"THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Chapter One Mark begins his gospel with the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8), followed by Jesus' baptism by John and temptation by Satan (Mark 1:9-11). Jesus began his own ministry in Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom of God (Mark 1:12-15). Selecting four fishermen to become His disciples (Mark 1:16-20), He went to Capernaum where He taught in the synagogue and cast out an unclean spirit (Mark 1:21-28). At the house of Simon (Peter) and Andrew, Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law, and after sunset healed many more (Mark 1:29-34). The next morning after spending time in prayer, Jesus started an itinerant ministry of preaching in the synagogues throughout Galilee, casting out demons and healing a leper (Mark 1:35-45). POINTS TO PONDER * The concise, fast-paced nature of Mark's gospel * The meaning of the phrase, "The time is fulfilled, kingdom of God is at hand" * The purpose of the miracles of healing that Jesus performed REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The ministry of John the Baptist - Mark 1:1-8- The baptism and temptation of Jesus - Mark 1:9-13- The beginning of Jesus' ministry in Galilee - Mark 1:14-45 2) What prophecies did John the Baptist fulfill? (Mark 1:2-3) - Malachi 3:1; Isaiah 40:3 3) What did John preach? What did he promise? (Mark 1:4 Mark 1:8) - A baptism of repentance for the remission of sins - The coming of One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit 4) What two events led to the beginning of Jesus' ministry? (Mark 1:9-13) - His baptism by John; His temptation by Satan 5) What message did Jesus proclaim as He began His ministry? (Mark 1:14-15) - "The time is fulfilled...the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent... believe in the gospel." 6) Who were selected to become His disciples? (Mark 1:16-20) - Four fishermen: Simon and his brother Andrew, James and his brother John 7) What miracles does Mark record as Jesus began His ministry in Galilee?(Mark 1:21-45) - Casting out an unclean spirit in the synagogue at Capernaum - Healing the mother-in-law of Simon (Peter) of a fever - Healing many who were sick of various diseases, and casting out demons - Cleansing a leper who came to Him Verse 1 The style of Mark is quick-moving and dramatic, his gospel being one of swift and vigorous action, and one of his favorite expressions being straightway. The entire first year of our Lord's ministry is presented in this first chapter. He summarized the ministry of John the Baptist (Mark 1:1-8), related the baptism of Christ (Mark 1:9-11), and recorded the temptation (Mark 1:12-13) in the first brief section of things preparatory to Jesus' ministry. He then immediately launched into his narrative of the Lord's ministry principally in the vicinity of Capernaum (Mark 1:14 to Mark 4:34), the following events being related in this chapter: (1) Jesus begins to preach (Mark 1:14-15); (2) he calls four disciples (Mark 1:16-20); (3) casts an unclean spirit out of a man on the sabbath day (Mark 1:21-28); heals Simon Peter's wife's mother of a fever (Mark 1:29-31); casts out many demons (Mark 1:32-34); extends his ministry to all Galilee (Mark 1:35-39); and cleanses a leper (Mark 1:40-45). The student will observe that Mark made extensive use of the historical present, as in the above summary. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (Mark 1:1) The gospel .. always means "the good news" in the New Testament. It is the joyful word of how men may receive the forgiveness of sins and restore the broken fellowship with God, a fellowship broken by the disaster in Eden. All kinds of collateral and tangential benefits flow out to men from the fountainhead in the gospel of Christ; but they are subordinately connected with it, the primary purpose of the gospel having ever been the redemption of men from sin and their endowment with the hope of eternal life. Social, political, and economic benefits, invariably associated with the spread of Christianity, do not appear in the New Testament as primary goals at all. This is not to decry such dividends as being in any way undesirable, but to emphasize the far greater concern for the souls' true redemption from sin. Jesus Christ, the Son of God ... The compound title of our Lord is of heavenly origin. It was announced, evidently for the first time on earth, in the Saviour's intercessory prayer (John 17:3) and was repeatedly called the "name" which God had "given" (John 17:6; John 17:11-12; John 17:26). From this, in all probability, derived the apostolic preference for the expression, "Jesus Christ."Son of God ... is a reference to the unique sonship of Jesus and is the equivalent of hailing him as a supernatural person and as having an equality with God. The Pharisees properly understood the implications of this expression, interpreting it as "making himself equal with God" (John 5:18). Verse 2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet, Behold. I send my messenger before thy face, Who shalt prepare thy way; The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight.Some critics really have a problem with this passage, because Mark included with his quotation from Isaiah a passage from Malachi, and put it first at that! In fairness to Mark, it should be noted that he did not declare that Isaiah was the author of both passages, his only reason for mentioning Isaiah having apparently been for the purpose of identifying the quotation as Scriptural, which of course it is. One can only be amused at what a passage of this kind does to some critics, all of whom are dramatically reminded by such a passage that the sacred authors were untroubled by many of the punctilious rules so much respected and slavishly followed by themselves. The passage from Isaiah is Isaiah 40:3, a great prophecy which included in its many implications the prophecy in Malachi 3:1. As Bickersteth said: The oracle of Malachi is, in fact, contained in the oracle of Isaiah; for what Malachi predicted, the same had Isaiah more clearly and concisely predicted in other words. And this is the reason why Mark here, and other evangelists elsewhere, when they cite two prophets, and two or more sentences from different places in the same connection, cite them as one and the same testimony.[1]The quotation from the Old Testament emphasizes the divine nature of the ministry of John the Baptist, the heavenly designate who went before the Lord to prepare Israel to recognize and receive the Messiah. The persistence of Israel even to this day of their expectation of Elijah's coming shows the genuineness of the prophecies, Elijah, of course, being the type of John the Baptist. Israel's mistake in their expectation of a literal return of Elijah was due to their failure to believe the revelation of Zacharias, to the effect that Elijah's return would be accomplished by John the Baptist who would go before the Lord "in the spirit and power of Elijah ... to make ready for the Lord a people prepared for him" (Luke 1:17). ENDNOTE: [1] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 1. Verse 4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judaea, and all they of Jerusalem; and they were baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.The wilderness ... That John was indeed the Elijah whose voice would cry "in the wilderness" is evident in the fact that, of all the great preachers in history, only one chose a wilderness as the scene of his ministry. Baptism of repentance unto remission of sins ... John's baptism was a heavenly device for gathering together out of the nation of Israel a prepared people to receive and adore the Messiah. This baptism was of God, and those who rejected it rejected God's message (Luke 7:30). In God's plan of redemption, a new birth was the essential prerequisite, a birth of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). The birth of water (John's baptism) was available to men in the preaching of the herald; and, for those who accepted it, the birth from the Spirit would follow, in time, when it was made possible through the Saviour's death. The fact that those who rejected John's baptism did not follow Christ and did not receive the Holy Spirit is parallel with the truth that persons today who refuse the baptism Jesus commanded cannot receive the Spirit. All the country ... all they ... The success of John the Baptist was sensational and extensive. Great crowds and widespread popularity marked his efforts. The great wilderness preacher aroused the nation from its slumber, arrested the attention of that whole generation, and created excitement throughout the country. Even the Pharisees at first accepted him and "were willing to rejoice for a season in his light" (John 5:35). This great popularity, however, did not last. As Ryle said: The vast majority, in all probability, died in their sins. Let us remember this when we see a crowded church. It is not enough to hear and admire popular preachers. It is no proof of our conversion that we always worship in a place where there is a crowd. Let us take care that we hear the voice of Christ and follow him.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), p. 5. Verse 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized you in water; but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit.These verses conclude Mark's account of the ministry of John the Baptist, an account which is shorter than Matthew's, omitting such important details as John's proclamation of the kingdom of heaven being near at hand and the insistence of the Pharisees that fleshly descent from Abraham was all they needed (Matthew 3:1-12). John's prophecy of the rejection of national Israel was also omitted. The clothing and diet of John were cited as fulfilling the typical characteristics of Elijah. There is no need to understand "locusts and wild honey" otherwise than in their ordinary sense. Mightier than I ... John the Baptist is unique among the world's great men in this view of himself as inferior to his successor. This is all the more remarkable in view of their close kinship and of their being approximately the same age. Baptize you in the Holy Spirit ... is a reference to the Spirit which Jesus would pour out on earth. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is variously understood as: (1) the experience on Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), (2) an event like that in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-48), (3) the miraculous endowment of the apostles (Acts 8:18), or (4) the guidance of the church throughout the ages by God's Spirit through the word, including the indwelling earnest. Although including the latter, the baptism in view here exceeds it, affecting all mankind. Significantly, it is a promise of what Christ would do and not a commandment men were to obey. This is one of seven baptisms mentioned in the New Testament, the others being: (1) the baptism unto Moses (1 Corinthians 10:2), (2) that of sufferings (Mark 10:38-39), (3) that for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29), (4) that of fire (Matthew 3:11), (5) that of John the Baptist (Acts 19:3), and (6) that of the great commission (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20). For fuller discussion of the ministry of John the Baptist, as related by Matthew, see Commentary on Matthew, (Matthew 3:1-14) pp. 23-31. Verse 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit as a dove descending upon him: and a voice from out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.Mark's account of the baptism of Jesus gives far less detail than Matthew, omitting the reluctance of John to baptize him and Jesus' statement of his purpose in it. Jesus was about thirty years of age when this event occurred ( Luke 3:23). In the Jordan ... The baptism administered by John, and later that by the apostles, required that it be done "in" water, not merely "with" water, showing that immersion was the action called baptism. And straightway coming up out of the water ... Here is Mark's first use of "straightway," one of his favorite expressions, which recurs many times in this gospel. "Out of the water ..." indicates that Jesus was immersed; and, if such was not the case, there could have been no reason whatever for his coming "up out of the water." If any other "form" of baptism had been in vogue, neither Jesus nor John would have been in the water at all. Spirit as a dove ... The significance of this lies in the Spirit's choice of such a symbol of himself, the dove being associated with certain religious sacrifices, having been the messenger of hope for Noah, and a symbol of peace and gentleness in all ages. This was the sign by which John the Baptist recognized the Messiah (John 1:32). And a voice out of the heavens ... It will be noted that Mark's account makes the voice out of heaven to have been addressed directly to Jesus, "Thou art my beloved Son," whereas in Matthew it was stated generally, "This is my beloved Son." This is called a contradiction by some; but when it is recalled that each of the sacred writers reported in his own words what happened, such allegations are unjustified. As Halley said: It is surprising with what utter abandon the statement is made in many present-day scholarly works that the Four Gospels are "full of contradictions." Then when we see the things that are called contradictions, we are almost tempted to lose respect for some of the so-called scholarship. The fact of different details and slight variations in describing the same incident makes the testimony of the various writers all the more trustworthy, for it precludes the possibility of pre-arranged collusion among them[3]Alleged contradictions in the New Testament deserve designation as , a fabricated word derived from "pseudo," meaning "sham" or pretended, and "con," the first syllable of "contradiction." In this instance of it, Matthew reported the voice from heaven from the standpoint of John the Baptist, and Mark from the standpoint of Jesus, the latter being proved by the fact that John the Baptist's words were not mentioned by Mark. If he had reported the conversation of the herald, as did Matthew, he would necessarily have reported the voice as saying, "This is my beloved Son," in order to avoid leaving the impression that this was said of John the Baptist. ENDNOTE: [3] Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 419. Verse 12 And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan; and he was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.This is all that Mark wrote concerning the temptation. Driveth him ... There is nothing inappropriate in this reference to the power with which the Spirit caused Jesus to go forth to meet the temptation. It means exactly the same thing that was meant in Matthew's statement that he was "led" of the Spirit into the wilderness. This is another pseudocon. The allegation of scholars that Matthew was offended by Mark's language here and that he "corrected" it is irresponsible. It should be remembered that the Holy Spirit did not use any kind of physical force to bring Jesus into the wilderness of his temptation; and it is just as correct and appropriate to refer to the force under which Jesus moved to the wilderness as his being either "driven" or "led," the sacred authors referring to the same force by either term. To make Mark and Matthew mean different things by these two terms is to suppose a difference not in existence. It is true that a horse may be driven or led and that his actions are different; but where have the scholars shown us any difference in one's being "driven" of the gentle and blessed Holy Spirit, from the fact of one's being "led" of him? The insistence on a difference here only emphasizes a failure to discern spiritual things. With the wild beasts ... contrasts the theater where Christ won the victory over Satan with the beautiful garden where Satan won the victory over the first Adam. The thought of any millennial overtones in this passage as insinuating that Jesus lived harmoniously with the wild beasts should be rejected. The angels ministered unto him ... The reality of the holy angels is affirmed throughout the New Testament. Angels announced the birth of Jesus Christ, ministered to him in the wilderness, strengthened him in Gethsemane, announced his resurrection, escorted him to glory, and announced the second coming. In this dispensation, angels do service for them that shall be the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14). Verse 14 Now after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe in the gospel.The kingdom of God ... This is Mark's favorite title of the kingdom, just as Matthew's favorite is "kingdom of heaven." The two expressions are one. Christ doubtless used both; and the Holy Spirit of inspiration upon the sacred authors guided them in the terminology which they employed. The near approach of the kingdom was announced in the earliest preaching of Jesus. Repent ye, and believe in the gospel ... These words, along with reference to repentance and faith (in that order) in Hebrews 6:1 and Acts 20:10, have led to some religious theories that repentance precedes faith in the sinner's heart; but such notions are refuted by the fact that no unbeliever in the history of the race was ever known to repent. We may not, therefore, take Mark's expression here as indicating the time sequence of the appearance of repentance and faith in human hearts. There is apostolic precedent for using expressions like this without regard to the chronology of things mentioned. Thus Peter spoke of Jesus Christ, "whom ye slew and hanged on a tree" (Acts 5:30, KJV). In these verses, and through Mark 4:34, Mark takes up the Galilean ministry, especially that in the vicinity of Capernaum. Verse 16 And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net into the sea; for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. And straightway they left the nets and followed him.THE CALLING OF FOUR This was not the first meeting of Jesus with these disciples; for the apostle John gives details of their first meeting in his gospel (John 1:35-51). The reference here is to a more formal calling to the apostleship and involved their leaving their occupation to attend Jesus continually. For they were fishers ... These words figure prominently in the allegations regarding the priority of Mark; but it should ever be remembered that the extensive oral traditions of the early church were available to all the gospel writers, and that certain set expressions, as this, derived from common usage throughout the church and not from one writer's reliance upon a document written by another. The notion that Matthew copied Mark leads to the supposition that one of the apostles, such as Matthew, who was an eyewitness to all that Jesus did, and who had orally taught the gospel to countless Christians throughout the world of that era, and who was one of the group of men whose words formed the oral traditions which prevailed in the first two or three decades of the Christian era ... the incredible supposition that such an author would have needed to consult Mark is ridiculous and is in no wise proved by such expressions common to two, or even three, of the synoptics. The necessary existence of oral traditions before any of the gospels was written is a more than sufficient explanation of the common expressions such as this. Fishers of men ... This purpose of the Master to make the men here mentioned to be "fishers of men" indicates this as a more formal call to the apostleship, contrasting with the first meeting recorded in John. They promptly obeyed the call. Verse 19 And going a little further, he saw James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him.These brothers also were among those whose first meeting with Jesus was recorded by John; and it is true of them, as of Peter and Andrew, that this was a formal call to the apostleship, significantly afterward. Their response, like that of the others, was prompt and obedient. Verse 21 And they go into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. OF JESUS' Mark does not relate what Jesus taught on this occasion, but it may be assumed that his teaching was identical with such teaching as that found in the sermon on the mount and in the parables and other discourses. Significantly, the first teaching of Jesus (as recorded by Mark) occurred in a synagogue provided by a liberal and God-fearing Gentile (Luke 7:5). Verse 22 And they were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as having authority, and not as the scribes.Matthew reported the close of the sermon on the mount in almost these exact words. Why? Both Matthew, Mark, and all the gospel writers drew freely upon the established oral tradition which existed for about a decade before Matthew wrote and about three decades before Mark wrote. Such an expression as this verse had been repeated perhaps millions of times by believers in recounting the wonderful story of Jesus; and there can be no marvel at all that it is found in both gospels, with just enough variation to show that both authors wrote independently, Matthew writing, "their scribes," and Mark writing "the scribes." It is obvious that nobody copied anybody! Having authority ... Jesus' teaching was promulgated by him as being superior to that of Moses. He took up the great precepts of the law, repeated them, and then added, "But I say unto you," going on to indicate his own teachings as superior to those of the law (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 5:34; Matthew 5:39; Matthew 5:44 etc.). Verse 23 And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an unclean spirit; and he cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus thou Nazarene? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the holy one of God.THE HEALING OF THE IN THE With an unclean spirit ... Luke's account of this (Luke 4:31-37) calls this "an unclean demon," the expressions being synonymous. What have we to do with thee ... The plural indicates that the demon was speaking either upon behalf of himself and other demons, or for his victim and himself. Regarding other demon possession, of which there is so much in Mark, the following observations are in order. DEMON Our Lord used language in addressing demons which is not reconcilable with any explanation of such maladies as mere diseases or mental disturbances. He addressed the demon as distinct from the man (Mark 1:25); and, in private conversations with the Twelve, indicated that particularly malignant demons could not be expelled except by "fasting and prayer" (Matthew 17:21). Any scheme that confounds such diseases as epilepsy, insanity, paranoia, etc., with demon possession as related in the New Testament is refuted by the words and actions of Christ who clearly regarded the phenomenon of demon possession as real. Why, then, it may be asked, are there no examples of demon-possession in the current era? A double reply to this is as follows: (1) It is by no means certain that demon-possession has disappeared from the earth. As Trench said, "The assumption that there are none now, itself remains to be proved."[4] In the same vein of thought, William James, noted philosopher and psychologist, said: The refusal of modern "enlightenment" to treat possession as an hypothesis, to be spoken of as even possible, in spite of the massive human tradition based on concrete human experience in its favor, has always seemed to me a curious example of the power of fashion in things scientific. That the demon theory will have its innings again is to my mind absolutely certain. One has to be "scientific" indeed to be blind and ignorant enough to deny its possibility.[5]Moreover, Worcester and McComb affirm that: There are today educated and skilled physicians who believe in obsession by an extraneous intelligence and whose therapeutic system is based on this conviction.[6](2) Aside from the fact that demon possession indeed might still exist on earth, there must be added the inference that even if it should be proved impossible today, such would not deny its existence then. At a time when the true Spirit was coming into the world as a Redeemer, it is certainly fully reasonable to expect that the most intensive activity of Satan would have been multiplied in opposition to the Lord's work. The triumph of Christ would therefore explain the disappearance of the phenomenon in our own times. Either of the solutions to this problem presented here could be correct. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ obviously treated demon-possession as a reality in certain cases, he certainly did not refer all diseases to such a cause; and there were notable instances in which he went out of the way to demonstrate his rejection of popular notions of his day regarding demons. Thus, he commanded the crumbs to be taken up after the feeding of multitudes, defying the superstition that demons lurked in crumbs; also the popular notion that demons could take advantage of people who borrowed water was flaunted by our Lord's borrowing water from the woman of Samaria. The Saviour himself represented demons as preferring "waterless places" (Matthew 12:43); but he did not hesitate to frequent waterless places, or desert places. The child of faith will not be intimidated by the accusations of those who would make of our Lord a mere child of his age, ignorantly making their own prejudices his own, and falling in with an erroneous superstition regarding demon possession. The dogmatism and arrogance with which some allege such things cannot fail to raise the thought that possibly such men might be an example of what they are denying. For further discussion of this subject, see Commentary on Matthew, (Matthew 8:21-32). I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God ... appears as the testimony of the demon himself, and, as such, is one of the most interesting things in Scripture. Scribes and Pharisees at that point in time did not recognize heaven's messenger, and not even his closest disciples fully knew him. Yet heaven had shouted the message from God himself that here was the Son beloved; and here darkness itself acknowledged the light; hell bore witness of the Christ, although he received it not. At Gadara also, demons confessed Christ as "Son of God"; but there too, it may be assumed, Jesus did not receive their testimony. The apostles likewise followed in this same pattern of rejecting the testimony of demoniacs (Acts 16:16-18). Paul did not allow the girl with the spirit of divination to bear witness of his preaching, although her words were true: "These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation." Paul cast the spirit out of her, thus ending her witness. Thus, neither Christ nor his apostles permitted hell to witness of heaven, nor the kingdom of evil to testify of the kingdom of God. What motivation produced the remarkable testimony of demons? If men had written the New Testament, it is incredible that the enemies of all light and truth should have appeared in such a role. Why would they have confessed the One who had entered the world to destroy their works? Every human thought inclines to the view that demons would have avoided such a confession at all cost. Why, then, did they do it? Certainly, they were not forced to do it by Christ, because he expressly forbade them. Trench understood their motivation to have been in the "hope that the truth itself might be brought into suspicion and discredit in thus receiving attestation from the spirit of lies."[7] The purpose of Satan in prompting such testimony of demons comes to light in a similar instance of it in Mark 3:11, followed quickly by the Pharisees' charge that Jesus cast out demons by the prince of demons (Mark 3:22). Thus, the use which Satan attempted to make of the alleged rapport of the demons with Christ reveals the diabolical purpose which instigated the kind of confessions which might have aided the devil. That such is the truth appears from the fact of Jesus' unequivocal rejection of them. Art thou come to destroy us ...? The fear of the demons was also noted by Matthew who recorded the complaint of the Gadarene demons, "Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" (Matthew 8:29). The faith of demons must therefore be viewed as something exceeding that of many so-called Christians. Various New Testament references reveal them as believing in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, having absolute authority over them, having also judged them, consigning them to destruction, a fate already determined to be executed upon them at a given time. The destruction envisaged in this passage is hell; and the fact that demons believe in such destruction should give pause to sinners who deny any such place, supposing that their conception of a "loving God" negates any possibility of eternal condemnation. As Ryle wrote: It is a sorrowful thought that on these points some professed Christians have even less faith than the devil. There are some who doubt the reality of hell and the eternity of punishment. Such doubts find no place except in the hearts of self-willed men and women. There is no infidelity among devils. "They believe and tremble" (James 2:19).[8][4] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 174. [5] Quoted by Elwood Worcester, Making Life Better (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1936), p. 45. [6] Samuel McComb, Body, Mind and Spirit (New Hampshire: Marshall Jones and Company, 1931), p. 272. [7] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 250. [8] J. C. Ryle, op. cit., p. 12. Verse 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of the man. And the unclean spirit, tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him.It was necessary that Jesus show his absolute power over the evil spirits, and as Bickersteth said, "also that he should show that he had nothing to do with them."[9]There were two excellent reasons why Christ forbade the testimony of evil spirits: (1) it was not the proper time that Christ should be made known as the Son of God, and (2) if it had been permitted, it would have been alleged as proof by the Pharisees that Christ was in league with Satan (Mark 3:22). Hold thy peace and come out ... Christ ordered the evil spirit not to speak, and no further word was uttered by him, the loud cry being merely a wail and not an intelligible utterance. Tearing him ... Luke recorded this, "And when the demon had thrown him down in the midst, he came out of him, having done him no hurt" (Luke 4:35). "Tearing him" is therefore a reference to the man's being convulsed and thrown down. Mark preferred the more dramatic word as in Mark 1:12. The Greek word here rendered "tearing" may also be translated "convulsed,"[10] according to Bickersteth. This action by the evil spirit showed his malignity and that he departed from the man unwillingly, solely upon the authority of Jesus. The convulsing of the man also demonstrated that he was actually possessed of a demon. The entire incident therefore provided an effective witness of the power of the Son of God over evil spirits. [9] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 5. [10] Ibid., p. 6. Verse 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.Mark thus testified to the effect of such mighty deeds upon the people who saw them. The mention of "teaching," here, indicates that: The bystanders inferred that this new and unexampled power indicated the accompanying gift of "a new teaching," a new revelation. More, it indicated that he who wrought these miracles must be the promised Messiah, the true God; for he alone by his power could rule the evil spirits.[11]ENDNOTE: [11] Ibid. Verse 28 And the report of him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about.Everywhere ... anticipates the world-wide spread of the gospel, but the primary meaning is here restricted to Galilee. Verse 29 And straightway, when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's wife's mother lay sick of a fever; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand, and raised her up; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them.THE HEALING OF PETER'S MOTHER-IN-LAW Simon's wife's mother ... points up the fact that Peter was a married man, a fact further corroborated by Paul's mention of Peter's wife in 1 Corinthians 9:5. Lay sick of a fever ... Luke, being a physician, was more technical in describing this malady, referring to it as "a great fever," the medical designation of those times for such a malady as typhoid. Luke also recorded the fact of Jesus' standing over her, and the information that others had interceded on her behalf. Thus, it is Luke who provided the delicate little touches alleged to be found principally in Mark. This account and those of Mat 8:14-17 and Luke 4:38-40 exhibit the superlative effect of interlocking narratives by independent writers combining to give a composite record of undeniable truth and beauty. Luke said it was Simon's house; Matthew said it was Peter's; and Mark related that it was Simon's and Andrew's. This is another pseudocon, explained by the fact that Peter and Andrew, as brothers, owned a house jointly. Straightway ... This is the ninth usage of this expression by Mark in this chapter. They tell him of her ... Luke gives what they told him, namely, that she was and including a request that Christ would heal her. The fever left her ... It did not merely abate but disappeared. The power of Christ did not merely make people better but entirely whole and healthy. And she ministered unto them ... The spiritual implications of this are extensive and are suggestive of many expressions found in the gospel of John. All people are saved to save others. Jesus did not heal people for their benefit only, but he healed them to serve others, as exemplified by the behavior of Peter's mother-in-law here. Verse 32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were possessed of demons.When the sun did set ... From this, and from the fact that the evil spirit had been cast out of a man on the sabbath day (apparently) only a short while previously, it is frequently considered that the people waited until after sundown to avoid violation of the sabbath; but this inference is by no means certain. True, Mark's "straightway" sometimes means "in the very next sequence of time," or "immediately"; but it is by no means a necessary meaning in Mark's every use of the word. This sacred author apparently used the term also as a simple connective. For example, "straightway" in Mark 1:28 can hardly mean "on the same day." Chrysostom thought that the mention of sunset here was to give "evidence of the faith and eagerness of the people, who, even when the day was spent, still came streaming to Christ."[12] Either this view, or that it was indeed the sabbath day, could be correct. ENDNOTE: [12] Quoted by R. C. Trench, op. cit., p. 254. Verse 33 And all the city was gathered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons; and he suffered not the demons to speak, because they knew him.Here it was Matthew who provided the sparkling details that: (1) all the sick were healed; (2) the demons were cast out by a word; and (3) there was here a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy (Isaiah 53:4). This is contrary to the view that Mark more fully reported material common with the other synoptics. Luke more fully reported the incident of the healing of Peter's mother-in-law, and Matthew more fully reported this. He suffered not the demons to speak ... See under Mark 1:24-26. Matthew's reference to this evening's work of healing as a fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy, "Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases," should not be thought of as limiting the vicarious work of Christ to the mere removal of bodily suffering, but rather this was viewed as a sign of the far greater service of "taking" and "bearing" the sins of all men, the very sins which are the root cause of all suffering. Supporting this view is the meaning of the original verbs in Isaiah where far more than mere removal is meant, for Messiah is there represented as actually taking upon himself all the disabilities of mankind. Peter also vindicates this understanding of the place (1 Peter 2:24). Verse 35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert place, and there prayed.A great while before day ... Christ gave the top of the day to meditation and prayer, and his followers could do no better than to follow his example. It might be speculated that Christ arose thus early to escape the applause of men so profusely available following his miracles, but there was the far more important message of the kingdom to be advertised; and Christ's prayers were preparatory to his first missionary journey in Galilee. A desert place ... Deserts were the wandering place of demons, but Jesus feared them not. And there prayed ... The prayer life of Christ was entensively stressed by the sacred writers. Once, he continued all night in prayer (Luke 6:12). Verse 36 And Simon and they that were with him followed after him; and they found him, and say unto him, All are seeking thee.They that were with him ... would mean at least the other three disciples called in this chapter. Luke reported in this context the coming of a multitude who sought to restrain Christ's departure from them (Luke 4:42). Verse 38 And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to this end came I forth. And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out demons.The extent and duration of this journey must have been considerable. Josephus relates that there were nearly 200 villages in the area, each with several thousand inhabitants. Christ's words here indicated the priority of preaching over the work of healing the sick and casting out demons, his works being related, of course, to his preaching; but it was the preaching for which the miracles were wrought, and not the other way around. Luke indicated the subject matter of Jesus' preaching in these words: "I must preach the good tidings of the kingdom of God to the other cities also: for therefore was I sent." Verse 40 And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.THE OF THE LEPERThis wonder is recorded in all the synoptics; and, although Mark is credited with giving "more full details,"[13] it is not amiss to point out that of the eight or nine sections in this chapter which are reported by one or both of the other synoptics, this is the first instance of Mark's having, in any sense, a fuller account; and, even here, it was Matthew and Luke who gave the most vivid details of the leper's "worshipping" Christ (Matthew 8:2) and of his falling "on his face" in order to do so (Luke 5:12), thus associating worship with a humble posture of the body. If one counts the words, or measures the text, of the three synoptic accounts of this miracle, he might fall in with the view that "Mark's account is fuller"; but this apparent fullness actually results, not from information conveyed by the author, but from his manner of relating it. Take the charge to the cleansed man: "And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." - Mark "And he charged him to tell no man: but go thy way and show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." - Luke. "And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them." - Matthew It will be noted that the information given is the same in all three accounts. All three recorded the same miracle which had been incorporated into the oral tradition of the church which necessarily preceded all of the gospels. The recurrence in the synoptics of words, phrases and expressions common to them all has no explanation whatever apart from the prior oral tradition upon which all of them partially relied. The critical hypothesis which would make Mark the first of the gospels and the principal source of the other two synoptics is altogether ridiculous and unconvincing for those who have a thorough knowledge of the gospels. For more on the synoptic problem, see the introduction. A leper ... This dreadful malady was incurable by any art or device of men. In the holy Scriptures, it appears like blindness as a type of sin; but this did not imply any greater guilt in those afflicted. The dreadful affliction itself in its ravage of the unfortunate victim was the type. That only God could cure leprosy was a fact stated in anger by Jehoram the King of Israel on the occasion when Naaman appeared and demanded that he be healed of his leprosy. The king said, "Am I God, to kill and to make alive, that this man doth send unto me to recover a man of his leprosy?" ( 2 Kings 5:7). If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean ... The faith of the leper was very great. He did not suggest that Jesus intercede with God on his behalf but that he should cleanse him. He did not merely petition Jesus but worshipped him, falling on his face, and kneeling to him. ENDNOTE: [13] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 7. Verse 41 And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand and touched him, and saith unto him, I will; be thou made clean.And touched him ... It was not sinful to touch dead bodies, or lepers; but to do so brought ceremonial defilement (Leviticus 13-14). In the case of Christ's touch, it brought cleansing and not defilement. The power and godhead of the Son of God shine in a miracle such as this; and, moreover, this sign suggests the far greater thing that Jesus did in touching our human nature by means of his incarnation and thus bringing eternal life to all men. Verse 42 And straightway the leprosy departed from him, and he was made clean.In this verse also, Mark's "fuller account" consists of relating in twelve words what Luke gave in seven and Matthew in six words. Verse 43 And he strictly charged him, and straightway sent him out.Strictly ... is an emphatic term, indicating that the Master instructed the healed man in the most specific and urgent terms. Verse 44 And saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man: but go show thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.Say nothing to any man ... This prohibition by the Saviour was for his own protection against the irresponsible crowds who would have declared him king if they had been given the lightest pretext for doing so (see John 6:15). The things which Moses commanded ... The sacrifice commanded by Moses was a triple offering of two male lambs without blemish and one ewe lamb without blemish (Leviticus 14). For a testimony unto them ... The priests would by such a cleansing know of the power of Jesus; and Jesus did everything that even God could do in order to induce faith in the religious leaders. The prohibition to "tell no man" did not refer to the testimony which would of necessity be given to the priests. Verse 45 But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to spread abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into a city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him from every quarter.The cleansed man could then go everywhere, but the Lord who had healed him had to retire to the desert and avoid populated places. One may only marvel at the disobedience and vanity of the cleansed man who so vigorously flaunted the command of the Lord who healed him. Mark brought out the connection between the man's disobedience and the necessity of Jesus' retirement from populated areas; but the same thing is inferred in Luke where "the report concerning Jesus" by the cleansed man "went abroad," the "great multitudes" coming to him, and the fact that he "withdrew" into the deserts are all recorded. It is incorrect, therefore, to say that Mark alone related this. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter OneThe Baptism and the Temptation of Jesus, Mark 1:1-13 John's Ministry Described, Mark 1:1-8. (Matthew 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18) Mark 1:1. The beginning of the gospel.—Not the beginning absolutely considered, but Mark's beginning, each of the other historians having a beginning different from this. Matthew begins with the genealogy and birth of Jesus; Luke, with the announcement to Zachariah concerning the birth of John; John, with the preexistence of the Word and the testimony of John the Baptist; Mark, with a brief account of John's ministry introductory to the baptism and the ministry of Jesus. the Son of God.