 8:2, 3; 10:13–16, 21) is deeply affected by two additional considerations: a. the plight of women (verse 17), and b. travel difficulties during winter (verse 18). 17. But woe to those who are pregnant^[631] and to those who nurse babies^[632] in those days! It is a well-known fact that even though woman, having been created last of all, has been called the crown of God's creation, she has by no means always received the consideration due to her. Boris Pasternak, in his famous Doctor Zhivago^[633] represents one of that novel's characters as affirming that a wife is of no greater significance than a flea or a louse! Read also S. M. Zwemer's book, Across The World of Islam.^[634] It may be objected, however, that conditions are changing, and that much has happened not only in Turkey but also elsewhere favorably affecting the status of women. After all, Zwemer's book was written a long time ago. Accordingly, we would direct the readers attention also to the much more recent study by W. C. Smith, Islam in Modern History.^[635] The author, in a most interesting, penetrating, and thought-provoking manner, discusses some of the changes in the Muslim world. Could it be that Christianity is one of the factors that must be given credit for these positive developments? On pp. 303, 304 Smith gives his answer. He also has something to say about what he considers the essence of the spiritual welfare of the Muslims, p. 305. But is not the only real solution the turning of these people, and of all others, to Christ and salvation in him? See John 14:6; Acts 4:12. Is it not through him alone that a woman attains her true dignity? See Eph. 5:22–23. At a time when women in general were underrated by many, and even despised by some, it was Jesus who showed special kindness to widows (Mark 12:40 44; Luke 7:11 17; 18:1–8; 20:47 21:4); to women who were, or had been, living in sin (Luke 7:36 50; John 4:1 30); and even at the time of his final agony, to his own mother (John 19:26, 27). It is to him not to modified Islam, or to this or that extremist movement that also the women of today should turn for direction, help, and comfort. In the present passage the Lord reveals his sympathy for women who during times of great political and social distress are pregnant or are nursing babies. What a vast difference between Menahem and the Messiah! The former was the cruel monster who, after seizing Israel's vacant throne, razed a city that refused to acknowledge him as the new ruler, and ripped open all its pregnant women (II Kings 15:16; cf. 8:12; and Amos 1:13). If anyone should maintain that this happened in barbarous times, and that surely in the enlightened 19th and 20th centuries everybody at least in Europe and America has been and is treating women kindly, he should read Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee.^[636] Continued: 18. And pray that it may not occur in winter.& ^[637] Winter is the stormy, the bad weather season. Even snow cannot be entirely ruled out. So Jesus admonished his disciples to pray that it namely your flight (Matt. 24:20) may not occur at that time.^[638] They must pray in fact, must keep on praying for a favorable weather situation. But are not weather conditions brought about by the laws of nature? Answer: These so-called laws, being scientific descriptions of that which happens, or generally happens, in the realm of nature, must not be thought of as independent forces. On the contrary, it is God who is and remains in full control. By and large, man is unable to change nature's ways. In fact, even the predictions of the experts are not always reliable. Though weather forecasting has made progress for which we should be thankful, the following is a true account. Recently, for the Boston area all forecasters predicted the worst snowstorm of the season for the next morning. So, school classes were canceled, snowplows readied. And then? &Not even one tiny snowflake appeared!^[639] On the other hand, Elijah prayed, and the rains were withheld. He prayed again, with the result that the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit (I Kings 17:1; 18:1; James 5:17, 18). From what immediately follows it is evident once again that for Jesus the transition from the second to the third application of Daniel's prediction, without ever forgetting the second, was as easy as that from the first (the tribulation during the days of Antiochus Epiphanes) to the second (the distress in connection with the fall of Jerusalem): 19, 20 &for those will be days of tribulation, such as there has never been since (the) beginning of (the) creation which God created, until now, and never again will be.^[640] And unless the Lord had cut short those days, no one would be saved.^[641] But for the sake of the elect, whom he elected for himself,^[642] he shortened the days. For the sake of his chosen ones see N.T.C. on Eph. 1:4, in order that not all might have to die a violent death, the Lord decided to cut short the days of the final tribulation. As to tribulation, or, according to Matthew, the great tribulation, to which Jesus here refers, care should be exercised. (Rev. 7:14also speaks about the great tribulation. Are these two the same? The answer is: they are not. As the context in Rev. 7indicates, the word is used there in a far more general sense. Because of his faith every genuine child of God experiences tribulation during his life on earth. See John 16:33; cf. Rom. 8:18; II Cor. 4:17; II Tim. 3:12. But in Mark 13:19, 20Matt. 24:21, 22) Jesus is speaking about a tribulation that will characterize those days, a definite period of dire distress, of short duration, that will occur immediately before his return (Matt. 24:29–31). It is the brief period or little season mentioned also in Rev. 20:3b, 7 9a; cf. 11:7–9. It should hardly be necessary to add that justice is not done to the concept of this tribulation, one that immediately precedes the close of the world's history and surpasses any other distress in its intensity, if it is referred solely to the sorrows experienced during the fall of Jerusalem. With due regard for Vincent Taylor's Commentary, which in many respects is excellent, I must dissent from his view (op. cit., p. 515) that verse 20 is not necessarily an authentic saying, one actually uttered by Jesus. He speaks of apocalyptic speculation, foreign to Christ's teaching. Objections: a. The idea of the shortening of the time is found not only in such uncanonical literature as Hen. 80:2; IV Ezra 4:26; Apoc. Abr. 29:4; Apoc. Bar. 20:1 (see also S.BK.I, p. 953), but also in Dan. 12:7. While the figure 7 expresses fulness, 3½ indicates the halving, hence shortening, of this fulness. Entirely in line with this is Ps. 30:5: For his anger lasts but a moment; His favor for a lifetime; Weeping may tarry for the night, But in the morning there is a joyful song. This is by no means all. The idea that with respect to those whom he has chosen that is the context here in Mark 13:20! and for their sake, periods of tribulation do not last long but are shortened, is firmly fixed in the Old Testament. In addition to the passages already given see also Ps. 103:9; Isa. 26:20; 54:7, 8. b. Since Mark's chapter 13 and its parallels contain almost all of the strictly apocalyptic teaching of our Lord that is recorded in the New Testament, comparison with his other teaching e.g., Sermon on the Mount, which contains very little material of this nature, seems hardly fair. On the basis of non-apocalyptical or non-eschatological discourses and sayings of Jesus to draw the conclusion that Mark 13:20is not necessarily an authentic saying is unwarranted. c. As Taylor himself admits, the Semitic character of verses 19 and 20 is unmistakable.^[643] This tallies with the fact that Jesus, who addressed his disciples in Aramaic, a widely spoken Semitic tongue, may well have used this kind of language. Deserving special study are the words (the) creation which God created (verse 19), and the elect whom he elected for himself (verse 20). Such repetition of cognates has been called pleonastic, redundant, tautological. Sometimes one is given the impression that such a repetition is Mark's poor style, which Matthew corrects. The fact is, however, that the modifiers really add something in fact, something of significance to the words they modify. So, for example, even today many speak flippantly about the whole creation, but persist in denying that God created it! The phrase the elect is also found in their conversation and in their literature, but often as a term of derision. These same people would scornfully reject the very suggestion that God actually chose anyone for himself from all eternity. Mark's words, accordingly, are those of a thoroughly inspired writer. Neither his nor any other Gospel writer's mode of expression is in need of correction. The Gospels present a true and interestingly varied account of Christ's teaching as, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it was reflected in the consciousness of each evangelist. Continued: 21, 22. At that time if anyone should say to you, Look, here (is) the Christ! or Look, there (he is)! do not believe (him); for false Christs will arise and false prophets, and will perform signs and miracles, so as to mislead, if possible, the elect.^[644] Clearly, the word then or at that time links this passage with the preceding (see verses 19, 20), that is, with the most severe tribulation of all, an affliction foreshadowed, to be sure, by the bitter trial that resulted in Jerusalem's fall, but going beyond that, as the connection between verses 21 23 and 24 27 clearly shows. That there were false prophets at the time of Jerusalem's fall is clear from Josephus, Jewish Wars VI.285 288.^[645] Far more obvious, however, is the fact that in the final analysis Jesus is here referring to what will happen during the bitter days that are going to precede his return. Then especially there will be those who claim that the Christ has already arrived. Excitedly they will even point to the place where presumably he has landed. The pseudo-prophet will say that this or that other person is the Christ. The pseudo-Christ will say that he himself is the Christ. By means of a mighty display of a. signs supernatural feats that point away from the performer to the enabler, and b. wonders, miracles, or marvels the same astonishing performances viewed now from the aspect of their effect upon spectators, these deceivers will try to mislead, if possible, the elect; yes even (Matt. 24:24) them! The implication is that to successfully mislead God's elect, so that until the day of their death they would permit themselves to resemble wandering stars, is impossible. See N.T.C. on Phil. 1:6. The comforting words, 23. But as to yourselves, be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time^[646] (Matt. 24:25), remind one of Christ's similar sayings in John 13:19; 14:29; 16:4. It is for the third time that Jesus now utters the words, Be on your guard or Take care (see also verses 5 and 9). This warning was indeed very appropriate, for: a. even though it is true that the predictions span the entire dispensation, including even the tribulation immediately preceding the return, the preliminary fulfilment takes place during the lives of the apostles. b. Jesus knew that his words would be repeated to later generations. Cf. John 10:16; 17:20. It is incorrect, on the basis of 13:3, to limit yourselves to Peter, James, John, and Andrew. The broader reference (Matt. 24:1, 3) must also be borne in mind. Lovingly the Master provides for his disciples. When fiery trial arrives they must never be able to say, How strange and unexpected! Why did not the Lord prepare us for this? Why did he not warn us? Having been forewarned, the disciples will not be unduly disturbed when the prediction attains preliminary fulfilment. In fact, their faith in Jesus will then be strengthened. Was there ever kinder Shepherd? 13:24–27 The Coming of the Son of Man Cf. Matt. 24:29–31; Luke 21:25 28 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, The sun will be darkened, And the moon will not give her light, 25 And the stars will be falling from the sky, And the powers (that are) in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send forth his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from farthest reach of earth to farthest reach of heaven.^[647] Between the Matthean and the Marcan account there is a close resemblance. The main differences are as follows: a. Instead of Mark's And then they will see the Son of man, Matthew, he alone, mentions the sign of the Son of man. b. Matthew has retained Christ's remark, All the tribes of the earth will mourn. c. Matthew also shows that according to Christ's teaching the glorious return will not only be visible but also audible: with a loud trumpet blast. Luke's account, sometimes more closely resembling Mark's than Matthew's, sometimes vice versa, speaks about signs in sun, moon, and stars, and, in general, emphasizes the effect which the Son of man's arrival has upon the inhabitants of the earth: the distress of nations, the fear and perplexity of men because of the things that are happening, including the roaring of the sea and its billows and the shaking of the heavenly spheres. He climaxes his account by reporting the Master's very encouraging and comforting closing exhortation (21:28). What now follows, here in (Mark 13:24 27, is deeply rooted in Old Testament prophecy. It must be interpreted in the light of that literary genre. This means that an extremely literal interpretation must be avoided. Until this prophetic picture becomes history we will probably not know how much must be taken literally, how much figuratively. That at least some of it must be interpreted literally follows from II Peter 3:10. There will indeed be a new heaven and a new earthII Peter 3:13; Rev. 21:1). However, since the prophetic background has been indicated in some detail in N.T.C. on Matthew, and since, as already shown, the two accounts (Matt. 24:29 31and Mark 13:24 27) resemble each other very closely, I here refer the reader to p. 862 of that volume. What Mark offers in these verses can be viewed under the following headings: 1. Apocalyptic Disturbances in Celestial Spheres (verses 24, 25); 2. Arrival of the Son of Man as Deliverer (verse 26); and 3. Assembling of the Scattered Elect (verse 27). 1. Apocalyptic Disturbances in Celestial Spheres 24, 25. But^[648] in those days, after that tribulation, The sun will be darkened, And the moon will not give her light And the stars will be falling from the sky, And the powers (that are) in the heavens will be shaken. The picture is very vivid, in Mark even somewhat more so than in Matthew. Note Matt. 24:29, And the stars will fall from the sky, contrasted with Mark 13:25, And the stars will be falling from the sky. ^[649] One can picture them falling one by one. First, then, we must go back for a moment to the very last day of the fierce distress or tribulation. While the earth is drenched with the blood of the saints, all at once the sun becomes darkened. Cf. Rev. 6:12. Naturally the moon now also ceases to shed her light. The stars deviate from their orbits and race to their doom. Probably summarizing all this, the account continues, And the powers (that are) in the heavens will be shaken. 2. Arrival of the Son of Man as Deliverer 26. And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. This they must mean all mankind, cf. (Rev. 1:7. As was pointed out above, Matt. 24:30states, And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky, but both Mark and Luke leave out the word sign. They simply represent Jesus as declaring that men will see the Son of man coming majestically. Probable solution: the very appearance of the Son of man upon clouds of glory is itself the sign, the one great, final sign from the point of view of the earth. Christ's brilliant self-manifestation will be the sign or signal that he is about to go forth to meet his people, while they ascend to meet him in the air. He comes to deliver the oppressed elect peopleLuke 21:28). In fact, he will gather all the elect both the survivors and those who had previously fallen asleep to himself, to be with him forever. This appearance of the Son of man in majesty is a sign in still another respect: the glorious manner of his appearance corresponds exactly with the prediction of (Dan. 7:13, 14; cf. Mark 14:62. For the significance of clouds see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 667. The glory that marks the Son of man's sudden and brilliant manifestation is a definite proof of the Father's delight in his Son and of the justice of the cause of him who was once a man of sorrows and acquainted with griefIsa. 53:3). Note the Son of man, see on Mark 2:10; and note also with great power and glory. That power is evident from what happens at his coming: see verses 24, 25, 27; add Rev. 14:14–16; also 20:11Rev. 3:21; 5:7, 8, it is impossible to remove the Son from this throne . And glory, for at his coming all his attributes power, wisdom, holiness, love, etc. shine forth brilliantly. This great power and glory is enhanced by what is stated in the next verse: 3. Assembly of the Scattered Eject This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XIV Outline of Chapter 14 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 14:1, 2 God's Counsel versus Man's Collusion 14:3–9 The Anointing at Bethany 14:10, 11 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests 14:12–21 The Passover 14:22–26 The Institution of the Lord's Supper 14:27–31 Peter's Denial Foretold 14:32–42 Gethsamane 14:43–50 The Betrayal and the Seizure of Jesus 14:51, 52 The Young Man Who Escaped 14:53–65 The Trial before the Sanhedrin 14:66–72 Peter's Threefold Denial 14:1, 2 God's Counsel versus Man's Collusion Cf. Matt. 26:1–5; Luke 22:1, 2; John 11:45 53 14 1 Now the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread was two days off, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to take Jesus into custody by some trick, and kill him; 2 for they were saying, Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people. For the reader who may have experienced some difficulty in remembering which chapters in Matthew and in Luke parallel those in Mark it will be a relief to discover that for the last three chapters of each of these Gospels the answer is simple. Where there are corresponding sections, the events recorded in Mark 14are paralleled in Matt. 26and in Luke 22; for those found in Mark 15see Matt. 27and Luke 23; and for those narrated in Mark 16study Matt. 28and Luke 24. For these three chapters, in each case of correspondence Mark's figure plus 12 is Matthew's figure, and Mark's figure plus 8 is Luke's figure. Cf. N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 12–16, 28 30. In the middle of Mark 14and parallels is Gethsemane; the heart and center of Mark 15and parallels is Calvary (or Golgotha); and the main theme of Mark 16and parallels is He is risen. The result is as follows: Mark Matthew Luke Gethsemane 14 26 22 Calvary 15 27 23 He is risen 16 28 24 Even when we compare the contents of these chapters as a whole we discover remarkable similarity amid pleasing variety. This is true first of all with respect to Mark 14and 15 and parallels. Note chart on page 550. As to the closing chapter of each of the Synoptics, the story about the women at the empty tomb is found in Mark 16:1 8; Matt. 28:1–10; and Luke 24:1 12. Cf. John 20:1 10. Also, according to the sixth verse of each Synoptic account these women, who had come to anoint the body of Jesus, are reported to have heard the startling news, He is risen. Parallels of Mark 14, 15 Mark Matthew Luke John, etc. 14:1, 2 26:1–5 22:1, 2 John 11:45–53 God's Counsel versus Man's Collusion 14:3–9 26:6–13 John 12:1 8The Anointing at Bethany 14:10, 11 26:14–16 22:3–6 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests 14:12–21 26:17–25 22:7–14, 21 23 John 13:21 30 The Passover 14:22–26 26:26–30 22:15–20 I Cor. 11:23 25The Institution of the Lord's Supper 22:24–30 The Dispute about Greatness 14:27–31 26:31–35 22:31–34 John 13:36 38Peter's Denial Foretold 22:35–38 Did you lack anything? 14:32–42 26:36–46 22:39–46 Gethsemane 14:43–50 26:47–56 22:47–53 John 18:3 12The Betrayal and the Seizure of Jesus 14:51, 52 The Young Man Who Escaped 14:53–65 26:57–68 22:54, 55, 63 71 John 18:13, 14, 19 24 The Trial before the Sanhedrin 14:66–72 26:69–75 22:56–72 John 18:15 28, 25 27 Peter's Threefold Denial 15:1 27:1, 2 23:1, 2 John 18:28 The Sanhedrin's Decision to Put Jesus to Death 27:3–10 Acts 1:18, 19Judas Death by Suicide 15:2–5 27:11–14 23:3–5 John 18:33 38Jesus Questioned by Pilate 15:6–15 27:15–26 23:13–25 John 18:39 19:16Jesus Sentenced to Die 15:16–20 27:27–31 John 19:2, 3The Mockery 15:21–32 27:32–44 23:26–43 John 19:19 27 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus 15:33–41 27:45–56 23:44–49 John 19:28 30Calvary: The Death of Jesus 15:42–47 27:57–61 23:50–56 John 19:38 42The Burial of Jesus 27:62–66 The Guard Stationed From that point on the accounts diverge. Mark's disputed section (16:9–20) summarizes events reported elsewhere in greater detail and also contains some unparalleled material. It requires separate discussion at the proper place. Matthew 28continues his unparalleled story about The Guard (now Frightened and finally Bribed). See verses 2 4, 11 15. He ends with the climactic and only partially paralleled description of The Great Claim; The Great Commission; and The Great Comfort (verses 16 20). Cf. Mark 16:14 18; Luke 24:36 49; John 20:19 23; Acts 1:9 11. The report of The Appearance of the Risen Savior to Cleopas and his Companion, a narrative peculiar to Luke (Mark 16:12, 13), covers 23 verses of that evangelist's final chapter (24:13–35). With the story of Christ's Appearance to the Disciples in JerusalemMark 16:14; John 20:19ff. and that of his Ascension (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9 12) the beloved physician closes the first of his two New Testament books. When the Marcan captions for all three chapters are reviewed a few times, they are easily commited to memory. Once Mark's sequence has been mastered, the corresponding parallels in Matthew and Luke when there are such parallels are also quickly located. The formula Mark's figure plus 12 = Matthew's figure, or plus 8 = Luke's figure holds throughout the three final chapters. A blank space in any column indicates that a particular section does not occur in the Synoptic Gospel mentioned by name above that column. Take, as an example, Mark 14:51, 52. Here both Matthew's column and Luke's have a blank space, indicating that the story about The Young Man Who Escaped is found only in Mark. A look at the columns indicates that as far as the Gospels are concerned it is Matthew alone who reports Judas Death by Suicide. As already mentioned, it is also the converted publican alone who tells the fascinating story of The Guard. The Anointing at Bethany is in the Synoptics reported only by Mark and Matthew. There is, however, a parallel in John 12:1 8. The Mark-Matthew parallel holds also for The Mockery, again with what by many is considered a corresponding passage in John. There are no non-Marcan sections common to Matthew and Luke.^[669] The last three chapters of the Gospel according to Luke contain many unparalleled (or nearly unparalleled) sections: The Dispute about Greatness, Did you lack anything?, Jesus before Herod, the Appearance of the Risen Savior to Cleopas and his Companion (Mark 16:12 13), and The Ascension (Mark 16:19; Acts 1:9 12). Even the section on Christ's Appearance to the Disciples in Jerusalem (Luke 24:36 49) is to a large extent unparalleled. The fourth column contains several references to John's Gospel. However, the only Johannine sections indicated are those which, to some extent, parallel material that is found in the final three chapters of the Synoptics. As for the beloved disciple's own full report read John 13 21 (even better chapters 11 21). Since in the fourth Gospel chapters 14 17 cover the Upper Room Discourses and the Highpriestly Prayer, topics absent from the Synoptics, none of the indicated parallel references in the fourth column are to these chapters, but all are to John 11, 12, 13, 19, and 20. The narrative found in John 21is unparalleled. The Outline of John's Gospel is very simple. There are two main divisions: a. Christ's Public Ministry (chapters 1 12) and b. His Private Ministry (chapters 13 21). For the rest, see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 66, and Vol. II, pp. 134, 218, 260, 374, 446. All this does not mean that once we are acquainted with the sequence in which the sections occur in these final chapters of each Gospel, we will then be able immediately to locate any and every important passage. There is wide variety even within the individual sections. Constant reading of Scripture is necessary. Constant review not only of the section headings but also of the detailed contents of each section will be a great help. If this is done, one will, for example, soon get to know that The Seven Words of the Cross are distributed as follows: First Word, Luke 23:34^[670] Second Word, Luke 23:43 Third Word, John 19:26, 27 Fourth Word, Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34 Fifth Word, John 19:28 Sixth Word, John 19:30 Seventh Word, Luke 23:46 Returning, then, to Mark 14:1, 2and its parallels, we notice the following variations in reporting: a. In a manner characteristic of him (Matt. 19:1) Matthew reports that the incident about to be narrated occurred when Jesus had finished all these words. b. The time indication which in Mark and Luke proceeds from the evangelist himself, is by Matthew ascribed to Jesus: He said to his disciples, You know that after two days the Passover is held; then the Son of man is handed over to be crucified. c. Mark speaks of the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread, Matthew of the Passover, Luke of the feast of Unleavened Bread &which is called the Passover. d. Matthew, he alone, represents Jesus as declaring that at this Passover the Son of man is handed over to be crucified. Though that evangelist alone reports this, it is the background for all three accounts. e. Though all three state that at this time two days before Passover Jesus enemies were plotting his death, but were afraid of the people, Mark and Matthew add that the reason for this fear was that an arrest during the feast might cause the people to riot. f. These same two Gospel writers, but not Luke, describe the plotters as planning to arrest Jesus by some trick, and not at the Festival. g. It is Matthew alone who mentions the fact that for the purpose of planning how to bring about the death of Jesus the plotters held a special meeting in the palace of Caiaphas the highpriest. h. According to Matthew the plotters were the chief priests and the elders of the people; according to Mark and Luke they were the chief priests and the scribes. This shows that the entire Sanhedrin chief priests, elders, and scribes was represented; probably also, that the chief priests took the lead. It is in the light of all this that Mark 14:1, 2must be interpreted. 1. Now the feast of the Passover and the Unleavened Bread was two days off, and the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how to take Jesus into custody by some trick, and kill him.& Note the following: a. A reasonable assumption is that Jesus was crucified in the year a.d. 30, when the fourteenth day of Nisan fell on Thursday, and the fifteenth on Friday. In Israel the first appearance of the new moon marked the beginning of the new month. It was marked by the blowing of trumpets, sacrifices, celebrations, suspension of ordinary business, and wherever necessary by signal fires (Num. 10:10; 28:11–14; Ps. 81:3–5; Amos 8:5, 6). The important days of the month for example, the tenth of the month Nisan, when the Passover lamb was selected, the killing of the lamb on the fourteenth, etc. were figured from this first day, or day of the new moon, as a base. See the detailed regulations in Exod. 12:1–14; cf. Esther 3:7. There is no good reason to believe that Jesus and his disciples ate the lamb and celebrated Passover either earlier or later than on the appointed day. The fourteenth of Nisan was the day when the lamb had to be sacrificed (Luke 22:7). It is also clear that immediately after the eating of the lamb and the institution of what has come to be known as the Lord's Supper Jesus and his disciples (John 13:30) went to Gethsemane (Mark 14:32; John 18:1). Here, during what we would call the night from Thursday to Friday Jesus was taken into custody. Early Friday morning the Sanhedrin took counsel against Jesus to put him to death (Matt. 27:1). He was led to Pilate that same morning and crucified that same day (Mark 15:1, 25). It is clear, therefore, that Jesus was crucified on Friday, the day before the sabbath (Mark 15:42, 43; Luke 23:46, 54; John 19:14, 30, 42). It was early in the morning of the day after the sabbath hence on Sunday, the first day of the week that some women went to the tomb and heard the startling news, He is risen (Matt. 28:1, 6; Mark 16:2, 6; Luke 24:1, 6; John 20:1). It should be clear, therefore, that the theory according to which Jesus was crucified on Thursday is opposed by the evidence of the Gospels.^[671] The day on which the lamb was killed was followed by the seven day feast of the Unleavened Bread.^[672] celebrated from the fifteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan. So close was the connection between the Passover meal proper and the immediately following Festival of the Unleavened Bread that the term Passover is sometimes used to cover both (Luke 22:1). Since the feast of the Passover etc. was two days off, it must have been Tuesday when Christ's enemies held their meeting for the purpose of plotting how to bring about the arrest and death of Jesus. b. The plotters were the chief priests and the scribes; according to Matthew, also the elders of the people. For a description of the three groups see on 11:27, 28. But is not this shocking? A dirty plot devised by Israel's leaders? By priests, scribes, and elders? Yes, indeed! The church, too, has had many leaders. Some were good. They remind one of Joshua the highpriest, worthy bearer of a double crown, a type of Christ (Zech. 6:9–13). They were scribes trained for the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 13:52), elders who ruled well (I Tim. 5:17). But there were and are also others, genuine plotters, prophets who make my people err (Mic. 3:5), corrupt elders perpetrating evil in the dark (Ezek. 8:5–13). When corruption invades a church, the process generally starts at the top. No politics is as rotten as church politics. c. These enemies were seeking how to take Jesus into custody by some trick, ^[673] that is, as the context indicates, by surprise and away from the crowds. d. &and kill him. The plan to kill Jesus was not new. It was of long standing (Mark 3:6; 12:7; John 5:18; 7:1, 19, 25; 8:37, 40; 11:53). We may well believe, however, that due to events of recent days the leaders were now more determined than ever to destroy Jesus. Their envy had been increased by the raising of Lazarus from the dead, causing many people to believe in Jesus (John 11:45 53), by the triumphal entry's effects upon the crowds (Mark 11:1 11), by the cleansing of the temple (11:15–18, 27, 28), by parables which the leaders knew were aimed against them (12:12), and by the woes pronounced against the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 23). Moreover, the expression how &to kill him stresses the fact that what bothered these leaders was especially this, that though they very passionately desired to destroy Jesus they did not know how to do this without creating more trouble for themselves. This becomes even more clear from verse 2. for they were saying, Not during the feast, lest there be^[674] an uproar among the people. The plotters realized that Jesus had many friends and adherents, especially among the thousands of Galileans attending the festivities. In case of any action against their Leader these followers might cause trouble. Significant in this connection is (John 12:17 19. Bitterly Christ's enemies had complained, Look, the world has gone after him! The chief priests, scribes, and elders were not at all desirous of having to cope with an enthusiastic, hostile, determined, rioting Passover crowd. Were the hosanna shoutsMark 11:9, 10) still ringing in the ears of the plotters? They are going to wait patiently until the people have returned to their homes. Then, when all is safe, they will kill Jesus! They will do it at their convenience.& So they thought. But it did not turn out that way. The true significance of the present passage is not understood unless it is read in connection with its parallel, Matt. 26:1–5. Cf. Rev. 12:1–5, 10. It is only on the background of God's decree that its meaning becomes clear. Not at the Festival, said the plotters. At the Festival, said the Almighty. That was the divine decree, for which see also Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Eph. 1:11. That decree always triumphs. Illustrations: a. Did it seem as if with the fall of man Satan had won the victory? Note the mother of all promises (Gen. 3:15). b. I will smite David even to the wall, said Saul (I Sam. 18:11). But God's decree concerning David, with whom the Messianic promises were bound up, was different (I Sam. 16:12, 13; 25:29; II Sam. 7:16). c. The combined forces of wickedness were arrayed against Judah. Their purpose was to blot out the house of David and to establish their own king. There follows the triumphant Isa. 7:14! d. At Haman's request an order was issued for the destruction of all the Jews, It was one of those unchangeable (?) decrees. It was sealed with the king's ring. But the Lord's promise, according to which Messiah was to be born from the Jews, had been sealed with the oath of the King of kings. The result? Read the book of Esther. e. Herod decides to kill the newborn king of the Jews. So he orders all the boy babies of Bethlehem and surroundings, two years and under, to be ruthlessly slain. But the holy child was already safely on his way to Egypt. Read Matt. 2. f. At last, however, it seemed as if Satan had actually triumphed. Was not Jesus hanging on a cross? &But the very cross meant Satan's doom! I Cor. 1:22–25; Col. 2:13–15; Rev. 12:10, 11. Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nought; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of Jehovah stands forever. The thoughts of his heart to all generations (Ps. 33:10, 11; cf. 2:1–4). That is the foundation upon which God's children build their hope for eternity, to the glory of God Triune! 14:3–9 The Anointing at Bethany Cf. Matt. 26:6–13; John 12:1 8^[677] 3 And while he was in Bethany, reclining at table in the home of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured out (the perfume) over his head. 4 But some were indignantly saying to each other, Why this waste of perfume? 5 For this perfume could have been sold for more than a year's wages,^[675] and (the money) given to the poor. And they were grumbling at her. 6 But Jesus said, Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? (It is) a beautiful thing she has done to me. 7 For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish, you can do good to them; but me you have not always. 8 She has done what she could. She has anointed my body in advance for burial.^[676] 9 I solemnly assure you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her. Of the three sources that contain this story, that in John (12:1–8) is by far the most detailed, with 142 words in the original. Mark (14:3–9) comes next, with 124 words. The shortest is Matthew (26:6–13) with only 109. The difference consists to a large extent in the material which Mark and/or John add(s) to Matthew's summary, though the style also varies, as could be expected. Items in Mark and/or John but not in Matthew: a. the woman broke the jar; b. the perfume could have been sold for more than a year's wages; c. the disciples were grumbling at the woman; d. the woman who anointed Jesus was Mary (Luke 10:42); e. she anointed Jesus feet, which she afterward wiped with her hair; f. the house was filled with the fragrance of the ointment; and g. it was Judas who, for selfish reasons, took the lead in finding fault with Mary. The description of the perfume varies. The same variety of phraseology is evident in connection with the stated reason why the woman did what she did. There are no conflicts. A moment's study reveals that even items which on the surface may seem to clash e.g., according to John the woman anointed Jesus feet, but according to Matthew and Mark she poured the perfume over his head actually dovetail beautifully, as will be shown. 3. And while he was in Bethany, reclining at table in the home of Simon the leper, there came to him a woman with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the alabaster jar and poured out (the perfume) over his head. Here at verse 3 Mark begins to tell a new story. To do so he must go back a few days, from the Tuesday of verses 1, 2 to the preceding Saturday evening, when a supper was given at Bethany in honor of Jesus. Why does Mark go back? Could it be because human nature at its best, because of what God in his marvelous grace did for it, stands out all the more radiantly when it is contrasted with human nature at its worst? Could that be the reason why verses 3 9, describing Mary's beautiful deed, is here inserted between a. verses 1, 2; and b. 10, 11? Respectively these two surrounding sections picture the perversity a. of the chief priests, scribes, etc., and b. of Judas, the man who becomes their partner in crime. However that may be, what we have in this narrative of Mary versus Jesus enemies is a manifestation of troth over against treachery, of wholehearted devotion versus hideous degradation. The refreshing incident took place while he [Jesus] was in Bethany. ^[678] Present at the supper were at least fifteen men: Jesus, The Twelve, Lazarus (John 12:2), and a certain Simon, mentioned here in verse 3 and in (Matt. 26:6. The idea readily suggests itself that the supper (or dinner if one prefers) was prompted by love for the Lord, specifically by gratitude for the raising of Lazarus and for the healing of Simon, the man who had been a leper, is still called Simon the leper, but had presumably been healed by Jesus. It was at the home of this Simon that the dinner was given. Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus, was servingJohn 12:2). Now while the guests, according to custom, were reclining at table there came to him a woman. That this woman was Mary of Bethany we learn from John 12:3. She has taken a position behind the reclining Jesus. In her hand she holds an alabaster jar of very costly or expensive perfume, that is, a jar or vase of white (or perhaps delicately tinted) fine-grained gypsum. The perfume had been extracted from pure^[679] nard, that is, from the dried root leaves of this particular Himalayan plant. That the jar contained a large quantity of this precious and very fragrant extract is also clear from John 12:3, not less than a Roman pound (twelve ounces)! Suddenly she breaks the jar and pours its contents down or out over^[680] Jesus. According to Matthew and Mark she pours the perfume out upon or over his head (Ps. 23:5); according to John she anoints his feet. There is no conflict, for Matthew and Mark clearly indicate that the perfume was poured over Christ's body (Matt. 26:12; Mark 14:8). Evidently there was enough for the entire body: head, neck, shoulders, and feet. Simon's house was filled with fragrance. Along with the perfume, Mary poured out her heart in gratitude and devotion! The rest of the paragraph describes the reaction on the part of a. some (verses 4, 5) and b. Jesus (verses 6 9). 4, 5. But some were indignantly saying to each other, Why this waste of perfume? For this perfume could have been sold for more than a year's wages, and (the money) given to the poor. And they were grumbling at her. The language is abrupt and vivid. It is not difficult to imagine that Peter had vividly pictured to his audience, including Mark, exactly what had occurred. The scene had impinged itself indelibly upon the apostle's recollection, and it is probably in that same form that Mark here reproduces it, popular abbreviations and all. Mark's some are Matthew's disciples. It seems to have been Judas, the treasurer, who voiced the strongest objection. He quickly calculated the value of the perfume, assessing it at three hundred denarii (John 12:5), or even more (Mark 14:5). Think of it: more than a year's wages gone to waste, enough to feed no less than three hundred families for one whole day, and have something left! And now all was lost. What a shame!^[681] Piously (?) Judas blurts out his opinion that the huge amount for which this perfume could and as he saw it should have been sold, would have been a bounteous gift for the poor. Both Matthew and Mark make it clear that the other disciples chimed in. They were indignant,^[682] and were grumbling^[683] at Mary. The perfume could have been sold and given^[684] to the poor was the sentiment of all. Poor Mary! Almost wherever she looks, she meets angry glances, shocked disapproval. That the native language of love is lavishness these men do not seem to understand. Noble people, these men, especially Judas, the protector of the simple way of life, and the helper of the poor! But what he was really after is pointed out in John 12:6. 6, 7. But Jesus said, Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? (It is) a beautiful thing she has done to me. For the poor you always have with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but me you have not always. Jesus rushes to Mary's defense by saying, Leave her alone, or Let her be. ^[685] He continues literally, Why are you causing trouble for her? He calls what she did a beautiful thing. And such it was indeed: unique in its thoughtfulness, regal in its lavishness, and marvelous in its timeliness. Not as if the Master were unconcerned about the poor. Far from it, as the following passages indicate: (Mark 10:21; 12:42, 43; and in the other Gospels see Matt. 5:7; 6:2–4; 12:7; 19:21; Luke 6:20, 36 38; 7:22; 14:13; John 13:29. On this subject, as well as on all others, his teaching was in line with the rest of special RevelationExod. 23:10, 11; Lev. 19:10; Prov. 14:21b, 31; Isa. 58:7; and for the New Testament see II Cor. 8:1–9; Gal. 6:2, 9, 10; II Thess. 3:13; James 5:1 6). But there would be many other opportunities to tend to the needs of the poor. On the contrary, the opportunity to show love and honor to Jesus in the state of humiliation had almost vanished. Gethsemane, Gabbatha, and Golgotha were just around the corner. What Mary had done was therefore exactly right, beautiful even. Continued: 8. She has done what she could.^[686] She has anointed my body in advance^[687] for burial. Similarly Matthew writes, For when she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. On this difficult passage much has been written. As some see it, Jesus is saying that Mary, without realizing it herself, had anointed Jesus for his impending death and burial. Now it must be admitted that this interpretation makes sense: God's purpose is often accomplished through the deeds of human beings, even though the latter are unaware of what is actually happening. Besides, Mary may not have known that her Master's death was so close at hand. On the other hand, the fact should not be overlooked that Mary of Bethany was perhaps the best listener Jesus ever had. The woman who now anointed Jesus feet was the same one who had previously been sitting at his feet (Luke 10:39). If even the enemies of Jesus knew about the predictions Jesus had made concerning himself (Matt. 27:63), can we not assume that Mary knew fully as much? If so, is it not probable that the thought had occurred to her, This may well be the last opportunity I shall ever get to bestow a kindness upon Jesus; and when, according to his own prediction, his enemies kill him, will his friends be accorded the privilege of anointing his body? The view, accordingly, that Mary's conscious purpose was to prepare Jesus for burial must not be ruled out. For more detail on this see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 178–180. Jesus concludes his defense of Mary by saying, 9. I solemnly assure you,^[688] wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, also what she has done shall be told in memory of her. As already indicated, it was now Saturday evening, the day before the triumphal entry. Then on Tuesday Jesus was going to make the astounding prediction, And to all the nations the gospel must first be preached (Matt. 24:14). For gospel see N.T.C. on Philippians, pp. 82–85. This gospel must be preached.^[689] Preaching, in the religious sense, means heralding. Careful exposition is basic. But genuine preaching is lively, not dry; timely, not stale. It is the earnest proclamation of news initiated by God. It is not the abstract speculation of views excogitated by man. See N.T.C. on II Tim. 4:2. But before Jesus makes the announcement about worldwide gospel preaching he now, that is, three days earlier, solemnly promises that wherever the joyful story travels, the deed of Mary will march hand in hand with it. The memory of Mary's noble act must be kept alive. The Master will not allow it to be forgotten. Cf. Matt. 25:34–40. In studying this section one is prone to commit the error of becoming so filled with admiration for Mary's beautiful deed as to forget that what she did was only a reflection of the Master's own kindness toward her. Consider not only his mercy in saving her but also the tenderness he revealed when in this particular moment he rushed to her defense. After all, he knew that the hour of his own incomparably bitter suffering was fast approaching. Nevertheless, so deeply did he love his own (John 13:1) that, because of his appreciation for what she had done, he was wounded deeply by the unjustified criticism to which she was subjected. His heart went out to her. Is not the real lesson this, therefore, that God, whose image is Christ (Heb. 1:3), takes infinitely keen delight in rewarding the faithfulness of those who honor him? Whenever we enumerate his many glorious attributes, should we not also pay due attention to the fact that he is indeed the Rewarder of those who diligently seek him (Heb. 11:6)? Note how generously and with what intense delight he rewarded: Abraham (Gen. 22:15–18) Ruth (Ruth 1:16, 17; 2:12; 4:13–22) Hannah (I Sam. 1:1–20) Ebed-melech the Ethiopian (Jer. 39:15–18) King Hezekiah (II Kings 19) King Jehoshaphat (II Chron. 