—Unlike Matthew, who introduces Jesus first as "Son of David, son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1), Mark introduces him at once as with a view to Gentile readers, he emphasizes the relation of Jesus to God rather than that to Abraham and the Jewish people. Mark 1:2-3. in the prophets.—Two prophets are here quoted; the passage beginning, "Behold, I send my messenger," being taken from Malachi 3:1; and that beginning, "The voice of one crying," being taken from Isaiah 40:3. If the reading, "in the prophets," be retained, there is no difficulty in the passage; but if the reading, "in the prophet Isaiah," which is preferred by the critics, be substituted, it presents the difficulty of two passages from two different prophets being both apparently referred to one of them. Besides the great weight of authority exhibited by the critics in favor of the latter reading, it has in its favor the consideration that it is less likely to have been the result of a change. If it had been the original reading, there would have been a temptation to substitute "in the prophets," in order to get rid of the difficulty just stated; whereas, if "in the prophets" had been the original, there would have been not only no temptation to make the change, but a reason for not making it. We accept, therefore, the corrected reading, and suppose that "in the prophets" was adopted by transcribers in order to avoid the difficulty, and because they thought that a mistake had been made by former copyists. We suppose also that Mark's reason for mentioning Isaiah and omitting the name of Malachi, was that the essential part of the quotation was that taken from the former prophet. (Comp. Lange in loco.) my messenger.—The passage in Malachi (Malachi 3:1-6) from which this is an extract, has unmistakable reference to the Messiah, and the messenger to be sent before his face can be no other than John. We can see for ourselves that Mark's application of the words is correct. The voice.—See note on Matthew 3:3. Mark 1:4. baptism of repentance.—The exact meaning of this expression is to be ascertained by considering the relation between John's baptism and repentance. That relation is indicated by the fact that men were required to repent as a condition of being baptized. (Matthew 3:8-9.) Repentance was the one antecedent condition of baptism; for although none were baptized who were not believers in the true God, this was because John preached only to Jews who were believers before his preaching began. As regards faith in Christ, this was enjoined as a duty which was to follow baptism and to be performed when the Christ should make his appearance. (Acts 19:4.) John's baptism was called "the baptism of repentance," then, because it was necessary for a man to repent in order that he might be baptized, and because this was the only condition enjoined. If the baptism of the new covenant were designated after the same manner, it would be called the baptism of faith, because faith, though not the only prerequisite, is the chief of all. for the remission of sins.—Remission of sins is but another expression for pardon, or the forgiveness of sins. "For the remission of sins" declares the object for which the baptism of repentance was administered; or, in other words, it points out the blessing to be enjoyed by the penitent Jew when baptized. This would need no argument to an unprejudiced mind; for it is the natural and obvious meaning of the words. But those who have been taught to deny the divinely established connection between baptism and remission of sins, have resorted to various ingenious devices in order to put a different meaning on passages like this. One of these devices is the assumption that the preposition "for" connects "remission," not with the term baptism, but with the term repentance; and that repentance, not baptism, is declared to be for the remission of sins. According to this assumption, "repentance for the remission of sins" is an adjunct of 'baptism," showing what baptism John preached— a baptism preceded by repentance for remission of sins. But this is a forced construction of the sentence, and it bears all the marks of having been invented for a purpose. By the natural and grammatical construction, "of repentance" must be regarded as an adjunct of "baptism," showing that it is a baptism of repentance, while "for the remission of sins" declares the object of this baptism. We have examples of the same construction, in both English and Greek, in the following places: "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness." (Romans 10:4.) "He" (the civil ruler) "is the minister of God to thee for good." (Romans 13:4.) In each of these examples the preposition "for" connects its object with the leading substantive of the sentence, while the subordinate substantive with its preposition "of" constitutes an adjunct of the principal subject. So, in the instance before us, "for" connects "baptism" with "remission of sins, while "of repentance" is an adjunct of "baptism." Another device has been to assign to "for," the meaning, "on account of;" thus making the passage mean that John preached the baptism of repentance on account of the remission of sins which had already taken place. But this is assigning to the Greek preposition (ις) rendered "for" a meaning which it never bears, and it makes John announce as a reason for baptism that which could not be a reason for it. How could the fact that a man's sins had already been forgiven be a reason why he should be baptized? Even if forgiveness had preceded baptism, baptism would still have an object of its own, as it has in the system even of those who accept this interpretation, and for this object it would be administered. The course which candor and fair dealing with the word of God requires, is to accept the meaning which the inspired writer has left on the very surface of the passage, and not to seek for forced interpretations in order to save a theory which must be false unless it can find better support than this. It follows, that in addition to the animal sacrifices for sin which the law still required, John commanded the Jews to be also baptized for the same purpose, and thus his baptism served as a transition from the Jewish law of pardon to that which prevails under the reign of Christ. Mark 1:5-8.—In these verses Mark employs phraseology almost identical with that of Matthew, but he presents the thoughts more briefly, and arranges them in a different order. (For special remarks, see the notes on Matthew 3:4-6 Matthew 3:11-12.) The Baptism of Jesus, Mark 1:9-11. (Matthew 3:13-17; Luke 3:21-23) Mark 1:9. came from Nazareth.—That Jesus "came from Nazareth of Galilee," to be baptized by John, shows that he had continued to make his home at Nazareth until the time of his baptism. in Jordan.—The preposition here rendered "in" (ις) means into, and it represents the passage of the person of Jesus into the water as the act of baptism took place. "Baptized in the Jordan" would not be ambiguous or obscure; but "baptized into the Jordan" is more expressive, and is the correct rendering. Mark 1:10. out of the water.—The Greek text from which our version was made has here the Greek preposition apo (π), rendered "out of;" but all of the more recent critics unite in regarding ek (ἐκ) as the true reading. So depose Lachmann, Meyer, Tischendorf, Alford, Green, Tregelles. This is the reading of the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and many other less authoritative manuscripts, and the question is settled beyond all reasonable doubt. This question being settled, the question as to the immersion of Jesus is also settled: for if he came up out of the water, as ἐκ necessarily implies, he had gone down into it; and if he went down into the water to be baptized, there is no room for an honest doubt that he was immersed. the Spirit like a dove.— See note on Matthew 3:16. Mark 1:11. a voice from heaven.—On the import of the words uttered by this voice, see the note on Matthew 3:17. Mark's report of it, as Luke's also, differs from Matthew's in representing the words as addressed to Jesus in the second person. It is most likely that Mark and Luke give us the words in their exact form, while Matthew adopts the less definite form of the third person, because his mind was chiefly directed to the effect of the speech on the bystanders, or because he is given to the less definite forms of speech. The Temptation of Jesus, Mark 1:12-13. (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13) Mark 1:12. driveth him.—While Matthew says that Jesus was "led" by the Spirit into the wilderness, Mark says "the Spirit driveth him," using a much more forcible term, and indicating still more clearly that it was not at the volition of Jesus that he entered into the temptation. (Comp. Matthew 4:1.) Mark 1:13. forty days tempted.—While Mark states that Jesus was tempted forty days, Matthew represents that at the end of the forty days "the tempter came to him." Luke's statement is like Mark's. (Luke 4:2.) I think the best explanation of this is that Mark and Luke regarded the forty days' fast as a part of the temptation; and rightly so, because it was a necessary preparation for the trial in regard to bread. Had it not been for the hunger superinduced by the fast, the suggestion, "Turn these stones into bread," would have had no force. with the wild beasts.—Mark is alone in mentioning the presence of wild beasts. Their presence added materially to the dreariness of the forty days of fasting, and was calculated to make Jesus impatient of the long detention. angels ministered.—This is the ministering mentioned by Matthew as occurring after Satan had left Jesus. (Matthew 4:11.) Mark's account of the temptation is exceedingly brief. He barely mentions the fact as he hurries on to the chief theme of this part of his narrative, the ministry of Jesus in Galilee. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 This verse states the beginning point that was referred to in the preceding verse, that it was the time when Jesus was ready to start in his public work. But since that was to be preceded immediately by the work of the forerunner, John the Baptist, the author opens his story with several verses about that great man. This verse cites a prophecy in Malachi 1, referring to John the Baptist as a messenger to go before the face of Christ to prepare the way for him. 3 See comments on Matthew 3:1 for the explanation of wilderness. 4 Baptism of repentance denotes that baptism was caused by sincere repentance. (See Matthew 3:7-8.) For is from EIS and means in order to remission of sins. 5 All the land of Judea means that people came to John from all that country, not that every person was baptized. Confessing their sins was the verbal evidence that they had repented, and submission to baptism was the active evidence. 6 See the comments at Matthew 3:4 for explanation of this verse. 7 This is John's first mention of the one who was to follow him. The reference to shoes is an allusion to the customs of that time. Loose sandals were worn in foot travel and upon entering a home they were removed and taken charge of by a servant. By way of illustration John regarded himself as unworthy even to unfasten the shoes of the one mightier than he. 8 With is from EN and means "in," referring to the element in which the persons were baptized. The baptism of the Holy Ghost was to be performed by the one coming after John and that was Christ. He was to give the Holy Ghost (Spirit) in overwhelming measure to his apostles to "guide them into all truth" (John 16:13). 9 The preceding eight verses (Mark 1:1-8) concludes the introduction referred to in Mark 1:1. This and the next verse includes both John and Jesus, which will be all that Mark will record directly of the work of John, and any reference that may be made to him will be as a matter of history. In those days denotes that while John was to come before Jesus, yet their introduction to the world was to be virtually at the same time. Jesus came from Nazareth where he had lived since the return of his parents with him from Egypt (Matthew 2:23). The reason for his baptism is explained in Matthew 3:13-15. 0 If Jesus came up out of the water, then he had gone down into it. That was made necessary for the body to be baptized which was done by immersion. He (John) saw the Spirit descending upon him (Jesus). John had been previously told that he would see such a thing take place (John 1:33). 1 The voice from heaven was that of God, who openly recognized Jesus as his Son after he had been baptized, and he also added the important truth that he was well pleased in his Son. 2 Having been recognized formally as the Son of God, Jesus would not enter into his work until he had been tested. The word spirit always comes from the same Greek word, whether good or evil spirits, human or divine spirits, are meant; the connection here shows it means the Holy Spirit. Driveth is from EKBALLO which Thayer defines at this place, "to command or cause one to depart in haste." This is virtually the same in meaning as Matthew's statement that Jesus was "led up of the Spirit" (Matthew 4:1). 3 This verse gives a general summing up of the different things that took place with Jesus in those forty days: for the details see Matthew 4:1-11. Gospel of the kingdom means good news that the kingdom of heaven was about to be set up. 5 Time is fulfilled means the predictions of the start of the kingdom of God as to time had been fulfilled. On that ground Jesus commanded them to repent and believe the gospel. Why did he put repentance before belief? A fuller statement on the same subject is in Acts 20:21. The work of John and Jesus was among the Jews only. They were still under the Mosaic system in which God was the only personality they were supposed to serve. But they had become slack toward God and were obligated to repent on behalf of Him, then come with clean hands to the new system and believe the Gospel. It was like telling a debtor to pay up his old debts before asking a new creditor to accept him. 6 This Simon was Simon Peter according to Matthew 4:18, who, with his brother Andrew, was the first man called from his secular occupation to travel with Jesus bodily over the country and to be with him constantly. 7 Using their own occupation as a basis for his figures of speech, Jesus compared the proposed work of these men with what they had been doing. They were still to be fishers, but were to fish after men with the bait of the Gospel. 8 They could not use their temporal nets in the new business and hence had to forsake them. Their interest was indicated by their straightway forsaking the nets. 9 James and John were the ones elsewhere called "Zebedee's children." 0 All of these men were only required to come along with Jesus. No initiation act was required of them because John had already baptized them. We know that he was to prepare a people for Christ, and Jesus accepted these men as they were which shows that they had been made ready for his service. John had but one method of preparing men for Christ which ended with baptism. So we must conclude these men had been baptized by John the Baptist to await service under Christ. 1 Capernaum was a city on the shore of Galilee, and Matthew 4:13 tells us that Jesus made it his dwelling place. He entered the synagogue on the sabbath because there would be people there whom he could teach. For more information about synagogues see the information offered in connection with Matthew 4:23. 2 This verse is explained at Matthew 7:28-29. 3 The man with an unclean spirit was possessed with a devil. This subject is considered at length at Matthew 8:28. 4 Of course we must understand that the devil did his talking with the mouth of the victim which is signified by the expression "possessed with the devil." Note that references to this devil are in both the singular and plural numbers. That is because though there might be a legion of them within a man (chapter 5:5-13), there would be one as spokesman. The devil knew Jesus because he had once been with him in heaven but was cast out because of sin (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 1:6; Luke 10:18). It was not surprising, then, that they did not want anything to do with Jesus. 5 Jesus rebuked him and not the man, for the being possessed with a devil was an affliction and not a. fault. The devil not only was commanded to come out of the man, but to make no remarks about the situation. 6 Cried with a loud voice may seem to contradict the statements in the preceding paragraph. No, this cry was forced from the victim by the injury which the devil inflicted on him as he was coming out. 7 People had been known to be possessed with devils for some years, but until the time of Christ no one was able to expel them. And notice that it was not done by any bodily contact, but solely by the authority of Jesus which was so great that when he commanded the devils they obeyed. No wonder the people were amazed and started to talk about it among themselves. 8 An event like the casting out of devils without any apparent means would be reported by everyone who heard about it. As a result the fame of Jesus spread at once throughout Galilee which was the district in which Capernaum was located. 9 Jesus and the first four disciples whom he called entered into the home of Simon and his brother. 0 Simon Peter was a married man for mention is made of his wife's mother. This does not harmonize with the doctrine of Rome which denies the right of marriage to all of the clergy. It is replied that Peter left his wife so that he could be qualified to serve in the capacity of head of the church. That also contradicts the scripture, for 1 Corinthians 9:5 tells us that he was leading his wife about with him, and that was in Paul's day. Anon they tell him of her means they told him of the case of sickness as soon as he entered into the house. 1 The only physical thing that Jesus did was to lift up the woman with his hand. But that act alone would not have recovered her, for any man could have done that. And the encouraging act of lifting her from the bed did not merely give her an imaginary impulse as a "shot in the arm" might cause, but she was able to minister to the group which would require something more than nervous will power. 2 This verse includes regular diseases and also the being possessed with devils which shows there was a difference between the two kinds of afflictions. The presence of devils sometimes caused diseases similar to those to which mankind was always subject, but such cases could be cured only by casting out the devils. 3 Jesus was still in the home of Peter and his brother where he had healed the mother of Peter's wife, also had recovered others of their afflictions. This caused such a stir throughout the city that great crowds gathered at the door. 4 Divers diseases means many kinds of diseases. Suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. These devils would not have deserved any credit for proclaiming the divinity of Christ; that is, it would not have been an act of faith but of knowledge. They made such a declaration once and were rebuked for it (verses 24, 25), and Jesus still was not willing to be upheld by such characters. 5 Jesus was human as well as divine, and therefore he preferred to be alone with his Father at certain times. There is a foolish theory that Jesus and God are one in person. If that were true, to whom did he pray in that solitary place? The theory breaks down under the weight of its own absurdity. 6 Jesus was not allowed to be alone very long. Since he went out there a great while before day it is reasonable to say that as soon as it came the usual hour to arise, Peter discovered his absence and he took his group and went in search of him. 7 They did not know exactly where he was for it says when they had found him. They told Jesus that all men were seeking for him, but the motive for their search is not revealed by the text. 8 The main purpose of Jesus in his personal ministry was to preach the good news of the kingdom. The working of miracles was one of the "side lines" of his mission, performed to give testimony to the genuineness of his teaching. Because of that he stated that they should go into other towns to preach, and that he had come out into the world for that purpose. 9 The Jews would be gathered in their synagogues to read the Scriptures and perform other acts of worship. That gave Jesus an opportunity to preach the good news, then back up his authority by casting out devils or other miraculous works. 0 Leprosy was an incurable disease and a man afflicted with it was required to live apart from society (Leviticus 13:45-46). This leper had been convinced by the other miracles of Jesus that he could also heal him of leprosy if he was willing. 1 Leprosy was contagious only by physical contact, therefore when Jesus touched the leper he proved his faith in the power that the Father had given him. In connection with the physical contact he also uttered the word of cleansing. 2 As soon as he had spoken the man was cleansed from his leprosy. This denotes that his physical contact would not have been necessary as far as the healing was concerned. We should note that Jesus did not require a period of time for his accomplishment but did it immediately. Modern so-called faith healers must have an indefinite period, telling their patients that "it takes time," and that if their faith "holds out" they will be healed. This proves that all such "faith-cure" persons are frauds. 3 The next verse will show what this charge was and why it was given. 4 Leprosy was incurable by any natural means, but it could be cured by miracle, such as the case of Naaman in 2 Kings 5. And when a Jew had been cured of the disease physically, he was still required to perform certain services for his ceremonial cleansing which included the offering of sacrifices and other materials. That is what Jesus meant that this man should offer for his cleansing. (See Leviticus 14:1.) 5 This verse indicates why the man was told not to report his case to any man. The people were so worked up over it that they interferred with the work of Jesus and caused him to go into desert places which were those not populated. "THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Chapter TwoReturning to Capernaum, Jesus demonstrated His power to forgive sins by healing a paralytic (Mark 3:1-12). After teaching by the sea, Jesus called Levi (Matthew) to follow Him and later dined at his house with tax collectors and sinners (Mark 3:13-17). Jesus is questioned about fasting by disciples of both John and the Pharisees (Mark 3:18-22), and later challenged by the Pharisees because His disciples plucked grain to eat on the Sabbath (Mark 3:23-28). POINTS TO PONDER* Jesus' power to forgive sins, and His association with sinners * Jesus' comments regarding fasting, and His authority regarding the Sabbath REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Jesus forgives and heals a paralytic - Mark 2:1-12- The call of Levi (Matthew) and the feast at his house - Mark 2:13-17- Jesus questioned about fasting and the Sabbath - Mark 2:18-282) Where did Jesus return following his ministry throughout Galilee? (Mark 3:1)- To Capernaum, from where He had begun (cf. Mark 1:21) 3) How did Jesus demonstrate His power to forgive sins? (Mark 3:9-11)- By healing a man who was paralyzed 4) What was the reaction following the healing of the paralytic? (Mark 3:12)- All were amazed and glorified God, saying, "We never saw anything like this!" 5) Who did Jesus call to follow Him? What immediately followed? (Mark 3:14-15)- Levi, also known as Matthew (cf. Matthew 9:9); a feast t Levi's house 6) How did Jesus justify eating with tax collectors and sinners? (Mark 3:16-17)- "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick" - "I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance" 7) What did Jesus teach about His disciples fasting? (Mark 3:19-22)- The time was not right for them to fast; but the time for fasting would come - A time for change was nigh ("New wine must be put in new wineskins") 8) What did the disciples of Jesus do that was challenged by the Pharisees? (Mark 3:23-24) - They were plucking heads of grain on the Sabbath 9) What three arguments did Jesus make in defense of His disciples? (Mark 3:25-28)- The example of David and his men eating the showbread - The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath - The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath Mark 2 Introduction This chapter finds Jesus back again in Capernaum where he healed the man borne of four (Mark 2:1-12). Events related to the call of Matthew were given (Mark 2:13-17); questions regarding fasting were answered (Mark 2:18-22); and the Pharisees accused Jesus' disciples of breaking the sabbath (Mark 2:23-28). All of this is a continuation of the Galilean ministry. Verse 1 And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was in the house. (Mark 2:1) After some days ... This means an indefinite period, one long enough to allow the frenzy which developed following the healed leper's sensational report to spend itself and be followed by a period of more normalcy. In the house ... An alternative reading is "at home," indicating that this was the place in Capernaum where Jesus usually lived. It has been surmised that this was the home belonging to Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:29). Jesus did not own a house. When in Bethany he frequently spent time in the home of Lazarus and his two sisters. Verse 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door: and he spake the word unto them.The evidence of eye-witness reporting surfaces in this, as at many other places in this gospel. If Mark, as thought by many, was writing the things he had frequently heard the apostle Peter teach, or if, as a young man, he had been present and actually had seen some of the things related it would explain the brilliant eye-witness references in this gospel. And he spake the word unto them ... The priority of importance which must be assigned to the "word" of the gospel is evident here as it was in Mark 1:38. Wonderful as were the miracles of Jesus, it was the life-giving word of God, and the delivery of it to mankind, which constituted the real purpose of his ministry. Verse 3 And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of palsy, borne of four.THE HEALING OF THE MAN WHO WAS CARRIED BY FOUR MENAlthough Jesus had entered the city quietly, person-to-person communication quickly resulted in the appearance of a throng of people, overflowing the house and blocking the entrance to the residence. Palsy ... Just what the exact nature of the man's disease may have been is not known; but the most unusual conduct of his four friends who took him, bed and all, to Jesus is an eloquent argument that his state was desperate. Seeing the vast crowd around the house and recognizing at a glance the impossibility of any normal entry into the place, most seekers wound have turned back, but not these four with their friend. Verse 4 And when they could not come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was: and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay.Could not come nigh unto him for the crowd ... is another example of the kind of statement frequently found in the New Testament, in which extensive meaning and application beyond the context are evident. How many are there in every place who cannot come near the Lord because of the crowd? When one truly decides to seek and follow the Lord, he may very well rest assured that a vast crowd of his fellow mortals will be positioned squarely across the avenue of approach. Uncovered the roof ... broken it up ... Insatiable curiosity will never cease raising questions about this. How much damage to the roof? Whose house was it? How did the owner react to this substantial injury to his dwelling? Just what was "broken up" anyway? All such trifling inconsequentials are not even mentioned by the holy authors who stick to essential facts in their narratives. The great truth, the world-shattering fact, was that the Son of God was present in that house and that he wrought the most remarkable cure of the sufferer. The bed whereon the sick ... lay ... Actually, this is another of the inconsequentials; but it may be safely surmised that it was a portable type of bed which would have made it easier for the four to have carried the occupant to Jesus through the roof! Verse 5 And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are forgiven.Their faith ... refers to the faith of all five, there being no logical way to suppose that the four believers brought an unbeliever. Son, thy sins are forgiven ... This was not a part of the healing but an entirely different and far more wonderful blessing than the healing of the man's body. That forgiveness was here pronounced by Jesus Christ in the absence of the man's confessing any faith and without regard to his submission to any kind of ordinance of God was not a relaxation of the requirements binding upon all men today. Prior to the will of Jesus Christ being formalized and proclaimed to all the world, there were numerous instances, of which this is one, in which the Lord proclaimed forgiveness to men. The declaration of Jesus had profound implications: (1) it was an assertion of his deity, the convictions of all ages sustaining the view that "only God" can forgive sins. (2) It was an indication that he had read the hearts of the five men before him, especially of the sufferer, and that he had determined the spiritual attitude of the man to have been fully consistent with the reward bestowed. (3) It proved that Jesus understood the man's greater need as forgiveness, and so that was given first. Verse 6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth: who can forgive sins but one, even God?Jesus read not only the hearts of the appellants for his mercy, but the hearts of the scribes and Pharisees as well. He blasphemeth ... The scribes were correct in believing that any ordinary man, thus speaking, would be guilty of blasphemy; but they were totally in error in their judgment of Jesus Christ as an ordinary man. Who can forgive sins but one, even God? ... They were also correct in their belief that men cannot forgive sins, the same being a prerogative of the Almighty God only. In this category, the convictions of the Pharisees were superior to ideas of many in all ages who have thought that certain men indeed have such power, a notion fully refuted by the events about to be unfolded in Mark's narrative. Verse 8 And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, saith unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts?Perceiving in his spirit ... The omniscience of Jesus was indicated by his power of reading men's thoughts. Throughout the New Testament, there are many examples of Christ's supernatural knowledge of all that was in human hearts. Why reason ... in your hearts ... This passage gives an important witness of what is meant, actually, by "the heart" as used in the word of God, appearing here as the seat of reason and intelligence, and therefore making it mandatory to understand it as that which men now call "the mind" or "the brain." Verse 9 Which is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?It was doubtless with a view to this very action that Jesus forgave the man's sins a little earlier. The presence of the scribes was probably due to their having been sent from Jerusalem to monitor Christ's teaching and report back any violations of their religious rules. It should be remembered that at least a year previously Christ had healed a man on the sabbath; and, following lengthy discussions of it, the Pharisees had already made plans to murder him (John 5:18). Significantly, Christ in this verse equated the power to forgive sins with the power to perform a miracle; and from the day Jesus said this, it has been true that the man who cannot do both can do neither. The Lord went even further, as the next verse relates. Verse 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thy house.Christ here acknowledged the partial truth mixed in with the reasonings of his opponents, that being the fact that only God has authority to forgive sins. But that ye may know ... Christ would perform a wonder that only God could perform, and then they would know that he had power to forgive sins. The deduction is justified that if one cannot perform such a miracle, then it is likewise true that he cannot forgive sins. True, one may SAY, "I absolve you"; but, since the power claimed in such an assertion is beyond the scope of human judgment to determine its truth or falsity, Christ here acknowledged the validity of the kind of test he proposed and to which he submitted. Arise, take up thy bed, etc. ... By such a command, Christ challenged the scribes in this manner: Very well, you question whether I can forgive sins or not. Therefore, I command this palsied person to take up his bed and go home; if the power of God enables him to do it at my commandment, you will know that I and the Father are one; and that my power to command such a miracle proves also my power to forgive sins. Verse 12 And he arose, and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.The miracle was wrought upon the Saviour's word of command. Typical of all Jesus' miracles, this one, like all the others, was complete, immediate, accomplished by a word, without incantations or agonizings, and without any long prayers, waving of hands, jerking of the head, or any thunderous blast from the pipe organ. It was totally and dramatically accomplished with utmost ease, in the presence of enemies, without prior staging, and with no props at all. Hail, blessed Jesus! In view of all the circumstances, this miracle was wrought under test conditions, proving dramatically the power and godhead of Jesus. We never saw it on this fashion ... Such expressions used by Mark to record the audience reaction to Jesus' words and deeds are characteristic of the whole gospel. Verse 13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them.EVENTS RELATED TO THE CALL OF MATTHEWInstead of retiring to the desert, as he did earlier, Jesus here went to the shore of Galilee, an action requiring no great journey, for Capernaum was itself situated on the sea. Through use of a boat, Christ could maintain the proper distance between himself and the throng. (See under Mark 4:1.) Verse 14 And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.The call of Matthew is also reported in Matthew 9:9 and Luke 5:27. Both Mark and Luke refer to this apostle as Levi, Mark only indicating that he was the son of Alphaeus. Strangely, Mark also called James "the son of Alphaeus" (Mark 3:18), indicating that both Matthew and James were sons of fathers who were named Alphaeus. There is no hint in the New Testament that they were brothers. And as he passed by ... Many of Jesus' most wonderful deeds were accomplished in the impromptu manner suggested here. The Lord was alert to the eternal potential of every moment and every situation or circumstance. Christ regarded the present moment, the present human being in his presence, and the present circumstance in all of its vast potential for the future. Unlike the Levite who passed by on the other side of the road, oblivious to the plight of the man who had fallen among thieves, Jesus gave every man that he ever met the benefit of his most careful thought and consideration. He saw Levi ... sitting at the place of toll ... As a collector of taxes, probably upon the caravans between Egypt and Damascus[1] which passed through Capernaum, Matthew was called a publican. It may not be inferred necessarily that he was in the employ of the Romans, because the word "toll" here is distinguished from "tribute," the latter going to Rome, the toll to the native government. Thus, Matthew's employer might well have been Herod Antipas. The application of the term "publican"' to Matthew (Luke 5:27), however, as well as the presence of such persons at the banquet later given by Matthew, together with the footnote under Luke 3:12 (English Revised Version (1885)) defining "publicans" as "collectors or renters of Roman taxes," strongly indicates that Mark probably used "toll" in this verse in its broader, rather than in its limited and technical sense. From these considerations, the traditional view that Matthew was a renter or collector of Roman taxes is preferable. Jesus' choice of Matthew was therefore a challenge to the snobbery and exclusiveness of the Pharisees. It was also a move toward the socially unacceptable, the poor, and the deprived. The divine genius of Jesus quickly recognized the scholarly student of the prophets who sat at the seat of custom in Capernaum and called him to the apostleship. And he arose and followed him ... Although no record of it exists, it would appear to be certain that this was not Matthew's first acquaintance with Jesus. Just as the first meetings with the four whose calling was recorded in Mark 1 is omitted, the beginning of acquaintance between Matthew and Jesus does not appear. "One can only conclude that Matthew had known at least something about Jesus earlier."[2][1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 657. [2] Earle McMillan, The Gospel According to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 39. Verse 15 And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him.His house ... This was the house of Matthew the publican, for he promptly made a feast to which Jesus' whole company of disciples was invited, as well as many of Matthew's friends from among the publicans and sinners of his associates. This feast was an unqualified outrage, as far as the religious hierarchy in Jerusalem was concerned. Of all classes of sinners, the despised collectors of the Roman taxes were the most odious; and here were Jesus and his disciples sitting down to eat with people like that! Having found the priests totally negative in their attitude toward himself, Christ, by such an action as this, moved to take his saving message of eternal life to all men, including the outcasts. Verse 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners?A feast of the size indicated here was probably held in the courtyard of the house, leaving passers-by an opportunity to observe all that was done. For a long while the Pharisees had opposed Jesus; and their cunning and craft were evident in their maneuvers here to open a wedge between the Lord and his disciples. And when Jesus heard it ... Christ, of course, knew all that was said or even thought by those in his presence; but this seems to indicate that Jesus' disciples immediately told him what the Pharisees had said, or that he perhaps overheard them. At any rate, he promptly answered the objection. See next verse. Verse 17 And when Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.Jesus' reply was undisguised irony. That assemblage in Matthew's house knew the Pharisees for what they were, proud, arrogant, unscrupulous, hypocritical, ruthless, and thoroughly wicked sons of the devil. Matthew himself was called of God to outline the character of those men in his gospel in order that all future generations would know WHAT KIND OF MEN engineered the chosen people's rejection of their Messiah. They that are sick ... Indeed, the Pharisees were the sickest people in Jerusalem; and the Lord's suggestion that "the whole" needed no physician must have been greeted with a gale of laughter. Self-righteousness received its justly deserved rebuke. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners ... Our Lord's mission was to redeem men from sin, and ever prerequisite to that redemption is the consciousness of the sinner that he needs it, that he is condemned, lost, out of fellowship with the Eternal, and utterly unable to merit anything other than the penalty of death due to sin, and that in Jesus Christ alone has man's sufficient sacrifice appeared. In him alone is the hope of cleansing, pardon, and eternal life. Alas, the Pharisees and their associates were never able to see it. Their sins were known to all except themselves; and they were too proud to learn from Jesus. Verse 18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: and they come and say unto him, Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but thy disciples fast not?The Pharisees were up to their old tricks, trying to cause trouble for Jesus. Here. the strategy was designed to open a breach between the disciples of John the Baptist and those of Jesus. Thy disciples fast not ... This was equivalent to "You are not in style! John the Baptist's disciples and the Pharisees are fasting, so what about you?" The Lord replied to their objection with a triple parable: (1) new cloth on old garment, (2) new wine-skins for new wine, and (3) drinkers of old wine care not for new wine. Only Luke gave the full parable (Luke 5:33-39). Verse 19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the sons of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them they cannot fast.In context, this was a devastating reply, John the Baptist had already identified Jesus Christ as the bridegroom, and this metaphor was appropriately used here as an appeal to John's disciples. Furthermore, the Pharisees relaxed the rules for themselves regarding fasts on the occasion of their attending weddings. With many weddings to attend, the Pharisees found little need to do any fasting at all, despite the fact that they were always preaching it. What a center shot this part of Jesus' reply achieved! It is as though he had said, "Look, you Pharisees, this is a wedding!" The bridegroom ... John the Baptist had declared, "He that hath the bride is the bridegroom" (John 3:29); and, from this, some have erroneously concluded that the bride, or church, was in existence when John spoke. The bride of God, or of Christ (he and the Father are one), is actually the true or spiritual Israel; and, when John spoke, the genuine Israel was being separated through his preaching from the secular Israel wherein it was until then commingled. That spiritual Israel (which in time would include the church) John had directed to follow Jesus Christ, hence, the statement that he had the bride. Verse 20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away, from them, and then will they fast in that day.This is a clear prediction of the Lord's suffering and death. We cannot agree with the assertion that in Mark "Jesus does not mention suffering until after (Peter's) confession."