20:1–30) Daniel and his friends (Dan. 1:1 6:28) The commended centurion (Matt. 8:5–13) The Syrophoenician woman (Mark 7:24 30) Those who brought their little ones to Jesus (Mark 10:13 16) His loyal disciples, in spite of their many faults (Mark 10:23 31) The poor widow who gave her whole living (Mark 12:41 44) The Samaritan leper (Luke 17:11 19) Ever so many other names could be added, but this small list should suffice to indicate what is one of the main lessons perhaps even the main lesson taught here in Mark 10:13 16. 14:10, 11 The Agreement between Judas and the Chief Priests Cf. Matt. 26:14–16; Luke 22:3 6 10 And Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to hand him over to them. 11 They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he was looking for an opportunity to betray him.^[690] According to all three accounts Judas, one of the twelve, goes to the chief priests (Luke 22:4) to discuss how he might deliver Jesus to them. The delight experienced by the leaders because of the unexpected entrance and offer of Judas is reported by both Mark and Luke. A sum of money for the betrayal is agreed upon. Afterward the traitor watched for an opportunity to hand Jesus over to these men, and (as Luke adds) to do this in the absence of a crowd. It is Matthew alone who has transmitted to posterity the traitor's vulgarly mercenary question flung at the chief priests, etc., What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? It is also that same evangelist who makes clear that Judas leaves the conference, with the thirty pieces of silver on his person. Mark reports, They promised to give him money, a promise that was fulfilled at that very meeting. Luke's account reveals the devil's part in this sordid affair, Then Satan entered Judas. Cf. John 13:27. 10. And Judas Iscariot, who was one of the twelve, went to the chief priests in order to hand him over^[691] to them. What caused Judas to become Christ's betrayer? To the reasons given above see on 3:19 the following should be added, at least for consideration: a. The rebuke which Jesus administered to the disciples, including Judas, Mary's chief maligner (John 12:4, 5), may have contributed to the traitor's decision. We say, may have, for certainty on this point is impossible.^[692] b. To his twelve privileged followers Jesus had promised dazzling rewards (Mark 10:29, 30), thrones even (Matt. 19:28). Judas must have listened with rapt attention to words such as these. But, strange to say, Jesus had also on several occasions predicted his imminent and violent death (Mark 8:31; 9:31; 10:34). In fact, most recently he had even referred to his burial, as if it were a matter pertaining to the immediate future (14:8). Is it difficult to believe that a man such as Judas was deeply disturbed by this language, and that he drew the conclusion that to remain with Jesus meant to go down in defeat with him? He should have taken to heart the words of the Master spoken earlier, For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's sake will save it (8:35). But, as remarked previously, though various elements must have entered into the reason why Judas betrayed the Master, basic to everything else was this disciple's utterly selfish heart as contrasted with Christ's infinitely unselfish and outgoing heart. It was the traitor's unwillingness to pray for renewal of life that ruined him. It was impenitence that destroyed him. For his shockingly loathsome deed there was no excuse whatever. Judas was, after all, a specially privileged person. He was one of the twelve, as all four evangelists take the trouble to point out (Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:10; Luke 22:3; John 6:70, 71). For many months Judas had been living in Christ's immediate presence, had been eating, drinking, and traveling with him. He had noticed the strength in the Master's voice when he stilled the storm, cursed the barren fig tree, and rebuked those who devoured widows houses. But Judas had also become aware of the tenderness of that same voice when it pleaded with sinners, including Judas!, to come to him and rest. He had listened to the Savior's marvelous discourses and to the decisive and authoritative answers he had given to the many questions that had been hurled at him, sometimes with the intention of ensnaring him. Judas had watched the Great Physician in the act of tenderly restoring the handicapped, or bending down mercifully over the sick and healing them &and then even adding (at times), Your faith has made you well. Yes, Judas had witnessed all this and much more. Cf. Matt. 13:17. And then he decided to deliver this unsurpassably powerful, wise, and compassionate Benefactor into the hands of cruel men &for thirty pieces of silver. 11. They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. Naturally the chief priests were glad when a disciple of Jesus suddenly turned up to be their helper. Did he perhaps arrive on Tuesday evening, just as the members of the Sanhedrin were leaving, and did they then quickly reassemble? We do not know. What we do know is that they regarded the arrival of Judas and his implied offer to be a godsend. The parallel accounts leave the impression that the business was quickly transacted. A combination of Matt. 26:14; Mark 14:11; and Luke 22:5, 6a results in the following legitimate reconstruction of what now transpired: Judas: What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you? The chief priests: We promise to give you thirty pieces of silver as soon as you agree to deliver him into our hands. Judas: I agree. The chief priests, after weighing out the money: Here are the thirty silver pieces. Judas takes them and departs. This interpretation is in harmony with the psychology of the situation. The chief priests would not have allowed their golden opportunity to pass by unheeded. They knew very well that if Judas had the money in his pocket he would not have dared to back out before committing the deed. As to the price paid, namely thirty pieces of silver, these pieces were tantamount in value to tetradrachmas or Hebrew shekels. Thirty of them figured at 64 72 cents each add up to (a sum) slightly more or less than $20, or not much over [Greek] 8. But with money values constantly fluctuating, it is impossible to determine with any exactness what this would amount to in present currency. For a price of a slave, gored by an ox, the Savior was sold to his enemies. See Exod. 21:32. For such a pitiful sum Judas betrayed the Master. With the money already in his possession, Judas now feels obliged to go into action. We are therefore not surprised to read: So he was looking for an opportunity to betray^[693] him. That opportunity would come his way very soon. 14:12–21 The Passover Cf. Matt. 26:17–25; Luke 22:7 14; 21 23; John 13:21 30 12 Now on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, his [Jesus ] disciples asked him, Where do you want us to go and get the Passover Supper ready for you to eat? 13 So he sent two of his disciples and told them, Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him; 14 and wherever he enters, say to the owner of that house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest-room, in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? 15 And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. There make ready for us. 16 So off the disciples went. They came into the city, found (everything) just as he had told them, and prepared the Passover. 17 And when it was evening he arrived with the twelve. 18 While they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, I solemnly swear to you, one of you will betray me one who is eating with me. 19 They became distressed, and one by one said to him, Surely not I? 20 He told them, (It is) one of the twelve, one who dips (his hand) into the bowl with me. 21 For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. According to all three synoptists Jesus, on the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, gives instructions to disciples to reserve a room for the celebration of the Passover, and to make all the necessary preparations. They are sent to the home of a certain unnamed individual, where they make ready. During the meal Jesus suddenly shocks the little company by saying, One of you will betray me, one who is eating with me. He adds, For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him.& The main variations are as follows: According to Mark the instructions were given to two of Christ's disciples; according to Luke, to Peter and John. Matthew does not specify. In fact, Matt. 26:17 19looks like a summary when compared to Mark 14:12 16. In his more detailed account Peter's interpreter informs his readers that the two disciples were told to go into the city, where a man carrying a jar of water would meet them. They must follow him into whatever house he enters, and must say to the owner, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest-room&? The owner will then show the two a larger upper room, furnished and ready. There they must make the necessary preparations. All this was done, and in the evening Jesus sits down with The Twelve. Up to this point there is very little difference between Mark's and Luke's account. In fact, Luke 22:7 14is almost a verbatim repetition of Mark 14:12 17. However, in verse 17 Luke has the apostles where Matthew and Mark read the twelve. Also in the same verse Luke says And when the hour came, where Matthew and Mark have (And) when it was evening. We have already called attention to the fact that according to Luke the (first) day of Unleavened Bread was the one on which the passover lamb had to be sacrificed. See above, on 14:1. Where both Matthew and Mark have Jesus saying, &one who dips his hand into the bowl with me, Luke (22:21) substitutes, But look, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. And in verse 23 Luke describes the disciples as asking each other which of them was the traitor. It is surely easy to understand that these startled men would direct their searching questions to their own hearts, to each other, and to the Lord. Every idea of contradiction is therefore unrealistic. The three accounts, though interestingly varied, are in perfect harmony. Thus also the fact that according to Mark the disciples one by one say, Surely not I? whereas Matthew reports the same question in the more complete form, Surely not I, Lord? and with reference to Judas, Surely not I, Rabbi? simply means that with respect to this item it is Mark who summarizes. What he says is true, but on this particular point Matthew, who was present, has given us a more complete report. 12. Now on the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, his [Jesus ] disciples asked him, Where do you want us to go and get the Passover Supper ready for you to eat? Finally the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan arrived. When, as sometimes happens, the term Festival of Unleavened Bread is taken in its broadest sense, even the day on which occurred the eating of the Passover lamb is included. We are not told where Jesus and his disciples spent Wednesday, the day between the one to which reference was made in verse 1 (Tuesday), and the Passover, verses 12 21 (Thursday).^[694] Nothing is said about the purchase of a lamb. We may probably assume that this had been attended to a few days earlier. See (Exod. 12:3. Further preparations had to be made however. During the afternoon the lamb must be killed in the forecourt of the templeExod. 12:6). A room of sufficient size must be obtained, and everything in connection with this room and its furniture must be arranged. Besides, purchases must be made: of unleavened bread, bitter herbs, wine, etc. The lamb must be made ready for use, the sauce must be prepared. Since it was now probably Thursday morning, there could be no delay. A few additional remarks are in order: a. The words when it was customary^[695] to sacrifice the Passover lamb are probably added by Mark for the sake of his Gentile readers. b. &us to go, indicates that at this particular moment Jesus and his disciples were not in the city (see verse 13). They may have been in Bethany. c. The disciples realize that it is their duty to prepare the Passover for the Master.^[696] It is his Passover. He was the Host. The disciples were privileged to eat with him (see verses 18, 20). They are his guests. 13, 14. So he sent two of his disciples and told them, Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him; and wherever he enters, say to the owner of that house, The Teacher asks, Where is my guest-room, in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? In his answer Jesus now gives instructions to two of his disciples; i.e., to Peter and John, as Luke 22:8informs us. The directions given are in a sense very definite; in another sense very indefinite. They are definite enough so that the two men will experience no difficulty in finding the place where the supper is to be held. Yet, they are indefinite enough for the present to conceal the name of the owner and the location of his home. Is the indefiniteness due to the fact that not until evening must Judas know where the Passover will be kept, so that Jesus may indeed observe it with his disciples, and the plan of God regarding the subsequent events may be fully carried out? However this may be, the two apostles are told that on entering the city (Jerusalem) they will be met by a man carrying^[697] a jug^[698] of water.^[699] This is remarkable, for ordinarily not a man but a woman or girl would be doing this. Hence the disciples will experience no difficulty in singling out this man. Furthermore, Jesus instructs them to follow this man into whatever house he enters.^[700] It is clear that the man to be followed is not the owner, but perhaps a servant or a son. It is useless to speculate exactly who he was, though this has been done. This holds, too, with respect to the owner. All we really know is that he must have been a disciple of Jesus. Was the owner John Mark's father, then still alive? I am neither willing to say with Zahn that he was, nor with others that he was not. The two disciples must say to the owner, The Teacher^[701] asks, Where is my guest-room,^[702] in which I may eat the Passover with my disciples? As indicated in the preceding, this is going to be Christ's own Passover. Even the guest-room is in a sense his own; that is, he asks that it be placed entirely at his disposal for the purpose of celebrating the feast, together with the disciples as his guests. 15. And he will show you a large upper room, furnished and ready. There make ready for us. It was the rule in Israel that if anyone at this time had space available it must be given free of charge to whatever family or group wished to make sacred use of it. Besides, the owner, being one of Christ's followers, would for that very reason be happy to accommodate the Master and his disciples. This, then, is the famous Upper Room^[703] in which Jesus celebrated his last Passover, instituted the Lord's Supper, and delivered the beautiful and comforting discourses found in John 14 16. It was here also that he was going to offer the unforgettable prayer recorded in John 17. The fact that this room was built on top of the house made it right for the present purpose. In such a room one could be relatively free from disturbance. It was a place for discussion, fellowship, meditation, and prayer. Also, it was ample: the thirteen were not crowded. And it was furnished ^[704] and in every respect ready to be used for the purpose it was going to serve. The question may be asked, How did Jesus know that the two men would find everything as here indicated? For remarks with respect to this problem see on 2:8; 5:32; 9:33, 34; 11:2, 13. The interaction between Jesus human and his divine nature is, in the final analysis, a mystery, too deep for us to comprehend. 16. So off the disciples went. They came into the city, found (everything) just as he had told them, and prepared the Passover. Peter and John found everything as predicted, and did everything as ordered. See above, on verse 12. 17, 18. And when it was evening^[705] he arrived with the twelve. While they were reclining at table and eating, Jesus said, I solemnly declare to you, one of you will betray me one who is eating with me. Though it was still what we would call Thursday when Jesus arrived, by Jewish reckoning it was already Friday. In order to obtain as complete as possible a picture of what happened in the Upper Room, the Gospel according to John will have to be consulted in addition to the Synoptics. When this is done it becomes clear that the Master did not, immediately upon arriving, predict that one of his disciples would betray him. Matthew and Mark evidently begin their account when much has already happened. According to John's Gospel (13:1–20) Jesus has already washed the feet of his disciples, giving them a lesson in humility. Afterward he startles them by telling them that one of them is going to betray him (13:21–30). The pointing out of the betrayer occurred, according to our passage, while they were reclining at table and eating, that is, after the meal had been proceeding for some time. For the elements that pertained to the Passover meal, as far as possible chronologically arranged, see N.T.C. on the Gospel of John, Vol. I, p. 121. The reference is probably to item f. on that page. In the same commentary see also p. 242. One of you! It came as a bolt from the blue. It was a stunning blow. What! Did the Master actually mean to say that one of their own number was going to hand him over to the authorities, for them to deal with as they pleased? Why, it was almost unbelievable. Yet, the One who never told an untruth and whose very name was the Truth (John 8:46; 14:6) was saying this; so it must be true. Does not the Master even introduce his startling saying with I solemnly declare to you? See on Mark 3:28. Christ's shocking announcement evoked three responses, in the form of questions, as follows: a. a question of wholesome self-distrust, Surely not I? That was the reaction on the part of all the disciples with the exception of Judas Iscariot. In Mark's Gospel the question in this form is found in 14:19; Christ's answer in verses 20, 21. There was also b. a question of loathsome hypocrisy, Surely, not I, Rabbi? That, probably after considerable hesitation, was Judas reaction. For both his question and Christ's answer see Matt. 26:25. Finally, there was c. a question of childlike confidence, Lord, who is it? That was the way in which John, prompted by Peter, expressed himself. The question in this form, the events relating to it, Christ's response, and the disciples reaction to that response, are recorded only in John 13:23 30, which also in verse 30 mentions the traitor's departure. Therefore for b. read N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 907, 908, and for c. read N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 245–250. Here in Mark, therefore, we are dealing only with a. As to this question of wholesome self-distrust, note verse 19. They became distressed,^[706] and one by one^[707] said to him, Surely not I? Eleven hearts those of The Twelve minus Judas Iscariot are filled with misgiving. Each of these eleven men feels that he could not possibly be the one meant by the Lord and yet one never can tell. And so, one by one, each of them, caught with a certain dread of himself, asks, Surely not I? As to its form in the original, the question expects a negative answer, the kind of answer each ardently hopes the Master will give. 20. He told them, (It is) one of the twelve, one who dips (his hand) into the bowl with me. It is clear that Jesus did not immediately allay the fear of these men or cure their self-distrust. Nor did he at once satisfy their suddenly aroused curiosity. Were not all the twelve disciples dipping morsels of food into the bowl filled with a broth consisting of mashed fruit (probably dates, figs, and raisins), water, and vinegar? Judas surely was not the only man doing this. What the Lord is doing, therefore, is this: he is emphasizing the base character of the betrayer's deed. He is saying, Think of it, my betrayer is a man who is sharing his meal with me. As has been indicated, Jesus was himself the Host. All the others were eating his food. That very fact, especially in the Near East, a region where accepting someone's hospitality and then injuring him, was considered most reprehensible, should have tied the hands of all. It should have made it impossible for any of The Twelve to take any action against their Host. Think of Ps. 41:9. The answer given by Jesus here in verse 20 served the following purposes: a. It was a warning for Judas. Let Judas ponder what he is doing. I know your designs, Judas, the Master seems to be saying. The revelation of this detailed knowledge should have put Judas on guard even at this late hour to return those thirty pieces of silver! Yes, in God's incomprehensible and all-comprehensive decree there is room even for solemn admonitions given to those who ultimately are lost. You ask, How is that possible? I answer: I do not know, but the fact remains, nevertheless. If one does not want to accept the idea of warnings even for reprobates, he misses something of the meaning of this account. The serious character of the implied admonition increases the guilt of Judas. Before one is ready to deny the possibility of earnest warnings even for the reprobate, he should study Gen. 4:6, 7; Prov. 29:1; Luke 13:6 9, 34, 35. b. It rivets the attention upon the depth of Christ's suffering. In a treacherous and humiliating manner he, the Lord of glory, is being handed over to his enemies. It is very important that we see this. Our reflection on the account of Christ's Passion should not become lost in all kinds of details regarding Judas and Peter and Annas and Pilate. It is, after all, the story of his suffering. It centers in him, and we must never forget to ask how all these things affected him! c. It showed, once again, that Jesus was in full control of the situation. He was not taken by surprise. He knew exactly what was happening and what was going to happen, the very details. d. It furnished an opportunity to the disciples to examine themselves. This point is often passed by. It is, nevertheless, very important. By giving the answer that is recorded here in Mark 14:20Jesus did not identify the betrayer, and exactly by not identifying him the Lord was actually doing all a favor. He knew that self-examination would be the very best exercise for men such as theseLuke 22:24! . Let each disciple be filled with grave misgivings, with wholesome self-distrust. These men need time for self-examination. 