[3] It is true that the word "suffering" is not here in this verse, but the concept of both suffering and death is inherent in the Lord's concise prophecy that the bridegroom (himself) shall be taken away from them. If removal of the bridegroom from the bride by force (the bridegroom will not merely go away; he shall be "taken away") is not a prediction of the sufferings and death of Christ, to what can it refer? And then will they fast in that day ... is not a reference to fasting as some formal ordinance that shall be bound on the church of all ages, but it is a reference to the sorrow (of which fasting was a sign) that would descend upon the apostles during his Passion and brief residence in the tomb. ENDNOTE: [3] Ibid., p. 11. Verse 21 No man seweth a piece of undressed cloth on an old garment: else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made.Patching old clothes was a familiar thing to our Lord, suggesting his poverty that has made us rich. The force of this humble metaphor lies in the fact that: if a piece of new, unshrunk cloth is used to mend a hole in an old garment, then just as soon as the garment is washed, the new material will shrink, thus tearing out an even larger hole in the garment. The application of this means that Christ did not come to patch up Judaism with the new teachings of Christianity. His holy religion was not designed to mend old religions but was a gloriously new thing, bearing the same relationship to Judaism that a building has to the scaffolding that precedes it. Verse 22 And no man putteth new wine into old wine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins: but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins.Skins of animals were used in those times for containing liquids; and, in the case of wine, if new, the process of fermentation increased the volume which was compensated for by the elasticity of the new skins. However, if new wine was put into old skins (hardened and no longer elastic), the fermentation process would burst them, resulting in the loss of both the wine and the wineskins. The application of this has been understood to mean that Jesus' new teaching could not be put into John's disciples; but it seems preferable to make the forms, ceremonies, and ordinances of Judaism to be the old wineskins; and Jesus' new teachings could not be subordinated to and synchronized with such things as Jewish fasts. To understand this to mean that Jesus would not put his new teaching into John's disciples violates the fact that some of John's disciples became apostles of Christ (John 1:35). However, the majority seem not to have done so; and the reluctance of many of John's disciples to follow Jesus would appear to be the primary meaning of the third phase of this triple reply. "No man having drunk old wine desireth new; for he saith, The old is good" (Luke 5:39). Thus, if certain exceptions are noted, it may still be appropriate to understand the old wineskins as John's disciples. Verse 23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and the disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.THE CHARGE OF SABBATH-The Pharisees blew this incident up as a violation of the sabbath. It was, of course, a violation to thresh wheat on the sabbath; but the charge that Jesus' disciples' plucking a few ears of wheat, shelling them in their hands, and eating a bite as they passed along - the charge that made such actions threshing wheat on the sabbath was absolutely ridiculous. It would have been just as reasonable, if they had knocked off a little dew on the ground, as they walked along, to have charged them with irrigating land on the sabbath! It is crystal clear that Jesus' disciples did not in any sense whatever violate the sabbath laws of God; what they did violate was the silly Pharisaical rules which those hypocrites had imposed upon people INSTEAD of God's law. Verse 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?One can only be distressed at the interpretations of this event which accept this charge of the Pharisees as valid. It was not valid. It was a false charge. God's sabbath law had not been violated at all; but the petty regulations legislated and imposed by the Pharisees had been flouted. Of course, IN THEIR VIEW, their human regulations were equated with God's law; but no Christian should fall into such an error as that. Christ said of this very incident that his disciples were "guiltless" (Matthew 12:7). Verse 25 And he said unto them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?David did indeed do an unlawful thing, to which Christ referred; but why did Jesus cite such an example? Is this to be understood to mean: "Look, David sinned; therefore it is all right for us to sin"? No! Christ was not here seeking to justify his disciples on the basis that "everybody else" is doing it. The true purpose of David's conduct being brought in here was to show how unreasonable and partial the Pharisees were in their judgments. David's flagrant violation they approved; yet they would make what Jesus' disciples did sabbath-breaking! Verse 26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?Abiathar ... The alternative reading (English Revised Version (1885)), "in the days of Abiathar" is correct, apparently because Abiathar was not high priest at the time referred to, but later when David was king. His father Ahimelech was high priest when David ate the showbread (1 Samuel 21:1-6). It could also be that Abiathar also bore the name Ahimelech, as the Bible gives many examples of persons called by two names. Which it is not lawful to eat ... Christ here clearly indicated David's actions as unlawful, the point being that a genuine violation in the case of David was openly approved by the Pharisees, while the inconsequential thing Jesus' disciples did was blown up into a charge of sabbath-breaking. Christ was not here seeking to justify his disciples' sabbath-breaking by the statement that "David did it also"; but he was pinpointing the unfairness and unjust judgments of the Pharisees. Christ never meant, as some assert, that "human need takes precedence over God's law." Christ taught no such doctrine. His refusal to permit his own dire hunger to cause him to yield to the devil's temptations to change stones into bread (Matthew 4:1-4) refutes the conceit that human need justifies setting aside God's laws. Christ's true teaching here is that God's law justifies setting aside petty human regulations. Such interpretations of this as that advocated by Dummelow and many others should be rejected. He said: Christ laid down the principle that even divine law itself, so far as it is purely ceremonial, is subservient to human needs, and can be broken without sin for adequate cause.[4]As McGarvey expressed it: If Christians may violate law when its observance would involve hardship or suffering, then there is an end to suffering for the name of Christ, and an end, even, of self-denial.[5]The fact of the Pharisees' approval of David's unlawful conduct, while at the same time pressing their silly little charge against the disciples, is evident in the fact that, if they had not approved it, they could have said, "Ah! So David was a sinner, and so are you!" That they did not so reply shows that they approved David's violation; thus their hypocrisy was open for all to see. "Human needs take precedence over ritual law"[6] could be applied only to very few things in the Christian faith, because Christianity is not a ritual religion. Only two ceremonial ordinances distinguish the faith of Christ, namely, the Lord's Supper and baptism. To the extent that marriage and church attendance might be considered in any degree "ritual" or "ceremonial," these also would be excluded from any such deduction based on Jesus' teachings here. Moreover, the deduction cited above is not a logical derivation from New Testament teaching concerning this incident; but it is due to a failure to take account of Matthew's more complete narrative of it, that writer quoting Jesus as denying all guilt of his apostles. Expositors who ignore Matthew 12:7, set aside the Lord's statement of the apostles' innocence, accept the crooked charge of the Pharisees that they broke the sabbath, and then make our Lord's alleged approval of it the basis of a deduction that men may set aside God's laws whenever they fancy their "human needs" are in any manner denied by holy law - such expositors do violence to the word of God. To accept such "interpretations" would justify every divorce ever granted. It is clear that some who hold such views have not considered the logical consequences of such interpretations. [4] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 666. [5] J. W. McGarvey, Commentary on Matthew (Delight, Arkansas: The Gospel Light Publishing Company), p. 104. [6] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 43. Verse 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath.Sabbath made for man, not man for sabbath ... is a reference to the sabbath: (1) as God made it, and (2) as the Pharisees made it. God indeed had made it for man; and quite early in the history of the sabbath law a man decided that his "human needs" took precedence over it, picking up sticks on the sabbath. Did God approve of such conduct? He commanded Israel to stone the man to death. Christ was one with the Father, and it cannot be argued that Jesus was here critical of the way God made the sabbath for man. On the other hand, the Pharisees, by their unbelievable multiplication of little frills and furbelows regarding sabbath-keeping, and their extrapolation of the basic God-given laws concerning it to include an entire dictionary of "do's" and "don't's" God never heard of, and then by their construing their own doodlings in that regard as on an equality with the law of God and as even more sacred than God's law - that was making man for the sabbath! The Son of man is lord even of the sabbath ... "Son of man" as used in Psalms 8 is merely a synonym for man; but that should not be allowed to contravene Jesus' use of the words in a unique sense as applicable only to himself. In Christ's usage of this title it refers to one who has the power to forgive sins (Mark 2:10), hence to himself as God. Jesus meant everything by this title that he meant by "Son of God," the evident reason for his preference for "Son of man" deriving from its freedom of the secular connotations (in the Jewish mind) of "Son of God." The latter title they identified with "Messiah," the re-establishment of Solomon's throne, and the lifting of the yoke of Roman tyranny. McMillan is correct in pointing out that if "Son of man" in this passage is reduced to mean any man, or all men, it would make Jesus say that "Man is greater than any religious institution and that religious laws were made for the benefit of his own self-expression!"[7] This view, of course, must be rejected. For fuller discussion of the title "Son of man," see Commentary on John, p. 54. Lord of the sabbath ... Wholly apart from the fact that no violation of God's sabbath law had happened, there was the additional truth that Jesus' disciples were exempted from God's true sabbath laws, due to their being in the service of Jesus Christ. Matthew's record emphasizes this. The Pharisees themselves "profaned the sabbath and were guiltless"; because the sabbath law did not apply to servants of the temple, who every sabbath day continually did things which in any other service would have been sabbath-violations. After pointing this out, Jesus said that "One greater than the temple is here," the same being a reference to himself. Therefore, the apostles in his service were even more entitled to exemption from the true sabbath restrictions than were the Pharisees who served in their temple, inasmuch as Christ was the greater temple (Matthew 12:5-6). Furthermore, Jesus' lordship over the sabbath derived from his oneness and equality with God. He was in the process of abolishing the sabbath institution altogether. He would nail it to his cross, abolishing it totally and completely; and his words here were a prophecy of that very thing. ENDNOTE: [7] Ibid., p. 44. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter Two Discussions with Scribes and Pharisees, Mark 2 and Mark 3 About Power to Forgive Sins. Mark 2:1-12. (Matthew 9:1-8; Luke 5:17-26.) Mark 2:1-2. into Capernaum.—There is no inconsistency between this statement and the one just previously made, that after the healing of the leper he "could no more openly enter into the city" (Mark 1:45); for the present statement is that "he entered into Capernaum after some days;" and even now he enters in privately, as appears from the remark, "it was noised abroad that he was in the house." When it was thus noised abroad, "straightway many were gathered together, insomuch that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door;" and this confirms the previous statement. Mark 2:3-5. When Jesus saw their faith.—Their faith was very clearly seen in their actions. The man could not walk, but he had four friends whose faith in the power and willingness of Jesus to heal him was so great, that they bore him on his bedding to the house. Unable to get into the house, on account of the eager pressure of the crowd, but determined not to be baffled, they contrived by some means, most likely by an outside flight of stairs, to get upon the roof with their burden. It was no easy task for them to make the ascent, carrying a man who was perfectly helpless. They found, or perhaps they knew before, that the roof was one which could be broken open easily (it was a tile roof, Luke 5:19), and now, notwithstanding the expense they would incur, and the probable displeasure of the owner of the house, they tear open the roof and let the man down as low as they can reach, above the heads of the people within. It is difficult to see how they could have shown their faith more plainly. The reason why sinners do not now show their faith in him as plainly, when they have it, is because they have not so great a desire to be healed. Men who would risk every thing for the cure of bodily disease, often bear very patiently the maladies of the soul. Mark 2:5-12.— On the argument of Jesus from this case, and the general design of the miracle, see notes, Matthew 9:1-8. About Eating with Publicans and Sinners, Mark 2:13-17. (Matthew 9:9-13; Luke 5:27-32) Mark 2:13. by the seaside.—The sloping shore of the lake of Galilee was a favorite resort of Jesus when surrounded by a multitude. By taking his position at the water's edge, or on some fishing boat tied up at the shore, he could prevent the crowd from surrounding him, and as they stood or sat on the slope he could easily make his voice reach them all. Mark 2:14. Levi the son of Alpheus.—Levi is the Hebrew name of Matthew, the latter being a Greek surname, adopted probably when he became a tax collector. (Comp. Matthew 9:9.) Whether his father Alpheus is the same Alpheus who was the father of James the younger (3:18), is quite uncertain. The name is too common to furnish safe ground for a conclusion, and we have no other evidence on the question. Mark 2:15-18.— For remarks on the remainder of this paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 9:9-13, where the argument of Jesus is more fully reported. About Fasting, Mark 2:18-22. (Matthew 9:14-17; Luke 5:33-39) Mark 2:18. used to fast.— Literally, were fasting. They were at that time keeping a fast. Such is the force of the Greek verb, σαννηστεοντες. Alford objects to this rendering, which was first insisted on by the German Commentator, Meyer, but the passages which he cites in support of his objection do not sustain it, and he admits that this may be the meaning. Mark certainly uses this combination of the verb and participle to express what was at the time being done, and not what was customary, in Mark 10:32 and Mark 14:4, as the reader of the Greek can see for himself. It was the circumstance that the Pharisees and the disciples of John were observing a fast at the very time that Jesus and his disciples were feasting in the house of Levi, which gave rise to the question, or which at least gave especial emphasis to it. Fasting was regarded as a mark of peculiar sanctity (Luke 18:12), and therefore it seemed unaccountable to the Jews that Jesus, with his lofty pretensions, should be feasting at a time when other holy men were fasting. It is worthy of note that Matthew represents this question about fasting as having been raised by the disciples of John (Matthew 9:14); Luke puts it into the mouths of the scribes and Pharisees (Luke 5:30 Luke 5:33); while Mark says that the Pharisees and the disciples of John united in putting the question. Thus it appears from the statement of Mark that Matthew and Luke, though apparently in conflict, are both correct. The disciples of John did put the question, as represented by Matthew, and the scribes and Pharisees did so, as represented by Luke. Each tells the truth, but each tells only a part of what was true, and we get at the whole truth by putting both of their statements together as one. This circumstance furnishes a key to the reconciliation of the different writers in many other places where there is an appearance of discrepancy, and we have used it freely. We should always, in such cases, suppose both statements to be true, and regard each as a part of the whole truth. Mark 2:19-22.— For remarks on the answer of Jesus, see the notes on Matthew 9:15-17. By comparing the answer as given by the two writers, the reader will again discover an identity of thought indicating a common choice of materials, and at the same time a variety of expression indicating perfect independence in composition. About Plucking Grain on the Sabbath, Mark 2:23-28. (Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5) Mark 2:26. of Abiathar.—The reader will observe that the critics correct the reading of the common version here, giving us "in the high-priesthood of Abiathar," instead of "in the days of Abiathar."This is doubtless the correct rendering, but it involves an apparent conflict between this passage and the account in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest at the time referred to. Abiathar is there represented as a son of Ahimelech, who took refuge with David after his father and the other priests had been slain by Doeg (1 Samuel 22:18-20), and who was high priest throughout the reign of David. This confusion of the two names is not confined to the New Testament, for in 2 Samuel 8:17, and 1 Chronicles 18:16, the names are reversed, and Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar. It is evident that some mistakes of transcribers in this matter have crept into the text of the Old Testament, and it is probable that in a similar way Abiathar has been substituted for Ahimelech in the text of Mark. For other opinions on the subject, see the note on this verse in Lange. Mark 2:27-28. sabbath was made for man.—These verses contain an argument not reported by either Matthew or Luke. That the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, implies that when the welfare of man conflicts with the observance of the Sabbath, the latter must give way. But of this, man himself is not to judge, because he can not judge with impartiality his own interests. No one is competent to judge in the case who does not know all that pertains to the welfare of man, and this is known only by the Lord. For this reason Jesus adds, "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath; "that is, as the Son of man came to provide for man's welfare, and as the Sabbath law might need modification or even abrogation for the highest good of man, therefore lordship over the Sabbath was given to the Son of man. The passage teaches, then, not that men might violate the law of the Sabbath when their welfare seemed to them to demand it, but that Jesus could set it aside, as he afterward did, when his own judgment of man's welfare required him to do so. He made it clear on this occasion that said law was not to be so construed as to prevent men from providing necessary food on the Sabbath-day. For comments on other parts of this paragraph, see the notes on Matthew 12:1-8. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 21. To what city did Jesus again go? 2. Who were attracted to the house? 3. What did Jesus do for them? 4. Tell whom they brought to him. 5. How did they get to him? 6. What did this indicate to Jesus? 7. To which of the five did he speak? 8. Repeat his words. 9. Who were sitting in the crowd ? 10. State their reasoning. 11. Was it done orally? 12. Who perceived it? 13. State his question to the scribes. 14. Which of these works would be the harder? 15. Which would be visible? 16. State which would prove the other. 17. What then was done? 18. How were the people impressed ? 19. Where did Jesus next go? 20. Was he left alone ? 21. What did he do for the people? 22. On the way whom did he see ? 23. State this man’ s occupation. 24. What did Jesus have him do ? 25. With whom did Jesus and his disciples eat? 26. Tell who criticized this. 27. What subject did Jesus use in reply? 28. Tell what sick people need. 29. For what did Jesus come? 30. Who had disciples beside Jesus? 31. State one of their customs. 32. What did they ask Jesus? 33. In the answer, who is the bridegroom? 34. What is predicted of this bridegroom? 35. What'will be appropriate then? 36. How is appropriateness taught also by a garment 37. What other article is used for the lesson ? 38. Tell why not put new wine into old bottles. 39. Through what field did he pass? 40. On what day? 41. What did the disciples do ? 42. Was this lawful? 43. Who objected? 44. Did they accuse them of stealing? 45. What did they claim was unlawful ? 46. To whom did Jesus refer? 47. Who was Abiathar? 48. Why was David’ s act not sinful? 49. What about the sabbath and man? 50. Also the Son of man and the sabbath? 1 Jesus did not remain in the desert indefinitely, but returned to Capernaum which was his last residence. Of course he would not escape the knoweldge of the crowd for the word passed around that he was in a certain house. Verse 2. The crowd filled the house to capacity and then kept coming until they could not all get in hearing distance of the door. But to all who were within that limit Jesus did his preaching. 3 The palsied man was brought to the place, which shows he was helpless and had nothing to do with the affair as far as the text states. 4 The press means the crowd that had gathered about the door. Matthew records this event but says nothing about their going down through the roof. In Luke 5:19 they are said to have made an opening through the roof by taking up the tiling. Houses were made with flat roofs which Were covered over with roofing tile. These could be taken up without any damage to the building just as many styles of roof tiles can be handled today. After making this opening through the roof, they let the couch bearing the sick man down right into the immediate presence of Jesus. 5 Jesus saw their faith; nothing said about the faith of the patient. 7 These scribes were reasoning in their hearts but Jesus knew what they were thinking, for he always knew what was in man. 8 Jesus let them know that he knew what they were thinking about. 9 Whether is easier means to ask them which would be easier for him to do, for if he had authority from God he could do the one as readily as the other. 1 Jesus demonstrated his power to perform miracles of the invisible kind by doing the visible. He told the palsied man to arise and carry his bed. 2 Again the result of Christ's word was immediate. When the man arose and carried his bed in their presence the people were amazed and declared the- had never seen such a deed before. A more detailed discussion of this case is at Matthew 9:2. 3 The sea side was that of Galilee where Jesus spent a great part of his time. The crowds were generally interested in his teaching and followed after him for that and also for the physical benefits obtained by his hands. 4 This man was Matthew Levi, one of the apostles and writer of the book with that name. Receipt of custom means the place where taxes were received, and this identifies him as a publican. Jesus told Levi to follow him which he did without any preparation further than what John the Baptist had done. (See Mark 1:20.) 5 These publicans and sinners were not some special sects as were the Pharisees and Sadducees, but were people who were regarded as being in the lower ranks of society. They were thus classed especially by the Pharisees who made such a claim of righteousness. (See comments at Matthew 9:10 about the publicans.) 6 These self-righteous people were not fair enough to speak to Jesus directly, but satisfied their envy by attacking his disciples. Eating with another in old times was regarded as a strong recognition of social rank, hence this particular criticism was hurled at Jesus over the shoulders of his disciples. 7 If these critics were as righteous as they claimed, then they did not need the presence of Jesus any more than a man in health would need a physician. It is the sinner who needs the services of a Saviour and that would call for the attention that Jesus was giving to these "sinners." This does not mean that Jesus regarded the Pharisees as righteous men, but he was merely using their own claims against them. 8 Fasting was never commanded as a general practice, but it was customary to do so in times of distress or anxiety. John the Baptist was dead and his disciples were fasting in his memory. They (the Pharisees) came and criticized the disciples of Jesus for not fasting. 9 This verse has reference to some customs in connection with marriages. Children is used figuratively and refers to some invited guests who took pleasure in the presence of the bridegroom. After the wedding he would leave and these special friends would lament his absence which would be appropriate. 0 This verse applies the illustration to the disciples who were destined finally to mourn the absence of their Lord. (See chapter 16:20). 2 The lesson here is one of doing things in an appropriate manner and at the proper time. A full treatment of the whole parable Is given at Matthew 9:14-17. 3 Deu 23:24-25 gave the Jews the right to make personal use of the grain in the field but not to take any away. Thus no complaint could be made for their eating this corn which was a small grain such as wheat or rye. 4 The Pharisees pretended to object because they were doing this on the sabbath day. But Jesus will show them that one law is no more sacred than another. 5 Have ye 'never read implies that they had read that account, but were ignoring the event for the time being because it would condemn-them for inconsistency. 6 The bread that David ate was that which had been on the table in the tabernacle for seven days, then was set back for the use of the priests. But it had served its religious purpose and therefore it was no desecration of it for David to eat it, especially as it was an emergency. 7 The sabbath was made for man means the day was set aside for man's benefit in providing him a time for relaxation from labor. But since the use of food is as important as rest, it is right to provide that food even if it must be done on this day in an emergency. 8 No law is any greater than the authority behind it. Christ and his Father worked together in giving to man the law of the sabbath, therefore this Son would have the right, to adjust that law to any condition suggested in his wisdom. "THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Chapter Three Jesus healed on the Sabbath, giving rise to plots on His life and later accused of healing by the power of the devil (Mark 3:1-6 Mark 3:22-30). His popularity with the multitude continued, and twelve apostles are appointed to preach and heal (Mark 3:7-19). Concern by friends and family gave Jesus opportunity to identify His true family as those who do the will of God (Mark 3:20-21 Mark 3:31-35). POINTS TO PONDER* Increasing opposition, popularity of the crowds, concern of friends and family * The blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and the true family of Jesus REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- Jesus heals on the Sabbath - Mark 3:1-6- Ministering to the multitudes - Mark 3:7-12- Selection of twelve apostles - Mark 3:13-19- Concern of friends, accusation by scribes - Mark 3:20-30- The true family of Jesus - Mark 3:31-352) How did Jesus respond to the charge against healing on the Sabbath? (Mark 3:4) - "Is it lawful on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?" 3) Who began to plot to destroy Jesus? (Mark 3:6) - The Pharisees together with the Herodians 4) Where did the multitude come from that followed Jesus? (Mark 3:7-8) - Galilee, Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, Tyre, Sidon 5) Why did Jesus appoint twelve disciples (apostles)? (Mark 3:13-15) - To be with Him, then send them out to preach, heal sicknesses, cast out demons 6) What did some of Jesus' own people think about Him? (Mark 3:21) - That He was out of His mind 7) How did Jesus reply to casting out demons by the power of Satan? (Mark 3:22-27) - "How can Satan cast out Satan?" - A kingdom (house) divided against itself cannot stand 8) What does Mark define as the "unpardonable sin"? (Mark 3:28-30) - Blaspheming the Holy Spirit by accusing Jesus of having an unclean spirit 9) Who does Jesus describe as His true family? (Mark 3:33-35) - Whoever does the will of God is His brother, sister, and mother Mark 3Verse 1 The continuation of Jesus' ministry is detailed in this chapter which recounts the healing of a man on the sabbath in the synagogue (Mark 3:1-6), healings at the seashore with demons confessing him (Mark 3:7-12), appointment of the Twelve (Mark 3:13-19), teachings regarding "an eternal sin" (Mark 3:20-30), and the incident of his mother and brethren seeking him (Mark 3:31-35). And he entered again into the synagogue; and they saw a man there who had his hand withered. And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. (Mark 3:1-2) A feature of this healing was the anticipation of it by the Pharisees, who had evidently been sent from Jerusalem for the purpose of spying on Jesus with a view to destroying him. The purpose of the hierarchy to kill Christ had already been formed earlier (John 5:18) on their decision that Christ was a sabbath-breaker and a blasphemer. Their alleged evidence, however, was unsatisfactory, even to them; therefore the search was continued in the hope of uncovering what would have been, in their eyes, a better charge. Their hatred of the Lord and their presence at the performance of this wonder emphasize the authenticity of the deed. Verse 3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace.Stand forth ... Christ accepted the challenge of his enemies. He would indeed heal the man on the sabbath day; but first, he would contrast his own act of saving mercy with their act, also performed on the sabbath day, of killing the Saviour of the world, that being their only purpose, which objective they pursued constantly, on sabbath days as well as all other days. But, if the Pharisees were blind to the inconsistency which accepted their own murderous actions as "lawful" sabbath day conduct, while at the same time condemning such an act as Jesus would do as "unlawful" on the sabbath, the people were not so blind and could easily see the difference. To save a life, or to kill ... Christ was about to "save a life" from pain, inability, and frustration. The Pharisees were present for the purpose of killing Jesus. The contrast was dramatic, and there could have been no better example of opposite purposes of Satan and Christ than that which precipitated the stark, ugly incident here. The Pharisees themselves were speechless when Jesus called attention to it. But they held their peace ... What THEY were doing was satanic and malignant; and they were stunned into silence by Jesus' obvious reference to their evil employment on the sabbath. Verse 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth; and his hand was restored.Looked ... on them with anger ... This is one of the places in which it is asserted that "Matthew corrected" Mark! It is alleged that this was considered by Matthew to have been too harsh a statement of the Lord's emotion, "anger" for some undisclosed reason being considered by critics as "unbecoming" to Jesus. Regardless of the scholarship of those advocating such a view, it is founded, apparently, in ignorance of the fact that Matthew was just as precise in his assignment of this emotion to Jesus as was Mark. The vituperative passages of Matthew 23 are a far more impressive account of Jesus' anger than Mark's casual reference to it here. Furthermore, Jesus was quoted by Matthew as saying, "The King was wroth; and he sent his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned their city!" (Matthew 22:7), the king, of course, standing for God himself, making it impossible for Matthew to have considered Mark's attribution of anger to Jesus as anything inappropriate. Therefore, the conceit that Matthew corrected Mark in this particular is rejected. And his hand was restored ... Barclay is at great pains to show that Jesus actually violated God's sabbath by this miracle, He said, "On the sabbath day all work was forbidden, and to heal was to work."[1] But as Dummelow accurately observed, "Only malice could call healing by a word, without labor or medicine, a breach of the sabbath."[2] It is nothing short of outrageous how "Christian" scholars are so determined to make Jesus a sabbath breaker. Not even the Pharisees, in the last analysis, used that charge as the basis of demanding Christ's crucifixion (John 19:7). However, the liberal scholars have an axe to grind by their inaccurate portrayal of Jesus as a sabbath-breaker. Barclay explained his conclusions on this as follows: To the Pharisees religion was ritual; it meant obeying certain rules and laws and regulations. Jesus broke these regulations and they were genuinely convinced that he was a bad man. It is like the man who believes that religion consists in going to church, reading the Bible, saying grace at meals, even having family worship, and carrying on all the external acts which are looked upon as religious, and who yet never put himself out to do anything for anyone in his life, who has no sense of sympathy, no desire to sacrifice, who is serene in his rigid orthodoxy, and deaf to the call of need and blind to the tears of the world.[3]Barclay's slander of equating his caricature of the church-going Christian with the murderous Pharisees of Jesus' day is criminal. It may be a fact that such unfeeling Christians exist; but it is the conviction of this author that such a phenomenon is rare, atypical, and extraordinary. The great hindrance to true Christianity does not come from Christians like those of Barclay's caricature, there being an insufficient number of them to make any difference at all. The great hindrance comes from insinuations, like this, which imply that Bible study, church attendance and family worship are "secondary" to "helping people" and are in no sense part of Jesus' true religion. He even went so far as to say, "To Jesus, religion was SERVICE."[4] Jesus' religion service, but mere humanism is as far from true Christianity as Shintoism. Christ's testimony regarding the law of Moses that he did not come to destroy but to fulfill would be violated by any view that he deliberately broke God's sabbath law. Of course, the Pharisaical additions and improvisations regarding the sacred law were no part of God's true law and were righteously flouted by Christ, but break God's sabbath he did not. Therefore, let Christians beware of all interpretations that would make a sinner out of the Saviour himself. [1] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 62. [2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 667. [3] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 64. [4] Ibid. Verse 6 And the Pharisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him.Straightway ... This term is used 39 times in Mark, occurring at least one time in every chapter except Mark 12 and Mark 13, with the greatest number coming in Mark 1, where it occurs eleven times! With the Herodians ... The Herodians were a sect of the Jews who favored the kingship of Herod. Normally, they were bitter enemies of the Pharisees; but these old foes made common cause against the Saviour. How they might destroy him ... This does not mean that they decided to kill him, that having long ago been decided (John 5:18), but that they plotted on the mechanics of his murder, just how they were going to bring it about. Verse 7 And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea: and a great multitude from Galilee followed; and from Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond the Jordan, and from Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing what great things he did, came unto him.Rather than continue his teachings in the synagogues, Jesus took his message to the seashore where he continued under the open sky to deliver the message of God to humanity. The place names mentioned here as sending a great multitude to Jesus covered the entire extent of ancient Palestine. Tyre and Sidon were in the northwest, Jerusalem a hundred miles south, Idumaea extended from the far south all the way to Arabia, and "beyond the Jordan" referred to the east. Verse 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, lest they should throng him.The pressure of so vast a multitude, many of whom were intent on touching Jesus, presented a physical danger, as well as gross inconvenience; and therefore Jesus requested and received from his disciples a boat which he could enter, and from offshore, continue his preaching to the multitude. Verse 10 For he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had plagues pressed upon him that they might touch him.Plagues ... is from the Greek word "scourges" (English Revised Version (1885) margin), and no doubt this would have been better translated by its Greek equivalent. The number of the cures wrought by Jesus was astronomical; all of the gospels together give only a fraction of the "great things he did." Verse 11 And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known.Unclean spirits ... For discussion of demon possession, see under Mark 1:24. Thou art the Son of God ... This demonic witness was true, although proffered in keeping with some ulterior design of the evil one; and it is of the utmost significance that Jesus rejected this witness of the unclean. Two clear reasons for this rejection are: (1) it was premature for Jesus to be hailed as "the Son of God," a title with strong secular implications in the Hebrew mind and actually being equated with "King of Israel" (John 1:49). Had he permitted this title of himself to stand, Christ would have been hauled before the Romans for sedition. (2) If demons had been freely permitted to bear such testimony, it might have appeared to reinforce the slander of the Pharisees that he cast out demons by the prince of the demons ( Mark 3:22). Son of God ... must be understood here in its unique Messianic import. Any other meaning would not have served the demonic purpose. It should be noted that Christ did not deny their testimony as true, but on the other hand he forbade them to utter it. Verse 13 And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would; and they went unto him. And he appointed twelve, that they might be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have authority to cast out demons.The mountain ... probably refers to the elevation some five miles west of Galilee, called Mount Hatten, where it is also supposed that Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount. Luke adds the significant detail that Christ prayed all night before appointing the Twelve (Luke 6:13). And they went unto him ... Bickersteth states that these words actually mean "went away to him, implying that they forsook their former pursuits."[5] This tends to remove the abruptness of the call of four apostles recounted in the first chapter and shows that Mark did not mean that at that time they forsook their occupations. This was the occasion when they gave up their fishing. Preach ... and cast out demons ... Mark laid great stress on the mission of Christ to destroy the works of the devil. The demonic creation, under satanic domination, had doubtless learned who Christ was from the heavenly announcement: at Jesus' baptism, which must have sent a shudder of apprehension throughout the whole kingdom of evil. Satan and all of the beings in his service worked feverishly to kill Jesus, little dreaming that in the death of Christ their entire kingdom and all of its works would be overthrown. ENDNOTE: [5] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 117. Verse 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed Boanerges, which 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 Canaanean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.The twelve apostles are listed four times in the New Testament, as given below. The number twelve corresponds to the twelve tribes of Israel and to the twelve foundations of the eternal city. In this dispensation, the Twelve sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of spiritual Israel (Matthew 19:28). These men, in one sense, are the most important men who ever lived. In their capacity as the God-ordained witnesses of the incarnation and the custodians and deliverers of God's message to mankind, they are fully worthy of the honor God has reserved for them in the inscription of their names upon the foundations of the Eternal City (Revelation 21:14). MATTHEW (Matthew 10:2-4) Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Thomas Matthew James, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Cananean Judas Iscariot MARK (Mark 3:16-19) Peter James John Andrew Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James, son of Alphaeus Thaddaeus Simon the Cananean Judas Iscariot LUKE (Luke 6:14-16) Peter Andrew James John Philip Bartholomew Matthew Thomas James, son of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James Judas Iscariot ACTS (Acts 1:13) Peter John James Andrew Philip Thomas Bartholomew Matthew James, son of Alphaeus Simon the Zealot Judas of James The obvious reconciliation of the slight variations above is found in the fact that Thaddaeus was also called Judas the son of James and that Simon the Cananean was also known as Simon the Zealot. There is no need whatever to imagine, as McMillan suggested, that "the earliest selections were not final" or that it became "necessary to find replacements."[6] If one of the sacred authors had listed James and John as the Boanerges Brothers, it would have been another example of disciples being known by more than one name. It is interesting that the first, fifth and ninth named apostles were unanimously reported in those exact positions, suggesting that the Twelve marched in groups of four, Peter, Philip, and James the son of Alphaeus being the leaders of these groups. Of course, this is a mere speculation. For articles on some of the individual apostles, reference is made to the Commentary on John, and for articles concerning Peter's so-called primacy, and the questions regarding the keys of the kingdom, see the Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 16:16-19. ENDNOTE: [6] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 50. Verse 20 And he cometh into a house. And the multitude cometh together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread.Sanner understood the "house" mentioned here as the one "in Capernaum"[7] where he usually stayed. It was perhaps the one belonging to Peter and Andrew (Mark 1:29). Having returned from his preaching and teaching on Mount Hatten, Jesus immediately plunged into the work of his ministry in Capernaum, the crowds being so vast that there was no time even for meals. ENDNOTE: [7] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Vol. VI, p. 295. Verse 21 And when his friends heard it, they went to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.His friends ... These words are made to read "his family" in GNNT, IV, and the New English Bible (1961), and this reading is supposed by McMillan, Cranfield; and many other recent commentators; but there are solid reasons for rejecting this change from the English Revised Version (1885), RSV, and KJV. To begin with, Mark referred to the immediate family of Jesus as "his mother and his brethren" just six verses later (Mark 3:27), and why he should have called them by another term here cannot be explained. To make Mark 3:27 an "explanation" of Mark 3:21 is sheer guesswork. Goodspeed, Weymouth, Phillips, Wesley, and others translate "relatives" or "relations," which in context cannot mean family. To lay hold on him ... means something like "to take into custody," or "to take charge of"; those misguided friends or "neighbors," which is as likely a guess as any, were seeking to restrain Jesus. It is important to note that "his mother and brethren" (Mark 3:27) were not said to have been seeking to "lay hold on him," nor is there any hint that they said, "He is beside himself," these actions being attributed not to his "family" but to his "friends"; and there has always been a world of difference in THOSE words. He is beside himself ... The true meaning is simply that the zeal of Jesus had, in the view of his neighbors, gone too far, or as Ryle translated, he has been "transported too far," that is, "carried away with his work." Zeal in the service of God has never been intelligible to carnal and unregenerated men. Zeal for business, war, science, pleasure, politics, or nearly any earthly pursuit, is admired, complimented, and emulated; but let a man devote himself fully to the service of holy religion, and the neighbors begin to shake their heads and say, "He's getting carried away with it!" Verse 22 And the scribes that came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, By the prince of the demons casteth he out the demons.Come down from Jerusalem ... Geographically, they came up from Jerusalem, but the relative dignity of the priestly class in the Jewish capital was recognized in the idiom of that day which referred to all journeys as "up" to Jerusalem and "down" from Jerusalem. Beelzebub ... This word is actually Beelzebub (English Revised Version (1885) margin) and has the meaning of "the dunghill god," "lord of flies" or "master of the house of demons"; but all such meanings may be ignored in this context, for "in the New Testament form the word means THE DEVIL."