21. For the Son of man goes as it is written concerning him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed. It would have been better for that man if he had not been born. For Son of man see on 2:10, and on Matt. 8:20, pp. 403–407. Jesus, the One who via the path of humiliation attains to glorification, and in fact was glorious from the very beginning, goes, that is, lives on earth, suffers, dies, all this not as a victim of circumstances, but as it is written concerning him, hence as predicted by the prophetsIsa. 53, etc. and established in God's eternal decree. It was necessary for the Master to emphasize this truth once again, for it was so very difficult for the disciples to reconcile themselves with the idea of a Messiah who would die. Besides, when, on the day of tomorrow by Jewish reckoning today he dies on the cross, let the disciples reflect on this solemn statement, that they may know that this death does not mean the triumph of his enemies but rather the realization of God's gracious, sovereign, and ever victorious plan. However, nowhere in Scripture does predestination and prophecy cancel human responsibility. So also here: the cry of sorrow and anguish, Woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed fully maintains the guilt and establishes the doom of the traitor. Not to have been born would have been better for such a man. But he was born, and is in the process of committing the gruesome deed. Therefore the entire statement, It would have been better for that man if he had not been born is an expression of unreality a situation that can be changed only if Judas, who remains fully responsible, still repents. We know that he did not repent. Hence he faces everlasting damnation (Matt. 25:46). What makes his guilt all the heavier is the fact that he not only planned the treachery and took the next step volunteering to deliver Jesus to the enemy and the next accepting the thirty pieces of silver but even now, in spite of Christ's impressive warnings, goes right ahead. The rest of the story Judas question, Surely not I, Rabbi? and John's, Lord, who is it? is not found in Mark; but see above, on verses 17, 18. 14:22–26 The Institution of the Lord's Supper Cf. Matt. 26:26–30; Luke 22:15 20; I Cor. 11:23–25 22 And while they were eating, he took bread, gave thanks and broke it. He then gave it to them and said, Take (it); this is my body. 23 Then he took a cup and gave thanks. He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24 He told them, This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25 I solemnly declare to you that from now on I will certainly not drink from this fruit of the vine until that day when I am drinking it new in the kingdom of God. 26 And when they had sung a hymn they went out to the Mount of Olives. First, a few remarks regarding Luke's account. It presents problems both as to the Greek text and as to chronological sequence. A detailed discussion of these problems does not belong here but in a commentary on Luke. Accordingly, we limit ourselves to the following: Luke is never primarily concerned with time sequence. The order (1:3) according to which he arranges his materials is often of a different nature, so that sayings or events apart in time but similar in thought are grouped together. Once this is understood, most of the difficulties disappear. The words of Jesus recorded in Luke 22:15, 16(unparalleled) may have been spoken at the beginning of the Passover meal. As to the Lord's Supper, with Luke 22:17, 20(the cup) compare Matt. 26:27, 28and Mark 14:23, 24. With Luke 22:18 compare Matt. 26:29and Mark 14:25. And with Luke 22:19(the bread) compare Matt. 26:26and Mark 14:22. The words that have given rise to much controversy, namely, This is my body occur in all three accounts. What must be done with bread and wine is also either distinctly stated or at least implied in all three. Peculiar to Luke but entirely in line with the contents of the communion passages in Matthew and Mark are such dominical words as Take this, and divide it among yourselves (verse 17) and Do this in remembrance of me (verse 19). The passage in which Luke represents Jesus as saying, But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table (verse 21) does not mean that Judas partook of the Lord's Supper. It means that before the institution of that sacrament in other words, when Jesus reclined at table for the passover meal the hand of Judas and that of the Master were indeed together on the table (Mark 14:18, 20). There is, accordingly, no conflict between Luke 22:21and John 13:30, So having taken the morsel, he went out immediately and it was night. Matthew's account and Mark's are almost identical. Matthew has All of you drink from it where Mark has And they all drank from it. After which is poured out for many in both, Matthew adds for the forgiveness of sins. And for Mark's when I am drinking it new in the kingdom of God Matthew substitutes when I am drinking it new with you in my Father's kingdom. Remarkable similarity, no essential difference. 22. And while they were eating, he took bread, gave thanks and broke it. At this point Passover passes over into the Lord's Supper; for it was while, toward the close of the Passover meal, the men were all eating freely (see on verse 18) that Jesus instituted the new sacrament that was to replace the old. A few more hours and the old symbol, being bloody for it required the slaying of the lamb will have served its purpose forever, having reached its fulfilment in the blood shed on Calvary. It was time, therefore, that a new and unbloody symbol replace the old. Nevertheless, by historically linking Passover and Lord's Supper so closely together Jesus also made clear that what was essential in the first was not lost in the second. Both point to him, the only and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of his people. Passover pointed forward to this; the Lord's Supper points back to it. Having taken from the table a thin slice or sheet of unleavened bread, Jesus gave thanks and then started to break up the slice. Though the original, in referring to the prayer, uses one word in verse Matt. 26:26 (), and another in verse Matt. 26:27 () the first participial form occurring in connection with the bread, the second in connection with the cup there is no essential difference. Both Luke (22:19) and Paul (I Cor. 11:24) read having given thanks where Matthew and Mark read having blessed. It is not incorrect therefore, in both Mark 14:22and 23, to adopt the rendering, Jesus &gave thanks. For more on this see on 6:41. The words which the Lord used in this thanksgiving have not been revealed. To try to reconstruct them from Jewish formula prayers would serve no useful purpose. How do we even know that our Lord availed himself of these prayers? The breaking of the bread, to which reference is made in all four accounts, must be considered as belonging to the very essence of the sacrament. This becomes clear in the light of that which immediately follows, namely, He then gave it to them and said, Take (it); this is my body. To interpret this to mean that Jesus was actually saying that these portions of bread which he handed to the disciples were identical with his physical body, or were at that moment being changed into his body, is to ignore a. the fact that in his body Jesus was standing there in front of his disciples, for all to see. He was holding in his hand the bread, and giving them the portions as he broke them off. Body and bread were clearly distinct and remained thus. Neither changed into the other, or took on the physical properties or characteristics of the other. Besides, such an interpretation also ignores b. the fact that during his earthly ministry the Master very frequently used symbolical language (Mark 8:15; John 2:19; 3:3; 4:14, 32; 6:51, 53 56; 11:11). It is striking that in all of the instances indicated by these references the symbolical or figurative character of our Lord's language was disregarded by those who first heard it! In each case also, the context makes clear that those who interpreted Christ's words literally were mistaken! Is it not high time that the implied lesson be taken to heart? Finally, there is c: when Jesus spoke of himself as being the vine (John 15:1, 5), is it not clear that he meant that what a natural vine is in relation to its branches, which find their unity, life, and fruit-bearing capacity in this plant, that, in a far more exalted sense, Christ is to his people? Is it not clear, therefore, that the vine represents or symbolizes Jesus, the genuine Vine? Thus also he calls himself or is called the door, the morning star, the cornerstone, the lamb, the fountain, the rock, etc. He also refers to himself as the bread of life (John 6:35, 48), the bread that came down out of heaven (John 6:58). So, why should he not be, and be represented and symbolized by, the broken bread? Accordingly, the meaning of the broken bread and the poured out wine is correctly indicated in a Communion Form which represents Christ as saying: Whereas otherwise you should have suffered eternal death, I give my body in death on the tree of the cross and shed my blood for you, and nourish and refresh your hungry and thirsty souls with my crucified body and shed blood to everlasting life, as certainly as this bread is broken before your eyes and this cup is given to you, and you eat and drink with your mouth in remembrance of Me. ^[708] This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XV Outline of Chapter 15 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do 15:1 The Sanhedrin's Decision to Put Jesus to Death Jesus Brought before Pilate 15:2–5 Jesus Questioned by Pilate 15:6–15 Jesus Sentenced to Die 15:16–20 The Mockery 15:21–32 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus 15:33–41 Calvary: The Death of Jesus 15:42–47 The Burial of Jesus 15:1 The Sanhedrin's Decision to Put Jesus to Death Jesus Brought before Pilate Cf. Matt. 27:1, 2; Luke 22:66; 23:1; John 18:28 15 1 Very early in the morning the chief priests, together with the elders and the scribes, that is, the entire Sanhedrin, passed a resolution. They bound Jesus, led him away, and delivered him to Pilate. From about three o clock (see 13:35; 14:72) until daybreak Jesus must have been held in imprisonment somewhere in the palace of Caiaphas. Then 1. Very early in the morning there was another meeting: the chief priests, together with the elders and the scribes, that is, the entire Sanhedrin, passed a resolution. Note that the same three groups are mentioned as in 8:31; 14:43, 53. See on 14:1. It was to the priesthood that the care of the temple had been especially entrusted. This may account for the wording here the chief priests, together with the elders and the scribes. The main reason for the early morning meeting may well have been to give a semblance of legality to the action against Jesus. For explanation of this point see above, on 14:55, 56. Note especially point d. mentioned there. Though not an entire day, as required, would intervene between conviction and sentencing, there would at least be a brief interval and a second meeting, one during which Caiaphas could afford to relax somewhat, allowing others to question Jesus and to repeat their verdict of a few hours earlier (Luke 22:66 71). In view of the fact that Mark's expression, indicating what was reconfirmed at this dawn session, is immediately followed by drastic action against Jesus, it is probably correct to say that what Mark means in verse 1 is that the Sanhedrin passed a resolution, ^[785] and not simply held a consultation. The resolution or sentence was that Jesus be put to death. However, since the Sanhedrin was well aware of the fact that this sentence, in order to be carried out, must be confirmed by the Romans, there follows: They bound Jesus, led him away, and delivered him to Pilate.^[786] The binding of Jesus had also occurred earlier (John 18:12, 24). He had come to make men free (John 8:36; Gal. 5:1). This was included in the work which the Father had given him to do. In order to accomplish this, he himself had to be bound. Thus bound, he was handed over to Pilate the governor, as he had predicted (10:33). (John 18:28states that Jesus was led to the governor's residence or praetorium. The language used in Luke 23:7, the fact that according to Mark 15:8those who wanted to see Pilate had to ascend in order to do so, the mention of the stone platform in John 19:13, and the fact that Pilate was not a friend of HerodLuke 23:12) make it well-nigh impossible to believe that the meaning of (Mark 15:1would be that Jesus was brought to Herod's palace. The reference must be to the fortress of Antonia at the northwest corner of the temple area. Pilate had rooms in this fortress, in close proximity to the garrisonMark 15:16), though his main residence was in Caesarea. Supported by his soldiers he was now in Jerusalem in order, at the politically dangerous season of the Passover, to preserve the peace. Pontius Pilate^[787] was the fifth procurator of Samaria and Judea. He was under the authority of Syria's legate. Many reports have come down to us about him. Estimates of his character range all the way from that of Philo who, quoting a letter from Agrippa I to Caligula, calls him inflexible, merciless, and obstinate, a man who repeatedly inflicted punishment without previous trial and committed ever so many acts of cruelty; to that of the Copts and Abyssinians who rank him among the saints! One thing is certain: he exercised little common sense in handling the delicate problem of the strained relations between the Jews and their Roman conquerors. In fact, it would almost seem as if he enjoyed annoying the Jews: using the temple treasure to pay for an aqueduct, bringing Roman standards into Jerusalem, and even defiling the temple with golden shields inscribed with the images and names of Roman deities. The incident which led to Pilate's removal from office was his interference with a mob of fanatics who, under the leadership of a false prophet, were at the point of ascending Mt. Gerizim in order to find the sacred vessels which, as they thought, Moses had hidden there. Pilate's cavalry attacked them, killing many of them. Upon complaint by the Samaritans, Pilate was then removed from office. He started out for Rome in order to answer the charges that had been leveled against him. Before he reached Rome, the emperor (Tiberius) had died. An unconfirmed story, related by Eusebius, states that Pilate was forced to become his own slayer. From the Gospels we gather that he was proud (John 19:10); and cruel (Luke 13:1). He was probably just as superstitious as his wife (Matt. 27:19). Above all, as all the accounts of the trial of Jesus before him indicate, he was a self-seeker, wishing to stand well with the emperor. He thoroughly hated the Jews who, as he saw it, were always causing him trouble upon trouble. That he was utterly devoid of any remnant of human sympathy and any sense of justice cannot be proved. In fact, there are passages which seem to point in the opposite direction. At any rate, though his guilt was great, it was not as great as that of Annas and Caiaphas, cf. John 19:11. 15:2–5 Jesus Questioned by Pilate Cf. Matt. 27:11–14; Luke 23:2 5; John 18:33 38 2 Pilate questioned him, saying, You are the king of the Jews? Answering he said to him, You said (it). 3 And the chief priests were accusing him of many things.^[788] 4 So Pilate was again questioning him, saying, Don t you answer at all? You hear how many accusations they are bringing against you. 5 But Jesus never answered at all, so that Pilate was amazed. The story started in verse 1 is now continued. By combining the Gospel accounts one gains the impression that from start almost to finish Pilate did everything in his power to get rid of the case. He had no love for the Jews. He hated to please them and to grant their request with respect to Jesus. Yet, on the other hand, deep down in his heart he was afraid of them and of the possibility that they might use their influence to hurt him. Up to a point he is willing to do what justice demands, but only up to a point. When his position is threatened, he surrenders. In harmony with this attitude on the part of Pilate the story begins to unfold as follows: a. Pilate asks those who have brought Jesus to him, What charges do you prefer against this man? When they fail to bring any charges, he tries to return the prisoner to them: Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your own law. However, the Jews then make clear that they desire nothing less than the prisoner's death. In this connection the apostle John sees the fulfilment of earlier sayings of Jesus regarding the manner in which he was going to die (John 18:28 32). John undoubtedly had in mind such sayings as are found in Matt. 20:19; 26:2; Mark 10:33; John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 33. b. The Jews now understand that they will have to make definite charges. So they quickly advance three of them: Jesus perverts the nation; he forbids us to pay tribute to Caesar; and he claims that he himself is king (Luke 23:2). In reality these three charges amounted to one: This man is a revolutionary, a seditionist, a politically dangerous person. Pilate could not afford to allow such an alleged claim to kingship to remain unexamined. So he takes Jesus with him inside the praetorium to examine him on this matterJohn 18:33a . c. At this point our present passageMark 15:2a; cf. Matt. 27:11a; Luke 23:3a; John 18:33b takes up the story. Pilate asks Jesus, You are the king of the Jews? d. Jesus explains to Pilate in which sense he is and in which sense he is not a king (John 18:34 37). e. The other Gospels simply report that Jesus answered Pilate's question affirmativelyMark 15:2b; cf. Matt. 27:11b; Luke 23:3b . f. Having examined Jesus, Pilate steps outside (on the porch) again and declares to the Jews (the chief priests and the multitude), No crime whatever do I find in him (John 18:38b; cf. Luke 23:4). g. The chief priests accuse Jesus of many thingsMark 15:3; cf. Matt. 27:12a , no doubt reiterating the earlier charges (see b. above) and adding others. h. To the consternation and amazement of Pilate, Jesus remains silent (Mark 15:4, 5; cf. Matt. 27:12b 14). i. One of the many charges now made is, He stirs up the people, teaching throughout all Judea, from Galilee even to this palace. The mention of Galilee is music to Pilate's ears, for to him it means that he may be able to turn the case over to the tetrarch Herod Antipas, now in Jerusalem (Luke 23:5 12). From the above it follows that Mark's narrative covers points c, e, g, and h. To understand the Marcan account the other points (especially a, b, d, and f) will have to be borne in mind. The closest parallel to Mark 15:2 5is Matt. 27:11–14. The resemblance is so very close that nothing further needs to be said about it. 2. Pilate questioned him, saying, You are king of the Jews? It is clear that though the Sanhedrin had accused Jesus of blasphemy, before Pilate the Jewish leaders do not immediately press this charge. They must have been of the opinion and rightly so that a more definitely political accusation would have a better chance to be considered legally valid from the aspect of Roman jurisprudence. Besides, they may have felt that a strictly religious charge would make little impression on a pagan. This does not mean, however, that they have altogether discarded the idea of ever bringing this religious indictment to the attention of the governor. They did in fact do this very thing (John 19:7), but for the present they hold it in abeyance. When Pilate now asked Jesus, You are the king of the Jews? he asked it because he felt that for his own protection he had to do this, and not because he himself believed the charge. The pronoun You is not only spelled out but heads the question. Great emphasis is placed on it, as if Pilate were saying, You are the king of the Jews? How ridiculous! Continued: Answering he said to him, You said (it). This can mean no less than, It is even as you have stated. For proof see a similar expression in Matt. 26:25, and cf. John 18:36, 37. In both of these other cases the context clearly establishes the fact that the answer of Jesus was an affirmation. At this point (see f. above) Pilate steps outside the praetorium again and from his elevated tribunal declares to the chief priests and the multitude, No crime whatever do I find in him, that is, no legitimate basis for any accusation. There follows (see point g. above): 3. And the chief priests were accusing him of many things.^[789] Note that the chief priests are again in the forefront of the accusers. See on 15:1. For their many charges see Luke 23:2, 5. Jesus remained silent.^[790] 4. So Pilate was again questioning^[791] him, saying, Don t you answer at all? You hear how many accusations they are bringing against you. This is almost a repetition of Mark 14:60; cf. Matt. 26:62. It would seem that both Caiaphas and Pilate proceeded from the assumption that an accused person is guilty unless he can prove himself to be innocent. 5. But Jesus never answered at all, so that Pilate was amazed. The governor is confronted with a double contrast: a. Between Jesus and ever so many other accused persons who had appeared before him, and had probably been very vocal and excited in defending themselves; and b. between the boisterous, troublesome, aggressive person as Jesus had been pictured by the chief priests and the elders, and the quiet, dignified, serene individual who was now standing before him. Just exactly why it was that Jesus remained silent has not been revealed. The following possible reasons, however, deserve consideration: a. He opened not his mouth in fulfilment of prophecy (Isa. 42:1–4; 53:7; 57:15; Zech. 9:9). See also I Kings 19:11, 12; Matt. 5:7–9; 12:18–21; 21:5. b. Pilate did not deserve an answer, for he knew very well that Jesus was innocent. The governor had declared this openly (John 18:38b; cf. Luke 23:4). He should have acquitted Jesus. c. The Jewish leaders knew very well that they were lying. Not once during his ministry had Jesus spoken or acted as a political rebel. Rather, the very opposite (Mark 12:17; John 6:15). On four separate occasions during the last several hours of his life Jesus opened not his mouth: before Caiaphas (Mark 14:60, 61), before Pilate (Mark 15:4, 5), before HerodLuke 23:9b , and again before PilateJohn 19:9b . These silences spoke louder than words. They were in reality condemnations of his tormentors. And they were proofs of his identity as the Messiah. 