[8] This charge of the scribes was therefore that Christ was performing such wonderful works through being in league with the devil. The necessary inference from this charge points to the genuineness of Jesus' works, the charge itself being an admission that the miracles wrought by Jesus were altogether beyond the power of human nature and were therefore supernatural. The charge that Christ was in league with Satan was an exceedingly sinful one, and it occasioned the warning Jesus at once uttered. ENDNOTE: [8] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 663. Verse 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house.Jesus met the charges of his foes with three arguments, two of which are in these verses, and the third in Mark 3:28-30. 1. Argument of the divided kingdom. It is of immense importance that Jesus here revealed a world view of Satan and the kingdom of evil. The demoniacs whom Jesus had healed were actually controlled by forces administered by Satan. Satan is represented as an intelligent ruler of his evil domain and as being in possession of a desire to maintain and protect it. Satan is not stupid, as the charge of the scribes would have implied. Certainly, the devil would not rise up against himself and destroy his own wicked domain. If indeed Satan should do such a thing as they were suggesting, it would mean an end of Satan and his works. 2. Argument regarding binding the strong man. Mark omitted to relate how the temptation of Jesus ended, but it is implied here. The Lord had entered into the house of the strong man (the world) and had bound the strong man (Satan), and was in the process of spoiling his goods. This carried the affirmation that what Jesus was doing was opposed to the works of Satan and that his casting out demons was being done contrary to Satan's will, and that Satan did not have the power to restrain such deeds. Verse 28 Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit.3. This third response to their blasphemous charge was to imply, without actually stating it, that the blasphemers were guilty of a sin that could never be forgiven. The final clause, "because they said, etc.," connects the eternal sin with their blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Jesus made a distinction between blasphemy against the "Son of man" (Matthew 12:32) and that against the Holy Spirit. A little further discussion of this sin is appropriate. (a) What was their particular sin? It was the sin of reading the pure and holy life of Jesus Christ as satanic, the sin of viewing black as white and white as black, of making wickedness righteous and righteousness wicked. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 5:20). John Milton expressed it as the soul's deliberate choice, "Evil, be thou my good."[9](b) Can such a sin be committed today? There is every reason to believe that it can be, and the fear is justified that the commission of it is prevalent. This does not mean that any person should entertain any morbid fear that he has committed such a sin, because it may be safely concluded that any person whosoever who still retains some concern for the welfare of his eternal soul has not committed the sin in view here. We agree with Cranfield who said: We can say with absolute confidence to anyone who is overwhelmed by the fear that he has committed this sin, that the fact that he is so troubled is itself sure proof that he has not committed it.[10]The view should be rejected, however, that would make it impossible for one to commit this sin. The argument for such a view makes a distinction between men today and the scribes here in this text on the basis that they had literally seen Jesus raise the dead and do many other mighty deeds, whereas men today "believe" that Jesus did such things, thus making THEIR blasphemy contrary to their own senses, contrasting with current blasphemy which is alleged to be only against what is believed. At best, such a view is unconvincing, for there are men who have said by their actions, and presumably within themselves, "Satan, be my god!" An eternal sin ... This phrase is the key to unraveling the teachings of God's word on this subject. It identifies the sin under consideration as not a unique thing at all, but as one of a class of sins, suggested by the indefinite article, thus being one of a class that could be so designated. If we might be so bold as to identify the class, it is composed of the sins which cause the spiritual death of the sinner. It is the sin which is fatal spiritually and answers to the analogy in the physical world of the fatal disease. What is the fatal disease? It is the one the doctor writes on the death certificate. The sin against the Holy Spirit is therefore not a specific sin limited to any form or circumstance, but ANY SIN that destroys the spiritual life. It is the sin that "quenches the Holy Spirit" (1 Thessalonians 5:19); the sin that ends in spiritual death (1 Corinthians 11:30); the sin that marks a condition of the sinner described as being "worse" than lost, the only conceivable state answering to such a condition being the state of being lost without possibility of recovery (2 Peter 2:20-21); the sin that makes the sinner "dead" while being alive physically (1 Timothy 5:6); the sin unto death (1 John 5:16); the sin from which "it is impossible" to renew the sinner (Hebrews 6:4-6); the sin which results in the condition wherein there "remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews 10:26-27). Once a person is dead physically, life cannot be renewed; and the same is true spiritually. And just as no dead person is ever concerned about his health, no person who is dead spiritually has any concern whatever regarding the commission of any sin, even an eternal sin. Another question that arises in this connection is, "What about the man who has indulged every kind of sin for many years and then returns to God and lives out his days as a faithful Christian? It is clear in such cases that "an eternal sin" was not committed. However, he grieved and insulted the Holy Spirit, he did not "quench" the holy light within. Fortunately, the spiritual life is hardy and cannot be destroyed except in the most deliberate and sustained rebellion against God, that being exactly the conduct of the Jewish hierarchy with regard to Jesus. This is not to take an easy or casual view of sin, any sin. Sin being what it is, and capable, when it is finished, of bringing forth "death" (James 1:15), should never be lightly viewed. No mother ever judged the danger of a splinter in a child's knee by the size of the splinter. What a blunder to classify sins as mortal and venial. Everyone knows that the tiniest lesion can produce disastrous consequences; and, in the spiritual life, any sin, however counted by men as unimportant, can if unchecked and unforgiven, lead to eternal death. [9] John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book IV, 1:110. [10] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 142. Verse 31 And there come his mother and his brethren; and, standing without, they sent unto him, calling him.As noted under Mark 3:21, this terminology applied to Jesus' immediate family makes it impossible to construe "friends" in that verse as a reference to the same persons. Turlington said: This passage must not be used as evidence that Jesus' mother opposed his mission ... That Mary was among the "friends" of Mark 3:21 is an unlikely and unnecessary conclusion.[11]It is true that Jesus' brothers did not believe in him, even as late as October prior to the Passion in April of the following year (John 7:5), but there is no evidence that the mother and brethren said, "He is crazy" and tried to get him locked up, as indicated in some of the perverted paraphrases marketed under misleading titles as "translations." And his brethren ... The most logical way to understand this reference to Jesus' brothers is that the persons meant were his literal brothers, sons of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. This view is harmonious with all the Scriptures say of the blessed Mary, whose virginity PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF JESUS is clearly stated, but whose so-called perpetual virginity is nothing but superstition. See Matthew 13:55 for names of his four brothers. Sent to him and called him ... means only that they asked to see and talk with Jesus. ENDNOTE: [11] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), Vol. 8, p. 295. Verse 32 And a multitude was sitting about him; and they say unto him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.If "friends" in Mark 3:21 means these same persons, why did not the multitude use such a word here? All rules of fair exegesis are violated by the gratuitous assumption that this passage refers to the same group as that mentioned in Mark 3:21. Verse 33 And he answereth them and saith, Who is my mother and my brethren?Who is my mother and my brethren ... is another of the seven-word sayings which abound in Mark. In a few minutes, this writer counted fifty such seven-word jewels, and their total number might be well in excess of one hundred. Jesus would lay down in the next breath the principle that spiritual kinship with Jesus is far more important than fleshly relationship; and, if there had been no fleshly relationship with the brothers, it is unlikely Jesus would have used such an analogy. Verse 34 And looking round on them that sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.This was called by Clarke "the adoption of the obedient"![12] It should never be lost sight of that, in the last analysis, it is obedience to the will of God that separates the saved from the lost. Undue stress upon the doctrine of justification by faith, making it read, "by faith only," has obscured this fact in much of the current religious literature. Looking round on them ... is a graphic detail provided by Mark, and Matthew added another, "He stretched forth his hand towards his disciples" (Matthew 12:49). Did anyone copy anyone here? No! In these two accounts, there is eye-witness reporting; one noticed Jesus' look, the other his gesture. As John Wesley said: In this preference of his true disciples, even to the Virgin Mary considered merely as his mother after the flesh, he not only shows his high and tender affection for them, but seems designedly to guard against those excessive and idolatrous honors which he foresaw would, in after ages, be paid to her.[13]In our Lord's pronouncement here is revealed the glorious nature of the privilege of Christian discipleship. Those who follow Christ, believing in him and obeying his teachings, are considered as the true family of God, being endowed with a relationship to Christ that is superior to that of fleshly mother, brother, or sister. And what is that relationship? It is union with Christ in the spiritual sense, incorporation into his spiritual body, identification with him and in him and "as Christ." [12] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1881), p. 56. [13] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter ThreeAbout Healing on the Sabbath, Mark 3:1-6. (Matthew 12:9-14; Luke 6:6-11.) Mark 3:1-2. And they watched him.—The people were assembled in the synagogue for worship. A man with a withered hand was present when Jesus came in. They watched him to see whether, according to his custom, he would heal the man, or decline to do so through respect for the Sabbath-day. Luke, more minute in his description, tells us that it was the man's right hand that was withered— a more serious affliction than if it had been the left. Matthew also tells us that "they asked him, saying, Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day? that they might accuse him;" from which we infer that they were fearful lest he might not notice the man, and so, by propounding the question, they caused him to look around and see if any one there needed healing. Mark 3:3. he saith to the man.—Both Mark and Luke represent that before answering the question propounded, Jesus said to the man, "Stand forth," and thus caused him to stand up in full view of all the people, so as to make more striking what he then proceeded to say and do. Mark 3:4. Is it lawful.—In answer to their question as given by Matthew, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-day," he puts to them the question, "Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-day, or to do evil? To save life, or to kill?" To heal this man would be doing good; it would be making alive. To pass him by, having the power to heal him— a power given for the purpose of being thus exercised— would be doing evil, to kill where he might make alive. He must do one or the other, and he calls on them to say which. They refused to answer, because the only answer they could give would condemn themselves. Matthew reports an additional argument which comes in at this point: b (Matthew 12:11-12.) To neither of these questions did they give an answer. Mark 3:5. with anger.—Anger mingled with grief—"being grieved for the hardness of their hearts." Anger, when rightly directed and controlled, is not a sinful feeling; but it is a dangerous one, because it is very likely to end in sinful speech or action: hence the admonition of Paul, "Be angry and sin not. Let not the sun go down on your wrath." In this case Jesus showed anger only in his look: there was none in his words. he saith to the man.—He first, according to Matthew (Matthew 12:12-13), answered his own questions and the argument which they contained, by saying, "Wherefore, it is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days." Then he saith to the man, "Stretch forth thy hand." He did so, and it was restored. Mark 3:6. took counsel.—They took counsel not as to whether they should destroy him, but as to "how they might destroy him." They took the Herodians, the political partisans of Herod, into their confidence, because they were looking to Herod as the effective instrument for the destruction of Jesus. He had already shown his aptitude for such work by the manner in which he had disposed of John, and now they want his services again. Unlike Jesus, who was angry and sinned not, they were angry and sinned. Their malignity, provoked by so slight a cause, would amaze us, did not history furnish so many examples of men who sought the destruction of those by whom their erroneous teachings were exposed. The Great Multitudes, Mark 3:7-12. (Matthew 12:15-21) Mark 3:7. Jesus withdrew.—On the contrast here presented between Jesus and his enemies, see the note on Matthew 12:15. Mark 3:7-8. a great multitude.—Mark here states more fully than it is elsewhere stated, the places whence came the multitudes who followed Jesus. Galilee, of course, was largely represented, and so it seems were Judea and Jerusalem. The two visits which Jesus had made to Jerusalem since his baptism (see John 2:13 John 5:1), had gained him a few disciples there, and had greatly excited both his friends and his foes. As a consequence, both parties naturally sought every opportunity for visiting Galilee, that they might see and hear more. Some had come from Idumea, the Edom of the Old Testament, which lay south of Judea; others, from beyond Jordan— that is, from the populous region which stretched away from the eastern bank of the Jordan to the Arabian desert; and others, from Tyre and Sidon, the ancient capitals of Phoenicia. Thus, from all the surrounding countries, and from some quite distant regions, were men assembled around Jesus at this particular juncture. They came, says Mark, "when they had heard what great things he did." They came at great expense of time and money, that they might see and hear and judge for themselves. Mark 3:9. that a small ship.—The pressure of the people to get near him often caused discomfort to him, confusion among themselves, and indistinct hearing of his speeches. The small ship enabled him to place a narrow strip of water between him and them, thus removing all occasion for their crowding one another, and securing that quietness which is necessary to thoughtful attention. Mark 3:10. pressed upon him to touch him.—Here is an additional reason for procuring the boat. Too eager to await his pleasure, or to wait for one another, the diseased would press upon him, and against each other, in the struggle to touch him and be healed. Much unsanctified noise and strife were prevented by the use of the "little ship."Mark 3:11. And unclean spirits.—Here again the evil spirits are called "unclean" (comp note on Mark 1:23); they fall down before Jesus, as usual; they acknowledge his divinity with a loud voice; they are rebuked for making him known; and they are expelled from their victims. The Twelve Chosen, Mark 3:13-19. (Matthew 10:1-4; Luke 6:12-16) Mark 3:13. and calleth to him.—Jesus went up into the mountain the previous night, as we learn from Luke (Luke 6:12), and after remaining there all night in prayer, called to him whom he would in the morning. He probably made the call through one of them as a messenger to the others. Mark 3:14-15. he ordained twelve.—We must not associate with the word "ordain" in this place, any of the ceremonials of a modern, or even of an ancient ordination. The original is ποιω (to make), sometimes used in the sense of appoint; e. g., Acts 2:36; Hebrews 3:2; Revelation 1:6. He simply "appointed twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach." They were to be with him except when he would send them forth, and when sent forth, the work which they were to do is expressed in the three words, "preach," "heal sicknesses," "and cast out demons." From the critics it appears that "to heal sicknesses" is probably an interpolation here, but we know from the parallel passages that the words were spoken by Jesus, whether reported by Mark or not. (See Matthew 10:1; Luke 9:1.) Mark 3:16. he surnamed Peter.—Mark chooses to mention here a fact which occurred when Simon was first led into the presence of Jesus by his brother Andrew; for it was then that he surnamed him Cephas, which is the same as Petros (πέτρος) in Greek and Peter in English. (John 1:42.) Mark 3:17. Boanerges.—This surname of the sons of Zebedee may have been given, as Simon's was, at an earlier period, or it may have been given at this time. They were called "sons of thunder," on account of their stormy and destructive temper. A striking manifestation of it is mentioned by Luke. When a Samaritan village in which Jesus desired to lodge, refused to receive him, James and John proposed to call down fire from heaven and burn up the inhabitants. (Luke 9:51-56.) On another occasion, a man was found casting out demons, and because he was not of the immediate followers of Jesus, John ordered him to abandon his benevolent and miraculous work. The early death of James, and our scant knowledge of him, leave us without data as to any change in his disposition; but the lovely temper of John in his old age, shows that the transforming power of the gospel wrought a great change in him. Great as this change was, however, a slight muttering of the old thunder was heard when John came to speak of such men as Diotrephes, and certain false teachers who went about not bearing the doctrine of Christ. (See 2 John 1:10-11; 3 John 1:9-10.) Mark 3:18. and Andrew.—Matthew and Luke both name Andrew in connection with his brother Simon Peter; but Mark names James and John with Peter, and puts Andrew next, in company with Philip. He was doubtless led to this arrangement by the fact that Peter was more intimate officially with James and John, than with Andrew, and that Jesus bestowed on the three special honors in which Andrew did not have a part. (Comp. Mark 9:2 Mark 14:33.) Thaddeus.—Matthew styles this apostle, "Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus" ( Matthew 10:3); Mark calls him by his surname alone; while Luke uses neither of these names, but calls him "Judas the brother of James" (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13); and John calls him "Judas, not Iscariot." As Matthew was the earliest, and John the latest of the four writers, we infer that the man was known in earlier life as Lebbaeus, surnamed Thaddaeus; but that late in life he came to be known exclusively by the name Judas. For remarks on other names in the list, see the notes on Matthew 10:2-4. Alarm of His Friends, Mark 3:20-21 Mark 3:20. so much as eat bread.—Great must have been the importunity of the afflicted, and the eagerness of all to come near to Jesus, when he and his disciples could not so much as eat bread on their account. Neither by entering some dwelling, nor by retiring to the desert, could they secure the privacy necessary for eating a common meal. Mark 3:21. his friends.—These were his mother and his brothers, as appears from verses 31, 32, below. They did not think him actually insane, but they supposed that he was borne away by the enthusiasm which possessed him into a reckless disregard of his personal safety: for they foresaw the conflict with the religious leaders and the military authorities, in which his present course would involve him. The probability is that Mary's faith was in advance of that of the brothers, but she naturally sympathized with them in their fears for the personal safety of her son. About Casting Out Demons, Mark 3:22-30. (Matthew 12:22-37; Luke 11:14-23) Mark 3:22. which came from Jerusalem.—Matthew gives the fullest report of this discussion, but Mark here furnishes an item which Matthew omits. It was not some of the enemies of Jesus in Galilee, but shrewd and cultivated scribes from Jerusalem, who suggested that he cast out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Mark 3:23-29.— The discussion contained in these verses is fully treated in the notes on Matthew 12:24-32. Mark 3:30. because they said.—This verse is appended by Mark to the Savior's speech about the unpardonable sin, to show why he made that speech, and to state explicitly the unpardonable sin which they had committed— the sin of saying concerning Jesus, "He hath an unclean spirit." This was, indeed, a sin against the Son, but chiefly against the Spirit, because it was classing the Holy Spirit with unclean spirits; and this was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of which they were guilty. About His Brothers and Mother, Mark 3:31-35. (Matthew 12:46-50; Luke 8:19-21) Mark 3:31. then came his brethren.—The previous statement about his friends coming out to lay hold of him (Mark 3:21) seems to have reference to their starting from home, or from some place of consultation, for this purpose; while the present remark refers to their arrival at the outskirts of the crowd which surrounded him. They "sent to him, calling him," because, as Luke explains (Luke 8:19), "they could not get to him for the press."Mark 3:32. sat about him.— He was still in the house (19, 31), and the people were seated around him so compactly that no one could pass through. All the available space within hearing distance was packed with the quiet throng. When some one, perhaps a person near the door, spoke out and said, "Thy mother and thy brethren without seek thee," the people may have expected him to go, and they may have thought that it was his duty to go. Mark 3:33-35. For remarks on hip reply, see the notes on Matthew 12:48-50. Argument of Section 3There are three facts set forth in the preceding section, which have an important bearing on the claims of Jesus. The first is the fact that he had authority to forgive sins. This was demonstrated in the case of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12), and it is the one fact which proves Jesus adapted to the highest demands of human salvation. Sins being forgiven, all other blessings follow as a consequence. In the second place, it is shown that his conduct as a man was irreproachable. He was attacked in reference to the company he kept (Mark 2:13-17); in reference to his neglect of fasting (Mark 2:18-22); and in reference to Sabbath-keeping (Mark 2:23-28 Mark 3:1-6); but in all these matters he vindicated his conduct, and put his accusers to shame. That they made no more serious attacks on his conduct, proves that they could not, and that in morals he was irreproachable. In the third place, it was demonstrated by his discussion with the Jerusalem scribes, that the power by which he cast out demons, and, a fortiori, the power by which his other miracles were wrought, was not, as they alleged, satanic, but divine. Finally, his answer to the people, in reference to the call of his mother and his brothers, is in perfect keeping with the character and position which the text assigns him. It is a singular infatuation which has led the Roman Catholic Church to attribute to Jesus even in heaven, a subserviency to his mother which he so expressly repudiated while on earth. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 31. Into what did Jesus enter? 2. To whom did this building belong? 3. Who was in there at this time? 4. Why did they watch him? 5. State their motive. 6. Did this hinder Jesus? 7. What did he say to the man? 8. Tell the question he asked at the same time. 9. Repeat their answer. 10. With what did Jesus look upon them now? 11. For what was he grieved? 12. State his next action. 13. Who were offended by this? 14. With whom did they take counsel? 15. Tell what they wished to accomplish. 16. How did Jesus avoid it this time? 17. What people followed him ? 18. Were they many or few? J 19. Why did people of Tyre and Sidon come? 20. Why did Jesns call for a small ship? 21. Tell what caused the press of the people. 22. What did they desire to do to Jesus? 23. Tell what unclean spirits did when they saw Jesus. 24. What did they say? 25. State the charge Jesus gave them. 26. Where did Jesus go now ? 27. Tell what he called. 28. Whom did he ordain ? 29. State the first purpose of this. 30. What did he intend doing with them then? 31. State the power they were to have. 32. What was the other name of Peter ? 33. Who were the Zebedee children? 34. What distinguished Judas Iscariot? 35. Tell what interfered with their eating. 36. Why did his friends lay hold of Jesus? 37. State the accusation the scribes made. 38. Who is Beelzebub? 39. Would he cast himself out? 40. What theory would require this? 41. State like argument drawn from a kingdom. 42. And from a house divided? 43. How can a strong man’ s house be entered ? 44. Whom does this strong man represent ? 45. State the only sin never to be forgiven. 46. Of what is the guilty one in danger? 47. Why did Jesus say all this? 48. Who desired to speak to Jesus? 49. What was hindering them? 50. Relate teaching of Jesus about relatives. 1 Withered hand means that something had shut off the circulation from that member and it had pined away for lack of moisture, rendering it useless. 2 The Pharisees were always pretending to be zealous about the law, though they did not keep it themselves. Jesus was performing his good deeds on every day of the week, but they knew they could not object to what he was doing, hence they pretended to be offended because he did some things on the sabbath day. So they had their eyes set upon him with a wicked interest, hoping he would heal this man on that day and thus give them a pretext for accusing him. 3 Jesus knew their thoughts but proceeded to heal the man. 4 Before going further with the case, Jesus anticipated their accusation with a question they were not expecting. He put the matter on the basis of doing good or evil, saving life or destroying it, and asked them which should be done on the sabbath day. They would not answer because either way they answered would have condemned them. 5 Another word in Thayer's definition of the Greek for anger is "indignation," and it means that Jesus was greatly agitated over the hardness of their hearts. However, it did not keep him from performing the good deed for the man. He was told to stretch forth his hand which shows that his arm was not affected. As soon as he stretched forth his hand it was cured without any bodily contact from Jesus that we know of. 6 Having been defeated in their attempts to convict Jesus under the law, the Pharisees decided to try some other plan, which was to get him to say something that would set himself against the government. For the account of how they did this and my comments on it, see at Matthew 22:16-21. The Herodians were some Jews who were favorable to Herod's family relations and the Romans. 7 Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee and that drew the crowds after him again, both from the immediate vicinity and Judea. 8 Jerusalem was in Judea, but the writer thought it good to specify some of the important centers of population in that district as well as others. Idumaea was the same as Edom, a country east of the Jordan. Tyre and Sidon were important cities of Phoenicia, a country bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. The fame of Jesus reached into all these places and people came from them to see him. 9. Small ship means a small boat that could take Jesus from the pressure of the crowd, and yet permit him to be seen and heard by the people. 0 This verse explains why the people thronged about Jesus. 1 Unclean spirits is another name for devils that afflicted the people. 2 See Mark 1:34 on why the unclean spirit was forbidden to preach Jesus. 3 Jesus called these men out of the group of disciples following him. 4 This is the appointment of the twelve apostles. They were expected to be with him continuously ex-cept as he would send them out on missions. 5 The word power is from EXOUSIA which means authority primarily, and Jesus bestowed it upon his apostles. In so doing he enabled them to heal sicknesses and cast out devils which would make their authority effective. 9 There are three of the Gospel accounts that give the list of the twelve apostles. The persons are the same but the names not always, since some of them had more than one name. For the sake of space the reader is asked to see the complete treatment of this subject at Matthew 10:4. Which also betrayed him was said prospectively as the betrayal of Jesus had not yet taken place. 0 Jesus was kept so busy teaching the people and administering to their afflictions that there was no opportunity for him and his apostles to have their meals. 1 His friends is rendered "those belonging to him" by the "Englishman's Greek New Testament," and that agrees with the marginal reading that says "kinsmen." When they said He is beside himself they meant they thought he was carried away with the intensity of the situation. But Jesus continued his teaching and good work in spite of the apparent protest of his relations. 2 The scribes are explained at Matthew 13:52. They would not deny the fact of his casting out devils, but pretended to believe that he got his power for the work from Beelzebub (Satan). 3 The foolishness of their theory was shown by this question. Even a wicked being like Satan would not be working against himself. 5 The same point is made by supporting a kingdom that divided itself into opposing groups, for such a kingdom would soon be overthrown by the internal strife. 6 This is the same as verse 23. 7 The illustration is this. A man must overthrow another in order to plunder his house, and to do that he would have to be stronger than the man of the house. If Satan casts out Satan, then we have the foolish conclusion that Satan is stronger than Satan which is so absurd that no reply was possible. 8 This verse takes in every manner of sin that could be named except the one that will be designated in the next verse. 9 To blaspheme means to speak violent and evil things against another; it implies things said with the intention of insulting or injuring another. To be guilty of such a sin against the Holy Ghost (Spirit) meant to be without a chance of pardon. 0 The sin against the Holy Ghost was charged against these Jews because they said he hath an unclean spirit. This narrows the subject down to one item, thus ruling out all human efforts to imagine something that "surely is the 'unpardonable' sin if ever there was one." For a complete discussion of this subject see Matthew 12:24-28, and the comments that are made upon those verses. 1 There came then. Verse 21 tells of the "friends" of Jesus who wanted to take charge of him but were not able to do so. Whether these family relatives were the ones meant in the former verse I cannot say, or perhaps they were anxious to attempt what the other relatives failed to accomplish. At any rate, they came as near as they could and tried to get the attention of Jesus. 2 The multitude tried to help them get his attention by telling him that it was his mother and brethren who wanted to talk to him. 3 The reply of Jesus was not intended as a slight upon his family but a mild rebuke for the crowd. It is as if he had said, "why should my mother and brethren be allowed to alter my work of salvation?" 4 Jesus prepared to point out the persons deserving more attention just then than his family relatives, and called attention to the crowd that had gathered closely about him, to whom he had been preaching the truth. 5 The same person (notice it is in singular number) could not be both sister and brother at the same time. The idea is, then, that doing the will of God is more important than being the fleshly relations of Christ. "THE GOSPEL OF MARK" Chapter Four From a boat facing a great multitude on the shore of the Sea of Galilee Jesus taught many parables, such as the parable of The Soils (Mark 4:1-9). Privately, Jesus explained why He taught in parables (Mark 4:10-12), and then revealed the meaning of the parable of The Soils (Mark 4:13-20). Mark goes on to record several other parables: The Lamp (Mark 4:21-25), The Growing Seed (Mark 4:26-29), and The Mustard Seed (Mark 4:30-32). Jesus cautioned the masses to give heed to the parables, but only in private did He tell His disciple what they meant (Mark 4:9 Mark 4:23-25 Mark 4:33-34). At evening, as they crossed the Sea of Galilee, Jesus calmed the stormy winds and waves, much to the amazement of His disciples (Mark 4:35-41). POINTS TO PONDER* The purpose and primary theme of the parables of Jesus * The importance of listening when given opportunity to hear the Word * The inverse relationship between fear and faith REVIEW 1) What are the main points of this chapter?- The parable of The Soils -Mark 4:1-20- The parables of The Lamp, The Growing Seed, The Mustard Seed -Mark 4:21-34- The calming of the winds and waves on the Sea of Galilee - Mark 4:35-41 2) What was the first parable of Jesus recorded by Mark? (Mark 4:3-9)- The parable of The Soils (also known as the parable of The Sower) 3) What exhortation did Jesus give after telling the parable? Why? (Mark 4:9 Mark 4:23-25)- "He who has ears to hear, let him hear!" - One would be judged by how he listened; giving heed would grant more opportunity 4) Why did Jesus speak in parables? (Mark 4:10-12, cf. Matthew 13:11-16)- Because many who heard Jesus were not really interested in truth 5) To whom did Jesus explain the parables? Where? (Mark 4:10,33-34)- To the twelve; in private 6) What was the main theme of the parables? (Mark 4:11, cf. Matthew 13:11)- The mysteries of the kingdom of God 7) What miracle did Jesus perform in this chapter? (Mark 4:35-39)- He calmed the wind and waves on the Sea of Galilee 8) To what did Jesus attribute the disciples' fear of the storm? (Mark 4:40)- Their lack of faith Verse 1 Jesus took his message to the seashore and the open sky and delivered the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-9), explained it (Mark 4:10-20), and gave a number of sentence sermons (Mark 4:21-25). He then gave the parable of the seed growing secretly (Mark 4:26-29), and that of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30-34). The chapter is concluded by the narrative of his calming the great storm (Mark 4:35-41). And again he began to teach by the sea side and there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat in the sea; and all the multitude were by the sea on the land. (Mark 4:1) Jesus' innovative method of making a boat the pulpit in an auditorium of land and sea must have been regarded by many of the religious class as sensationalism and stunting; but, as Barclay said, "It would be well if his church was equally wise and equally adventurous."[1]A very great multitude ... is literally "a greatest multitude,"[2] stressing the superlative size of the immense throng which attended the preaching of the Master. [1] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956). p. 81. [2] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press), Vol. II, p. 57. Verse 2 And he taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in his teaching,Practically all of this chapter deals with parables. The Hebrews had but a single word for several English words, including both PARABLE and PROVERB. "A parable is a truth presented by a similitude, being of necessity figurative"; but a proverb may be "figurative, but not necessarily."[3] The reason for Jesus' resort to the method of teaching by parables is complex: (1) He did so in order to fulfill prophecy. (2) He did so to confound the spies of the Pharisees. (3) He thus challenged his disciples to greater spiritual discernment. (4) The Hebrew people were familiar with that method. (5) It made his teachings easier to remember. (6) The parables were interesting in the highest degree. (7) They contained the dynamic teaching of Jesus in language which was unsuitable to the court-charges the Pharisees were anxious to make against him. In short, he, by this method, taught those who wished to know the truth and confounded those who sought to oppose him. In the literature of all the world, there is nothing to compare with the parables of Jesus. ENDNOTE: [3] E. Bickersteth. The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 156. Verse 3 Hearken: Behold the sower went forth to sow: and it came to pass as he sowed, some seed fell by the wayside, and the birds came and devoured it. And other fell on the rocky ground, where it had not much earth; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth: and when the sun was risen, it was scorched; and because it had no root, it withered way. And other fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And others fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing; and brought forth, thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.THE PARABLE OF THE SOWERThe interpretation of the various things of this great parable will be undertaken in connection with the Saviour's own explanation of it, beginning in Mark 4:14. Hearken ... and Let him hear ... are, in a sense, the Lord's own double exclamation points bracketing the parable first and last, and thus indicating its very great importance. Seeds ... (in Mark 4:8), being plural, and thus contrasting with "some" and "other" seed mentioned in Mark 4:4 and Mark 4:7, is important, according to Cranfield,[4] who saw in this an indication of a great harvest, the size of the harvest, in his view, being the great message of the parable. A fact of great significance is that Jesus our Lord saw in the entire world around him the analogies between earthly and heavenly things. His mightiest teachings were related to a farmer planting wheat, fishermen casting nets, the lamp, the bed, the bushel, the candlestick, the hen and little chickens, the yoke, pruning grape vines, patching old clothes, making bread, a son leaving home, a merchant seeking pearls, a shepherd finding the lost sheep, searching for a lost coin, lighting a lamp, sweeping the house, etc. "Earthly things must remind us of heavenly. We must translate the book of nature into the book of grace."[5]A proper understanding of this parable depends upon a knowledge of the method of sowing grain which was used in Jesus' times, and which may still be observed in the world today. The sower put a bag full of grain on his shoulder, having first prepared his field; and then he strode forth scattering the seeds with his hands, fanning them out in an arc before him as he walked. Naturally, such a sowing is a jubilee for the birds. Also, any seeds falling upon a pathway, or into thorn-infested ground, were unproductive. However, the farmer mentioned by Jesus made a good crop. [4] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 150. [5] Thomas Taylor, On the Parable of the Sower, 1634. Verse 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parables. And he said unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see and not perceive; and hearing they may hear and not understand; lest haply they should turn again, and it should be forgiven them.They that were about him with the twelve ... refers to a wider circle of believers, perhaps including the seventy. The mystery of the kingdom of God ... "Nowhere in the New Testament does this term (mystery) correspond to esoteric knowledge and rites as in the so-called mystery religions of the Roman Empire."[6] "Mystery" in the New Testament sense refers to a glorious truth long concealed but now revealed (Romans 16:25-26). Cranfield described the mystery as the fact "that the kingdom of God has come in the person, words, and works of Jesus."[7] According to New Testament definitions of it: (1) it is the enlightenment of all nations concerning the obedience of faith to the only wise God through Jesus Christ (Romans 16:25-27); (2) it is the plan of redemption formulated by the Father before the world was, but now preached in Christ (1 Corinthians 2:7); (3) it is the revelation of God's purpose of summing up all things in heaven and upon earth in Christ (Ephesians 1:10); (4) it is God's eternal purpose of including Gentiles as fellow-heirs with Jews, fellow-members of the spiritual body of Christ, and fellow-partakers of the promises in Christ (Ephesians 3:6); (5) in short, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 6:19), hidden under the types and shadows of the old covenant, but now proclaimed to all nations through Christ and his apostles. That seeing they may not perceive, etc. ... Jesus' statement here to the effect that the parables were intentionally designed to blind some of his audience is viewed as a problem by some of the commentators. Even Cranfield referred to it as "a stumblingblock"[8] but admitted the meaning to be that the kingdom of God, "in accordance with Old Testament prophecy, remains hidden from many, ... something that is within the purpose of God."[9] Barclay wrote that "The real difficulty of the passage (is that) if we take it at its face value, it sounds as if Jesus taught in parables deliberately to cloak his meaning, purposely to hide it from all ordinary men and women."[10]Barclay's analysis is correct except in his identification of the persons from whom Jesus hid his message by the parables. (See under Mark 4:2). If Jesus had spoken plainly and unambiguously of his Messiahship and kingdom, the Pharisees could have accomplished his murder prematurely; therefore, it was under the most positive necessity that Jesus cloaked his teachings in those beautiful and humble parables, which in no sense hid his message from "ordinary men and women," they being the very ones who fully understood him. They did, however, fully hide it from the proud, arrogant, unspiritual priesthood who organized the cabal against him and finally accomplished his judicial murder. This purpose of concealment was a fundamental characteristic of the parables. In addition to the reasons for speaking in parables cited under Mark 4:2, above, Cranfield has the discerning word that "God's self-revelation is veiled, in order that men may be left sufficient room in which to make a personal decision."[11]JESUS' OF THE Despite the fact that scholars reject the understanding of the parables as to a great extent allegorical, and having plural analogies in them, it is clear that our Lord's explanation is untroubled with any such restrictions. Barclay thought that "a parable must never be treated as an allegory";[12] but Cranfield noted that Jesus' interpretation "certainly allegorizes this one."[13] Cranfield also refuted the view which would make this interpretation, not of Jesus, but of the early church. The following analogies are in the parable: The seed is the word of God. The way side soil is the hardened hearer. The shallow soil is the unstable hearer. The thorny ground is the hearer who allows the cares, riches and pleasures of life to choke out the word. The good ground is the faithful hearer who bears fruit. The birds of the air are the evil one. The sun's heat is persecution and tribulation. The thorns are the cares, riches, and pleasures of life. The variable yields are the variable effectiveness of Christians in bearing fruit. The sudden sprouting of seed on the rocky ground stands for the ease with which the unstable are converted. The sower stands for God. There are interlocking triple portions in the parable. There are three types of unproductive soil; the thorns are the cares, riches and pleasures; and the productive soil has three gradations of 30-fold, 60-fold, and 100-fold. For further discussion of this parable, see the Commentary on Matthew, ( Matthew 13:18-23) pp. 190-192. May see and not perceive ... lest ... they should turn and be forgiven ... The whole of Mar 4:12 is taken from Isaiah 6:9-10, a passage Matthew quoted in this context. This appeal to Isaiah is important for a number of reasons. It shows that Jesus' speaking in parables was a fulfillment of the prophecy, and that the reason many in Israel would be unable to understand was their own self-caused hardening, confirmed by the judicial hardening from the Father. They are wrong who find in the parables the cause of Israel's failure to understand. "Their eyes they have closed" (Matthew 13:15) is the true reason why they could not see. It is an inaccurate reading of what Mark here recorded to make it mean that Jesus spoke in parables in order to prevent some people from being saved. In this place, as throughout the entire New Testament, the truth is not fully discernible from a single passage; but life and understanding come from the soul's reception of "all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25), "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matthew 4:4), and of the essential truth that every passage of God's word must be understood in the light of the principle laid down by Jesus Christ that "again it is written" (Matthew 4:7). The exegesis practiced by many of the critical scholars of postulating what they call "truth" upon this or that isolated passage in one gospel or another is nothing but a somewhat more sophisticated employment of the "proof-text" method so readily condemned in others. It is neither in the proof-text method, nor in the proof-passage method, nor in the proof-gospel method (as in the Markan priority theory) that God's truth may be fully learned. This fact is implicit in the fact that even the Son of God himself refused to accept the Scriptures quoted by the devil, except in the light of what was "again written" elsewhere. If our Saviour and head of our holy religion relied upon the consensus of ALL that the sacred writers had written, how may his servants hope to achieve true knowledge by any other device? (Matthew 4:1-7). [6] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 298. [7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 153. [8] Ibid., p. 155. [9] Ibid., p. 156. [10] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 89. [11] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 158. [12] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 86. [13] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 158. Verse 13 And he saith unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?As Cranfield noted, this verse "suggests in some sense that the parable of the soils is the key to all the parables."[14] The fact of our Lord's drawing a number of analogies from it would also suggest the propriety of looking for analogies in all the parables. That such a way of interpreting parables is subject to grave abuses, none will deny; but it is equally obvious that the limitation of parables to "one main point" is ridiculous. ENDNOTE: [14] Ibid., p. 161. Verse 14 The sower soweth the word.Jesus called this parable the "parable of the sower" (Matthew 13:18), thus making the emphasis to rest upon God's planting the earth with his truth, for the sower refers to God, and equally to the Son of God. It is not therefore "the parable of the soils," nor "the parable of the great harvest," nor "the parable of hindrances to the word," nor "the parable of the various fruitfulness of Christians," etc., although all such teachings are definitely in it. The great message is that the word of God still falls as seed upon all men, the enmity, hardness, or preoccupation of the vast majority being, in a sense, absolutely immaterial. There is always some good ground where God's purpose is achieved. Verse 15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the word which hath been sown in them.The soil in a path, or roadway, is hard, being unable to receive seed, which the birds, immediately eat. Hearts hardened by indulgence of sin do not receive God's word, Satan immediately removing the word such people may chance to hear. (See list of analogies above). The word ... is a proper designation of the truth of the gospel and has been a favorite term in all ages. It is of note that Jesus himself was the first to make this use of it. Verse 16 And these in like manner are those that are sown upon the rocky places, who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive it with joy.In like manner ... indicates that the analogy of the seed as the word is to be continued and that the various soils are classes of hearers. Receive it with joy ... The joyful reception of the great promises of the gospel by souls which are essentially "shallow" and superficial in their thinking is a well known phenomenon. The easier the convert is to convince, the greater the likelihood of his falling away. This fact derives from the truth that the gospel is not a matter of merely receiving great promises; but it is also a matter of denying self, acknowledging Jesus as Lord, and of deliberately choosing a way of life that is opposed to much that is found in every society. The joyful, fast, and ready receivers of the word are here compared to shallow soil on a ledge of stone which germinates seed quickly but cannot sustain their growth. Verse 17 And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word straightway they stumble.See list of analogies above. "Tribulation or persecution ..." may not be viewed as anything unexpected. As sure as the sun rises, believers in Christ may expect the scorching and withering effect of the world's opposition to the truth. Any casual, shallow, or partial commitment to Christ will quail before it. Verse 18 And others are they that are shown among the thorns; these are they that have heard the word.Sown among the thorns ... Alas, this is true of so many in all ages, and is, in a sense, true to some extent of all. Human hearts are seed beds, not merely of the truth of God, but also of every possible philosophy of men. Here there is a significant difference between soils and hearts. Soils do not choose to be thorny ground; but human hearts are endowed with the power to expel the thorns, the power to be good soil, or thorny soil. Verse 19 And the cares of the world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.In the analogies, the thorns stand for the cares, riches, and lusts of other things, or, as Luke stated it, "cares, riches, and pleasures of this life" (Luke 8:14). Are not most of earth's pleasures "lusts" of various kinds? Even the pursuit of legitimate pleasure if excessive, may become, in fact, a "lust." For numberless souls, it is just a case of permitting the word of God to be choked out by other things. Those who correspond to the thorny soil are they who have not ordered life's priorities. No man can do everything that comes into his mind as permissible or desirable; and those who attempt to do so will find their lives so filled up that there is not any time left, not even time to pray. "The more complicated life becomes, the more necessity there is to see that our priorities are right."[15]The fact of Mark's rendering this explanation as "lusts of other things," contrasted with Luke's "pleasures of this life," is a pseudocon. Pleasures may be either sinful or innocent, Luke having reference to innocent pleasures, and Mark to sinful pleasures. In Jesus' parable, there can be no doubt that both were in view; thus we have another example of the necessity of taking into account all that is written in order to know the whole truth. The Christian is not denied the innocent pleasures of life. As Dorris said: The phrase "pleasures of this life" does not indicate that the Christian is to have no pleasure ... It is not sin for the Christian to be happy. Such pleasures as destroy spirituality and wean away from Christ are, of course, forbidden.[16]The three classes of thorns stand for distractions which pertain to responsibilities and duties (cares), the possession or pursuit of wealth (riches), and the pursuit of pleasure, that is, following any sinful pleasure, or the inordinate pursuit of even innocent pleasure. (See under Mark 4:21). [15] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 93. [16] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 104. Verse 20 And those are they that were sown upon the good ground; such as hear the word, and accept it, and bear fruit, thirtyfold, sixtyfold, and a hundredfold.The good ground ... is not merely ground of sufficient quality and depth to produce a harvest, but it is likewise unencumbered ground. In the fast-moving current era, perhaps the encumbrances are the greatest deterrent to fruit-bearing. Thirtyfold, sixtyfold, a hundredfold ... Why the various yields from ground uniformly "good"? As in the agricultural world from which the analogies are drawn, the time of planting, the manner of cultivation, and even many intangible factors enter into the amount harvested. Verse 21 And he said unto them, Is the lamp brought to be put under the bushel, or under the bed, and not to be put on the stand?This verse and through Mark 4:25 make up a paragraph of disconnected sayings of Christ, brought together here in a remarkable application in a new context, indicating that the sacred Scriptures have a vitality and meaning of their own, even out of context. Jesus did here exactly what Paul did in Romans 10:8, where he quotedDeuteronomy 30:11-14 with an application not found in Deuteronomy. Both Richard A. Batey[17] and John Locke[18] have commented on this, which is actually one of the most important prerequisites for truly understanding Scripture. It is precisely the lack of the insight into this phenomenon which cripples much of the exegesis coming out of the critical schools. The truth of Mar 4:21 has a double meaning: (a) that which is inherent in it, and (b) that which it denotes in context. Is such a characteristic of the word of God what is meant by its being "a two-edged sword"? (Hebrews 4:12). It is obvious that Jesus used "the same sayings in different contexts,"[19] saying "the same things over and over";[20] and "It is evident that he repeated his sayings, and used them sometimes in a different connection."[21] To this evident, obvious truth should be added the equally evident fact that he did not repeat sayings verbatim, but varied his terminology. Therefore, we shall study this verse both ways, inherently, and in context. In (this) context: Jesus had just emphasized the concealment of his teachings through the use of parables; but this reference to the lamp shows that the concealment will end. As Cranfield interpreted it: No one in his right senses would carry a lighted lamp into a house simply in order to hide it ... No more must it be supposed that God's whole purpose in sending Jesus is that he should be concealed.[22]Inherently: Christ warned against hiding the lighted lamp (a) under a vessel (Luke 8:16), (b) under a bushel (Mark 4:21), (c) under a bed (Mark 4:21; Matthew 5:15), or (d) in a cellar (that is, "in a secret place")[23] (Luke 11:33). Notice the remarkable correspondence between these things which hide the light and the thorns which choke out the word (Mark 4:19): (a) stands for cares (the vessel), (b) stands for riches (the bushel), with (c) and (d) standing for wicked pleasures associated with both the bed and the sacred place. The proximity of this verse to Mark 4:19 strongly suggests that the thought connects there rather than with Mark 4:12 as suggested by Cranfield. On the stand ... In all the references in the above paragraph, the "stand" is conspicuously mentioned as the place for the lighted lamp. An apostle made this to be a congregation of the Lord's church (Revelation 1:20), indicating still another application of this mighty one-sentence parable. In this application, the lighted lamp is the Christian, and his lamp should be displayed on the stand, that is in the church or congregation. [17] Richard A. Batey, The Letter of Paul to the Romans (Austin: R. B. Sweet Co., 1969), p. 134. [18] John Locke, Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul (Boston, 1832), p. 347. [19] W. N. Clarke, op. cit., p. 62. [20] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 95. [21] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 158. [22] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 164. [23] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972). Verse 22 For there is nothing hid, save that it should be manifested; neither was anything made secret, but that it should come to light.The same idea in different words is in Matthew 10:26. Dummelow's understanding of Jesus' repetition of this maxim here seems to be correct: Our Lord corrects a false impression which might have arisen from the mention of a mystery (Mark 4:11). If the gospel was for a moment treated as a secret, it was so only because this temporary secrecy was essential to its successful proclamation after the ascension.[24]Inherently: This saying of our Lord also has meaning far beyond its application in context, as explained by Dummelow. The secrets of all men shall be made manifest at the judgment of the great day. ENDNOTE: [24] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 726. Verse 23 If any man hath ears to hear, let him hear. And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you; and more shall be given unto you.Take heed what ye hear ... has the obvious meaning of enjoining selectivity in the things men choose to hear; but Dummelow advocated another reading as quite possible, "Understand (weigh well the meaning of) what ye hear."[25] Both ideas are valid Scriptural injunctions. With what measure ye mete, etc. ... Euthymius paraphrased this thus: "In that measure in which you measure your attention to my teaching, in the same measure will spiritual understanding be measured unto you."[26]Inherently: This one-sentence parable is true in any context. Thus the Lord applied it to the kind of judgments men give of others, resulting always in their being judged in the same fashion (Matthew 7:2). Again, the Saviour extended it in an application to the grace of giving (Luke 6:38). [25] Ibid. [26] Ibid. Verse 25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.This is no high-handed injustice of robbing the poor to enrich the affluent; but it is the statement of an eternal law, applicable in context or out of it. In context: To the diligent student of divine truth more of divine truth shall be revealed. The slothful student shall not only learn no more, but shall even forget what he already knows[27]In another context: Jesus applied this law to the judgment of the one-talent man from whom the one talent was taken and given to the man who had ten talents (Matthew 25:19-28). Barclay has a sermon which develops the thought of this law thus: (1) it is true of knowledge; (2) it is true of skill or craft; (3) it is true of effort; and (4) it is true of the ability to bear responsibility.[28][27] Ibid. [28] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 102. Verse 26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth; and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how. The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full grain in the ear. But when the fruit is ripe, straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come.THE PARABLE OF THE SEED GROWING Trench was in a great quandary between applying this parable to earthly preachers of the word or to Christ (God) the sower as in the parable of the sower. He resolved the difficulty by applying it "to Christ, though not exclusively."[29] Many opinions have been advocated as to the meaning of the harvest. Barclay thought "It means the day when all the world will accept the will of God"[30] Cranfield understood it to mean that the present ambiguity of the kingdom of God will reach a harvest by being "succeeded by its glorious manifestation."[31] Barnes, with reservations, made it the death of Christians: "As soon as he is prepared for heaven, he is taken there."[32]McMillan viewed the harvest as then present at the time Christ spoke: "Harvest has come. The seed which God planted in Israel many generations past has now come to full fruit and is waiting to be gathered."[33] "With the concentration of twentieth-century theologians on eschatology,"[34] it has been very popular to name this parable "Seedtime and Harvest," with almost exclusive emphasis on the harvest; and "The main idea then becomes that the kingdom will soon break in upon us!"[35]This interpreter suggests a different approach to this parable, as indicated in these analogies: The man sowing seed is the teacher or preacher of truth. His sleeping and rising night and day indicate that human effort is not the cause of the growth of the seed. His knowing not how the seed grows stresses the ignorance of men in both physical and spiritual areas. His knowing when to put in the sickle, despite his ignorance of "how" it came about, answers to the ability of men to reap spiritual results without full knowledge of just "how" they are produced (John 3:5 ff). The harvest is the gathering of souls into the kingdom of Christ in this present age. The earth bringing forth fruit of herself answers to the adaptability of human nature to the word of God. If a man should cast seed upon the earth ... refers to human proclaimers of the gospel, and not to Christ. If God (or Christ) had been meant, he would have been proclaimed as "the sower," and not "a man." Further, the fact of sleeping and rising night and day and that of his not knowing "how" point to man and not to God. He knoweth not how ... is perhaps the key word in the parable. Nicodemus stumbled in regard to "how can these things be?" and here is the answer to Nicodemus' question: one does not have to know how! The earth beareth fruit of herself ... The ancients were certainly correct in seeing here the principal weight of the parable. The earth into which the seed falls is the moral and spiritual nature of man. The seed of Christianity will grow because the soil into which it will fall is suitable to nourish it. As Dummelow noted: "The human soul is naturally Christian (Tertullian), and Christianity is the `natural religion.' Christianity therefore can propagate itself without human effort, and often does so."[36] God destined every man ever born on earth to be a Christian. See full discussion of this in the Commentary on Romans, p. 318. The blade, the ear, the full grain ... These emphasize the gradual growth of the word of God in human hearts. The harvest is come ... We agree with Clarke that "This is not the gathering of saints to glory, but the gathering of men to Christ."[37] Likewise with Trench, "When the soul is ripe for his kingdom, and he gathers it to himself, this is the harvest."[38] In the sense that what Christ's servants (his gospel ministers) do is also done by Christ, the gathering into the kingdom or church may be expressed either way, as being done by Christ or by his servants. [29] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Parables (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Co.), p. 292. [30] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 104. [31] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 168. [32] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1955), Mark-Luke, p. 344. [33] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 61. [34] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman, Press, 1946), p. 302. [35] Ibid. [36] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 726. [37] W. N. Clarke, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 63. [38] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 294. Verse 30 And he said, How shall we liken the kingdom of God? or in what parable shall we set it forth? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon the earth, yet when it is sown, groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs, and putteth out great branches; so that the birds of the heaven can lodge under the shadow thereof.THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEEDHow shall we liken, ... In this, Jesus employed a device often used by good teachers, seeking to stimulate thinking on the part of his audience. Less than all seeds ... That certain seeds may be smaller than a mustard seed is no problem. Hyperbolic language was frequently employed then, as throughout history, in order to stress a point. Matthew's "all Judaea" is hyperbole. Compare Matthew 3:5 and Luke 7:30. Greater than all herbs ... Many commentators stress the great size of the mature mustard tree, which in some parts of the world reaches to a height of more than twenty feet. Bickersteth reported such large specimens "on the slopes of the mountains of Chile that one could ride under the branches."[39] The great point in this short parable is the contrast between the small seed and the mighty growth attained. The birds of the heaven ... It is illogical to press a parable down upon its all fours, but this writer cannot resist the analogy suggested by the birds. The mustard tree itself is the kingdom of God, beginning small and becoming great; and the fact that birds can build nests even in small trees makes it unlikely that the birds were introduced into this Parable solely to emphasize the size of it. They are a perfect representation of the extraneous and unrelated activities which through the ages have associated themselves with it. Just as the birds could not corrupt the tree, the foul birds whose nests have been built in the kingdom of God cannot corrupt the institution with which they are connected by association only, actually having no identity whatever with it. This interpretation is supported by Matthew 13:4; Matthew 13:19, and Revelation 18:2. The person planting the seed does not appear prominently in the parable; but the kingdom of God which was produced by it identifies the sower here with God, or Christ, as in the parable of the sower. The following analogies are discernible: The seed is the word of God. The one who sowed it is Christ The mustard tree is the kingdom of God. The earth is the world. The smallness of the seed is the smallness of the kingdom's beginning. The greatness of the tree is the vast extent of the kingdom. The birds are the "operations" which are either evil or at best irrelevant to the kingdom, but which are connected with it, and yet no part of it. For further thoughts on this parable, see the Commentary on Matthew, pp. 193-194. It has been suggested by some that Jesus' purpose in giving this parable was to offset any pessimism arising from parables like that of the sower and of the tares, wherein unproductive soils and hostile activity of enemies were stressed. ENDNOTE: [39] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 159. Verse 33 And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear it; and without a parable spake he not unto them: but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things.See under Mark 4:2 for reasons why Jesus spoke in parables. As Sanner noted, "If he had spoken to the crowds in a direct way, he would have forced them to make a final decision at once, a decision of unbelief and rejection."[40]This glimpse of the deep interest of the disciples who waited until the multitudes departed and then received privately from Jesus a more explicit elaboration of all the wonderful truths he was revealing is very significant. Again, from Sanner: In neglecting exposition of the Scriptures, men have not improved upon the method of Jesus. It is still true that men's hearts will burn within them when someone opens to them the Scriptures (Luke 24:32).[41][40] Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 305. [41] Ibid. Verse 35 And on that day, when even was come, he saith unto them, Let us go over unto the other side.MIRACLE OF THE TEMPESTChrist here proposed a crossing to the eastern side of Lake Galilee. This beautiful lake was surrounded by at least a dozen towns in the time of Christ and was the most densely populated area of Palestine. It is thirteen miles long, six miles wide, pear-shaped; and the surface lies 700 feet below sea level. Steep mountains rise along both the western and eastern shores. It is fed by the Jordan river which enters at the north end and exits at the south where it resumes its course to the Dead Sea. The water is fresh and sweet, abounds with fish, and is edged with sparkling pebbly beaches. Due to its depression below sea level and the bordering mountains, it is subject to very severe and sudden storms, such as the one related here.[42]ENDNOTE: [42] F. N. Peloubet, Peloubet's Bible Dictionary (Chicago: The John C. Winston Company, 1925), p. 208. Verse 36 And leaving the multitude, they take him with them, even as he was, in the boat. And other boats were with them.Even as he was . . . This means that: The disciples sailed off with him just as he was in the boat from which he had been teaching the people; and they did not wait to provide any accommodations for the passage.[43]And other boats were with them ... This very important detail indicates: (1) that the great audience on land was supplemented by a considerable number who approached in boats to hear the Lord, and (2) that there were other witnesses of the great miracle besides those aboard with Jesus. This also emphasizes the sudden and unexpected nature of the storm; because, if it had been threatening, neither the disciples nor those in the other boats would have begun the crossing. ENDNOTE: [43] W. N. Clarke, op. cit., p. 302. Verse 37 And there ariseth a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling. And he himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion: and they awake him and say unto him, Teacher, carest thou not that we perish?The sure evidence of the eye-witness is apparent in the stark and vivid details. The waves beating into the boat, Jesus asleep in the stern on the boat cushion, the fact that the boat was taking on water at an alarming rate - all these mark the account as authentic. "Only here in the New Testament does Jesus sleep."[44]Carest thou not that we perish ... Turlington said that "Both Matthew and Luke soften the disciples' outcry, so that they do not appear to reproach Jesus";[45] such a comment being quite fashionable among the scholars who have decided that Mark was prior to Matthew and Luke, that Matthew and Luke did not consider Mark dependable at all and therefore felt free to "correct" him, and that, moreover, their motive in so doing was to protect the disciples' reputation as regarded their conduct toward the Master! We reject this view as demeaning to the gospels, unreasonable, speculative, imaginative, and totally unreliable. Matthew even recorded that Jesus called Peter "Satan" (Matthew 16:23); why, then, should Matthew have been embarrassed to record such an understandable remark as this? It is far more likely that the explanation lies in the fact that this is what Peter said, Mark's close connection with that apostle accounting for his record of it here. [44] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 306. [45] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 306. Verse 39 And he awoke, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.And he awoke ... It is not even stated here that Jesus arose, but Matthew supplied that detail (Matthew 8:26). He rebuked the wind ... In the words of Trench: To regard this as mere oratorical personification would be absurd; rather there is here a distinct tracing up of all the discords and disharmonies in the outward world to their source in a person, a referring them back to him, as to their ultimate ground; even as this person can be no other than Satan, the author of all disorders alike in the natural and in the physical world.[46]In this situation, Jesus appeared dramatically as the antitype of the first of the prophets, Jonah. Both were asleep on a ship at sea in a storm; both were awakened; both were vital to the safety of their vessel, Jonah being a danger to his and Christ the security of his; both produced a great calm, Jonah by being cast overboard, and Christ by fiat; the calm was instantaneous in both cases. For a more detailed development of this thesis, see the Commentary on John, pp. 210-211. Peace, be still ... These are the same words used by Jesus in casting out the demon (Mark 1:25), harmonizing with the view expressed by Trench. Many of Jesus' miracles, if indeed not all of them, were also parables with extensive application to the spiritual life of Christians; and from very early times, this one has been a favorite. Dummelow has recorded the following: Augustine (400 A.D.) says, "We are sailing in this life as through a sea, and the wind rises, and storms of temptation are not wanting. Whence is this, save because Jesus is sleeping in thee, thy faith in Jesus is slumbering in thy heart? Rouse him, and say, Master, we perish. He will awaken, that is, thy faith will return to thee, and the danger will be over." Tertullian (200 A.D.) says, "But that little ship presented a figure of the Church, in that she is disquieted in the sea, that is, in the world, by temptations and persecutions, the Lord patiently sleeping, as it were, until roused at last by the prayers of the saints he checks the world, and restores tranquillity to his own."[47][46] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Jesus (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 156. [47] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 655. Verse 40 And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful? have ye not yet faith?It is ridiculous to make a big thing out of the fact that Matthew recorded this question as taking place before the great calm. Could Jesus not have said it twice? Besides that, the oldest historical reference to the gospel of Mark stated quite flatly that: Mark, having been Peter's interpreter, wrote all that Peter related; though he did not record in order that which was said or done by Christ.[48]This quotation was attributed to an apostolic presbyter by Papias in 130 A.D. The apostles of Christ were slow, even with all the advantages they had, to understand fully the divine nature and power of Jesus, whose question here exhibits some element of surprise at their dullness. ENDNOTE: [48] Ibid., p. 723. Verse 41 And they feared exceedingly, and said one to another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?Mark's purpose in his gospel shines in such an expression as this, of which there are a number of examples. He intended that the mighty works of Christ should lead to they identification of Jesus Christ as a supernatural person, one with the Father, and fully able to give eternal life to them that come unto God through him. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter FourA Series of Parables, Mark 4:1-34 Parable of the Sower, Mark 4:4-19. (Matthew 13:1-9; Luke 8:4-10) Mark's report of this parable is almost identical with Matthew's, differing only in verbiage, and only slightly in this. For remarks on it, see the parallel in Matthew. Why He Spoke in Parables, Mark 4:10-13. (Matthew 13:10-17) Mark 4:10. when he was alone.—Compare the note on verse 34 below. Mark 4:11. to them that are without.— Here Jesus distinguishes his disciples from "them that are without," showing that there was a sense in which the former were within. Some have argued from this that the Church must have been then in existence, and that one class were within and the other without the Church. This conclusion would follow, if the terms without and within in this connection could apply to nothing but the Church. But it is clear that the terms may have been used with different reference. The unbelievers were without the circle of the disciples, and those whom Jesus was addressing were within that circle, whether we regard the disciples as organized into a church, or as still in an unorganized condition. The argument, therefore, contains an undue assumption. Mark 4:12. that seeing they may see.—The reason here given is so condensed by Mark as to render it quite obscure. Matthew's more elaborate report makes the reason clear and satisfactory. (See notes on Matthew 13:10-17.) Mark 4:13. how then will you know?— In this verse, which is peculiar to Mark, Jesus administers a mild rebuke to the disciples for not understanding the parable, and intimates that it is easy in comparison with some others: "Know ye not this parable? How then will you know all the parables?" Parable of the Sower Explained, Mark 4:14-20. (Matthew 13:18-23; Luke 8:11-15) We have already commented on the Savior's explanation of this parable, in the parallel place in Matthew; and to this we refer the reader, remarking only, that the use of the singular instead of the plural in speaking of the parties represented, and a slightly different arrangement of the matter, constitute the differences between the two reports. These differences, occurring as they do in almost every synoptical passage in the four gospels, show that in reporting the speeches of the Savior the apostles were not always restricted to his exact language, but were led by the Spirit to reproduce his words only to the extent necessary for a correct report of his thoughts. Parable of the Candle, Mark 4:21-25. (Luke 8:16-18) Mark 4:21. Is a candle brought.—This parable, like the preceding one of the sower, treats of the means of profiting by the word of God. The word, there represented by the seed sown, is here represented by the lighted lamp (λχνος). As a lamp is brought into a room not to be covered up, but to be placed on the lampstand, so the word of God, intended for the enlightenment of men, is not to be left in obscurity, but to be held up before the world. Mark 4:22. nothing hid.—Nothing in the counsel and purpose of God concerning man. To some extent these had hitherto been hid and kept secret, but now all that had been hid was to be made manifest, and all that had been kept secret was to come abroad. Mark 4:23. let him hear.—This admonition is appropriate. Dropping the figure of the lamp, and returning to the word which it represented, those who have ears to hear are advised to hear it. If it was to make manifest what had hitherto been hidden, and to bring abroad what had hitherto been kept secret in the mind of God, it was becoming in every man who had ears, to use them in hearing it. Nothing that ever struck the human ear is so worthy of being heard as the word of God. Mark 4:24. Take heed what ye hear.—They were inclined, like ourselves, to hear only so much as was agreeable to their feelings and preconceived notions: hence this admonition. with what measure you mete.—This was a proverbial expression, and applies to our dealings with God as well as to our dealings with one another. If we give him good measure by taking heed to hear all that he says, we have the promise of good measure from him: "To you that hear shall more be given." Mark 4:25. For he that hath.—This proverb is quoted in a different connection from that which it has in the parallel part of Matthew, being here applied especially to the disciples, and there to the unbelievers. The meaning, however, is the same in both instances. (Comp. Matthew 13:12.) Parable of the Seed, Mark 4:26-29 Mark 4:26-27. he knoweth not how.—To some extent he knoweth how; it is by the process described in the next verse: "The earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear." He may know still further, that it grows by the chemical action of light, warmth, and moisture; but still there is a part of the process that he does not know. Mark 4:28-29. But when the fruit.—Although the sower knows not how the seed grows, and remains not to see its growth, still it grows. From sowing time till harvest the man has nothing to do: no intermediate cultivation is required. This is true of the "corn" (wheat and barley) referred to, though not of our Indian corn. The kingdom of heaven is like this (Mark 4:26), in that the seed of the kingdom, which is the word of God, when sown in a community, even though the sower go away and neglect it, will spring up of itself and bear fruit, and will be ready at a future day for the harvest. This is often exemplified in the labors of the evangelist. He preaches in a community faithfully, and apparently without success, for a length of time, and then, after a lapse of months or years, returns to the same place, and with comparatively little exertion reaps an abundant harvest. The parable teaches, what observation abundantly confirms, that such an adaptation exists between the human soul and the word of God, that when the latter is once implanted a future harvest will usually be the result. Parable of the Mustard Seed, Mark 4:30-32. (Matthew 13:31-32) Mark 4:30. Whereunto shall we liken.—Mark quotes Jesus as introducing this parable with questions implying that he had well-nigh exhausted appropriate comparisons: "To what shall we liken the kingdom of heaven, and with what comparison shall we compare it?" The three parables just preceding are not sufficient to account for these questions, but we must suppose that a considerable number of those referred to in verse 33, below, had been introduced before this. the kingdom of God.—This expression is used habitually by Mark and Luke where Matthew uses the equivalent expression, "kingdom of heaven." The latter is the more indefinite of the two, but designates precisely the same object of thought. Mark 4:31-32. like a grain of mustard.—See the note on Matthew 13:31-32. Other Parables not Recorded, Mark 4:33-34. (Matthew 13:34-35) Mark 4:33. with many such.—Matthew gives several more, not reported by Mark (see Matthew 13:24-50), but not so many as this expression indicates. Besides all given by both writers, many each were uttered, "as they were able to hear." Mark 4:34. without a parable spake he not.—That is, from the time when he took his seat on the ship (verse 1), until he dismissed the multitude in the evening and departed (Mark 4:35-36). when they were alone.—According to this verse all the expositions of the parables which were found necessary, were given after the multitude had been dismissed; consequently, we are to understand that the explanation of the parable of the sower, though reported in connection with the parable itself was actually given after the day's teaching was ended. (Comp. Matthew 13:36.) Argument of Section 4In the parables of this section, especially in those of the sower, the seed and the mustard seed, the prophetic power of Jesus is clearly exhibited. Without superhuman foresight he could not have so accurately traced out the manner in which different classes of men throughout all time would deal with the word of God, as he describes it in the parable of the sower; nor could he have known in advance of experiment, that the seed of the kingdom would grow from its planting until the time for harvest, as described in the next parable; nor that, as declared in the third, the kingdom would ever attain to the prodigious growth which our eyes have witnessed. His divinity is attested by his unfailing foresight into the distant future. A Series of Miracles, Mark 4:35 to Mark 5:43 (Mark 4:35-41 and Mark 5:1-43)Stilling the Tempest, Mark 4:35-41. (Matthew 8:18-27; Luke 8:22-25) Mark 4:35. the same day.—The same day in which he had been teaching in parables. Another striking difference between Mark's arrangement and that of Matthew is apparent here. While Mark follows the parables with the stilling of the tempest, and informs us that it occurred on the evening of the same day, Matthew gives the stilling of the tempest among the miracles of his eighth chapter, and reserves the parables to his thirteenth chapter. Matthew also introduces in connection with the miracle in question, the conversation with the scribe and the disciple about going with him (Matthew 8:19-22), which Mark omits, and which Luke mentions in an entirely different connection. (Luke 9:57-62.) Mark 4:36. even as he was.—The ship on which Jesus had been sitting during the day was doubtless the same that he had previously ordered to be in waiting for him (Mark 3:9); consequently, in that ship they started with him to cross the lake. Other little ships.—Mark mentions the presence of "other little ships," to show that there were other witnesses of the storm and its miraculous cessation besides the immediate companions of Jesus. Mark 4:37-38. on a pillow.—Note the minuteness of Mark's description. With a master-hand he selects those touches in the details of his picture which impart the liveliest conception of the entire scene: "In the hinder part of the ship," and "asleep on a pillow," paint to perfection the calm repose of Jesus while the tempest was raging and the vessel was filling with water. carest thou not.—This is an addition to their exclamation as quoted by Matthew, not a different version of it. Putting the two together, we have the hurried and confused exclamation, "Master, carest thou not that we perish? Lord, save us; we are perishing." Strangely forgetful that he was in the same danger with themselves, they regarded his calm slumber as proof of indifference in regard to them. Mark 4:39-41.— On this part of the incident, see the notes on Matthew 8:26-27. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 41. Where is Jesus now teaching? 2. Describe position of speaker and audience, 3. With what method did he teach? 4. Who was used for the first lesson? 5. Did the seed all fall on similar ground? 6. Which did the fowls get? 7. Why did some spring up immediately? 8. How did the sun affect it? 9. Why did it wither? 10. State the effect the thorns had. 11. What variation of products on good ground? 12. State the command about ears. 13. When alone what was asked Jesus? 14. Why was such question necessary? 15. Who are "them that are without” in 11th verse? 16. Though seeing, what did they fail to do? 17. And what was lacking in their hearing? 18. All of this was done lest what? 19. Was this parable any harder than others? 20. Whom do the fowls represent? 21. What does affliction or persecution do? 22. State what caused this persecution. 23. What constituted the thorns? 24. What characteristic of riches does the harm ? 25. Tell what is needed besides hearing the word. 26. State the wrong use of a candle. 27. And the right use. 28. What is the candle in this lesson ? 29. How many things hidden will be manifested ? 30. What is the outcome of all secrets? 31. Who are required to hear? 32. State the warning given the hearers. 33. How will measuring be done? 34. To whom will more be given? 35. Who will take something from nothing? 36. To what is the kingdom again likened ? 37. Before harvest what must the seed do? 38. Is man’ s understanding needed for this growth ? 39. Why can’ t it grow without it? 40. Who is the harvester? 41. What kind of grain will he gather? 42. How is mustard seed used in teaching? 