15:6–15 Jesus Sentenced to Die Cf. Matt. 27:15–26; Luke 23:13 25; John 18:39 19:16 6 Now at a feast it was customary to release to the people any one prisoner whom they asked for. 7 And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas. 8 So the crowd came up and asked^[792] (Pilate) to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. 9 Pilate asked them, Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? 10 For he was aware that because of envy the chief priests had handed him over (to him). 11 But the chief priests stirred up the mob (to get) him to release to them Barabbas instead (of Jesus). 12 Replying, Pilate said to them, What, then, do you want me to do with the one whom you call the king of the Jews? 13 Crucify him! they shouted back. 14 But Pilate said to them, Why? What wrong has he done? All the louder they were screaming, Let him be crucified! 15 So Pilate, anxious to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified. Without material conflicts each evangelist tells the story in his own way. Common to Matthew and Mark is the following: At a feast it was customary for the governor to release to the crowd any one prisoner whom they wanted. So, realizing that because of envy Jesus had been delivered to him, Pilate allows the people to choose between Jesus and the prisoner Barabbas. The chief priests persuade the people to ask that not Jesus but Barabbas be released. What then do you want me to do (or: shall I do) with the one whom you call the king of the Jews? (thus Mark); with Jesus, who is called the Christ? (thus Matthew). They shout back, Let him be crucified. Pilate asks, Why? What wrong has he done? All the louder the people answer or scream, Let him be crucified. Pilate releases Barabbas and orders Jesus to be flogged, a punishment which was generally followed by crucifixion. The most important variations are as follows: Mark describes Barabbas as a rebel and murderer (15:7); Matthew calls him a notorious prisoner (27:16); John, a robber (18:40). While both Matthew and Mark clearly imply that the choice between Jesus and Barabbas was left to the people, Mark adds that the people took the initiative in seeing to it that as usual, so also now, a prisoner was released (15:8). Also, according to Mark, Pilate suggests that the people choose the king of the Jews for release (15:9). Matthew adds that while the people were considering whom to choose for release, Pilate received a message from his wife informing him about her dream and warning him not to do anything with that righteous man (27:19). At the close of the story as told by Matthew, Pilate washes his hands and declares his innocence of the blood of this man. The people reply, Let his blood be upon us and upon our children (27:24, 25). Luke states that when Jesus returned from Herod (23:6–12), Pilate informed the Jewish authorities that since neither he himself nor Herod had found the accused guilty of any charge, he would be punished and released (23:22). Luke presents an abbreviated account of the Jesus versus Barabbas incident (23:18b, 19, 25a). His story ends as does that of Matthew and Mark: Barabbas is released; Jesus is delivered to the will of the chief priests and the people (23:24, 25). The innocence of Jesus, definitely implied by all four evangelists, is affirmed in no uncertain language by Luke, and this repeatedly (verses 4, 14, 15, 22). Luke's account, too, emphasizes even more strongly than do the others how earnestly and strenuously Pilate tried to persuade the people to agree with his suggestion that Jesus should be chastised and released (verses 16, 22). Pilate's assertion I find no crime in him also occurs more than once in John's Gospel (18:38; 19:4, 6). Here, too, the story Jesus versus Barabbas is presented in abbreviated form (18:39, 40). Distinctive of John's account are the Ecce homo and the Ecce rex vester incidents (19:5, 14). But most of all we are indebted to John's Gospel for showing us what finally moved Pilate to yield to the will of the chief priests and the people: So Jesus came outside, still wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. And he said to them, Look! The man! Then when the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify (him), crucify (him)! Pilate said to them, Take him yourselves and crucify (him); for I, on my part, do not find any crime in him. The Jews answered him, We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Now when Pilate heard this word, he was even more afraid, and he entered into the governor's residence again, and said to Jesus, Where do you come from? But Jesus gave him no answer. So Pilate said to him, To me you do not speak? Don t you realize that I have the authority to release you and that I have the authority to crucify you? Jesus answered, You would have no authority at all over me if it had not been given to you from above. Therefore the one who delivered me up to you has the greater sin. As a result of this, Pilate was making efforts to release him. But the Jews kept shouting, If you release this man, you are no friend of the emperor. Whoever makes himself king rebels against the emperor. Then Pilate, on hearing these words, led Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat, in a place called The Stone Pavement, in Aramaic: Gabbatha. Now it was the Preparation of the Passover. The hour was about the sixth. And he said to the Jews, Look! Your king! Then they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him! Pilate said to them, Your king shall I crucify? Answered the chief priests, We have no king but the emperor. So he then handed him over to them in order to be crucified (19:5–16). 6. Now at a feast it was customary to release to the people any one prisoner whom they asked for.^[793] Whether the reference here is to any of the great religious festivals or exclusively to the Passover is not clear, though the idea of setting a prisoner free would seem to be most appropriate in connection with Passover, the commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from the house of bondage. And see also John 18:39, But you have a custom that I release a man for you at the Passover. One thing is clear: Pilate at this particular moment is most willing to release a prisoner; for, as he sees it, this may be a way to get Jesus off his hands. 7. And among the rebels in prison, who had committed murder in the insurrection, there was a man called Barabbas.^[794] We know very little about this man except what is stated here and in parallel passages. He may well have been a fanatic patriot. The country was full of them. Was he perhaps a dagger-bearer, one ready at any time to bid defiance to Roman oppression? Note the insurrection. The one familiar to Mark? To the readers? To both? Or simply, the particular insurrection in which these men had been involved? We do not know. 8. So the crowd came up and asked (Pilate) to do as he had been accustomed to do for them. Note came up, probably up the steps leading to Pilate's elevated quarters in the Tower of Antonia. Though the original may also be translated and began^[795] to ask, in the present case the simple asked is probably sufficient. We are not told who were in the committee that made this request, and it is useless to guess, except to say that all or most of them must have been Pilate's own subjects. To conclude from this that all those who at this early hour were gathered in front of the governor's palace must have been inhabitants of Jerusalem and surroundings is deriving too much from too little. 9. Pilate asked them, Do you want me to release^[796] to you the king of the Jews? As is clear throughout and was mentioned earlier, Pilate wishes to shake off the responsibility of making a decision with respect to Jesus. In the first place, he is not favorably inclined toward the Jews, and an added reason for his disinclination to grant the earlier request, namely, that he sentence Jesus to death (John 18:30, 31; cf. Mark 14:64; 15:1, 3, 4), is mentioned in verse 10, as will be shown in a moment. So, in the present request for the release of a prisoner he sees an opportunity to disengage himself from this case. It is therefore clear that his questions, Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? this title being uttered contemptuously is really a suggestion that the Jews should ask for the release of Jesus. Of course, the very idea that Jesus, whom Pilate has already declared innocent, is here treated as if he were in a class with a reckless bandit, a convicted revolutionist and murderer, is shocking. The suggestion that the chief priests and the people in general choose between Jesus and Barabbas, as if both were condemned criminals, one of whom could now become the object of Pilate's and of the mob's mercy, was outrageously unfair. The fact that Jesus submitted to this outrage instead of requesting more than twelve legions of angels to destroy his enemies shows with what earnestness and devotion he applied himself to the task which the Father had assigned to him. As to Pilate, his purpose in saying, Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews? was that he had decided to let Jesus go (Acts 3:13) &that is, if he could do this without what he considered loss to himself. 10. For he was aware that because of envy the chief priests had handed him over^[797] (to him). Pilate knew that there was no objective ground, no just cause for the plot of the Jewish leaders to put Jesus to death. He knew that these men were being devoured by envy. For more on envy see N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, p. 388, where one can also find several Biblical illustrations of this sinful characteristic. Envy is the displeasure aroused by seeing someone else having what you do not want him to have. So, for example, the leaders envied Jesus because of his fame and following, his ability to perform miracles, etc. Surely, now Pilate is going to have his way. Why, even the leaders cannot with any consistency ask for the release of a proved, condemned, violent, murderous insurrectionist, since just a little while ago they have accused Jesus of insurrection, a man whose guilt in this respect has not even been proved; in fact, has been disproved. And as to the crowds, Pilate knows how they will vote! &And then, as Matt. 27:19relates, there was a sudden interruption. A message arrives from the governor's wife, stating, Don t have anything to do with this righteous man; for this very day I have suffered much in a dream because of him. For the details see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 953, 954. While Pilate was being kept busy with the message from his wife, the chief priests took full advantage of the situation: 11. But the chief priests stirred up the mob (to get) him to release to them Barabbas instead (of Jesus).^[798] Did they recount all the crimes which Pilate had previously committed against the Jewish nation? And did they intimidate those who at first were inclined to choose Jesus? If they did, it would not have been the first time; see John 7:13; 9:22; 19:38; nor would it be the last; see John 20:19; Acts 4:18. What is implied in Mark is fully stated in Matt. 27:21: So when the governor asked them, Which of the two do you want me to release to you? they said, Barabbas. Mark continues: 12. Replying, Pilate said to them, What, then, do you want^[799] me to do with^[800] the one whom you call^[801] the king of the Jews? The governor, apparently not realizing what the chief priests had been doing, must have been fully confident that the people would ask for the release of Jesus. When instead, they demanded the release of Barabbas, Pilate was becoming desperate. He did not want to sentence Jesus to death. Yet, it was becoming more and more clear to him that this by now had become the desire of the fickle multitude. When the prophet of Galilee was still healing the sick, raising the dead, cleansing the lepers, holding the multitudes spellbound by means of his marvelous discourses, he was popular. When he rode into Jerusalem, he was applauded. But now that he is seemingly helpless, and the leaders have used their strongest arguments to persuade the people to demand his crucifixion, they turn their backs on him. As to Pilate, when he asked, Then what do you want me to do with the one whom you call the king of the Jews? his own immediate answer should have been, Since he is innocent I will order his immediate and definite release. In fact, the judge should not even have asked the question at all. He knew the answer. 13. Crucify him! they shouted back.^[802] The people reacted angrily to Pilate's assumption that they regarded Jesus as their king. In this connection it should not escape us that by demanding Christ's crucifixion they were beginning to fulfil his own prediction. See Matt. 20:19; 26:2; John 3:14; 12:32. The contrast between the jubilations of the preceding Sunday and the execrations of Good Friday create a problem. The question is often asked, How was it possible for the crowd to cheer Jesus on Sunday and to sneer at him five days later? The usual answer is, But this was not the same crowd. The hosanna shouters were Galilean pilgrims; the Crucify him screamers were Jerusalemites or at least Judeans. Whatever element of truth (see verse 8) there may be in that solution, it is not fully satisfactory. Unbiased reading of the Triumphal Entry accounts (Matt. 21:8–11; Mark 11:7 10; Luke 19:36 38; and John 12:9 18) does not leave one with the impression that all these Sunday enthusiasts were Galilean pilgrims. See, for example, (John 12:17. Though we must make allowance for the figure of speech called hyperbole, we will probably have to agree with the conclusion of the Pharisees, Look, the world has gone after him!John 12:19). Similarly, it would be difficult to defend the proposition that on the following Friday none but Pilate's subjects were screaming Crucify him. Admittedly many of them may well have been exactly that. But to exclude from Calvary a goodly number of people who, in order to participate in the feast, had come from elsewhere, including Galilee, would amount to doing injustice to the probabilities. As well as there were Galilean women in that crowd (Mark 15:40, 41) there must have been Galilean men also. With respect to variety of visitors, Passover probably resembled Pentecost. See (Acts 2:5 11. Eagerness to see what was going on at Calvary must have been widespread. Curiosity does not recognize ethnic boundaries. And as concerns the attitude of the people, including the Jerusalemites, toward Jesus during the days intervening between the Triumphal Entry and Good Friday, the huge crowd [regardless of where they came from] enjoyed listening to himMark 12:37). It would seem therefore that the only logical conclusion is that on the part of many a change of attitude had actually taken place.^[803] How must we account for this? The fickleness or instability of the human heart and mind apart from regenerating grace enters into the answer. Other factors deserving consideration are: a. The pressure exerted upon the crowd by the chief priests. We are distinctly told, But the chief priests stirred up the mob to get him [Pilate] to release to them Barabbas instead (of Jesus). Read Mark 15:11; cf. Matt. 27:20. It was hard to resist such pressure. See John 9:22; 12:42; cf. 20:19. b. The fact that in the end Jesus did not prove to be the kind of Messiah the people desired and were expecting. c. Sinful ignorance of Scripture. With increasing clarity the Old Testament draws the picture of the coming Redeemer: Gen. 3:15; II Sam. 7:12, 13; Ps. 72; 118:22, 23; Isa. 7:14; 9:6; 11:1–10; 35:5, 6; 42:1–4; 53; 60:1–3; Jer. 23:6; 31:31–34; Mic. 4:1–5; 5:2; 7:18–20; Hag. 2:1–9; Zech. 3:8; 6:9–13; 9:9, 10; 13:1; Mal. 3:1–4, to mention only a few of the many messianic prophecies. These predictions associate with Messiah: peace, pardon, healing, righteousness, vicarious suffering, spiritual cleansing. The lesson is obvious: Do not neglect the prayerful study of the Scriptures! And do not neglect to take the Bible's precious truths to heart! 14. But Pilate said to them, Why?^[804] What wrong has he done? It is rewarding to count the number of times the governor uttered the words, I do not find any crime in him, or something similar, as here. In addition to the passages from Luke and John, already mentioned, and the clear implication of the present Marcan passage, see also Matt. 27:23, 24. Even when due allowance is made for parallel (duplicate) passages, the fact remains that Pilate stresses and constantly re-iterates the truth that in Jesus there is no cause of indictment. And by means of Pilate it was God himself who declared his Son's complete innocence, his perfect righteousness. Nevertheless, in a few more moments this same Pilate is going to succumb to the persistent clamor of the Jews, and is going to sentence Jesus to die the accursed death of crucifixion. No guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him &no guilt in him.& So then he handed him over in order to be crucified. Thus reads the sacred record. But how could a righteous God permit this? There is only one solution. It is found in Isa. 53:6, 8, Jehovah has laid on him the iniquity of us all.& He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due. Cf. Gal. 3:13. In answer to Pilate's question the people did not even say, He did this or, He did that. They followed what must have been for them the easier course: All the louder they were screaming, Let him be crucified! Over and over again these terrible words are yelled until they become a monotonous refrain, an eery, ominous chant: Let him be crucified.& Let him be crucified.& The crowd has become a riotous mob, an emotion-charged screaming rabble. Matthew (27:24) continues as follows: So when Pilate saw that he was not getting anywhere, and that on the contrary a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, Innocent am I of the blood of this man. Mark skips this incident and continues with 15. So Pilate, anxious to satisfy the crowd, released Barabbas to them; and he had Jesus flogged and handed him over to be crucified. As was mentioned previously, what turned the scale so that Pilate finally decided to yield to the mob's clamor was the frightening and diabolical outcry, If you release this man [Jesus], you are no friend of the emperor. Whoever makes himself king rebels against the emperor (John 19:12). It was this outcry that floored the governor. In his feverish imagination he saw how he was about to lose his prestige, position, possessions, freedom, even his life perhaps. Pilate understood immediately that the people's angry statement implied much more than it expressed. It implied: We will lodge a complaint against you. We will tell the emperor that you condone high treason against the government; that you have released a man who was guilty of continuous sedition, and who allowed himself to be called king. We will accuse you of softness toward rebels. Then where will you be? Mark summarizes by simply stating that Pilate, anxious to satisfy^[805] the crowd, released Barabbas to them. He continues literally, And having flogged Jesus, he handed him over that he should be crucified. Having flogged means having caused him to be flogged. Cf. 6:16: the man whom I beheaded. Flogging^[806] generally preceded crucifixion, though, as (John 19:4 6(see N.T.C. on that passage) indicates, that was not Pilate's immediate intention in the present case. It is clear from that passage that Mark summarizes. None of the Gospel-writers is attempting to give a complete account. The Roman scourge consisted of a short wooden handle to which several thongs were attached, the ends equipped with pieces of lead or brass and with sharply pointed bits of bone. The stripes were laid especially on the victim's back, bared and bent. Generally two men were employed to administer this punishment, one lashing the victim from one side, one from the other side, with the result that the flesh was at times lacerated to such an extent that deep-seated veins and arteries, sometimes even entrails and inner organs, were exposed. Such flogging, from which Roman citizens were exemptActs 16:37), often resulted in death. One can picture Jesus after the scourging, covered with horrible bruises and lacerations, with wales and welts. It is no surprise that Simon of Cyrene was compelled to bear the cross after Jesus had carried it a short distance (Matt. 27:32; Luke 23:26; John 19:16, 17). Scourging was hideous torture. It must, however, be borne in mind that the suffering of the Man of Sorrows was not only intense but also vicarious: He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed (Isa. 53:5; I Peter 2:24). For the believer it is a comfort to know that back of Pilate stood God himself. The responsibility for the sinful act, to be sure, remained with Pilate and with those who pressured him into delivering Jesus to be crucified.^[807] But the actions of all these sinners were included in the all-comprehensive, eternal decree of God: This man, having been handed over (to you) by the predetermined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you, by the hand of lawless men, have crucified and slain (Acts 2:23). Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). Pilate had tried again and again to bypass Jesus. He discovered that this was entirely impossible. He was forced to take a stand, and he took the wrong stand. The impossibility of evading Jesus is by himself expressed in these words. a. (Negatively) He who is not with me is against me (Matt. 12:30). b. (Positively) He who is not against us is for us (Mark 9:40). In the great day of judgment there will just be two groups, not three. There will be no middle ground. See (Matt. 25:31–46. The decisive moment to choose is always NOW: Today, O that you would listen to his voicePs. 95:7; Heb. 3:7, 15). 15:16–20 The Mockery Cf. Matt. 27:27–31; John 19:2, 3 16 Then the soldiers led him away inside the palace, that is, the governor's headquarters, and called together the whole band. 17 And they dressed him in purple robe; and having woven a crown of thorns, they set it on his head. 18 And they began to salute him, Hail, king of the Jews? 19 They were repeatedly striking him on the head with a stick, spitting on him, and on bended knee doing him homage. 20 And when they had finished mocking him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him (again). Then they led him away for crucifixion. This section is not paralleled in Luke. As to the extent to which the individual items, as presented by Matthew, Mark, and John, parallel each other see N.T.C. on Matthew, the columns on pp. 958, 959. 16. Then the soldiers led him away inside the palace,^[808] that^[809] is, the governor's headquarters,^[810] and called together the whole band. Note the words, The soldiers led him away. From Thursday night until Friday morning about nine o clock (Mark 15:25) Jesus permitted himself to be led, led away, sent, brought, etc. This means that he allowed himself to be passed from one individual or group to another, as a captive. To appreciate more fully what is meant by Isa. 53:7As a lamb he was led to the slaughter study the following table (not necessarily complete): Jesus was led From Gethsemane Matthew Mark Luke John 1 to Annas 18:13 2 to Caiaphas 26:57 14:53 22:54 18:24 3 to Pilate 27:2 15:1 23:1 18:28 4 to Herod 23:7 5 to Pilate 23:11 6 to inside the praet. 27:27 15:16 18:33 7 outside before the crowds 19:5 8 to inside the praet. 19:9 9 outside before the crowds 19:13 10 to Calvary 27:31 15:20 23:26 19:17 The soldiers, as many as were available note the whole band, literally the entire cohort, though this does not necessarily mean a full cohort of six hundred men now gather around Jesus in order to make sport of him. They desire to gratify their sadistic urges. They wish to have some fun with this King of the Jews. These soldiers, though Roman in the sense that they were in the service of the Roman government, were probably recruited from the province of Syria; and if so, were able to converse in the Aramaic language, spoken also by the Jews, and were acquainted with Jewish ways. They probably regarded Jesus as a fake claimant to the royal throne, a person who deserved nothing better than to be mocked. To say that this mockery had been ordered by Pilate (thus Lenski) is unwarranted. Nowhere does the record support that interpretation. It was Pilate who had ordered the scourging. Though it is true that he could and should have prevented the mockery, and was therefore partly responsible for it, we have no right to say that he ordered it. 17 19. And they dressed him in a purple robe; and having woven a crown of thorns, they set it on his head. And they began to salute him, Hail, king of the Jews! They were repeatedly striking him on the head with a stick, spitting on him, and on bended knee doing him homage. This mockery should be compared to what Jesus had already endured in the house of Caiaphas, just a few hours earlier. See Mark 14:65; cf. Matt. 26:67; Luke 22:63 65. In summary, the entire picture is as follows. The soldiers, having stripped Jesus of his outer garments, throw a royal robe around him. They weave a crown of thorns and set it on his head. Moreover, since a king must also wield a scepter, they thrust a stick into his right hand. This item is mentioned in so many words by Matthew and is implied by Mark. Then, one by one, they kneel down in front of him in mock adoration, saying, Hail, king of the Jews. They spit on him and hit him on the head with his own scepter. Note the separate items mentioned by Mark: a. They robed him in purple As Matthew indicates, they first disrobed him. This had been done once before, just before he was scourged (Mark 15:15). how terribly it must have hurt him when the robe had been cast around his scourged body. And now again they strip him and then throw around him what was probably a discarded and faded soldier's mantle of a purpleJohn 19:2b hue, representing the royal purple. Here Matthew uses the synonym scarlet. Since the robe must have been faded, its color did not stand out very clearly, and could therefore be considered either purple or scarlet. Again, how throwing this robe around the scourged Savior must have hurt him! b. They crowned him with a crown of thorns Somewhere in the vicinity of the praetorium the soldiers find some thorny twigs. Whether the plant from which they obtained these twigs was the Spina Christi or Palinrus Shrub, as some think, is not known. It has been pointed out by botanists that few countries of the size of Palestine have so many varieties of prickly plants. The identity of the species is of little importance. Far more significant is the fact that thorns and thistles are mentioned in Gen. 3:18in connection with Adam's fall. Here in Mark 15:17b and its parallels Jesus is pictured as bearing the curse that lies upon nature, in order to deliver nature and us from it. With fiendish cruelty the soldiers, having made a crown out of these thorny twigs, press it down upon Christ's head. It represented not an imperial wreath but a crown such as would be appropriate for a king of the Jews. Those who were engaged in this bit of fun wanted to mock Jesus. They also wanted to torture him. The crown of thorns satisfied both purposes. Rivulets of blood must have started to run down his face, neck, and other parts of his body. Did his molesters realize that they were doing this to him who is King of kings and Lord of lords? c. They mockingly adored him Hail, king of the Jews, a soldier would say, as on bended knee he was doing him homage. Then another would take his turn, and still another, until all those many soldiers had taken their turn. d. They hit him Before any of these mockers vacated his position in front of Jesus, he would remove the stick from the hand of the victim and strike him on the head with it, as if to say, What a king you are! One that gets hit over the head with his own scepter! And as the fiend hits Jesus, the thorny spikes are driven deeper into the flesh. e. They spat on him They descend to a level lower than the beasts. Gleefully for they're having fun each soldier, when his turn comes around, after getting up from his knees spits into the face of God's only begotten and beloved Son! In studying this passage a few practical lessons stand out: a. How darkened man's mind! These men think they are doing all this to a false claimant to an earthly throne. They have no conception of the fact that they are doing it to the rightful owner of the universe, the King of kings and Lord of lords. b. How depraved man's heart! Hellish cruelty is displayed here. Unbridled sadism triumphs. And what an empty triumph! One that makes the soul of the perpetrator more wretched than ever (Isa. 48:22; 57:21; contrast Isa. 26:3; Ps. 119:165). c. How dependable God's Word! What had been predicted is here being fulfilled (Ps. 22:6, 7; Isa. 53:3, 5, 7, 8, 10; Mark 10:34). That very fact must have imparted comfort to the heart and mind of Christ. d. How durable Christ's purpose! He bore it all without complaining. He did this because he knew that he was accomplishing the work which the Father had given him to do (John 17:4). For our sake he became poor that we through his poverty might become rich (II Cor. 8:9). 20. And when they had finished mocking him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him (again). Then they led him away for crucifixion.^[811] Finally the soldiers have all had their turn. According to John 19:4ff. Pilate now enters into the picture again. He brings Jesus out before the crowd, the sorely afflicted one still wearing the thorny crown and the purple robe. A pathetic spectacle is exposed to the view of the public: blood-streaked Jesus, covered with gashing wounds. Look! The man! says the governor, in order to arouse the people's sympathy and to testify once again that he, Pilate, finds no crime in him. But this effort on the part of the judge fails as tragically as have all the previous ones. When the chief priests and the officers see Jesus they cry out, Crucify &crucify! They now use their final argument, the one which up to this time they have held in abeyance, namely, We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. Having re-examined Jesus and all the while still trying to release him, Pilate finally surrenders to the wishes of the chief priests and the mob. He does so for the reason stated previously (John 19:12). The soldiers game having ended somewhat earlier, these men now remove their victim's royal accouterments and put his own clothes on him again. Then they lead him away to be crucified. 15:21–32 Calvary: The Crucifixion of Jesus Cf. Matt. 27:32–44; Luke 23:26 43; John 19:17 27 21 And they forced a certain bypasser, who was coming from the country, a Cyrenian, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. 22 And they brought Jesus to the place (called) Golgotha, which, translated, is Place of a Skull. 23 They offered him wine flavored with myrrh, but he refused to accept it. 24 And they crucified him, and divided his garments, casting lots for them (to determine) who should take what. 25 Now it was the third hour^[812] when they crucified him. 26 The superscription stating the charge against him read, THE KING OF THE JEWS 27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 29 ^[813] And those who passed by were blaspheming him, shaking their heads and saying, Aha! You who destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save yourself and come down from the cross. 31 Similarly also the chief priests, mocking (him) among themselves, along with the scribes, were saying, Others he saved, himself he cannot save! 32 Let the Christ, the king of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe! And those crucified with him were also heaping insults on him. The story of Christ's crucifixion is told by all four evangelists in some detail. Mark's account is the shortest. Slightly longer is Matthew's. Luke's report is almost twice the length of Mark's. John's is about as much longer than Matthew's as it is shorter than Luke's. If we assign the convenient figure 10 to the length of Matthew's account of the crucifixion, Mark's would be 9, Luke's 17, and John's [Greek]. Omitting minor details, the contents of the four accounts may be briefly summarized and compared as follows: The resemblance between Matthew (27:32–44) and Mark (15:21–32) is very close. Both record that Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry Christ's cross. Arrived at Golgotha Jesus was offered a drink (probably to deaden the sense of pain), but he refused it. Having been crucified, his clothes were divided by lot among the soldiers. Over his head was placed the indictment against him: it described him as the king of the Jews. Two robbers were crucified with Jesus, one on either side of him. Bypassers blasphemed him, taunting him to come down from the cross. Chief priests and scribes were scoffing among themselves. Others he saved, they said, himself he cannot save.& The robbers who had been crucified with him were reviling him. The main variations between Matthew's report and Mark's, aside from the wording of the superscription, which is somewhat different in each of the four Gospels, are as follows: Matthew states that it was while the procession was coming out of the city that Simon of Cyrene was pressed into service. When Jesus had been crucified, the soldiers, sitting down, were keeping watch over him. To the words of mockery uttered by the chief priests, etc., Matthew adds those found in 27:43, He has placed his trust in God.& Mark informs his (Roman) leaders that a Cyrenian, Simon, was coming from the country (so also Luke) when the soldiers forced him to bear Christ's cross, and that this Simon was the father of Alexander and Rufus (Rom. 16:13). He also states that it was the third hour when Jesus was crucified. As to Luke, the main specific features of his contribution (23:26–43) are the following: Jesus address to Jerusalem's weeping women, the story of the impenitent criminal and the penitent one, and (verses 34, 43) the first two words from the cross. This evangelist adds that the soldiers joined in the mockery and offered Christ vinegar. According to John (19:17–27) at first Jesus himself carried the cross. In fact, John says nothing about Simon of Cyrene. The title that had been affixed to the cross was written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. Many of the Jews read it, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city. John reports the objection of the chief priests to the wording of the title, and also Pilate's answer. This evangelist goes into some detail in describing the manner in which the garments of Jesus, including the seamless tunic, were divided. He has preserved for us the third word from the cross (verse 27). Though in the Passion story the center of interest is always Jesus himself, what he did, said, or endured, our attention is here also fixed upon five subsidiary persons or groups: a. Simon of Cyrene renders a service to Jesus (verse 21). b. Arrived at Golgotha the legionaries or soldiers offer Jesus drugged wine, which he refuses. Having crucified him between two robbers, and having affixed a label above his head, they cast lots for the division of his clothes (verses 22 27). c. Bypassers blaspheme (verses 29, 30). d. Scribes (and their companions) scoff (verses 31, 32a). e. Robbers revile (verse 32b). With the exception of verse 21, the entire section (Mark 15:21 32) relates what happened to Jesus from nine o clock A.M. (cf. 15:25) until noon (cf. 15:33) on Good Friday. Simon of Cyrene In reality what is said in verse 21 might also have been included under the next heading, because Simon did not act of his own accord. By the soldiers he was forced to do what he did. But since the New Testament and early tradition place such emphasis on him and (probably) his family, a separate caption is given to verse 21. And they forced^[814] a certain bypasser, who was coming from the country, a Cyrenian, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to carry his cross. As was customary and according to law, the execution was carried out outside the city (Exod. 29:14; Lev. 4:12, 21; 9:11; 16:27; Num. 15:35; 19:3; cf. John 19:20; Heb. 13:12, 13). Those condemned to be crucified had to carry their own cross. Commentators are divided on the question whether this refers to the crossbeam alone, the upright having already been set in place on Golgotha, or to the entire cross. Since there is nothing in text or context that suggests otherwise, it is here assumed that the latter position the entire cross is correct. In the light of the fact that the title of indictment was written above Christ's head, it is well-nigh certain that artists are correct in their preference for the dagger-type or Latin cross:. For the reasons why death by crucifixion must be considered a curse see N.T.C. on the Gospel of John, Vol. II, p. 425. Jesus, too, carried his own cross (John 19:16, 17), but not for long. Sheer physical exhaustion made it impossible for him to carry it very far. Consider what he had already endured within the last fifteen hours: the tense atmosphere of the Upper Room, the betrayal by Judas, the agonies of Gethsemane, the desertion by his disciples, the torture of a totally hypocritical trial before the Sanhedrin, the mockery in the palace of Caiaphas, the denial by his most prominent disciple, the trial before an unjust judge, the terrible ordeal of being scourged, the pronunciation of the death sentence upon him, and the seven-itemed abuse by the soldiers in the praetorium! Humanly speaking, is it not a wonder that he was able to carry the cross any distance at all? When Jesus succumbed beneath his load, the legionaries, exercising their right of requisitioning or making demands on people, forced Simon, a Cyrenian or man from Cyrene located on a plateau, ten miles from the Mediterranean Sea, in what is now Libya (west of Egypt) to carry Christ's cross for the rest of the distance. The theory that Simon could not have been a Jew, because he gave his sons Greek names (verse 21), is without merit, since many Jews followed that practice. Besides, in Cyrene there was a large colony of Jews (Acts 2:10; 6:9; 11:20; 13:1). The further speculation that the man must have been a farmer, because on this particular Friday morning he came from the country, is also without any basis. Even today many people besides farmers have business or social connections in the country. Some even live there! The following reconstruction, though not certain, is however probable. Simon, a Jew, has come to Jerusalem to attend one of the great festivals (in this case Passover), as was the custom of many Jews, including those from Cyrene (Acts 2:10). There was even a Cyrenian synagogue in Jerusalem (Acts 6:9). Now on this particular Friday, returning to the city from a visit to the country, Simon is pressed into service by the soldiers who are leading Jesus to Calvary, perhaps (but this is by no means certain) along the Via Dolorosa (Sorrowful Way), and are just now coming through the gate out of the city. So reluctantly at first? Simon carries Christ's cross, arrives at Calvary, and witnesses what happens there. The behavior of Jesus and his words from the cross leave such an impression on Simon that he becomes a Christian. Subsequently he and his family are living in Rome. He may have been living there before, but in any event he was a Cyrenian by birth. (Acts 11:19; 13:1). Mark, writing to the Romans, mentions Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, as if to say, people with whom you, in Rome, are well acquainted. Paul, in his letter to the Romans (16:13), writes, Greet Rufus, outstanding in the Lord, and his mother and mine. Evidently the mother of Rufus hence, the wife of Simon had rendered some motherly service to Paul. If this reconstruction is factual, then the service which Simon rendered, though initially forced, turned out to be a genuine blessing for himself, his family, and many others. The Legionaries 22. And they brought Jesus to the place (called) Golgotha, which, translated, is^[815] Place of the Skull. The name Golgotha is basically Aramaic. It is a Greek transliteration of Aramaic golgoltha; cf. Hebrew golgoleth. The name means skull. The Greek word for Skull is Kranion (cf. cranium). In the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin version of the Bible) Kranion was rendered Calvaria; cf. Calvary. Why was this name Place of the (or a) Skull given to it? Because it looked like a skull? Because a skull was found there? Precisely where was Golgotha? Is it possible to point out its exact location today? On all this see N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 426. The procession arrived at the Place of the Skull. Though today it may well be impossible to point out the exact spot where Jesus was crucified, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has tradition on its side. Not too much can be made of this, however, for the tradition is rather late (fourth century a.d.). Within the large space covered by this church there is room for the site of the crosses and also for that of the tomb in which Joseph of Arimathea laid Jesus body. The place of execution and the tomb were very close to each other (John 19:41, 42). Skull's Place was outside the gate as it existed at that time (Matt. 27:32; Heb. 13:12).^[816] 23. They offered^[817] him wine flavored with myrrh,^[818] but he refused to accept it. That the wine which the soldiers tried to give Jesus was mixed with something bitter appears from Matthew's account. Here in Mark it becomes clear that this bitter substance was myrrh. They offered Jesus this myrrhed wine. He tasted it (Matt. 27:34), and then refused it. Had the sympathetic women of Jerusalem (Luke 23:27) prepared this drink in order to lessen the pain of the sufferers? However that may be, the reason why Jesus rejected it was probably because he wanted his mind to be clear when he spoke from the cross and because he wished to endure to the full the pain that was in store for him, in order to be his people's perfect Substitute. 24a. And they crucified him.& Using the vivid present tense, Mark simply writes, And they crucify him. Nevertheless, in English it is entirely correct to substitute the past tense for this historical present. Note how few words in the original only three: And they-crucified him are used to indicate this enormously significant event! With this marvelous restraint we might compare the manner in which Scripture tells the story of the creation of the billions of stars: and the-starsGen. 1:16b . The pronoun they refers to the soldiers, as is clear from verse 16. The mode of execution to which reference is made existed in many nations, including the Roman Empire. Rome generally (not always!) reserved this form of punishment for slaves and those who had been convicted of the grossest crimes. It has been well said that the person who was crucified died a thousand deaths. Large nails were driven through hands and feet (John 20:25; cf. Luke 24:40). Among the horrors which one suffered while thus suspended (with the feet resting upon a little tablet, not very far away from the ground) were the following: severe inflammation, the swelling of the wounds in the region of the nails, unbearable pain from torn tendons, fearful discomfort from the strained position of the body, throbbing headache, and burning thirst (John 19:28). In the case of Jesus the emphasis, however, should not be placed on this physical torture which he endured. It has been said that only the damned in hell know what Jesus suffered when he died on the cross. In a sense this is true, for they, too, suffer eternal death. One should add, however, that they have never been in heaven. The Son of God, on the other hand, descended from the regions of infinite delight in the closest possible fellowship with his Father (John 1:1; 17:5) to the abysmal depths of hell. On the cross he cried out, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Mark 15:34). 24b. and divided his garments, casting lots for them (to determine) who should take what. Having crucified him, the legionaries, as was their custom, divided his garments by casting lots. In all probability by means of throwing of dice the four pieces headgear, sandals, belt, and outer garment were divided among the four (John 19:23) soldiers. The seamless tunic, all of one piece, woven all the way from top to bottom, was also put into the lottery, all of this in accordance with the prophecy of Ps. 22:18(LXX Ps. 21:19), which, as is clear, Mark has in mind, though the fulfilment formula is not found in Mark but in John 19:23, 24. See N.T.C. on that passage for further details. Note the total indifference, on the part of these soldiers, to Christ on the cross. They certainly should have paid closer attention to him, to his attitude, his words, etc. At least on one of them, the centurion, such things and other circumstances made a very deep impression (15:39). And, as Matthew informs us, even the soldiers who were with the centurion, were somewhat similarly affected (27:54), but that effect was not produced immediately. Right now soldiers were throwing dice while the Lamb of God was taking away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Nevertheless, it is but fair to add that Luke 23:34 was applicable to them in a higher degree than it applies to us today, after all these years during which the light of the gospel has been spreading. Poor, poor soldiers! How much did they take home from Calvary? A few pieces of clothing! No truly penitent hearts, no renewed visions, no changed lives, no Savior? Even today, how much or how little do some people carry home with them from the church service, the Bible class, the hymn sing, the revival meeting? Each individual should answer this question for himself. Does not Christ's own parable of The Sower apply here? See above, on 4:1–20. And let us remember Luke 12:48. 