43. What is peculiar to this seed ? 44. And to the matured plant? 45. What “ fowls” will rest in its shadow? 46. How strong did Jesus make his teaching? 47. When did he explain to his disciples? 48. Explain “ other side ” in 35th verse. 49. Dismissing the multitude what did they do? 50. What were accompanying them? 51. Tell what arose on the sea. 52. State the condition of the boat. 53. How was Jesus passing the time? 54. State their proceedings with him. 55. What did he do? 56. Of what did he accuse them ? 57. Describe their frame of mind. 1 This chapter corresponds with Matthew 13. 2 A parable is the placing of one thing beside another for the purpose of an illustration. The reader should see the precautionary comments offered at Matthew 13:3 as to the right use to make of the parables. 3 Hearken means a special call to attention. 4 Seed was sown by hand only, in Bible times, and that would make it natural for it to fall into various places as the parable shows. Wayside was a beaten path where the ground was hard so that the seed could not find any opening to bury itself. 5 The soil over the stones would be scarce and the seed would soon use up all the strength in the ground, and that would force it to spring up at once toward the sun and atmosphere for sustenance. 6 However, the full strength of the sun would be too much for the tender plant because it did not have a completed root, as a result it would be scorched and die. 7 These thorns were a plant defined in the lexicon as "a bramble-bush, brier." The plant was not in sight when the sowing was done, but at the growing time it sprang up and choked out the good seed, it being a hardier plant. 9 The good ground brought forth various amounts of the good seed which was the only difference; the quality was the same in all. 0 Asked of him the parable signifies they did not understand the meaning of it. See the comments on Matthew 13:11 as to why the apostles needed to have the parables explained to them aside from the crowd. 1 Them that are without refers to the people who were not disciples. This also is explained in the comments referred to in the preceding verse. 2 This unusual language means that the people did not use the opportunities they had been given to grasp the truths of Heaven. That refusal to open their eyes and ears to the things offered them is likened to a man who has eyes and ears, but refuses to use them for fear he will see and hear things that will condemn his manner of life. 3 The parable of the sower-is so natural that the apostles should have seen the lesson in it. The question of Jesus is a mild rebuke and implies that they should bestir themselves a little more and not lean so heavily on him for instruction. 5 Jesus loved his dis- ciples, and notwithstanding their apparent dullness he wished to give them the information they desired. The sower soweth the word is very brief, but it indicates that the things that happened afterward were no fault of the sower. As seed remaining on the surface of the ground would soon be picked up by the birds, so if men do not take the good seed into their hearts, Satan will have a chance at it and will soon take it away with his many subjects of worldly interests. 6 These people were more enthusiastic over the newly-found subject than they were serious. Hence what they did was done somewhat in the spirit of excitement. 7 Excitement is momentary and such an interest is not very deep-seated. When the real test comes of facing the attacks of worldly enemies, such people become offended which means they stumble over the word. 8 As far as the text shows, these people gave attention to what was said and understood it. If they failed to produce any fruit from it the reason was something else besides not knowing about the value of the word which they had heard. 9 This verse explains why the word did not produce a crop with these people even though they understood it. Cares of this world denotes that concern and anxiety that some people have over the things of this life. They give so much attention to those things that it crowds out their consideration for the word. Deceitfulness of riches. Many people think that if they can accumulate a large amount of wealth that it will bring them happiness. But they are being deceived, for the so-called pleasures that can come only through money are temporal and at best are uncertain. Solomon says of this, "For riches certainly make themselves wings; they fly away as an eagle toward heaven" (Proverbs 23:5). 0 The good ground illustrates those who not only hear the word but also receive it; not only that but go to work with it to make it reproduce. The different amounts that were produced merely denotes that some good people have more ability to produce than others, but the Lord asks us only to be faithful and do what we can. 1 In purely temporal or material things, men will act with better judgment than they do in things moral and spiritual. A man would not make a light for the accommodation of his guests, then put something over it that would prevent them from benefiting by it. Neither should we allow some careless conduct keep our possible influence for good from being seen by those about us. (See Matthew 5:15-16.) 2 All evil deeds will some day be exposed by the Lord. Our good deeds, therefore, should be permitted to be a benefit to others, and not be lost upon them by some unwise conduct on our part. 3 This verse means for men to make use of their opportunities to hear the truth as the Lord provides it for them through his servants. 4 The admonition as to what we hear is connected with the statement about the measure. The thought is that the more and better attention we give to what is said to us, the more benefit we will receive from what is said. 5 To take from one which he does not have is explained at Matthew 25:29. 6 This short parable has an important lesson. What we do becomes an influence that lives and acts even when we are not aware of it. How necessary it is, then, that we guard our every act. 7 Knoweth not how. We do not understand how God makes things grow in the material kingdom, yet it makes its development notwithstanding our lack of that knowledge. Likewise, our work in the kingdom of God will have its reward in its proper time and in the Lord's own way even though we cannot always understand how it is. 8 This shows that everything in God's creation is accomplished by growth. 9 The lesson should be grasped that it takes faith and patience to accomplish the desired results in the service of the Lord. (See Galatians 6:9.) 0 These questions were asked to get the attention of the hearers. 1 According to historical information the mustard seed that was produced in Palestine was the smallest of all those that grew in that country. 2 The physical growth of the little seed is like that which is expected to be made in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God. From small beginnings the work of the Lord may grow on until it is of service to many around us. 3 As they were able to hear it. Jesus did not wish to deliver his teaching in greater amounts or depths than they would be able to grasp. (See John 16:12.) 4 This verse is explained at Matthew 13:11. 5 The multitudes sometimes were so great that it made a hindrance to the work of Jesus. He never actually refused to serve them when in their midst, but would move to other parts of the country. Thus he told his disciples they would pass over to the other side which meant the other shore of the Sea of Galilee. 6 Jesus dismissed the multitudes which is the meaning of the phrase sent them away, for they would not all depart. They took him denotes they would not leave him entirely alone, but some of them found the other little ships nearby. Just how far they tried to accompany him is not stated. Doubtless most of them remained on the same side of the sea until he returned, for verse 21 states that when he came back "much people gathered unto him." 7 After starting across the sea a violent storm arose. It was now full is a figure of speech meaning that the boat was filling, and unless something could be done it would soon be literally filled and sink. 8 Jesus was asleep which shows that the water had not yet reached to him as he lay on a pillow. In their fright they awoke him and cried for him to rescue them. 9 Jesus was more severe in his language to the storm and sea than he was to the disciples. He rebuked both storm and waves and commanded them to be still. Both of them were dumb objects and could not render intelligent obedience, hence their response proved the authority of the Master to rule as his wisdom directed. 0 The disciples were intelligent beings and hence Jesus gave them a mild rebuke, charging them with having little faith. 1. One meaning of the original word for feared is, "To be filled with awe and amazement." They wondered what manner of man it would be who could regulate dumb objects of creation with his mere word. Verse 1 This chapter records the events regarding the Gerasene demoniacs (Mark 5:1-20), and the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:21-24; Mark 5:35-43), and the parenthetical miracle of healing the woman with the issue of blood (Mark 5:25-34). THE And they came to the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gerasenes. (Mark 5:1) Other side of the sea ... that is, the eastern shore of Galilee. Gerasenes ... In the parallel accounts (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-40), Luke has "Gerasenes" as here, and Matthew has "Gadarenes." The actual site has been identified as being on the south bank of the Wady-es-Semak on the eastern shore of Galilee, a place called GERASA, now a ruin, on a narrow rim of the lake, about 120 feet wide, at the base of a steep incline to the sea.[1] Gadara was the principal town of the area, so Matthew called the area "the country of the Gadarenes." ENDNOTE: [1] William Taylor, The Miracles of Our Lord (New York: Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1930), p. 212. Verse 2 And when he was come out of the boat, straightway there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit.One's interpretation of this miracle will inevitably reflect his belief concerning demon possession and concerning the incarnation. Concerning the latter, the conviction followed in this commentary is that Jesus was indeed God come in human form, and yet possessing all of the attributes of God. Concerning demon possession, a more general statement is proper. DEMON Trench called this miracle "the most important, and, in many respects, the most perplexing of all the cures of demoniacs";[2] and this is an appropriate place to give attention to this phenomenon which is mentioned in all the gospels. Demon possession may not be identified merely as mental disorders, or various kinds of sickness, because a differentiation between them is clearly made in the gospels. Furthermore, the conversations Jesus carried on with demons, their recognizing him as "Son of God Most High," and his addressing them as personal cannot be adequately explained as a mere accommodation on the part of the Lord to superstitions of his contemporary generation. The integrity of the sacred gospels as history must be set aside in any view that denies the reality of demon possession in the New Testament. Are there difficulties in such a view? Indeed yes; but the difficulties derive from what people do not know, rather than from what they know: (1) It is generally supposed that no such thing as demon-possession exists on earth today; and, if that supposition is correct, it would simply mean that the power of Jesus Christ in destroying the works of the devil, which was his purpose in coming into this world (1 John 3:8), was effective and that Satan's demonic followers are not able to work the havoc upon human personality in this age, as formerly. The multiplication of such disorders in the times of Christ should, in such a view, have been expected as the demons recognized the holy Saviour and his purpose of destroying them. (2) However, it is by no means certain that the phenomenon has actually disappeared. Trench suggested that if one with apostolic discernment today should enter a madhouse "he might recognize some of the sufferers there as `possessed.'"[3] Cranfield thought that "There may be more truth here in the New Testament picture than has sometimes been allowed," and asks if perhaps "The spread of a confident certainty of the demons' non-existence has not been their greatest triumph."[4] He also pointed out that witch burnings were not due to taking the New Testament too seriously, "but they were due to failing to take it seriously enough."[5] So, take it either way: whether or not demon-possession still exists or not, the reality of it THEN is certain. In the unreasonable and atrocious crimes, abnormal bestiality, and senseless wickedness exploited on the front pages of newspapers every day, there is far more than a possibility that satanic possession is the cause of at least some of it. [2] Richard C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 162. [3] Ibid. p. 176. [4] C. E. B. Cranfield. The Gospel According to St. Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), p. 75. [5] Ibid. Verse 3 Who had his dwelling in the tombs: and no man could any more bind him, no, not with a chain; because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: and no man had strength to tame him.Mark stressed the unnatural strength of this troglodyte, using two entire verses to stress it; but Matthew supplied the significant fact that his ferocity had closed the area to human traffic, and Luke the equally significant fact that he was naked. Such a human monster had no doubt cast a terror over the entire village. See Zechariah 13:1-2. Verse 5 And always, night and day, in the tombs and in the mountains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones.Such a bloody, noisy, physically powerful degenerate was a troublesome handicap to all who lived in the area. Verse 6 And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped him.The demon-possessed seem always to have been able to recognize Christ. The man's worshipping Jesus is a reference to his falling down before him; and, in view of the man's behavior after he was healed, it must also have included (on the man's part, if not the demon's) an adoration of the Lord spiritually. The effect of his possession was that of splitting the personality, making it impossible, in each instance, to distinguish between what was done by the demon and what was done by the man. Verse 7 And crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not.Son of God Most High ... This name of God Most High is very ancient, appearing in connection with Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18), Balaam (Numbers 24:16), and in the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:8). The Hebrews did not invent or evolve monotheism, that being the original view of the Father, even prior to Abraham. I adjure thee by God, torment me not ... This petition of the demon seems here to have been predicated upon God's prior promise that the demonic world would be vanquished at some time certain in the future, hence his invoking God's name in the request. "Art thou come hither to torment us before the time?" as in Matthew, carries the same implication. It will be noted that Matthew mentioned two men in this connection; but Mark and Luke restricted their accounts to the more ferocious and prominent of the two. A glimpse of God's ultimate plan of destroying evil surfaces here in the demonic knowledge that such a destruction is in store for them and that an appointed time for it has already been determined. See Acts 17:31, also Zechariah 13:1-2. Verse 8 For he said unto him, Come forth, thou unclean spirit, out of the man.There is no evidence that the unclean spirit had the power to resist Jesus' word here; therefore, we must disagree with Barclay who alleged that Christ failed twice to cast out the demon before finally succeeding.[6] It must be remembered that Mark did not set down "in order" the things Jesus did. Besides, Christ did not repeat the command, once being sufficient. By the demon's request to enter the swine, that evil being confessed the necessity of his obeying Christ's command. Certainly, it is puerile to suppose that Christ asked the demon's name in order to procure power over him! See under Mark 5:9. ENDNOTE: [6] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 118. Verse 9 And he asked him, What is thy name? And he saith unto him, My name is Legion; for we are many.What kind of believers are those who represent Christ as attempting here, by interrogation, to discover the demon's name, in order to be able through such knowledge to cast the demon out? Can they really mean that God in Christ needed to ask anything like that? No. Christ asked THE MAN his name, not because the Lord did not know it, but because he sought thereby to bring the man back to a sense of his own identity, an identity the demon had usurped as shown in the reply. My name is Legion; for we are many ... The confusion of the singular and plural pronouns here is further indication of the fission which the demon had inflicted upon the man. A legion was four or five thousand men; and, although no truth may be certain in such a reply from such a source, it is at least in harmony with the idea of multiple possessions in some cases, Mary Magdalene being another example (Mark 16:9). Verse 10 And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country.He ... them ... The same confusion in the evil spirit prevailed here, as if he cannot make up his mind where he is one or a Legion! It has been suggested that the speaker was the leading demon speaking for all the rest, but the view is precarious. Of course, we do not have the exact words of the petition, only Mark's account which gives it indefinitely. One thing is clear. The demons were fearful of having to depart the dwelling they had usurped in the wretched creature before the Lord, and they pleaded not to be sent away. Verse 11 Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine feeding. And they besought him saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them.Whereas "he" besought the Lord in Mark 5:10, it is "they" who do the beseeching here, making it sure that the demons were the ones pleading. Great herd of swine ... Of all the lower creation, only the serpent and swine are revealed in Scripture as possessed of an evil spirit. As Taylor said, "The serpent is a symbol of intellectual cunning and the swine of gross uncleanness,"[7] suggesting that in both categories there is great temptation to the human family. ENDNOTE: [7] William Taylor, op. cit., p. 231. Verse 13 And he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine: and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, in number about two thousand; and they were drowned in the sea.We reject views like that of Barclay who thought that the cries of the man frightened the swine into their destruction, and that the Lord used this to "convince" the man the demons had left him; and also the view that the hogs committed suicide rather than allow the demons to possess them! Mark here stated that the demons entered the swine, and there is no reason for dissociating their immediate destruction from that evident cause of it. Here is a great difficulty in the eyes of some; but it is a difficulty founded on prior disbelief of demon-possession and the power of the incarnate God in Christ. The destruction of the swine was necessary in order that Christ might thereby show what is the true intent and purpose of Satan. If people desire to know what Satan is and what he will do to them who permit his evil domination, let them behold the example of these swine. Look what Satan did to the family of Job in a single day; solely because he had God's permission to do it. From the gates of Paradise to the present hour, Satan has had one invariable purpose, that of the total destruction of man. The example of the swine is an instructive example of Satan's perpetual intent. But what about the property issue? Christ did not destroy the swine; the demons did. Christ's permission of such a thing is no more than God's permission of all natural disorders like earthquakes, volcanoes, floods, droughts, and tornadoes, etc., which kill millions of people (not swine alone); and yet all thoughtful persons find no difficulty reconciling this with God's love and justice. Verse 14 And they that fed them fled, and told it in the city and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had come to pass.The swineherds roused the countryside with the result of a great throng of people who gathered around the Lord, his disciples, and the man from whom the legion of demons was cast out. Verse 15 And they come to Jesus, and behold him that was possessed with demons sitting, clothed and in his right mind, even him that had the legion: and they were afraid.This contrasts with the picture Mark gave of the man before the demons were cast out. What a tragic picture he presented: naked, bleeding, furtive, dwelling in tombs, constantly crying out, etc. Behold the change. He is clothed and in his right mind, sitting at the feet of Jesus! This shows what Christianity does. "It clothes the naked, moderates the madness of passion, and many a man with a ragged coat and an empty pocket before conversion now has a purse and two coats."[8]And they were afraid ... Such a powerful demonstration of God's power instilled fear in a whole community. ENDNOTE: [8] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco. Verse 16 And they that saw it declared unto them how it befell him that was possessed with demons, and concerning the swine.Ah ...! There was the little detail about those missing swine. If that community had only had the grace to have raised a fund to reimburse the owners and to rehabilitate the healed man, there might have been a happier ending to this story; but they were so blinded by the secular loss that, instead, they asked the Son of God to leave the community! Verse 17 And they began to beseech him to depart from their borders.This was a rash prayer, but Jesus answered it by departing and never setting foot in the area again; however, he did not leave himself utterly without witness, as the next verses disclose. Verse 18 And as he was entering into the boat, he that was possessed with demons besought him that he might be with him.One can appreciate the feelings of the man whose life had been so distraught by the powers of darkness, and whose feelings of love and gratitude toward Jesus caused him to desire constant fellowship with the Lord. Those who have tasted the blessing of the Lord desire to be ever in his company and partakers of his companionship. Verse 19 And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and how he had mercy on thee.On occasion, Jesus forbade the beneficiaries of his miracles to speak of them; but here it was commanded, the reason as discerned by Dummelow, was that "It was a Gentile area, and there was no danger of any popular excitement."[9] Also, it would appear that the necessity of providing some witness of the truth for the unfortunate village whose leaders asked the Lord to depart might have had something to do with it. It is of the greatest significance that Jesus here referred to himself as "the Lord" who had done for the man "great things" and "had mercy upon" him. ENDNOTE: [9] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 727. Verse 20 And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him: and all men marveled.Attempts to get rid of Jesus in all ages have generally been as futile and ineffective as were those of the village of the Gerasenes. "Decapolis" means "the ten cities" which lay in the area, nine of them east of lake Galilee; and it must have been a very effective witness indeed which was provided by that erstwhile terror of the tombs who went up and down the area extolling the power and mercy of Jesus, whom he also, no doubt, identified as "Lord." No wonder it is said that "All men marveled." Lessons from this miracle include: (1) Jesus came into the world to destroy the works of the devil, and here was an outstanding example of it. (2) Jesus must choose for all men the area of the service they will render to his name; the man here was denied his request and given another assignment. (3) Men frequently need to begin at home the work of bringing others to Christ. (4) Men should beware of permitting purely secular interests to dominate their thinking. This wretched village made a choice which probably resulted in the eternal death of many of their citizens. THE RAISING OF JAIRUS' The significance of this wonder lies in the identity of the principals. Jairus was a ruler of the Jewish synagogue in Capernaum, a prominent and respected leader of the people, and who, according to Trench, was part of "the deputation which came to the Lord pleading for the heathen centurion (Luke 7:3)."[10] Only about forty years had elapsed since the deed itself when Mark composed his gospel. He may not have been an eyewitness of the miracle, but he had worked closely with the apostle Peter for years, and Peter was an eyewitness. Furthermore, he had heard the apostle preach hundreds if not thousands of times; and the elementary integrity which must be assigned both to Peter and to Mark make any doubt of this miracle an act of the will, not of intelligence. All of the gobbledegook which has come out of the critical schools regarding Mark's "sources" has been subjectively fabricated in the laboratories of unbelief and can never be made to fit the fact that Mark needed no source except that of having heard the apostle Peter preach the same thing over and over for three decades, until, it may be assumed, Mark knew it all by heart. Since Peter was an eyewitness, there was simply no room for any "traditions" to have grown up, no time for any admixture of foreign elements, and no opportunity for any corruption of the narrative. We are here face to face with historical truth. So much for the eye-witness and the narrator; what about the person raised from the dead? The prominence and power of Jairus, and the fact of his having been widely known in Capernaum by at least thousands of people within a time limit of not over forty years before Mark wrote make it absolutely impossible that any fictitious element could have been injected into this historical event without bringing a deluge of criticism and refutation. The rapidly spreading faith was opposed by countless powerful and determined enemies who would have seized upon any excuse to charge the apostles and gospel writers with fraud; but it is a singular fact that history has produced no such denials. It must be assumed that Jairus' contemporaries, his fellow-rulers of the synagogues of Israel, most of whom did not accept Christianity, knew of this record in the Christian gospels, as well as of the repeated preaching of it for forty years; but they did not contradict it, the truth of it being so widely known, and so utterly beyond all denial, that they could not demean themselves by any attempt to refute the truth. It is agreed by all the world that Mark wrote his gospel prior to 70 A.D., and perhaps as early as 60 A.D.; and the nature of it is such that had there been any element of untruth or inaccuracy in it, it could never have gained credibility. But it did gain credibility, a credibility which has been maintained for more than nineteen centuries. No lie could have done that. ENDNOTE: [10] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 194. Verse 21 And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat unto the other side, a great multitude was gathered unto him; and he was by the sea.The other side ... means the western shore of Galilee; and the scene would have been the sky-sea-land theater in which the pulpit was a boat, not far from the city of Capernaum. In a sense, Capernaum was the ordinary residence of Jesus. As Bickersteth noted: Matthew (Matthew 4:13) tells us that he had left Nazareth, and was now dwelling at Capernaum, thus fulfilling the ancient prophecy with regard to Zebulun and Naphthalim (Luke 4:16-31). Matthew (Matthew 9:1) calls Capernaum his own city. Christ ennobled Bethlehem by his birth, Nazareth by his education, Jerusalem by his death, and Capernaum by making it his ordinary residence. [11]ENDNOTE: [11] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 211. Verse 22 And there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue Jairus by name; and seeing him, he falleth at his feet.One of the rulers ... Every synagogue was managed by a board of presbyters, or elders."[12] His willingness to fall upon his knees before the Son of God emphasizes the heartbreak which was crushing his soul. There can be no doubt that many of his peers despised him for thus humbling himself before the Lord, but what blessing rewarded his pathetic plea. ENDNOTE: [12] William Taylor, op. cit., p. 231. Verse 23 And beseecheth him saying, My little daughter is at the point of death: I pray thee that thou come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be made whole, and live.My little daughter ... She was, according to Taylor, not only Jairus' only daughter, but his only child. He based this conclusion upon Luke's use of the word meaning "only begotten."[13]At the point of death ... Matthew quoted Jairus as saying, "She is even now dead" (Matthew 9:18); and Luke recorded that "she was dying" (Luke 8:42). Sure enough, here is a pseudocon! Richard Trench observed that: When the father left the child, she was at her latest gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive; and, yet having not received certain knowledge of her death, he was perplexed whether to speak of her as departed or not, expressing himself one moment in one language, and at the next in another. Strange that a circumstance like this, so drawn from life, so testifying to the reality of the things recorded, should be urged by some as a contradiction![14][13] Ibid. [14] Richard C. Trench, op. cit., p. 195. Verse 24 And he went with him; and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him.This indicates that the crowd itself got into Jesus' way as he set out to go to the home of Jairus. There was no way that such a persistent throng of so many people could be quickly dispersed. Jesus' movement to go to the ruler's house precipitated a stampede, as we might say, with the inevitable result of delaying Jesus' arrival at the bedside of the child. Also, as the next verse shows, another instance of Jesus' miraculous power was to be unfolded en route. The unique intertwining of these two miracles is a mark of originality emphasizing the authenticity of both. Who could have imagined such a thing as that which here took place? Sometimes when judges hand down rulings upon certain questions, they render other judgments at the same time upon lesser matters, or connected questions, sometimes of very great importance; such rulings being referred to as "obiter dicta." Taylor called this an "obiter miracle" of Christ,[15] referring to the healing of the woman which, in this context, reminds one of a double geode, one inside another. ENDNOTE: [15] William Taylor, op. cit., p. 243. Verse 25 And a woman who had an issue of blood twelve years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse.The gospels are so human, despite their divinity, that the interplay of human personality often reveals little touches or glimpses of pleasantry, or even humor. Mark gave here a rather brutal description of the experience this poor woman had received from many physicians. The doctors had taken all of the woman's money, prescribed many useless and ineffective remedies, none of which did any good; and all the while the patient only got worse! Notice however, that Luke, himself a good physician, gave the essential facts a little differently, not contradicting Mark in any way whatsoever, but with a different emphasis, saying "(she) had spent all her living upon physicians, and could not be healed of any" (Luke 8:43). The inherent implication in Luke is that perhaps the physicians had done the best they could, but the malady was beyond their power to heal. He omitted the reference of Mark to the sufferings the poor woman had endured through the application of outlandish remedies, and the implication, though not clearly stated in Mark, that the physicians had made the woman worse. The difference in the professional and lay viewpoints in these gospels is clear enough; but their records nevertheless coincide perfectly. Verse 27 Having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.Having heard the things concerning Jesus ... The woman might have been a citizen of Caesarea Philippi;[16] and, if so, this indicates the widespread knowledge of the mighty works of Jesus. Touched his garment ... God had commanded Hebrew men to wear a border on their garments, "the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue" (Numbers 15:38), the same being a reminder that they were God's people. As Turlington said, "She shared the ancient view that the healer's own person was potent and that his clothing, or even his shadow, could serve as bearers of his power (see Acts 5:15; Acts 19:12)."[17]If I touch ... I shall be made whole ...; Mark 6:56 and Matthew 14:36 have the statement, "As many as touched were made whole," the same being one of the profoundest statements in Scripture. For sermon outline on this, see the Commentary on Matthew, p. 221. [16] J. R. Dummelow, op. cit., p. 659. [17] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), Vol. 8, p. 310. Verse 29 And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her plague.Imperfect as the woman's faith was, it proved enough; and herein is a mighty encouragement for all. If our redemption is dependent upon our full knowledge of all the truth concerning Christ and his holy religion, none of us shall ever be saved. A little faith, even though it be imperfect, acted upon is better than great faith unsupported by consistent deeds. Verse 30 And straightway Jesus perceiving in himself that the power proceeding from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and said, Who touched my garments?Who touched ...? Evidently, from the ensuing remark of the apostles, many had jostled him; but someone had touched in a far more meaningful manner. Of course, Jesus knew already who had touched, had already judged her faith, and had by his own volition healed her. We should not fall into her superstition by supposing the tassel did it! Nor should we fall into the guilty error of ascribing ignorance to Jesus as the reason for his asking the question. Was God asking for information when he inquired, "Adam, where art thou?" (Genesis 3:9), or when he asked of Cain, "Where is Abel thy brother?" (Genesis 4:9). The reason for the question was resident in the fact that Jesus desired to bestow upon the woman a greater blessing than mere healing. He would not permit her, in a sense, to steal a blessing, but would provide it for her openly, and before all. My garments ... shows that the woman did not touch merely one little place on Jesus' clothes. The big pseudocon that makes a point out of "tassel" in one place and "fringe" in another is exploded by the truth here that this woman did a lot of touching! Verse 31 And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me?The disciples were incredulous that any single touch would have been identified by Jesus in such a press as that which enveloped them all, and their words here appear to have been a little petulant, as if they had said, "Look, you cannot be serious about identifying a `touch' in such a manhandling as all of us are confronted with here!" No disrespect was intended by the disciples' remark or by Mark's record of it. Verse 32 And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing.Jesus was not looking for "the person" but for "the woman" who had done it. He already knew not only the sex, but the history, the faith, and the intention of the one whom he had already consciously healed. Verse 33 But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth.The woman saw instantly that nothing was hidden from the Master, and, fearful that he might be displeased with her actions she fell in worship at his feet and poured out the entire story of her twelve years of wretched sorrow, spent resources, frustrated applications to physicians, and of her desperate resolve to find at last in Jesus the healing of her shame. It is a matter of the utmost discernment and tenderness with regard to human sensibilities that Jesus had not required such an outpouring of the inmost secrets of her life while her pitiful condition still sat upon her; but, at a moment after she was fully restored to health, the Lord permitted the confession then. How beautiful: how tender, how so like Christ, and unlike men, is the tender regard of the Lord for this woman. Her condition was one with overtones of great sorrow. As McMillan said, "Not only was there a depressing physical problem, but such a condition would also have prohibited her participation, in any full sense, in the religious rites of Judaism (Leviticus 15:25-30)."[18]ENDNOTE: [18] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 70. Verse 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague.Far from being displeased with her, the Lord reassured her, bestowed upon her the benediction of his peace, and the assurance of her continued wholeness. He also directed her thoughts away from any superstition to the effect that touching a fringe had healed her. Her healing was founded upon his own sovereign will and upon her own faith in the Lord of glory. Verse 35 While he yet spake, they come from the ruler of the synagogue's house, saying, Thy daughter is dead: why troublest thou the Teacher any further? What is to be made of such a message as this? Perhaps some of Jairus' fellow-rulers of the synagogue had been embarrassed by one of themselves appealing to the humble Prophet of the poor; and there seems to be a kind of calloused argument here to the effect that: "Look, she's already dead, and we all know that this Teacher cannot raise the dead; why bother (with) him any further?" Whether or not this was exactly what they had in mind, that was certainly the attitude of their class. It is as though they had said, "We are already proceeding with the funeral," which from Mark 5:38 it is plain they were actually doing! Verse 36 But Jesus, not heeding the word spoken, saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only believe.Fear not ... is capable of wide meaning here. It meant do not fear for thy daughter's life; do not fear the scorn of your peers; do not fear that our purpose has been thwarted by this delay in healing the woman. Only believe ... meant that Jairus was instructed to retain his faith as the only alternative open to him in that situation and has no implications whatever regarding a soul's salvation by "faith alone" If Jairus had taken the course suggested by his peers, it would have been to abandon faith and bury his daughter. Believing in Jesus was thus his only acceptable alternative. Verse 37 And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James.This marked a new milestone in Jesus' ministry; already the abilities of these three had earned for them a closer relationship with the Lord. That relationship, however, was not predicated merely upon ability, but upon the role each of these would have in the future spread of Christianity. James would set the grand example by being the first of the apostles to die for the faith; Peter would preach the first sermon; John would be the last witness and write the fourth Gospel. Other instances in which these three were singled out for greater intimacy with Jesus were in the transfiguration and in the Garden of Gethsemane. The probable task assigned to the other apostles was that of controlling and dispersing the multitude. Verse 38 And they came to the house of the ruler of the synagogue; and he beholdeth a tumult, and many weeping and wailing greatly.One is surprised to find so quickly the presence of the hired mourners who were raising such a tumult in the house of Jairus, which might be explained by supposing some further delay necessitated by the dispersal of the multitude, during which Jairus had returned home and initiated this phase of the funeral himself; but this is denied by the fact that Jairus evidently remained with Jesus. This leaves open the possibility that advance preparations had been made to become effective on the daughter's death, or the additional possibility suggested under Mark 5:35, namely, that Jairus', peers were proceeding with the customary funeral activities, the latter being the view accepted here. Verse 39 And when he was entered in, he saith unto them, Why make ye a tumult and weep? The child is not dead but sleepeth.Not dead but sleepeth ... The Lord certainly did not mean these words as a denial that the daughter's death had actually occurred; but it was his customary language regarding death (see John 11:11). In context, it also meant that he intended to raise her to life again. The attitude of the professional mourners shows conclusively that the maiden's death had indeed occurred and had been confirmed. McMillan is correct in seeing in this ambiguous reference to the child's being "asleep," "a specific purpose of creating uncertainty in the minds of those who were not directly associated with the resurrection."[19] It was the raising of Lazarus, at a later date, that precipitated the crucifixion; and too great a confirmation and publication of this miracle could possibly have interfered with the divine schedule of the Lord's death. It was not the time to confront the religious hierarchy with a miracle they could not deny; nor was this the place. It would occur in Jerusalem, not in Capernaum, and at the time of the fourth Passover, not upon this occasion in the home of Jairus. In line with this was the instruction recorded in Mark 5:43. ENDNOTE: [19] Ibid., p. 74. Verse 40 And they laughed him to scorn. But he, having put them all forth, taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him, and goeth in where the child was.Laughed him to scorn ... The scorners were put out by Jesus, the spiritual implications of this being profound and perpetual. The scornful of all ages succeed only in shutting the door of opportunity against themselves. It must have been a matter of remorse to some of those ancient scorners that they missed the one opportunity of all the ages to have witnessed the resurrection of the dead! Their conduct here denies any other status to them except that of hired performers at a funeral. Scornful laughter is never the behavior of broken-hearted friends and relatives. Jesus' questioning of the din they were raising also supports the same conclusion. Verse 41 And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee arise.Mark here recorded the actual syllables that Jesus used in this calling of the little girl back to life. The words are Aramaic, supposed to have been the language Jesus used; and from Peter who was present in that inner room, Mark remembered the very words that Christ used. Spiritual implications of this wonder are plentiful, as of all the signs and miracles of the Lord. To every maiden at the dawn of womanhood, the words of the Saviour echo across two millenniums. "I say unto thee arise!" Verse 42 And straightway the damsel rose up, and walked; for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed straightway with a great amazement.It is a strange coincidence that the age of this child corresponded exactly with the twelve years of sufferings endured by the woman, suggesting some connection here that is not apparent to us. All commentators are intrigued with it, but none has the solution. As McMillan said: It is tempting to speculate on this seeming coincidence. Surely, however, if the woman with the hemorrhage had been Jairus' wife and the mother of the girl, it would have been mentioned somewhere in the story.