25. Now it was the third hour when they crucified him. Much has been written with reference to this brief note of time. Bible critics cite this passage as proof-positive that Scripture contains errors and contradictions. Does not John 19:14state that Pilate sentenced Jesus to die when it was about the sixth hour? Surely, Jesus was sentenced before he was crucified. Yet, according to John (say the critics), the sentencing took place at noon. It has been shown, however, that in other passages the author of the Fourth Gospel in all probability used the Roman civil day time computation. See N.T.C. on John 1:39; 4:6; 4:52. If there, why not here? Now the two statements the one from John, namely, that Jesus was sentenced at about six o clock in the morning; and the one from Mark, that he was actually nailed to the cross at nine o clock in the morning, can hardly be said to be in hopeless conflict with each other. It must be borne in mind that John does not say six o clock but about six o clock. Let us suppose that it was actually half past six. We grant that even this leaves a difficulty, but the difficulty is not great. It is difficult for us to understand how the trial before Pilate (in reality the Pilate-Herod-Pilate trial) was so speedy, how everything transpired so rapidly. On the other hand, does it not seem probable that the Sanhedrin had been doing all in its power to rush Pilate to a decision? Is it not true that this august body had been rushing the case from the very moment when Jesus was captured? The morning meeting of the Sanhedrin may have been very early, indeed! It may have taken only a few minutes. The real decision had been agreed on long before. Once the sentence had been pronounced by Pilate, the heat was off. So, three hours intervened between the sentencing and the crucifixion; or, let us say two hours and a half. Why so much time elapsed between the two events we do not know. 26. The superscripture stating the charge^[819] against him read, THE KING OF THE JEWS Pilate had caused a notice or label to be written on the cross, above Jesus head. In John's Gospel (19:19, 20) this notice is called a title, in Matthew's (27:37), a charge, accusation or indictment, and in Mark's (15:26) and Luke's (23:38) a superscription. With respect to this written notice critics have discovered another contradiction in the Bible. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/hendriksen/ CHAPTER XVI Outline of Chapter 16 Theme: The Work Which Thou Gavest Him To Do B. The Resurrection 16:1–8 The Lord Risen; The Women Surprised THE PROBLEM WITH RESPECT TO Mark 16:9 20 BRIEF NOTES ON THE LONG ENDING (Mark 16:9 20) 16:9–11 Christ's Appearance to Mary Magdalene 16:12, 13 His Appearance to Two Disciples 16:14–18 The Great Commission and The Signs 16:19, 20 Christ's Ascension 16:1–8 The Lord Risen; The Women Surprised Cf. Matt. 28:1–8; Luke 24:1 12; John 20:1 10 16 1 Now when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, when the sun was risen, they were coming to the tomb. 3 And they were saying to each other, Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? 4 But looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (They had been alarmed about the stone) for it was very [Greek] -2 _ftnref1 [Greek] 5 And as they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting at the right, and they were [Greek] -2 _ftnref2 [Greek] 6 He said to them, Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you. 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid. Mark's account resembles Matthew's (28:1–8) more closely than it does the resurrection story as told by Luke or by John. The four reports vary with respect to several minor points. For the most part the variations can be easily reconciled. This holds with respect to such items as when the sun was risen (Mark 16:2), a young man (verse 5), and they said nothing (verse 8). Matthew intersperses the story of the arrival of the women with a reference to the earthquake. The dramatic descent of an angel, and the terror experienced by the guards (28:2–4). In verses 9, 10 Matthew records the appearance of the risen Christ himself to the women. To the names of the two women mentioned by Matthew and the three by Mark, Luke adds Joanna &and the others with them (24:10). He records the disbelief with which the apostles greeted the women's story (verse 11). In verse 12 he briefly summarizes Peter's experience at the tomb. John enlarges on this theme: Peter and John running to the tomb, after Peter had been told by Mary Magdalene, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid him (20:1–10). 1. Now when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint [Greek] -2 _ftnref3 [Greek] The sabbath was ended. Accordingly it is now Saturday after 6 P.M. The bazaars are open again. So Mark relates that the three women who have been mentioned before (see 15:40), and two of whom were mentioned in the preceding verses (15:47), purchased spices in order that without any further delay they might go to the tomb the very next morning to anoint Jesus body. It is true that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus had already wound linen bandages around the body, strewing in a mixture of myrrh and aloes. But the dead body had not as yet been anointed. The living body had been anointed (14:3–9) but not the dead one. Besides, a week had gone by since that other anointing had taken place. 2. Very early on the first day of the [Greek] -2 _ftnref4 [Greek] when the sun was [Greek] -2 _ftnref5 [Greek] they were coming to the tomb.They were evidently afraid that decomposition would take place if they should wait any longer. As to the time when these women came: Mark says when the sun was risen, Matt. 28:1at dawn, Luke at early dawn, and John while it was still dark. Probable solution: although it was still dark when the women started out, the sun had risen when they arrived at the tomb. It is true that these women should have paid more attention to the Lord's repeated prediction that he would rise again on the third day. On the other hand, while we may criticize their lack of sufficient faith a lack which they shared with the male disciples let us not overlook their exceptional love and loyalty. They were at Calvary when Jesus died, in Joseph's garden when their Master was buried, and now very early in the morning, here they are once more, in order to anoint the body. Meanwhile, where were the eleven? 3, 4. And they were saying to each other, Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? But looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away. (They had been alarmed about the stone) for it was very [Greek] -2 _ftnref6 [Greek] On the way toward the tomb the women became worried about the huge stone in front of the tomb's entrance. They asked each other, Who will roll it away for us? But suddenly they saw probably at a turn in the path that the heavy stone had already been removed. What had taken place? Matthew, by divine inspiration, supplies the answer: Suddenly there was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven, stepped forward, rolled away the stone and was sitting on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his garment white as snow (28:2, 3). The interesting item about the alarm of the women before they saw that the stone had already been removed is found only in Mark's Gospel. 5. And as they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting at the right, and they were alarmed. Why did the angel have to remove the stone? Not to enable Jesus to make his way out for see John 20:19, 26but to enable these women, and also Peter and John, to enter the tomb. By the time the women had reached the tomb, the angel (thus Matthew) had entered the tomb. Here in Mark the angel is called a young man dressed in a (whiterobe. Compare this with Matthew's description his garment whiteas snow. It is clear that Matthew and Mark are describing the same heavenly being. The fact that angels appear to humans in human form, so that an angel can also be called a man, and is even able to express himself in human language, is clear to every Bible student. See Gen. 18:2, 16; 19:1f.; Judg. 6:12f.; 13:3, 6; Ezek, 9:2. In connection with the story of ManoahJudg. 13) does not even Josephus mention an angel of God in the likeness of a comely and tall youth See AntiquitiesV.277. It is therefore entirely unwarranted to see a contradiction here between Matthew and Mark. See also above, on 14:51, 52. And as to Luke's and John's two angels, see -2 _ftnref7 N.T.C.on Matthew, p. 990. If the shape and general appearance of the tomb, as described in N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, p. 444, is understood, the statement that the young man was sitting at the right will be clear. That the rolled away stone, the appearance of the inside of the tomb (John 20:6, 7), and the presence of the young man or angel caused the women to be alarmed or greatly amazed [Greek] -2 _ftnref8 [Greek] is understandable. 6. He said to them, Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. Do not be alarmed, says the young man to the women. What he means is, Stop doing what you are doing, and instead rejoice, for this is a day of cheer. He continues, You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene. [Greek] -2 _ftnref9 [Greek] Yes, Jesus was indeed the Nazarene, the One who had spent most of his earthly life in Nazareth and voluntarily humbled himself unto death, even death upon a cross. But now He is risen. And to reassure the women who can hardly believe what they are seeing, the angel for the young man was, after all, an angel tenderly adds, He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. We might have expected a different message, for example, a stern rebuke, in view of the fact that these women showed by their action of coming to the tomb in order to anoint a dead body, that they had not taken seriously enough Jesus prediction of rising on the third day. But now all is forgiven, blotted out by the risen Savior; for it must be borne in mind that it was not the heavenly messenger himself who had created this message of cheer. It was the risen One. The place where they laid him, a declivity inside the huge tomb, is empty. This the women can see very well, for they have entered the tomb. Not only do they see how empty is this declivity but also how neatly arranged is everything around it: the linen bandages lying there, and the sweatband not lying with the linen bandages but neatly folded up and lying in a place by itself (John 20:6, 7). The young man also conveys another message that had been given to him before he descended from heaven to earth. It reveals the same tender, forgiving love, namely, 7. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going [Greek] -2 _ftnref10 [Greek] of you into Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you. Note: still his disciples, even though in the hour of bitter trial they had all left him and fled. Also note and Peter, and this in spite of those terrible denials, accompanied at times by curses. It is Mark, Peter's interpreter, who has preserved for us this beautiful little touch. Thus, very clearly and emphatically, Mark prepared the reader for expecting a manifestation of the risen Lord to his disciples, a kind of reunion. It is going to take place in Galilee, according to the promise of 14:28, repeated here in 16:7. How was this promise fulfilled? The beginning of that story definitely only the beginning, however is told in verse 8. And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and [Greek] -2 _ftnref11 [Greek] were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid.What Mark clearly states and means is that these women were thoroughly scared, profoundly shocked. To interpret their ekstasis(thus the Greek) to mean anything else than astonishment, bewilderment, being beside themselves with terror, is hardly correct. Yet this is done at times, the aim being to harmonize Matthew and Mark. Not that these two evangelists are actually in conflict. They are not. But in this particular passage Mark is not thinking about the women's [Greek] -2 _ftnref12 [Greek] but of their fear and astonishment. And it was because of this inner disposition, this mental state, that they not only fled away from the tomb, but also did not stop along the way to relate the cause of their fright to anyone. They had been rendered speechless. It is true that they were also filled with joy, but it is not Mark who mentions this. It is also true that when they had somewhat recovered from their mental terror they ran to deliver to the apostles the message that had been entrusted to them. But again it is not Mark who says this. It is true that Jesus himself in person revealed himself to the women. But on this subject, too, Mark is silent. And it is true that Jesus, in fulfilment of his and the angel's message, actually met his followers in Galilee. However, here again Mark remains silent! Mark leads us to expect great things, a marvelous reunion in Galilee, but then all of a sudden his message breaks off. Are we now blaming Mark? Not at all, as will become clear. What we, along with many other interpreters of various theological positions, are saying is that we probably do not have all that Mark wrote. This will become clearer when we study the long ending (verses 9 20). On the other hand, Mark has given us a most vivid portrayal of Christ's earthly ministry, death, and resurrection. Mark's Gospel is filled with unforgettable manifestations of Christ's power, mercy, and love. The great lesson which we learn from the present section is that not only did Jesus rise victoriously from the grave, but in addition he revealed himself to be the same thoughtful, kind, and loving Lord he had shown himself to be in earlier days. For that good news we should be very thankful. The Problem with Respect to Mark 16:9 20 Did Mark write verses 9 20? Though the Authorized (King James) Version of our English Bible contains them, modern translations all indicate in one way or another that there is considerable doubt about their authenticity. Thus, -2 _ftnref13 R.S.V.relegates them to a fine print footnote. Phillips calls them an ancient appendix. Others add a note in which they call attention to the fact that the two oldest and best manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9 20but end Mark's Gospel with verse 8 (thus Beck). Unanimity is lacking, however. Mark 16:9 20also has its forceful defenders. The author of this commentary recently carefully reread the defense by J. W. Burgon, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, reprint Ann Arbor, 1959; also R. C. H. Lenski's remarks, op. cit.,pp. 471–486; and E. F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, Des Moines, 1956, pp. 102–113. With what vigor these men argue in favor of their position! In reading Burgon one at times almost receives the impression that orthodoxy depends on saving these disputed verses. If anyone would begin to think that the conflict of opinion is one between orthodoxy and liberalism, he would be mistaken. Though it is true that those who cannot be counted among the conservatives reject the proposition that these twelve verses were written by John Mark, no one less than the thoroughly orthodox champion of the faith, the late Dr. N. B. Stonehouse, also rejected it. See his book, The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, Philadelphia, 1944, pp. 86–118. In a commentary there is no room for a discussion of the many positions held in connection with this topic. The main ones are two: A. Mark wrote 16:9–20. B. Mark did not write 16:9–20. Those who defend B are again divided into two groups: 1. Mark intended to conclude his Gospel with the words of 16:8, &for they were afraid. This is the view defended by Stonehouse and [Greek] -2 _ftnref14 [Greek] 2. Mark did not intend to conclude his Gospel at this point. This is, perhaps, the predominant [Greek] -2 _ftnref15 [Greek] What, then, is the position of the author of this commentary? As to proposition A, I do not believe that Mark wrote 16:9–20. My main reasons are two: a. The external or textual evidence fails to support these verses They are lacking in the two earliest codices B and Aleph (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), in codex K (codex Bobbiensis, the best exemplar of the earliest African Old Latin text), the Sinaitic Syriac, and other very early manuscripts. Early church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen seem not to have known these verses. According to Eusebius, the famous church historian who was born about the year a.d. 260 and died about the year 340, the most accurate copies and almost all the copies of Mark's Gospel ended with the words of 16:8, &for they were afraid. Jerome, probably born about the year in which Eusebius died, and like him dying at the age of approximately eighty, also writes that almost all the Greek copies lack the verses 9 20. It cannot be denied that ever so many Greek manuscripts do contain these words, but when the manuscript evidence is properly evaluatedinstead of merely counted,the balance swings heavily toward the omission of the contested verses. b. The internal evidence also fails to support them (1) Argument based on diction This evidence is rather strong. In order to feel the importance of it, one should carefully compare 16:1–8 with 16:9–20. In verses 1 8 he will probably find only four words that have not already been used by the evangelist in the rest of his book (1:1 15:47). Now study verses 9 20. Here one finds at least fourteen different words not found in the previous portion of the book. Since a few of these new words occur more than once in the disputed verses, the actual number of occurrences is about eighteen. There are also words used in a manner different than in the rest of Mark. And there are peculiar [Greek] -2 _ftnref16 [Greek] New Words 1 Form here used (For the meaning of this form see the translation) Meaning of Basic Form (First occurrences are in italics) to take up to work with to follow, attend (2) Argument based on style However, it is the style of Mark 16:9 20, perhaps even more than vocabulary and phraseology, that points to an author other than John Mark. In the first eightverses of this chapter, verses definitely written by Mark, the conjunction and Greek kai, at the beginning of sentences or of clausesnotcounting the other kais occurs [Greek] -2 _ftnref17 [Greek] but in the next twelveverses kaiperforms the same function only sixor [Greek] -2 _ftnref18 [Greek] This means that in the first eight verses kaioccurs, on the average, once per verse; in the last twelve verses, on the average, only once (or slightly more than once) in every two verses. There is accordingly a transition from co-ordination of clauses to subordination, from paratactic to hypotactic style. The transition, to be sure, is not radical or absolute: even in the last twelve verses there is a degree of co-ordination. But the difference is, nevertheless, rather striking. Moreover, speaking about style, in making the transition from 16:1–8 to verses 9 20, who does not sense the striking contrast between the graphic and colorful style of the former and the prosaic summarizing style of the latter? (3) Argument based on contents (If all this has failed to drive home the conclusion that he who wrote verses 1 8 did not write verses 9 20, the fact about to be mentioned surely should do so. In Mark 16:1 8the young man dressed in a white robe tells the women to remind the disciples and Peter that Jesus, risen from the dead, will meet them in Galilee. One expects, therefore, that if any appearances of the Lord are going to be recorded, they will be those that took place in Galilee. What actually happens is the very opposite: verses 9 20 never even mention where the appearances there summarized occurred, whether in Judea or in Galilee. From the Gospel according to John (20:1, 2, 11 18) we learn that the appearance to Mary MagdaleneMark 16:9 11), mentioned first of all, took place in the Jerusalem region; from Luke (24:13–35), that the appearance to the two men who were walking into the country (Mark 16:12, 13) also occurred in that general vicinity. Next, Luke (24:36 f.) describes an appearance of Jesus to the eleven, etc., to which Mark seems to refer in verse 14. That, too, had nothing to do with Galilee. The only possible connection with Galilee is found in 16:15–20; for Mark's verses 15, 16 resemble (Matt. 28:19, which records words spoken by the resurrected Lord in GalileeMatt. 28:16). But even here whoever it was that wrote Mark 16:15f. never mentions Galilee at all. The fact that there is little if any connection between (Mark 16:1 8and verses 9 20 is also clear from the very nature of the disputed section's beginning. Mary Magdalene has just been mentioned twiceMark 15:47; 16:1). Then, in verse 9, she is introduced as if she had not yet been mentioned at all: Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons (Luke 8:2). It has been established, therefore, that proposition A Mark wrote 16:9–20 must be rejected. Consequently proposition B Mark did not write 16:9–20 has been acceptedBut which of its two branches? According to the first B 1 Mark intendedto conclude his Gospel with the words of 16:8, &for they were afraid. Along with many others I, too, do not feel happy with that solution. My objections are: a. No other instance of a bookending so [Greek] -2 _ftnref19 [Greek] has ever been found. b. Not only is such an ending very abrupt, it is also very pessimistic. According to Matt.28:8the women departed from the tomb with fear and great joy. Did Mark, on the other hand, intend to end his story on a note of gloom? c. The day of modern fiction writing had not yet arrived. Today in certain literary circles the fashion is to create an agonizing drama that leaves the reader hanging breathlessly on the edge of a cliff, wondering how things are going to turn out. Suddenly the story ends &minus any real denouement. Does Mark do something similar? In reply it will be said that this objection is hardly fair, since even Mark has mentioned Christ's resurrection. But Mark has also promised a meeting of Jesus with his disciples in Galilee(verses 6, 7). Not unreasonably, therefore, the reader expects to hear about such a meeting. But nothing of the kind happens. To be sure, when we finally arrive at verse 15, the scene is probably Galilee, but, as pointed out previously, Mark's endingdoes not even say this. The view endorsed by the writer of this commentary is, accordingly, B 2: Mark did not intend to conclude his Gospel at this point. Questions now arise: Did Mark ever finish his narrative? If not, why not? If he did, what happened to his concluding lines? All kinds of answers have been given to these questions, and every one of them has been immediately and devastatingly refuted. I have no desire to add to this confusion. For theological reasons the objection may be raised, But God would not allow his Word to remain unfinished! The answer is: Though it may well be true that the Gospel according to Mark lies before us in unfinished form, the story itselfis brought to a most triumphant finish in Matt. 28:16–20. What, then, must we think of Mark 16:9 20, that is, of the ending?It is an interesting summary of some of the appearances of the risen Savior and of his subsequent ascension and session at God's right hand. As such it is instructive, for it shows us an early church view how extensively held cannot be precisely indicated of these matters. To the extentin which this endingtruly reflects what is found elsewhere inside the covers of our Bible it can be described as a product, however indirectly, of divine inspiration. Since it would be very difficult perhaps impossible to defend the thesis that every word of this endingis without flaw, no sermon, doctrine, or practice should be based solely upon its contents. * In addition to this long ending there is also a short ending, which in some manuscripts is added after verse 8, as follows: But whatever they had been told they reported briefly to Peter and those with him. By means of them Jesus afterward sent out, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of everlasting salvation. Since this ending has found even less general acceptance than the longer one, and its spurious nature is evident even on the surface, additional remarks are unnecessary. This holds also for other endings. * BRIEF NOTES ON THE LONG ENDING (Mark 16:9 20), which will be designated the ending 16:9–11 Christ's Appearance to Mary Magdalene Cf. Matt. 28:9, 10; John 20:11 18 9 Now when he arose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him, as they were mourning and weeping. 11 But they, having heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, disbelieved. The beginning is rather abrupt, for one has to go back all the way to verse 6 to find mention of Jesus by name. Also here in verses 9 11 his name never occurs. In fact, not until verse 19 is the identity of the One about whom such wonderful things are spoken finally revealed. Could it be that verses 9 11 or perhaps even verses 9 20 formed the conclusion of a lost account? What we have in our present passage is a summary of (John 20:11 18. See N.T.C. on that section. The summary here given is brief, to the point, comprehensive. The most important items are all included. Jesus arose on the first day of the week, and appeared first to Mary Magdalene, rewarding her loyalty and continuing to carry on the good work he had begun in her earlierLuke 8:2; cf. Phil. 1:6). In obedience to Christ's command she told the disciples and those who were with them, Jesus is alive, and I have seen him. The regathering of the previously scattered disciples is implied. She found the group mourning and weeping. That is easy to believe, for their hopes had been shattered. They were perplexed, baffled. And though the words they now heard were as precious as apples of gold in a network of silver, they regarded them as being too good to be true. In the light of Luke 24:11; John 20:25, there is nothing in Mark 16:9 11that is hard to accept as true to historical fact. 16:12, 13 His Appearance to Two Disciples Cf. Luke 24:13 35 12 Afterward he appeared in a different form to two of them as they were walking into the country. 13 These went back and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. Having summarized a section of John sGospel, the report now turns to Luke. Having told what happened Easter morning, the events of Easter afternoon and evening are now related. The summary is very brief; the section summarized is very lengthy (Luke 24:13 35). (The endingpresents certain difficulties. It informs us that Jesus appeared to the two men who were walking into the country that is, to Cleopas and his companionLuke 24:18) in a different form. We do not know exactly what this means. Does (the endingwish to tell us that Jesus now appeared not as a gardenerJohn 20:15) but as a traveler or wayfarer? The report that Jesus appeared to these men and joined them as they were walking into the country agrees with Luke's statement that these two were going [clearly from Jerusalem] to a village named Emmaus. And the ending sfurther statement that the two men returned [to Jerusalem] and reported to the others what they had experienced is in harmony with Luke's story. At this point, however, a real problem arises. (The endingstates that when the two men reported their exciting experience to Christ's assembled followers, their story met with unbelief. But Luke's version is, They found the eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon. A possible solution would be that some of Christ's followers had already accepted the glorious Easter truth, while others were still in doubt. Luke 24:37 41Matt. 28:17) may give some support to that position. If this is not the answer, does this controversial item in the endingrest upon an erroneous tradition? We should bear in mind that the endingis not necessarily infallible, as is Luke's account. 16:14–18 The Great Commission and The Signs Cf. Matt. 28:16–20; Luke 24:36 49; John 20:19 23; Acts 1:6 8 14 Later he appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their lack of faith and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who does not believe will be condemned. 17 Moreover, these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 and they will pick up serpents with their [Greek] -2 _ftnref20 [Greek] and if they drink deadly poison it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on the sick, and they will recover. Again there is no indication of place or time; all we have is later. It would appear, nevertheless, that in verse 14 the reference is still to Easter evening. It was then that lack of faith manifested itself, and this not only in the heart and mind of Thomas (John 20:24) but also on the part of the other ten disciples. See Luke 24:36 49. When Jesus suddenly appeared to his disciples in their Jerusalem gathering place, they thought that they saw a spirit, and even a little later they still disbelieved for joy. Luke 24:42may indirectly confirm the words of the endingthat Jesus appeared to them while they were reclining at table. Now that the endinghas summarized appearances recorded especially in John and in Luke, it is Matthew sturn. In verse 15 the scene shifts from Jerusalem to Galilee, as the parallel Matt. 28:16 20indicates. Verse 15 of the endingis roughly parallel to Matt. 28:19, The Great Commission (see N.T.C. on that passage). The emphasis in verse 16 of the endingis not on baptism but on the exercise of faith, exactly as in Matthew; cf. also John 3:16, 18, 36. On the other hand, the person who by God's sovereign grace has surrendered himself to Christ will also gratefully accept the sacrament of baptism as a sign and seal of salvation. Thus baptism follows faith, as also in Acts 2:41; 16:31–34, and everywhere. Verses 17 and 18 of the endinghave given rise to much misunderstanding and grief. Jesus is here represented as having promised five signs that would accompany those who believed: a. power to expel demons b. ability to speak in new tongues c. ability to pick up serpents, that is (implied), to pick up venomous snakes without being physically harmed d. the gift of being able to drink deadly poison without being hurt e. the power to place hands on the sick, who will then recover. Now a. and e. present no special difficulty. Jesus did indeed impart such gifts to his disciples. They made use of them with good effect. See Matt. 10:1; Mark 9:38; Luke 10:17; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 16:18; 19:12. Something similar is true with respect to b. the gift of tongues. See Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6; I Cor. 12:10, 28, 30; and the entire 14th chapter of I Cor. In connection with such special gifts (a., b., and e. above) B. B. Warfield states, These gifts were part of the credentials of the apostles as the authoritative agents of God in founding the Church.& They necessarily passed away with it. That with the passing away of the apostolic age these gifts ceased is also the testimony of Chrysostom and Augustine. It was also the view of Jonathan Edwards: These extra gifts were given in order to the founding and establishing of the church in the world. But since the canon of Scripture has been completed, and the church fully founded and established, these extraordinary gifts have ceased. Among others who expressed similar views are Matthew Henry, George Whitefield, Charles H. Spurgeon, Robert L. Dabney, Abraham Kuyper, Sr., and W. G. T. [Greek] -2 _ftnref21 [Greek] The ending (mentions two more signs which Jesus supposedly promised to his disciples, namely, the ability without harm to pick up serpents and to drink deadly poisons (see c. and d. above). Those who accept the endingas fully inspired and infallible Holy Scripture find confirmation for c. in Luke 10:19and Acts 28:3. See Lenski, op. cit.,p. 483. However, Luke 10:19speaks about treading on serpents, which is not exactly the same as picking them up deliberately. According to Acts 28:3Paul picks up a bunch of sticks and after he placed them on the fire a snake comes out and fastens itself on his hand. He shakes it off without physical harm to himself. But that surely is not what the endingsays. Paul did not deliberately pick up a venomous snake! And as to drinking deadly poisons without harm, Lenski must confess that the New Testament offers no example of this. A. B. Bruce, op. cit.,456, 457, is probably correct when he states that taking up venomous serpents and drinking deadly poison seem to introduce us into the twilight of apocryphal story. Taking such risks is exactly what by implication Jesus condemned both by exampleMatt. 4:7) and precept (Matt. 10:23; 24:16–18). Ever so often newspapers report incidents of religious fanatics picking up venomous snakes and/or drinking deadly poisons, frequently with sad results. At times those who do this try to justify their strange behavior by appealing to Mark 16:18. It is high time that everybody be told that the endingis binding for faith and practice only to the extent in which its teachings are definitely supported by Scripture in general. In fact, they should be told that the items about picking up serpents and drinking poisons must not be considered Scripture at all! It is possible, in fact, that in connection with four of the five items here mentioned the historical milieu is later than that of Christ's earthly sojourn. The following facts must be borne in mind: Ability to speak in new tongues is never mentioned in the Gospels. Neither is ability to pick up venomous snakes or to drink poisons without incurring any harm. And even as to the gift of performing miraculous healings, though, to be sure, this is definitely mentioned in the Gospels, the possibility that the change from anointing them with oil (Mark 6:13) to they will place their hands on the sick (here in 16:18) is significant deserves consideration. The public in general should become informed about the truth with respect to Mark 16:17, 18. 16:19, 20 Christ's Ascension Cf. Luke 24:50 53; Acts 1:9 11 19 So the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and took his seat at God's right hand. 20 Then they [the disciples] went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming his word by means of the signs that attended it. The doctrine of Christ's ascension and particularly of his session at the Father's right hand was cherished highly by the apostolic church, and occupied a prominent place in its thought and confession (Acts 2:36; 7:55, 56; Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20–23; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 4; 2:9; 8:1; 10:12; Rev. 3:21; 5:5–14). The endingsummarizes this doctrine beautifully. Note especially the following: a. the Lord Jesus. Lordship was ascribed to Jesus especially after his resurrection. Nevertheless, having taken note of Mark 11:3(see on that passage) we do not find it strange to see this title in the ending. b. was taken up into heaven. Not here he ascended into heaven, though this, too, would have been entirely correct (John 3:13; 6:62; 20:17; Acts 2:34; Eph. 4:8, 9), but he was taken up (Acts 1:2, 11, 22; I Tim. 3:16; Rev. 12:5; and see also II Kings 2:3, 5, 11). In other words, the attention is here focused on the fact that it was the Father who drew his Son to himself, being eager, as it were, to reward him for his accomplished mediatorial work. The eleven went out or departed. This evidently means from Jerusalem. This, however, is not in conflict with (Mark 14:28; 16:7. The ending,as mentioned previously, is not interested in mentioning places. If some time after meeting with his disciples in Galilee Jesus made his final appearance in Jerusalem and then led them out until they were over against Bethany where he was parted from themLuke 24:36, 50, 51), the endingdoes not contradict this in any way. In obedience to Christ's command (Matt. 28:19) the disciples preached everywhere, a statement which one would naturally associate with a period of church history considerably later than Pentecost. However, their preaching would have been ineffective had it not been for the enabling power of the Lord, who was constantly working with them (Rom. 8:28) and confirming his word by means of signs that attended it (see not only the reference to demon expulsions, new tongues, and miraculous healings, verses 17, 18, [Greek]) -2 _ftnref22 ([Greek] but also Heb. 2:4). On this high note the endingcloses. Speaking in general, there is nothing in the entire ending(verses 9 20) that is more serene, uplifting, true, and beautiful than these final two verses. They point to the Lord Jesus as the One who, from his position at the right hand of God, tenderly watches over, guides, energizes, and governs his church. Summary of Chapter 16 This chapter consists of two parts: verses 1 8 and verses 9 20. Mark himself was undoubtedly the inspired author of the first part. Arguments based on omission of the second part from the best Greek sources, and on vocabulary, style, and contents, have convinced most scholars that verses 9 20 are inauthentic, that is, of questioned origin, probably not written by John Mark. Who the real author was is not known. A. verses 1 8 In verse 1 Mark relates what happened on Saturday evening, how three women, loyal to Jesus, bought spices with which to anoint his body. In verses 2 8 he narrates what happened to these friends and disciples of Jesus very early Sunday morning: their worry about the huge stone in front of the tomb's entrance, their surprise upon the discovery that this stone had already been removed, and their entrance into the tomb where they were addressed by a young man in a white robe. By Matthew this young man is called an angel. He conveyed Christ's message to the women. It was the glad Easter news: He is risen. He is not here. Look, here is the place where they laid him. The young man also transmitted to them Christ's order. He said, But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He is going ahead of you to Galilee. There you will see him, as he told you. The actual reunion of Christ with his disciples in Galilee is, however, not reported by Mark. For that we must turn to Matt. 28:16–20. Mark's account closes with the words of verse 8: And they [that is, the women] fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment were holding them in their grip; and they said nothing to anybody, for they were afraid. B. verses 9 20 (An unknown author briefly summarizes John sreport of Jesus appearance. to Mary Magdalene (Jerusalem, early Easter morning). Cf. Mark 16:9 11with John 20:11 18. Luke sstory about Jesus appearance to the two disciples who were on their way to Emmaus (Easter afternoon) is the basis for the next few lines. Cf. Mark 16:12, 13with Luke 24:13 35. The events of Easter evening are reviewed in Mark 16:14: Jesus meeting with his disciples in Jerusalem. This is followed by a parallel to Matthew saccount of The Great Commission. Cf. Mark 16:15, 16with Matt. 28:19. A controversial report about certain signs which, it is claimed, Jesus promised to his followers, is found in 16:17, 18. Not all of these signs find support in the rest of Scripture, though some do. The final versesMark 16:19, 20) express the firmly rooted faith of the early church in Christ's ascension and session at God's right hand. The section closes with these words, Then they [the disciples] went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming his word by means of the signs that attended it. -2 _ftn1 839 Or: &the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large. -2 _ftn2 840 Or: greatly amazed; so also in the next verse. -2 _ftn3 841 [Greek], gen. absolute. For [Greek] see on 11:15, footnote 538. [Greek], nom. pl. fem. aor. participle of [Greek]; [Greek], third per. pl. aor. subjunctive of [Greek]; hence, literally, in order that, having come, they might anoint him. -2 _ftn4 842 It makes little difference whether one conceives of the Greek plural for sabbathas referring to the dayor to an entire week(the time from one day of rest to another). If the first is meant, then the idea is that this was the first day counting from the sabbath-day; hence, the first day after the sabbath-day. If the second is meant, the result is still the same; the day indicated is then not the last of the week but the first. In either case Sunday is meant. -2 _ftn5 843 ([Greek], aor. participle of [Greek]. Cf. Mark 4:6; also Matt. 4:16; 5:45; 13:6. ) -2 _ftn6 844 The words placed between parentheses are not found in the Greek, which reads, &who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb? But [or: And] looking up, they saw that the stone had been rolled away, for it was very large. A literal, word for word, translation into English would cause the reader to think either: a.that the stone had been rolled away because it was very large: or b.that the women were able to see the stone from a distance because it was very large. Neither of these interpretations sounds very natural. Far more reasonable is the explanation that the women were worried lest the size and weight of the stone and the probability that so early in the morning there would be no male friend or disciple around to help them, would make it impossible for them to remove this heavy object and to enter the tomb in order to anoint the body. This is the view that does justice to the context (verse 3). Besides, delayed explanatory clauses are not unusual in Greek. In English, however, the meaning might not be understood apart from the inserted parenthetical clause. Note [Greek] and [Greek]; the first form being the third per. s. fut. indic. active of [Greek]; the second form being the third per. s. perf. indic. passive of the same verb. Cf. cylinder. In Mark this word is found only in these two verses. It occurs also in Matt. 28:2and in Luke 24:2. [Greek] is the nom. pl. fem. aor. participle of [Greek]. It may mean either to look upor to see again,that is, to regain sight. Here in 16:4 the meaning looking up is obviously indicated. Cf. 6:41; 7:34; 8:24. But in 10:51, 52 the verb means to regain sight. See also on 8:24, footnote 378. -2 _ftn7 N.T.C. (W. Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary) -2 _ftn8 845 See above, on 9:15, footnote 400. -2 _ftn9 846 (For the Nazarene see above, on 1:24, footnote 41; also N.T.C. on Matt. 2:23; 26:71; and on John 1:46. ) -2 _ftn10 847 [Greek], third per. s. pres. indic. of [Greek]; see on 14:28, footnote 714. -2 _ftn11 848 ([Greek], trembling, only here in Mark's Gospel. But see also I Cor. 2:3; II Cor. 7:15; Eph. 6:5; and Phil. 2:12. As to [Greek]), Mark has used this word once before, and also in that case in connection with a resurrection from the dead; see above, on 5:42. -2 _ftn12 849 (It is true that the Greek word [Greek] and the English ecstasy are etymologically related, but this does not make it correct to say that the great joy to which Matthew refers is covered by (thus Lenski) the [Greek] mentioned by Mark. In Scripture the meaning of [Greek] is rather to be beside oneself with astonishment, amazement, or bewildermentMark 5:42; Luke 5:26; Acts 3:10). At times the word indicates a trance (Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17). -2 _ftn13 R.S.V. Revised Standard Version -2 _ftn14 850 Among those who have taken the same position are: E. P. Gould, op. cit.,pp. 301, 304; J. Behm, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Heidelberg, 1963, p. 55 ff.; M. H. Bolkestein, op. cit.,pp. 364–366 (leans in that direction); E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Markus, Göttingen, 1937, pp. 356–360; A. M. Farrer, The Glass of Vision, London, 1948, pp. 136–146; R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St. Mark, Oxford, 1850, pp. 80–97, 106 116. -2 _ftn15 851 Included among those who hold it are: V. Taylor, op. cit.,p. 609; A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures, Vol. I, p. 402; B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford, 1964, p. 228. -2 _ftn16 852 New Words 1 Form here used Meaning of Basic Form to take up to work with to follow, attend As to words used in a manner different than in the rest of Mark note [Greek] in verses 10, 11, 13 (twice), and 20; and [Greek] in verse 9. As to peculiar phrases, note [Greek], afterward literally after these things (verse 12), which is found indeed in Luke (e.g., 5:27; 10:1, etc.) and in John (3:22; 5:1; 6:1; 7:1; etc.), but not elsewhere in Mark, nor even in Matthew. They will speak in new tongues (verse 17) reminds one of Acts 2:4, 11; 10:46; 19:6; I Cor. 12:30; and of I Cor. 14. And who, in reading the Lord working with them (verse 20) does not immediately think of (Rom. 8:28? In the same verseMark 16:20) is not the phrase confirming his word an echo of the type of language found in such passages as Rom. 15:8; Col. 2:7; Heb. 2:3; 13:9? -2 _ftn17 853 Once at the beginning of each of the following verses: 1, 2, 3, 4; twice in verse 5 and also twice in verse 8. -2 _ftn18 854 I cannot follow Stonehouse when in his book The Witness of Matthew and Mark to Christ, p. 91, he finds not a single instance of this use of kaiin the long ending. In my own tally I arrive at sixby excluding the weakly attested kaiat the beginning of verse 18. By including this kaialso, the number increases to seven:once at the beginning of each of the following verses: 11, 13, 15; three times in verse andthey will pick up &andif they drink &andthey will recover , and once in verse 19. I am in full agreement with Stonehouse's opinion that the style of 16:9–20 differs from that of verses 1 8. -2 _ftn19 855 [Greek]. -2 _ftn20 856 The phrase with their hands is omitted from some manuscripts. -2 _ftn21 857 For exact references to these statements, beginning with B. B. Warfield, see The Outlook, a journal of The Reformed Fellowship, published in Grand Rapids, Mich., the Oct. 1973 issue (Vol. XXIII, No. 10), pp. 22–24. -2 _ftn22 858 If the author of the endingwas thinking of all five signs, then we cannot entirely agree with him.