[20]ENDNOTE: [20] Ibid., p. 73. Verse 43 And he charged them much that no man should know this: and he commanded that something should be given her to eat.That no man should know this ... It has been pointed out that there was no way to prevent public knowledge of a funeral in progress having been broken up by Jesus. From this, it is clear that Christ intended merely that Jairus and the other witnesses of it should make no announcement of it, thus leaving Jesus' earlier statement that the child was not dead to remain fixed, to some degree at least, in the popular mind concerning the incident. That they indeed cooperated in this charge of Jesus is seen in the fact of there being no great clamor, nor any extraordinary efforts of the hierarchy to put Jesus to death. This remarkable wonder is, in reality, one of a triad of resurrections performed by Jesus and recorded in the New Testament, the others being the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, and the resurrection of Lazarus. Gradations appear in the triple events: (1) Jairus' daughter had been dead only a short while. (2) The son of the widow had been dead longer, though not buried. (3) Lazarus had been dead four days and nights. Also (1) the name of Jairus' daughter is not known. (2) No name is known except that of the village where the wonder occurred. (3) The names of the subject, of his sisters, and of the village where it occurred are all given. There was a widening circle of beholders. (1) There were apparently only six people present besides the daughter. (2) An entire village, though a small one, witnessed it. (3) The great Jewish capital with a multitude of the hierarchy saw Lazarus raised. This chapter, here concluded, is one of the great storehouses of God's word. Three of the Saviour's mightiest wonders are recorded in it; and one cannot resist the conviction that here we stand within the heart and citadel of truth. Imagination cannot conceive of such events as these being invented or contrived. Across centuries of receding ages, they beckon to us that we might behold and love him who came to give his life a ransom for many. Blessed be the name of the Lord. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter FiveA Legion of Demons Cast Out, Mark 5:1-20. (Matthew 8:28-34; Luke 8:26-40) Mark 5:1. Gadarenes.—Both "Gadarenes" and "Gerasenes" are found in the manuscripts, but the preference is given to the latter. The same is true of the parallel in Luke. Matthew employs neither of these names, but calls the place "the country of the Gergesenes." The reason of the difference is not certainly known; but the conjecture of Alford, that the country of the Gergesenes was a part of the country of the Gerasenes, Matthew using the more specific designation, and Mark and Luke the more general one, is highly probable. (See Alford on Matthew 8:28.) The place designated was in the still larger district called Decapolis. Mark 5:2. immediately there met him.—The demoniac did not wait for Jesus to draw near, but as soon as he came out of the ship, and while he was yet afar off (verse 6), the demons ran, in the person of their victim, to meet him and to do homage to him. They probably had two purposes in this: first, by cunning flattery and fawning to dissuade Jesus from casting them out; and second, to injure his cause by making it appear that there was friendship between him and themselves. (On the meaning and usage of the word demon, see the note on Matthew 8:16.) a man.—Matthew says there were two men. The one mentioned and described by Mark and Luke was doubtless the fiercer and the more notorious of the two. Intending to speak particularly of him, and to say nothing about the other, they use the singular number throughout the account. (For examples of a similar usage, see the note on 11:2, and the references there given.) Mark 5:3. among the tombs.—It may be that the demons selected the tombs as a dwelling-place, because of a preference for a place of gloom and seclusion; or it may be that their own bodies were buried there, and that on this account they had a fondness for the spot. It was certainly a very unnatural and undesirable dwelling-place for the man, especially as he was a Jew, educated to regard a burying-ground as an unclean place. Matthew adds that "no man might pass that way" (Matthew 8:28)— meaning, that the demoniac was dangerous. Mark 5:4. fetters broken in pieces.—The fact that "no man could bind him" (that is, effectually), because he broke the chains and fetters that were put upon him, shows that he was possessed of supernatural strength. The normal strength of the human muscles depends largely on the force of will which is brought to bear on them. The multitude of demons seem to have concentrated their combined force of will on the man's muscles, and by this means imparted to him his amazing strength. It must have been at intervals of quietude that his friends succeeded in binding him and taking him home; but when the demons willed, he was thrown into a phrensy, and, bursting through all restraints, was driven out again into the mountains and the tombs. Mark 5:5. crying, and cutting himself.—In the statement that he was "always, night and day," crying, and cutting himself with stones, the term "always" is explained by the expression "night and day:" he was there not merely all the day, but all through the night. His extreme wretchedness is accounted for in part, no doubt, by the struggle of the natural spirit to throw off the burden of the foreign spirits which possessed it, and in part by the unspeakable misery of these foreign spirits themselves. Certain it is that a wretchedness comparable only to that of wicked spirits in perdition, possessed the unfortunate man, and made hideous both the night and the day on that lonely mountain. Let the sinner listen to that cry, and learn what it is to be under the dominion of Satan. Mark 5:6. and worshiped him.—Worshiped him in attitude only, by falling prostrate at his feet. (For the reason of this, see above on verse 2.) Mark 5:7. cried with a loud voice.—In quoting the words of this outcry, Mark omits the question quoted by Matthew, "Art thou come to torment us before the time?" and he adds what Matthew omits, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou torment us not." (Comp. Matthew 8:29.) Doubtless both remarks were made, and in the order in which we have placed them: first, "Art thou come to torment us before the time?" and then, without waiting for an answer, "I adjure thee by the living God that thou torment me not." Mark 5:8. For he said unto him.—The fact that Jesus said, "Come out of the man, thou unclean spirit," is given as the reason why the demon entreated Jesus not to torment him; and this implies that the command to come out was given before the outcry. The flattery and fawning of the demons, then (see note on verse 2), had been met by a prompt command to come out of the man, and had therefore failed of its purpose. It is further evident from the connection between the command and the outcry, that the demon considered it a torment to be driven out. His position in the man's person was a comparative relief from the torment which be experienced when utterly disembodied. Mark 5:9. What is thy name?—This question naturally followed the entreaty of the demon. The case was so unusual that Jesus chose to develop it to the multitude, before commanding the demon into silence. The answer, "My name is legion, for we are many," at once brought out the fact that not a single demon, but a multitude of them, had possession of the man. A legion was a division of the Roman army, composed, when full, of six thousand men, but varying in number, like the brigades of a modern army, according to losses experienced in the service. The amazing fact is therefore developed in this case, that some thousands of evil spirits had crowded into this one unfortunate man. Their statement on this point is confirmed by the fact, that when they left the man they entered into the bodies of two thousand hogs. (Verse 13.) Mark 5:10. he besought him.—Even after developing the fact that a legion of evil spirits were speaking, Mark still uses the singular number, doubtless on account of the fact that there was but one voice and one man through whose mouth they found utterance. The entreaty which they had begun when first commanded to come out of the man, is here continued, but the form of the request is, "that he would not send them away out of the country." Luke has it, "that he would not command them to go out into the deep" (βυσσος), the abyss. The abyss, rendered "the bottomless pit" in Revelation 9:1-2 Revelation 9:11, and in other places, was their proper abode. To be expelled from a man, under ordinary circumstances, was to be driven back into this abode, and consequently, to be sent away "out of the country." How they had managed to escape from the abyss and get into this man, is one of the unsolved mysteries of the spirit world. Knowing so little as we do of that world, we need not be surprised that we know not this. Mark 5:11-13. he gave them leave.—After beseeching Jesus not to send them away out of the country, the demons besought him for permission to go into the swine, showing that in the bodies of these brutes they hoped to be less wretched than in the abyss. That he gave them leave, and thus permitted the destruction of so much property, is an isolated fact in the career of Jesus. The only instance approaching it is the blasting of the fig-tree, but it was a barren tree which cumbered the ground. He doubtless justified himself on the ground that the hog was an unclean animal according to the law; that the Jews who owned and those who herded them were engaged in an unlawful business; and that the loss of the property was a righteous retribution for their evil conduct. the herd ran.—The demons could not control the hogs as they did the man. Phrensied by their presence, as the man had been, they rushed madly forward, and their heads being toward the lake, into it they rushed and were drowned. The death of the swine expelled the demons, and thus at last they were forced back into the abyss. Mark 5:14. they that fed the swine.—The country was unfenced, and all kinds of stock were guarded by herdsmen. The swineherds had heard the outcry of the fierce demoniac as he ran to meet Jesus, and had watched with interest all that was done (Matthew 8:33); but when they saw that the demoniac had no sooner been quieted than their own hogs were seized with the phrensy which had left him and ran grunting and squealing down the precipice, they concluded it was time for them to leave. They took to their heels, some flying to the city, and some to the country, and told every body what had happened. As a matter of course, the people "went out to see what it was that was done." Mark 5:15. sitting, and clothed.—Hitherto the demoniac had not worn any clothing (Luke 8:27), and he had been almost constantly in motion. Now he is sitting still; they have put clothes on him which he is wearing quietly; and he is in his right mind. The remark that he was "in his right mind," implies that he had been insane, as he certainly had been: but this detracts nothing from the reality of demon possession; it only shows that the presence of a foreign spirit within a man disturbed, as from the nature of the case it must, the normal workings of his own spirit. Mark 5:16-17. to pray him to depart.—The people were afraid of Jesus (verse 15), being filled with awe in the presence of his miraculous power. They knew not how soon the power which had delivered the man and destroyed the demons might be visited on them for their many sins, and therefore his presence was painful to them. They were somewhat in the condition of guilty Felix when he said to Paul, "Go thy way for this time: when I have a convenient season I will call for thee;" but unlike the unfortunate Roman governor, they subsequently became more favorably acquainted with Jesus. (See Mark 7:31-37.) Mark 5:18. that he might be with him.—Very different were the feelings of the man who had been delivered from so great a death. If Jesus should leave him he knew not how soon the legion of demons might again possess him; so, like a little child who has awakened from a terrific dream, and cries for the presence of its mother, he begs Jesus for permission to "be with him." Thus it is with every true disciple: having been delivered by Jesus from the power of Satan, he knows no safety except in keeping close to the side of his Redeemer. Mark 5:19-20. Go... and tell.—Jesus here departs from his usual custom, and, instead of forbidding this man to tell what had been done, commands him to go and tell it. This was because he was about to depart from that region, leaving only this one proof of his power among that people, and avoiding the possibility of their gathering about him in superexcited multitudes. As the man went preaching, both the power and the compassion of Jesus were made known, and the people who had been frightened by the former were reassured by the latter. The man's preaching, moreover, had the greater effect, because he was remembered as the demoniac who made hideous the mountains and burial-places about the lakeshore, and he was himself a monument of the power and compassion which he proclaimed. We leave this most interesting piece of history, one of the most suggestive, and one of the most carefully described of all the incidents recorded by Mark, with a feeling of thankfulness for the large amount of light which it throws on a very obscure subject. The Ruler's Daughter, and the Bloody Issue, Mark 5:21-43. (Matthew 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56) Mark 5:21. when Jesus was passed over.—From the southeastern shore of the lake, where the legion of demons was cast out, Jesus passed over "to the other side;" or, as Matthew more definitely expresses it, "to his own city," which was Capernaum. (Matthew 9:1.) Matthew follows his account of this voyage with that of the healing of the paralytic, the call of Matthew, and the conversation about fasting; and states that, "While he spoke these things to them"— that is, the things about fasting— "a certain ruler came to him," etc. (Matthew 9:1-18.) Mark, having already mentioned these incidents in a different connection (2:1-22), omits them here, and passes immediately to the coming of the ruler, and, according to his usual method, he gives us the name of the ruler— Jairus. Mark 5:22. fell at his feet.—This explains Matthew's statement, that "he worshiped him." He rendered homage to Jesus by falling at his feet. This was a lowly act for a ruler of a synagogue in the presence of the Man of Nazareth. But the ruler was now in trouble, and trouble often brings men to their senses. Mark 5:23. My little daughter.— More exact than Matthew's report, which simply says, "My daughter." She was twelve years of age. (Verse 42.) at the point of death.—Matthew reports him as saying, "even now dead." (Matthew 9:18.) The two reports are not at all inconsistent, but each writer, as in so many other places, reports a part only of what was said. The man made both remarks: "My little daughter is at the point of death. She is even now dead." The latter remark proved not to be strictly true, but he supposed it was; for he left her in a dying condition, and she was dead when they got back to the house. Mark 5:25-26. a certain woman.—The condition of this woman, including the long duration of her affliction, the vain efforts of many physicians to heal her, and the fact that she grew worse rather than better, is described, in order to show that her instantaneous cure by Jesus was an unmistakable and a very surprising miracle. Mark 5:27-29. If I may touch.—Her faith in his power is shown by this remark which she made to herself, "If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole." She seems to have been led to this conclusion by what she had "heard of Jesus" (verse 27), rather than by what she had seen; and her ready faith received a rich reward when, upon touching his garment, she felt the thrill of health and vigor pass through her frame. Mark 5:30. that virtue had gone out.—Not till the moment that the cure was effected did Jesus know what the woman was doing; and it seems that the virtue went out from him without any volition on his part. The heavenly Father was observing the woman, and caused virtue to go out from the Son to reward her implicit faith. Mark 5:31. Thou seest the multitude.—It was strange to the disciples that he should ask, "Who touched me?" when the multitude were thronging him, and many were touching him every moment. They knew not the peculiar touch to which he referred. Mark 5:33. fearing and trembling.—The manner of Jesus as he demanded, "Who touched my clothes?" together with the well known fact that the touch of a person in her condition rendered one unclean (Leviticus 15:19-25), caused her to fear that she had given a serious offense. For a moment the joy she felt in recovery was clouded by apprehension in regard to the means which she had employed; but instead of running away as with stolen treasure, she humbly "fell down before him and told him all the truth." Mark 5:34. faith hath made thee whole.—The way in which her faith had made her whole is very apparent, and it illustrates the manner in which faith saves us from sin. It caused her to force her way through the crowd until she could touch the garment of him from whom the deliverance was to tome. Had she stopped short of this, her faith would not have made her whole. In like manner faith saves the sinner, not by the mere fact that he believes, but by that which it leads him to do. It brings him through the pangs of sorrow, and the deep resolve of repentance, to the public confession of Jesus and baptism into his name, and thus, by bringing him in the appointed way to Jesus who saves, it saves him. Mark 5:35-36. Be not afraid.—When the messengers from the house of the ruler, which they were still approaching, announced to him that his daughter was dead, they showed their despair by asking him, "Why troublest thou the Master any further?" The worst fears of Jairus were now realized, and he showed it in his countenance, if not by some word or action; but the reassuring words of Jesus, "Be not afraid, only believe," sustained his hope. This remark of the Savior points out the antagonism between faith and fear. To believe is to be not afraid; there is no man so fear less as the man of faith. Mark 5:37. no man to follow him.—That is, into the house. The multitude who thronged him, and all of the twelve except the chosen three so often chosen for special privileges, were commanded to remain outside. This was to prevent the house from being overrun by a curious and excited crowd, and also to secure the fullest opportunity for the chosen witnesses to see clearly what was done. Mark 5:38-39. Why make ye this ado.— The gush of sorrow which followed the last breath of the little sufferer was now filling the house, and the confusion was unsuited to the calm and solemn act which Jesus was about to perform; hence his rebuke of those that "wept and wailed," and his attempt to quiet them by the assertion, "The damsel is not dead, but sleepeth." This last remark was justifiable because he intended to turn this death into a momentary sleep. (Comp. note on Matthew 9:24.) Mark 5:40. put them all out.—Out of the house. As they "laughed him to scorn," or, more properly, ridiculed him, for they were in no mood for laughing, he could secure the quiet which he desired only by removing them from the house. When thus removed, it is probable that their curiosity so far overcame their grief, that they waited silently to see what would be done. he taketh the father—Just live persons were permitted to go with him into the room where the dead lay— the father and mother of the child, and the three chosen disciples. This was to guard against misconceptions and false reports. If the room had been crowded with an excited mass of men and women, only a few could have seen clearly what was done, or could have heard distinctly what was said; and, as a consequence, many incorrect stories might have gone abroad. But with only five besides himself, all could stand about the bed in full view of the damsel, all confusion was avoided, and a correct report from the lips of each one present was secured. Mark 5:41-42. with a great astonishment.—When the child was seen alive and well, walking and eating, the derision of the mourners and the incredulity of the messengers were turned into astonishment. The astonishment was great in proportion to the previous incredulity, and to the novelty of the event itself; for this was the first person whom Jesus had raised from the dead. No doubt, at the final resurrection of all the dead, those most astonished will be those who in life have "laughed to scorn" the promise of Jesus that "all who are in their graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and shall come forth."Mark 5:43. that no man should know it.—That is, no man except those of the multitude who were present. It was not to be expected that all, or even any of them, would be entirely silent in reference to the event, but this charge would have a restraining influence, and would prevent much of the popular excitement which might otherwise result. It is remarkable that we read not of a single instance in which Jesus was requested to raise the dead: and the fact may be accounted for in part by this charge of privacy, indicating that he did not wish to be importuned for this exercise of his power. something... to eat.—Her frame had doubtless been wasted away by sickness, and, though restored to life, was still emaciated. It was now to be reinvigorated by natural means, and these were promptly employed by the command of Jesus. Miraculous aid is given only where it alone can effect the divine purpose. Argument of Section 5The argument of this section is the same as that of the corresponding section in Matthew. (See Matthew 8:1 to Matthew 9:35.) It proves the divine power of Jesus by showing that he could control by a word the winds and the waves of the sea; could direct and compel the movements of demons; could by his touch remove incurable diseases; and could instantly raise the dead. In other words, it proves the sufficiency of his power to save to the uttermost all who come to him, by proving that all the dangers to which we are exposed, whether from the forces of the physical world, the malice of evil spirits, the power of disease, or the hand of death, may be averted at his command, and that they will be in behalf of all who put themselves under his protection. A very marked distinction is observable between Mark's treatment of this argument, and that adopted by Matthew. The latter presents an array of ten miracles without much elaboration of any one of them; the former selects four out of the ten, and devotes almost as much space to these as Matthew does to the ten. The one writer depends more on the number of miracles reported, and the other on the character of those selected and on the minuteness with which they are described. Each mode of treatment has its advantages, and the wisdom of God is displayed in giving us both. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 51. What sea is meant in first verse? 2. Into what country did they come ? 3. Who greeted Jesus upon his landing? 4. Where did he dwell? 5. State his leading characteristics. 7. State how he passed his time. 8. How did he greet Jesus? 9. State his recognition of Jesus. 10. For what did he pray ? 11. What prompted this request? 12. Give meaning of his name. 13. State next request of the spirit. 14. How was it fulfilled? 15. With what result? 16. How many were there? 17. State the effect on the swineherds. 18. Who came out to see? 19. What did they behold? 20. Tell what they begged Jesus to do. 21. Who desired to be with Jesus? 22. Instead what was he told to do ? 23. Upon this what did he do? 24. How were people affected? 25. To what place did Jesus again pass? 26. What is said about a gathering? 27. How think this could be him? 28. State his trouble. 29. How did he express his faith ? 30. On the way who came in contact with him? 31. How long had she been afflicted? 32. In what way did she contact him ? 33. State the result. 34. What did Jesus perceive? 35. State what he did. 36. How did the disciples view this question? 37. What intimidated the woman? 38. State her conduct. 39. What had made her whole? 40. Tell what he bade her do. 41. What news was now brought from J aims’ home 42. Tell what suggestion was made. 43. On what idea would such suggestion rest? 44. State the reassuring words of Jesus. 45. Who alone were suffered to follow Jesus? 46. Upon arrival what did Jesus find? 47. Repeat his statement to them. 48. What error caused their reaction to this ? 49. State what Jesus did. 50. Who were permitted to witness the work ? 51. How did the damsel respond ? 52. What charge did Jesus give them? 53. Repeat the command he gave them. 1 Gadarenes (also called Ger-gesenes) was situated near the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and it was there that Jesus went ashore. 2. The tombs were caves in the rocks that were used for the burial of the dead. They were generally open so that persons could enter and leave them as occasion suggested. It was at this kind of place that the Lord met the man with an unclean spirit. 3 No man could bind him. The effect of being possessed with an unclean spirit (devil) was not always the same. Sometimes it produced great prostration, at others it caused insanity, and in the present case it brought abnormal strength together with manifestations of insanity at times. 4 Attempts were made to bind this man but the chains would not hold. No man could tame him means he could not be subdued because of his strength. 5 This shows that he was not only unnaturally strong, but he was vicious and wild and showing the traits of an insane man. 6 However, it was the outward or human part of this creature that was performing the things described and that was because he was possessed of this devil and had to do as the evil spirit directed him. The devil himself was perfectly intelligent, for he caused the man to run and meet Jesus and perform some act of respect that is called worship. (See the note on that subject at Matthew 2:2.) 7 What have I to do with thee is the same as asking Jesus what he is about to do. To adjure means to put a person under oath, which would be an unauthorized act on the part of the devil. The demand was that Jesus would not torment him. 8This verse explains the demand of the preceding verse. If the devil is required to leave the man he may have to return to his former place in Hades which would mean the torment that he adjured Jesus not to inflict upon him. 9 The pronouns he and we are not the same in grammatical number. That is because one devil was the spokesman for the others. It is orderly for one or more beings interested in the same thing to let one do the talking. The apostles observed that practice according to Matthew 17:4; Acts 2:14. 0 Speaking on behalf of the other devils, he requested Jesus not to send them out of the country. That was the main point of interest, not so much the idea of remaining in the man. (See the comments on verse 8.) 1 The swine was one of the unclean beasts under the law of the Jews, but we do not know whether they were interested in them commercially or not. 2 All the devils besought denotes the same thought set forth in verse 9 concerning a spokesman who represented the others. 3 The devils did not gain any advantage by entering the swine, but Jesus granted their request without volunteering any information. Whether they were suffered to enter other human beings or had to return to their former place in Hades we are not told. 4 The feeders saw what the swine did, but the text does not state if they knew what caused it. What happened when the people came out afterward, however, shows that they understood that Jesus had something to do with it. 5 The mentioning of seeing Jesus and the man at the same time indicates the people connected Jesus with the whole event. They were afraid. This man had defied all attempts to subdue him even with a chain, now he was seen sitting quietly and in his right mind. The situation was so, overwhelming that it filled the people with terror and confusion. 6 The feeders explained what was done and what happened to the swine. 7 No harm had been done to the unfortunate man, hence the only conclusion possible is they were afraid some more of them would lose their swine. 8. It was natural for the man to make such a request as this verse states. 9 Jesus had more important things for the man to do, and that was to tell the good news to his friends. He was to relate it in connection with the thought that the Lord had com-passion on him. 0 Decapolis was a district east of the Jordan, and it was in that region that the grateful man spread the news of his recovery which caused the crowd to gather. 1 Jesus returned to the western shore of Galilee, and, as usual, the crowds began to gather about him, doubtless with various motives. 2. Ruler is from ARCHI-, and Thayer's explanation is, "It was his duty to select the readers or teachers in the synagogue, to examine the discourses of the public speakers, and to see that all things were done with decency and in accordance with ancestral usage." Fell at his feet manifested great respect and much anxiety. 3 The simple ceremony of laying his hands on the daughter would not have been necessary had Jesus seen fit to accomplish the cure without it, but the request was the ruler's way of indicating his faith in the great Healer. 4 It was nothing unusual for the crowds to follow Jesus, but the statement is added that they thronged him. That is an introduction to the event that is to follow soon, especially as to certain parts of it. 5. This woman was afflicted with a chronic hemorrhage of 12 years' standing. 6. This verse is one of the passages that are perverted into meaning just the opposite of their real teaching. The woman had grown worse in spite of her being treated by physicians. The fact is used by many "drugless healers" to prove that physicians are useless, even though Jesus said in Matthew 9:12 that the sick need a physician. But the very statement that this woman had not been benefited by the physicians is proof that others had been helped by them. 7 This woman touched the garment of Jesus on the same principle that the ruler wanted him to touch the body of his daughter. 8 For she said means that she said it to herself. 9 The woman obtained the relief she sought and it was straightway. That was the manner of miraculous cures and not a requirement that much time be given as in the case of the fraudulent "faith-cure" workers of today. 0 Virtue is from DUNAMIS and is one of the words for "power." It says that Jesus knew of the virtue going out of him, not that he felt the loss of the power. He knew it because he had divine knowledge of what was being done. His question was for a test of the woman, but the disciples thought it was for information. 1 Thou seest the multitude means that the whole crowd was touching him (see the comment on verse 24), and it seemed strange to them to ask such a question. 2 Jesus was continuing his test of the woman's trust in him. 3 The woman thought she had unintentionally committed some wrong. She came trembling and prostrate before Jesus and told him the truth. 4 The statement Jesus made to the woman denotes that it was not the contact with the garment that, cured her, but the faith that was manifested by the act. Go in peace was said to assure her that she had not done anything wrong. 5 One miracle is no harder to perform than another but these people thought there was a difference. There are some things the Lord cannot do because they are not right, but no miracle is impossible merely because it is too hard. 6 Jesus overheard the word that was brought to the ruler, and he gave him an assurance of favor if he continued to have faith. 7 The group had neared the ruler's house when the message of death was brought. Jesus stopped the crowd at that place and permitted the trio of apostles to accompany him, the same ones specified on other occasions (Matthew 17:1; Matthew 26:37). 8 When Jesus arrived at the house a tumultuous crowd had gathered and the people were weeping and wailing as was the custom upon a death in a home. 9 Not dead, but sleepeth. This is figurative language, and the reader is cited to the comments on this subject at Matthew 9:24. 0 They laughed at Jesus because they did not understand the two kinds of language. No reason is stated for putting the group out of the house, but it was appropriate to treat the people so in view of the hasty and undignified attitude they showed toward Jesus. He then took the parents of the girl, together with the three apostles, and entered the room where the body lay. 1 Jesus took the damsel by the hand because it was his 'plan in this case. However, that fact alone was not the power that was to bring the dead to life, otherwise any man could bring a dead person to life again. 2 The girl was twelve years old and hence was able naturally to walk after her illness was gone. The astonishment was caused by the fact that a dead person had been brought back to life. 3 The Lord permitted Mark to record this case in his Gospel, hence there was nothing wrong in the case being known. But it was the practice of Jesus to be humble and not glory over his miraculous deeds, so he gave instructions frequently that people should not spread the report of what they had received. Verse 1 Events related in Mark 6 are: (1) rejection of Jesus at Nazareth (Mark 6:1-6); (2) sending forth of the Twelve (Mark 6:7-13); (3) the beheading of John the Baptist (Mark 6:14-29); (4) the feeding of the five thousand (Mark 6:30-44); (5) walking on the sea (Mark 6:45-52); and (6) preaching and healing in Gennesaret (Mark 6:53-56). JESUS AT And he went out from thence: and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him. (Mark 6:1) His own country ... refers to Nazareth, located some fifteen miles from Capernaum. That was the home of Joseph and Mary; there Jesus grew up; and from its name the Lord came to be called a "Nazarene" (Matthew 2:23; Mark 1:24). "It derives its celebrity from its connection with the history of Christ.[1] Mark did not name Nazareth in this verse but used a more general term, "his own country," thus including numerous villages throughout the area (Mark 6:6). His disciples follow him ... This indicates that the Twelve accompanied Jesus and contrasts with only three of them witnessing the raising of Jairus' daughter (Mark 5:37). ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company. 1970), p. 138. Verse 2 And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands?This man ... as sneeringly repeated by the villagers was derogatory. "There is a contemptuous tone about the expression."[2] The citizens of the Lord's home town despised him because he was one of themselves. Having no conception of their own value as human beings, they made their own guilty unworthiness the basis of rejecting the Lord. The light of all ages shone in their dark streets, but they were blind to it. (See full discussion of the phenomenon of Nazareth's unbelief in my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 207-210). This was the second rejection of Jesus at Nazareth, the first being recorded in Luke 4:15 ff. Matthew 13:54-58 is parallel to this account of the second rejection. ENDNOTE: [2] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, 5:243. Verse 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.The carpenter ... From this it is clear that our Lord was himself a carpenter, as was Joseph; and we reject the allegation that Matthew "softened" this by recording "carpenter's son," as if the latter was in some manner more complimentary to Jesus than the fact of his being a carpenter. The snobbery of the critics in such a view shows. As a matter of fact, Mark's words here contain elements which actually add to the glory of Jesus' name. As Barclay noted: The word used for "carpenter" is [@tekton], meaning not a mere worker in wood. It means "a craftsman", more than merely a joiner. In Homer the [@tekton] is said to build ships and houses and temples.[3]The English, word "technician" comes from the same root; thus the villagers' slur unintentionally glorified Jesus as the Master Workman. Chrysostom said that our Lord made plows and yokes, and certainly Jesus referred to both in his teachings (Luke 9:62; Matthew 11:29). As Barclay said, "They despised Jesus because he was a working man."[4] In this attitude, the citizens of Nazareth were guilty; but they were not any more guilty than the scholars who suppose that Matthew tried to cover up the scandal that Jesus was a carpenter. The imputation of such an attitude to Matthew is an anachronism in which the current prejudice against people who work with their hands is retrogressively attributed to the holy apostle of Jesus Christ. Jesus was both a carpenter and the son of a carpenter, being, of course, the legal son of Joseph. The true reason for Mark's reference to "carpenter," as distinguished from Matthew's "son of a carpenter," lies in the obvious fact that the villagers freely gossiped about the Lord, using both expressions; and Mark, writing in 65-70 A.D., at a time when Joseph was dead, and having omitted from his narrative the record of the virgin birth of our Lord, consciously selected the particular form of the villagers' gossip which could not have been construed as a denial of that essential tenet of Christianity. Matthew, on the other hand, writing at a much earlier date than Mark (44 A.D.), and having fully spelled out the particulars of the virgin birth, and having also as his objective the establishment of Jesus' right of kingship over Israel (a right that depended upon his legal sonship of Joseph) found it more natural to record the common gossip of Nazareth in its other form. There is no way to deny that the gossip existed in both forms as recorded by Mark and Matthew. The son of Mary ... To solve the problem of this reference by supposing the villagers thought Jesus was "illegitimate"[5] is ridiculous, there being no true evidence that they ever made such a charge; they also called him "the carpenter's son" on this very occasion (Matthew 13:55). Matthew recorded the villagers' mention of BOTH his parents (as they supposed). Mark's record of only this part of their gossip was in all probability for the purpose of stressing the virgin birth. Even if there had been some intended reflection on the legitimacy of Jesus by the villagers, which we cannot see at all, then it would only mean that the wrath of man was praising God; for Jesus WAS the "Son of Mary," the promised "seed of woman" (Genesis 3:15). Likewise, Cranfield saw this as "an important piece of evidence in support of the historicity of the virgin birth."[6]Brother of James, and Joses, etc. ... The natural way of understanding this is as a reference to the actual brothers of Jesus, sons of Joseph and Mary after Jesus was born. Devices such as making these the sons of Joseph by a previous marriage, or the "cousins" of Jesus, are mistaken efforts to sustain the myth regarding the "perpetual virginity of Mary," the latter being unscriptural and even anti-Scriptural. Christ was the "first-born" son of Mary (Luke 2:7) and "the only begotten Son of God." Why "first-born" if she had no other children? As Halley said, "There would never have been any other meaning read into these passages, except for the desire to exalt celibacy as a holier form of life."[7]His sisters ... Matthew recorded, "Are they not all with us?" And from this it is clear that there were at least three sisters of Jesus. The word "all" could not have referred to just two. And they were offended in him ... They rejected Jesus as being any more wise or able than themselves, the judgment being a moral one rather than an intellectual one. As is always true, it was their sins which blinded their eyes to the Lord (John 3:17-19). [3] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 138. [4] Ibid. [5] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p 76. [6] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), p. 195. [7] Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 383. Verse 4 And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.The unwillingness of any community to see one of themselves exalted is due to natural jealousies and animosities. A Major General in the United States Air Force was overhead to say, "I may be a General to Uncle Sam, but I am just a buck private at home!" Verse 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marveled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching.He could do no mighty work ... This speaks not of physical but of moral impossibility."[8] As Alford said, "It was our Lord's practice to require faith in the recipient of aid, and that being wanting, the help could not be given."[9] The unbelief of Nazareth was so dense and malignant that Jesus "could not" in harmony with his divine principles do a mighty work among them; and yet it should not be overlooked that even these were given more than sufficient reason to believe in him if they had willed to do so. Mark does not here deprecate the instances of healing cited, but contrasts them with what might have been done in a more favorable atmosphere. "Their prejudice kept them from hearty faith in him"[10] "The men of Nazareth had sufficient evidence, and a greater amount of evidence would only have increased their condemnation."[11][8] John D. Haley, Discrepancies of the Bible (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 110. [9] Ibid., p. 111. [10] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 141. [11] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 244. Verse 7 And he calleth unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits.SENDING FORTH THE TWELVETo associate this action of Jesus with any earthly kingdom idea is wrong; it was merely part of the training of the apostles for the effective discharge of their duties after the resurrection and Pentecost. It was an effective means of acquainting more people with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Over unclean spirits ... The apostles, like the seventy (some early manuscripts have 72) sent out later, exercised this great authority over evil spirits (Luke 10:17-20), thus receiving a divine confirmation of the truth they preached. Two by two ... is a wise arrangement for such workers now, as it was then; for this enables the two to draw encouragement and support from each other and to reduce the number of temptations. Verse 8 And he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet, no money in their purse; but to go shod with sandals: and, said he, put not on two coats.The parallel accounts (Matthew 10:5-15; Luke 10:4-11) provide another pseudocon, inasmuch as Matthew said, "Get you no staff," whereas Mark's account plainly allowed one to be carried, with Luke agreeing with Matthew, "no staff." McMillan called this a "discrepancy."[12] But if we take Luke's reference as meaning that the purchase or procurement of a staff was the meaning of the Saviour's instruction, as is clearly the case in Matthew, and as might reasonably be inferred from its appearance in a list of things one would usually buy in anticipation of a journey, the discrepancy disappears. We agree with the more ancient authorities on this place which state that "They were not to go to the pains of getting one if not supplied already; they were not to trouble themselves about preparation, even so little as that."[13]"The language implies that a staff was optional; they were not to bother about getting a staff, if one was not at hand."[14] That a staff was allowed (though not the purchase of one) is clear from Mark's account. [12] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 78. [13] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge: The Judson Press, 1881), p. 85. [14] J. J. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: Southern Baptist Convention, 1911), p. 83. Verse 10 And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart thence.This instruction was to avoid giving offense by leaving one house or hospitality for another in the same community. Any "shopping around" for more comfortable quarters was forbidden. Verse 11 And whatsoever place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth from thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony unto them.The shaking off of dust against unreceptive places was an action commanded for the seventy (or, 72, as some of the earliest manuscripts have) also (Luke 10:10-11), it partook of the nature of a formal judgment against a community. It showed that the holy messengers had faithfully discharged their commission, but that God's message had been rejected. The apostles followed this same procedure on the first missionary journey of Paul (Acts 13:51). Verse 12 And they went out and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.Men should repent ... The mission of the apostles was not merely one of healing but of preaching repentance. As Dorris said, "Repentance is a thing for a man to do, not something he gets; it is a command, not a promise."[15] in the stress laid upon repentance, their preaching was akin to that of John the Baptist and of the Saviour himself (Mark 1:15). Cranfield properly noted that the mission of the Twelve "was merely an extension of the teaching ministry, included because Mark knew that it occurred and that it had a relevance for later Christian missions."[16]And anointed with oil ... There was a difference in the healing done by the apostles, in that they anointed with oil, an action nowhere mentioned in connection with the miracles of our Lord. Bickersteth suggested that the oil was significant of God's mercy, of spiritual comfort and joy, "the oil of gladness."[17] However, there is no way this action of the apostles can be made to support the so-called sacrament of extreme unction. The people in view here got well at once! Extreme unction, always administered by its advocates when the patient is in the act of death, has no resemblance to what occurred here. [15] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 148. [16] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 203. [17] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 245. Verse 14 And king Herod heard thereof; for his name had become known: and he said, John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.THE OF JOHN THE BAPTISTKing Herod ... Of this despot, Sanner said: Herod Antipas (popularly called king) was tetrarch (literally, one who rules the fourth part of a domain) of Galilee and Perea from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. His reign thus spanned the life and public ministry of Jesus: From a family characterized by intrigue and violence, "he appears as a sensual, cunning, capricious, cruel, weak, unscrupulous, superstitious, despotic prince (Matthew 14:9; Luke 3:19; Luke 13:31-32)."[18]It may well be doubted that this Herod believed in the resurrection of the dead; but a guilty conscience is a strong persuader, and his fearfully guilty heart shuddered at the thought that perhaps our Lord was a reincarnation of John the Baptist. Herod Antipas may have believed, erroneously, in the transmigration of souls. At that particular time, according to Bickersteth, "The views of Pythagoras respecting the transmigration of souls were current and probably influenced the troubled mind of Herod."[19] Such doctrines were rejected by Christ and the apostles. Paul's mention of "the body" (2 Corinthians 5:10) opposes the idea of the soul's having a succession of "bodies." [18] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 320. [19] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 245. Verse 15 But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets. But Herod when he heard thereof, said, John, whom I have beheaded, he is risen.The independence of the sacred narratives is conspicuously evident in this passage which has elements similar to Matthew 16:13-14. In that passage, the apostles responded to Jesus' question by saying that people were saying that he was John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. Here the same information is given in a completely different context. There it featured a private interview with Jesus' disciples. Here it was a topic discussed in the presence of Herod. See also underMark 6:14. Verse 17 For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife; for he had married her.Part of the sordid history of the Herods comes to view in this verse. A more particular look at the principal actors in this sad affair is in order. HEROD ANTIPASHe was the son of Herod the Great by the Samaritan Malthace, and a full brother of Herod Archelaus. He received as his share of his father's dominion the provinces of Galilee and Perea with the title of tetrarch, but he was popularly called "king." He reigned from 4 B.C. to 39 A.D. He founded Tiberias on the western shore of Galilee. This is the ruler that Jesus referred to as "that fox" (Luke 13:32); and it was to him that Pilate sent Jesus during the trials prior to the crucifixion. His first marriage was to a daughter of Aretas, the Arabian king; but on a visit to Rome he met Herodias his brother's wife (Philip, not the tetrarch), whom he seduced and married. The outrage of this union was compounded by the element of incest. Aretas took vengeance upon Herod by defeating him in a war. Herod applied to Caesar for a crown but was banished to Lugdunum, in which exile Herodias shared.[20]This woman was a daughter of Herod I's son, Aristobulus. She first married her uncle Philip who was living as a private citizen in Rome, and by him she had Salome. When Herod Antipas was visiting in Rome, she left Philip and married his brother Herod Antipas.[22] She was a woman of ruthless ambition, no moral restraint, utter selfishness, and implacable hatred of anyone who dared to question her conduct. When John the Baptist denounced her marriage, she never rested until she had his head on a platter. The picture of her that emerges in the sacred text is one of lust, cruelty, and uninhibited evil. SALOMEHerod the Great had five wives, two of them named Mariamne, and two sons named Philip, one of whom was born of Cleopatra of Jerusalem and became a tetrarch. This Philip married Salome, who as the daughter of Herodias was his niece and his grand-niece at the same time. As Barclay said, "Seldom in history can there have been such a series of matrimonial entanglements as existed in the Herod family."[23] No less than ten members of the Herodian dynasty are mentioned in the New Testament, their names recurring in it like a sour note in a symphony. See below for a list of these. One can have little regard for the opinions of some who question the accuracy of Mark on the premise that a royal princess would not have performed such a dance as that attributed to Salome. Such opinions are founded in ignorance of the typical conduct of the Herods. As Barclay wrote: The daughter of Herodias danced ... the fact that she did so at all is an incredible thing. Solo dances in that society were disgusting and licentious pantomimes ... such dances being the art of professional prostitutes. That she did so dance is a grim commentary on the character of Salome, and of the mother who allowed and encouraged her to do it.[24]THE HERODS IN THE NEW Herod the Great, the ruler when Jesus was born. Herod Antipas, the Herod of this passage in Mark. Herod Archelaus (Herod the Great's son by Malthace) (Matthew 2:22; Luke 19:12-17). Herod Philip I, called Herod by Josephus and Philip in the New Testament, distinguished from Philip the tetrarch of Ituria and Trachonitis. This Philip was son of Herod the Great by the second Mariamne, married Herodias who left him for Herod Antipas. Herod Philip II, known as Philip the tetrarch, was son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Luke 3:1). He was the best of the Herods. Herodias. See the notes above. Herod Agrippa I was the son of Aristobulus and Bernice and a grandson of Herod the Great. He lived in Rome and was a close friend of both Caligula and Claudius. When Caligula became emperor, he gave Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip who had died in 34 A.D.; and in 38 A.D. added the domain of Herod Antipas after the latter's banishment. In 41 A.D., in return for services given to Caligula, he received Judaea and Samaria with the title of king, thus ruling over the whole domain of Herod the Great. He persecuted the church ( Acts 12). Three of his posterity are mentioned in the New Testament: Herod Agrippa II, Bernice, and Drusilla. Herod Agrippa II. This prince became king under Nero and lived to the year 100 A.D. He sided with the Romans in the war which ended in the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. (Acts 25-26). He led (like practically all of his family) a vicious life. Bernice, sister of Herod Agrippa II (Acts 25:13). Drusilla, sister of Bernice (Acts 24:24). This evil family would have been little remembered except for their lives having touched those of the principal persons of the New Testament. A knowledge of what the Herods were sheds light upon the vicious actions recorded in the paragraph before us. It is not to be thought that John the Baptist had deliberately denounced the incestuous marriage of the dissolute Herod Antipas, the situation calling for such a denunciation having in all probability been set up and precipitated by the Pharisees. We know that they repeatedly tried to entangle the Lord in such difficulties without success; and, although the Scriptures record no such Pharisaical instigation in the downfall of John the Baptist, it may be assumed in the light of all they tried to do to Jesus. The ancient fortress of Machaerus east of the Dead Sea is usually cited as the place where John the Baptist was beheaded, Josephus having written that as the place. There is some doubt, however, that Josephus was correct in this, due to the fact that he also wrote that Herod's first wife, the daughter of Aretas, escaped to this fortress because it was in the power of her father, the king of Arabia. He outlined the intrigue by which Aretas' daughter, having secretly learned of Herod's intention of marrying Herodias, journeyed to Machaerus. Perhaps Josephus' apparent contradiction is resolved by supposing that the fortress, situated on the border, was controlled at one time by Herod, and at another time by Aretas. There is the further consideration that there does not seem to have been any great distance between the birthday festival of Herod and the prison where John was beheaded. Tiberius or Machaerus would either one have provided the combination of palace and fortress suggested by the New Testament narrative. [20] Encyclopedia Britannica, (Chicago: William Benton, Publishers, 1961), Vol. 11, p. 510. [22] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 151. [23] Ibid., p. 153. [24] Ibid. Verse 18 For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife.It is interesting that the greatest resentment against John's truthful denunciation of Herod's incestuous marriage came not from Herod but from Herodias. The fact of John's words being addressed directly to Herod does not rule out the possibility that Herod asked John about the validity of his marriage, no doubt hoping that John's sanction of it would make it more acceptable to the people. If such was the case, his vain hopes were shattered in the forthright, honest reply of the great herald, John the Baptist. There can be no doubt that John anticipated the fatal results to himself in such a reply; and one may only marvel at such courage and loyalty to the truth. As Jesus said, "Among them that are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Baptist" (Matthew 11:11). Verse 19 And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man; and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed; and he heard him gladly.Wicked as Herod was, there nevertheless remained in him a basic respect for holiness; and, seeing in John the sacred fire of holy zeal and the courage to speak God's truth in every circumstance, Herod respected and admired him, even listening willingly to his preaching. On the other hand, Herodias, full of hatred and wounded pride, determined to kill him. Turlington said, "The text is very vivid: `She had it in for him' and `was constantly seeking' his death."[25]ENDNOTE: [25] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 317. Verse 21 And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the high captains, and the chief men of Galilee; and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that eat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.Herod was not the first man, nor the last, to fall into great temptation at a festival. The cunning Herodias was ready with a plan to achieve her murderous purpose regarding the preacher who had refused to endorse her sin. She enlisted the aid of her own daughter for his entrapment, achieved her goal, and earned for herself everlasting infamy. The high captains ... These were the chiliarchs, commanders of one thousand men. The daughter of Herodias herself ... Her name was Salome, a royal princess, and her conduct on this occasion was not only licentious and immoral, but it was utterly unbecoming the royal dignity which she claimed. Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt ... Herod took the bait - hook, line and sinker - and at once found himself in a vicious trap from which there was no honorable recovery. Verse 23 And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom.This was the type of boastful, extravagant oath, characteristic of tyrants and despots of that era. Any person asking a gift large enough to embarrass such a monarch ordinarily found it fatal to do so; but the accepted code of that day, as it applied to such requests, required the king's compliance with the request if it lay within his power to give it without jeopardy to himself. Verse 24 And she went out and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptizer.When it is considered that Salome might have requested many things which could have been of great value to herself, and that her mother by this suggestion actually robbed her daughter of whatever benefit Herod might have bestowed upon her, all for the sake of venting her vicious hatred against John, the blindness and stupidity of evil are evident. Verse 25 And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.This request was so bizarre and erratic that men have found it hard to believe; and, because Josephus explained John's beheading as due to political considerations, critics have dared to accuse Mark of incorporating into his gospel "this legend." But it was no legend at all; this is what occurred. There had been no time, historically, for the development of any legend; and Josephus was notoriously inaccurate on many things. Besides that, Herod probably explained to the public his murder of John with some lying justification of it. Verse 26 And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her. And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.His oaths ... Turlington said, "The vows must have been given loudly under the influence of his drink and spurred on by the lustful delight of the feasters."[26] In any case, "oaths" in the text is plural, indicating that Herod had rashly multiplied his promises to the girl. This is indeed a sorry spectacle of what was called the court of a king. The environment of that shameful birthday party was such as adds support to words of Jerome that "Herodias thrust the tongue through with a bodkin."[27] The mutilated body was cast outside the walls of the prison and left neglected.[28]Bickersteth has the following with regard to God's judgment of the perpetrators of this atrocity: God's judgment at length found out Herod. He was defeated by Aretas in a great battle and put to ignominious flight. Herodias and Herod were banished by the Roman Senate to Lyons, where they both perished miserably. Salome fell into some treacherous ice over which she was passing, in such a manner that her head was caught while the rest of her body sank into the water. She perished when her head was (practically) severed by the sharp ice.[29][26] Ibid., p. 317. [27] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 246. [28] Ibid., [29] Ibid. Verse 29 And when his disciples heard thereof, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.The crafty hatred of Satan is evident in the sorrowful events which led to this capricious murder of John the Baptist. John was the herald of Christ and the coming kingdom of God, and the evil one succeeded in destroying both the herald and the Christ, as far as their lives on earth are concerned; but in the death of our Lord, there was to be a marvelous difference; because, in that event, it was the head of Satan that was crushed. THE FEEDING OF THE FIVE Immediately after the death of John the Baptist, and after the return of the Twelve, Jesus withdrew to the eastern side of Galilee, outside of Herod's jurisdiction. Matthew clearly indicated that the murder of John entered into Jesus' decision to withdraw east of Galilee (Matthew 14:13); and we cannot agree with Cranfield who thought "Matthew misunderstood Mark,"[30] as if there had to be only one reason why Jesus withdrew. The reasons for Christ's withdrawal were complex: (1) He and his disciples needed rest. (2) Jesus needed an opportunity to instruct the Twelve privately. (3) Herod was showing interest in Jesus, and that could have meant nothing but bad for the Lord. (4) And the murder of John made it an appropriate time to change the scene of his ministry. ENDNOTE: [30] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 213. Verse 30 And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whosoever they had taught. Luke said of this report that they "declared unto him what things they had done" (Luke 9:10); but Mark's account containing about twice as many words actually adds no information beyond what Luke has, because their teaching was surely included in what they had "done." It is the style in the current era to elaborate upon how much more complete and how many more vivid details are found in Mark than in the other gospels (the same being supposed to support the Markan theory); but a little later in this chapter, we shall make a comparison of the gospel accounts of the miracle about to be related, and the reader may judge for himself regarding the matter. See below. Verse 31 And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest awhile. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.One of the reasons for Jesus' actions was the need of rest and recuperation; but there were other pertinent reasons also. See under Mark 6:29. "Mark alone notes no less than eleven occasions on which Jesus retired from his work."[31] That our Lord was diligent to procure rest and refreshment for himself and the Twelve emphasizes the truth that utmost care should be taken to insure health in the service of God. Doing what is necessary to the maintenance of health is serving God. ENDNOTE: [31] Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1946), Vol. I, p. 175. Verse 32 And they went away in a boat to a desert place apart. And the people saw them going, and many knew them, and they ran together there on foot from all the cities, and outwent them.Such was the popularity of the Lord, that when the multitudes saw him and his disciples get into a boat to cross over to the other side, they simply ran around the northern extremity of the lake and come together at Bethsaida Julius on the northeastern shore, the same being an uninhabited area along the shore, a beautiful grassy slope beneath a bold headland overlooking the scene. Verse 34 And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.Not having a shepherd ... The wicked Pharisees were no true shepherds of the people; and the king (actually the tetrarch) had proved himself to be no better than a wild beast. The poor multitudes were untaught and uncared for by their leaders. No wonder Jesus had compassion upon them. Verse 35 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, This place is desert, and the day is now far spent.The apostles were concerned that evening was drawing to a close, and they anticipated a real problem regarding food for so many in such a place. It does not appear that they had the slightest idea what Jesus would do, despite the fact that the Lord had mentioned the problem to Philip considerably in advance of the crisis (John 6:5 f). Verse 36 Send them away, that they may go into the country and villages round about, and buy themselves somewhat to eat.Many times, in all ages, the Lord's disciples have proved to be no more able to solve difficult problems than were the Twelve on this occasion. "Send them away ..." This was their proposal, but the Lord had a far better solution. Verse 37 But he answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred shillings worth of bread, and give them to eat?Give ye them to eat ... The spiritual application of this is found in the command of Christ to "preach to the whole creation." Such a task appears as impossible to the church of today as the assignment to feed the multitude must have appeared to the apostles. They did it, however; and so can Christians fulfill their mission now. Two hundred shillings ... The money problem surfaced at once. A shilling was the equivalent of a day's wage in that economy; and the equivalent value in our society with a minimum hourly wage of $5.00, making a day's wage $40.00, would be $8,000, a sum the apostles considered utterly beyond them. Verse 38 And he saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.The synoptics did not mention the source of the small supply which came from a lad's lunch baskets, nor the fact that it was Andrew who brought them to Jesus. Verse 39 And he commanded them that all should sit down by companies upon the green grass.This verse is mentioned by many commentators as an example of the "more vivid detail" found in Mark; but where is it? Luke also mentioned their sitting "in companies"; Matthew mentioned the grass and the "women and children," who probably numbered in the thousands; and John alone related that the loaves were "barley loaves." A careful study of the gospels reveals that each of the sacred authors made invaluable contributions to our full understanding of what occurred. Is Mark's "green grass" any more vivid a detail than the "women and children"? Mark indeed supplied beautiful, vivid, and significant touches in his narrative; but so did they all. Verse 40 And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.It was a manifestation of the multitude's faith that they consented to arrange themselves, as if for a feast, at a time when no food was in sight. Verse 41 And he took the loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples to set before them all; and the two fishes divided he among them all.The miracle of multiplication in kind of the lad's meager store sufficiently for the feeding of a great multitude is an unqualified wonder; and the fact of its being recorded independently in all four gospels requires that it be received as history. Cranfield admitted what naturally appears to any Christian that "the rationalizing of this miracle is not satisfactory."[32] The most remarkable proof that what happened here was an event widely known to be authentic occurs in the efforts of the people to make him king immediately afterward. In fact, it appears from John's account that they actually had in view Christ's feeding of an entire army while they made war on the Romans! Fantastic as such a scheme was, the very existence of it proves that the people knew that Christ had the power to do such a thing. [32] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 226. Verse 42 And they all ate, and were filled. And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also of the fishes. And they that ate the loaves were five thousand men.We have already noted that each of the sacred writers added significant elements to make up the composite picture of what there took place. Unique to Matthew is the mention of Jesus' healing the sick, his command that the loaves and fishes be brought to himself, and his mention of the women and children. Unique to Mark is the mention of "green grass." Luke related how Jesus' command for the multitudes to sit down was relayed through the apostles; and John has a vast amount of detail not found in the synoptics. This great miracle, recorded in all four gospels, claims in that fact alone a tremendous weight of importance, ranking along with the resurrection of Christ itself as one of the most important events in the New Testament. The miracle, as independently recorded in the gospels, is such a deed as to require its attribution to supernatural power. It was motivated by the loving compassion of Jesus who pitied the shepherdless multitude. It precipitated a public effort to make Jesus king by force. It had overtones regarding the "bread of life" as recounted in John. It was connected in Luke with the great confession by the apostle Peter of "the Christ of God." It was the culmination of the great Galilean ministry. It is the type of wonder no charlatan could fake. It spoke eloquently of Jesus as "that prophet" like unto Moses who had fed the children of Israel in the wilderness with the bread that God gave. In this mighty deed, Christ's popularity reached its zenith; and the decline of it followed his refusal to allow the people to "use" him and his power to feed a rebellious army against Rome. Great as the wonder of the bread really was, it was but a shadow of the greater wonder of Christ himself who is the true bread that came down from God out of heaven. See this writer's exegesis on this miracle in the Commentary on Matthew and the Commentary on John. Verse 45 And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude away.WALKING ON THE LAKEConstrained his disciples ... These words take account of one of the most difficult situations that arose between Christ and his apostles. From John it is learned that the multitude had attempted to force Jesus into a declaration of himself as king, trying to make him king against his will, and by taking things into their own hands. It is altogether probable that the apostles were sympathetic toward such a move; and, if it had succeeded, the Romans would have put Christ to death as a seditionist. Therefore, it was of the utmost importance to remove the Twelve from the satanic situation developing at Bethsaida Julius. The weather could also have been threatening; but, in any case, the Twelve would not depart to the other side except upon the sternest orders from the Saviour. Mark recorded the significant words, "but their heart was hardened." This may also have been the occasion when Judas, in heart, defected from the Lord. Bethsaida ... This community was on the western shore, the native city of some of the apostles, and not far from Capernaum. Verse 46 And when he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.To the mountain to pray ... A bold headland overlooks the grassy slope where these events occurred; and, as soon as the Lord had sent the Twelve to the other side and dispersed the multitude he had recourse at once to prayer. It was indeed an hour of crisis; never was the ministry of Jesus any more threatened than at that hour. It is from this that the surpassing importance of this miracle derives. John made it one of the only seven signs that he recorded, and none of the gospels left it out. Equally important was the accompanying wonder of our Lord's walking on the sea to go to the rescue of the storm-tossed apostles. Verse 47 And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he was alone on the land. And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea; and he would have passed by them.This event must be looked upon as the supernatural rescue of the apostles from mortal danger, as well as from the moral danger due to their hardness. It was an absolutely essential rescue of the Twelve. There is no way to avoid understanding this event as a miracle. The rationalizations of it one finds among the critics are puerile, ridiculous, and unconvincing. Taking all of the accounts together for a composite report of what happened, one finds the following: (1) Jesus could see the apostles in the lake at night in a storm from a distance of several miles. (2) He walked on the lake to go unto them. (3) He commanded Peter to walk on the lake, and for a time Peter did so. (4) He rescued Peter from drowning. (5) The wind ceased as soon as Christ came aboard. (6) The boat was "straightway" at the landing (John 6:21). Were all of these but ordinary events? If so, why is it recorded that "They that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God!" (Matthew 14:33); and why does Mark have "And they were sore amazed in themselves"? (Mark 6:51). Infidelity is hard pressed when it will resort to the type of rationalizing that would explain this wonder as an ordinary event. As Bickersteth said of such "explanations," "They are a laughable insult on logic, hermeneutics, good sense, and honesty."[33]And he would have passed by them ... is an exceedingly important insight into what happened that night. The apostles were, for a time, hardened against the Saviour, due to their own secular dreams of an earthly kingdom having been so rudely dashed to the ground on the grassy slopes of Bethsaida Julius. If they had continued in that hardness by refusing to cry out unto the Lord as he approached and passed them by, it would have meant their loss to the apostleship; and the Lord would have begun again with other men. When people are tempted to believe in their own importance, as regards holy things, they should recall that Christ was in the act of "passing by" the Twelve themselves, until they cried out for his aid and support. ENDNOTE: [33] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 249. Verse 49 But they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost, and cried out.It was a ghost ... The KJV has "spirit" in this place, because at the date of its publication (1611), the word "spirit" meant exactly what "ghost" means today; and "ghost" meant exactly what "spirit" means today. This linguistic phenomenon of two words interchanging their meaning explains the expression "Holy Ghost" in the KJV. (See the Commentary on Matthew, p. 219). Verse 50 For they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.Be of good cheer ... The essential joy of the Christian faith is manifest in such an admonition. The winds and waves of life may be adverse and threatening, but the soul that is anchored in Jesus Christ is secure in a haven of joy. It is I ... According to Turlington, the words so translated here actually mean "I AM"; and the view here is that: Mark intended his readers to identify Jesus with the Lord, the divine I AM of Exo 3:14. The phrase occurs often in John, and with theological overtones (John 6:85; 8:12; 10:7; 11:25; 14:6). Mark uses the phrase two other times, in Mark 13:6 and Mark 14:62.[34]Be not afraid ... This is the constant admonition of faith in Christ. From the announcement of the angels to the shepherds on the night of Jesus' birth, to the imperative "fear not" of Revelation 1:17, this is faith's motto. ENDNOTE: [34] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 322. Verse 51 And he went up into the boat; and the wind ceased: and they were sore amazed in themselves; for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.They understood not ... To be sure they knew that a mighty wonder had been performed, but until the moment of Jesus' coming aboard they had not grasped the significance of it as an indication of the Lord's deity. This lack on their part was due to the fact that "their heart was hardened," being blinded by the dreams of a secular kingdom. Verse 53 And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore.THE AT One should not be troubled by the various names given to the scene of Jesus' landing. John stated that they were on the way to Capernaum, which of course is true, Mark omitting the day's teachings in the synagogue as well as many other events. This paragraph narrates what took place the week or so following, while John reported in detail what took place that very day. Gennesaret was the name of a plain southwest of Capernaum; Bethsaida was near; and Christ's ministry was continued throughout the area. Verse 54 And when they were come out of the boat, straightway the people knew him.John explained how many of the multitude who had witnessed the wonder on the east side of Galilee had hired boats and followed Jesus after the storm ceased, and after they had missed him, being aware, of course, that he had not boarded the vessel with the Twelve. Verse 55 And ran about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.As Cranfield noted, "This is a summary statement,"[35] and includes events at a number of places, as indicated by the words, "where they heard he was." The reaction of the people is what one should have expected. With a chance to be healed free of any charge, the throngs pressed upon Jesus to procure every possible benefit for the majority, the spiritual healing available in Christ was not so avidly desired. As Barclay put it: They came - to put it bluntly - to use him. What a difference it would have made had there been some few who came to give and not to get. In a way it is natural for us to come to Jesus to get things from him, for there are so many things he alone can give but it is always shameful to take everything and give nothing.[36][35] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 229. [36] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 164. Verse 56 And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment; and as many as touched him were made whole.The immense popularity of Jesus during this ministry of healing is indicated by Mark's summary. There were in all probability many thousands healed; and all of the sacred writers together recorded only a tiny fraction of the wonderful works of Jesus. As many as touched were made whole ... For a sermon on this text, reference is made to my Commentary on Matthew, p. 221. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 From whence hath this man these things. Jesus had lived in this town until he was thirty years old and they were intimately acquainted with him. It had been but a little while since he went away, and when he came back and they saw his deeds and heard his teaching it was somewhat puzzling to them. 3 The remarks in this verse were said by way of assuring themselves of the identity of Jesus. A peculiar trait of the human mind has produced a well-known saying, "Familiarity breeds contempt." The citizens seemed to think that one with whom they were so intimately acquainted would be unable to accomplish such a great work. (For comments on brethren see Matthew 12:46.) 4 In this verse Jesus merely states the fact commented upon in the preceding verse, without expressing any opinion on it either for or against. 5 Could is from DUNAMAI which Thayer defines, "to be able, have power," and he explains his definition, "whether by virtue of one's own ability and resources, or of a state of mind, or through favorable circumstances (emphasis mine, E. M. Z.),or by permission of law or custom." The words emphasized explain in what sense Jesus could not do much in this place; the circumstances were unfavorable. The fact that he did heal "a few sick folks" shows it was no lack of ability in Jesus. 6 Jesus was divinely inspired and knew all that was in man, hence nothing could surprise him that was done by human beings. The word marvel means that Jesus took special note of the gross unbelief of the people of Nazareth and decided to go elsewhere to do his work. 7 This is sometimes referred to as "the first commission," in contrast with "the great commission" of chapter 16:15, 16. The wisdom of working in pairs is shown by the plan Jesus used in this case. Paul frequently had one or more brethren with him as he went out into the field. Power is from EXOUSIA which means authority or right. It was fitting to use such a word because the unclean spirits were intelligent beings and could logically be addressed by commands. 8 The staff was a walking stick and would be needed from the start, hence they were permitted to provide that. A scrip was the same as a modern lunch basket. They were supposed to be given their necessities by the people among whom they worked on the ground that "the workman is worthy of his meat" (Matthew 10:10). 9 Sandals were needed immediately, like the walking stick, therefore they were permitted to provide that before starting, and one coat was placed on the same basis. 0 They were to make only one house stop in each city. 1 Shaking off the dust was an old custom practiced to indicate a feeling of disgust against a person or place; I have no information as to its origin. More tolerable . . . in the day of judgment, not afterwards. To use some everyday language, some people will have a harder time in getting past the judgment than others. The reason is that some have more and better opportunities than others. 2 They means the twelve apostles who went out under the commission as stated in verse 7. Matthew 10:7 tells us also that they preached the news that the kingdom of heaven was at hand and that repentance therefore was necessary. 3 They cast out devils by the power or authority that Jesus gave them (verse 7); and performed the other miracles by the same means. Anointing with oil is connected with healing the sick. The significance of that is expressed by one writer by saying, "Its use implied that God was the healer." That is correct, but it does not explain how it does so. The idea is that oil of olives is no active medicine and could not effect a cure of sickness alone. The conclusion would be, then, that a greater power was working in connection with the oil. (See James 5:14.) 4 This was Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. His remarks about Jesus are explained in the note at Matthew 14:2 on "transmigration." 5 The writer interrupts his story of Herod to report what some others were saying about Jesus. The same is given in the conversation Jesus had with the apostles when they came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:13-14). 6 This verse repeats verse 14 with the added statement that Herod beheaded John. 7 The persecution began with the imprisonment of John which was spite work, caused by Herodias whom he had unlawfully married, she being the wife of his brother. 8 John told Herod it was not lawful for him to have this woman. The law that he violated by that marriage is in Leviticus 18:16; Leviticus 20:21. 9 John's rebuke especially angered Herodias who would have killed John if she could have done as she felt about it. 0 The original word for feared has a twofold meaning, depending on the way it is used. This entire verse shows a friendly attitude toward John hence it means that Herod respected him. It was this kind of fear that was in the way of the wicked designs of his wife. But as vicious a person as she can plot and accomplish her wickedness by indirect methods as we shall see. 1 Convenient is defined, "seasonable, timely, opportune." The verse means that Herod's birthday furnished a convenient time for the woman to carry out her plot. 2 Herodias knew the lustful character of Herod, a character that explains his willingness to take his own brother's wife unlawfully, and she therefore conceived a plan to capture him. She instructed her daughter to go into the party and dance before the eyes of the men. It is not reasonable to suppose that Herod was a judge of "art" so that the performance of the girl impressed him from that standpoint. Besides, if that were his motive, just an expensive personal gift would have been all that she would have expected. The eastern dances were of a licentious character, displaying the figure in a way to appeal to the lustful eyes of the witnesses. Herod's baser nature was so inflamed that he exceeded all the customs and promised to give the girl anything she might ask. 3 The man was so overcome in his passion that he did not stop with a mere promise, but backed it up with an oath, and also specified the maximum limit to which she could go in her wish which was the half of his kingdom. 4 The damsel had accomplished the satanic effect that her mother planned, and she then went to her for further instructions, and was told to ask for the head of John the Baptist. This verse states the wish in general terms and the next will be more specific to suit the horrible designs of the revengeful woman. 5 Following her mother's instructions the girl came back into the presence of Herod and requested the head of John in a charger or large dish. By having the head in this way the wicked woman would know that she had been successful in her plot. 6 The king was sorry because he knew that John was a righteous man. But his pride of position under the eyes of the guests, together with a false notion of the sacredness of oaths, prevailed over his better judgment and feelings. 7 The executioner went to the prison and beheaded John, which was done with a sword, that being before the days of other mechanical means. 8 The head was brought in a large dish and given to the girl. That would seem to make the deal regular since she was the one who had earned the gift by her immoral performance. Of course she could do as she pleased with the award, hence she gave it to her mother who had plotted the affair. 9 His disciples means the disciples of John. All that was left for them to do was to give respectful and loving attention to the headless body. I have been unable to find any information on what became of the head of this righteous man. 0 The apostles made this report under the commission of verses 7-13. 1 The crowds were so dense that it interfered with their meals. The people kept coming and going until Jesus instructed his disciples to get away for a while. 2 They slipped away from the crowd and took a boat for a desert place. 3 But they did not escape from the eyes of all the people. They saw and recognized Jesus and were determined not to let him get entirely from them. They could not follow him in boats, but went on foot with such speed that they were at the place ahead of him and met him as he landed. 4 When he came out denotes when he left the boat and came ashore. The compassion of the Lord was always one of his ruling principles. His opinion of this mixed throng that had come out of all cities is compared to a flock that has been deserted by the shepherd. Such a group of people would furnish the kind that was hungering and thirsting after righteousness (Matthew 5:6), hence it says he began to teach. 5 The disciples finally became concerned about the comfort of the multitude. It was a desert place, which merely means it was not inhabited and hence contained no markets of any kind where food could be purchased. 6 They suggested that Jesus dismiss the people that they might go into the villages round about to buy some food, for they had not brought any such supplies when they came out there. 7 The disciples did not understand how Jesus meant for them to reed them. 8 These few loaves and fishes would not supply even a taste for all the multitude, but the lesson should be gathered that the Lord expects man to do what he can in accomplishing desired results. 9 Sit down by companies means to form groups for the orderly passing of food. Green grass does not grow where there never is any moisture, so the desert does not mean an infertile spot. 0 By hundred and fifties. This was according to the uneven condition of the land, making it more convenient to have smaller groups in some places and larger groups in others, adapting the size of the groups to the surface conditions. 1 Jesus blessed the bread by giving thanks to God for it. The reason for breaking the bread was the same for breaking it in the Lord's Supper, and that was only because more than one person was to partake of it. Jesus handed the pieces of bread to the disciples so they could serve the multitude. 2 Jesus did not satisfy their hunger by performing a miracle on their appetite, for it says they were all filled. The miracle was in multiplying the bread as it was being passed through the crowd. 3 Another proof that no miraculous effect was given to the bread so as to satisfy the hunger, is the fact that they found all these scraps left after the meal. 4 Five thousand men, and Matthew 14:21 adds "besides women and children." 5 Bethsaida was a town of Galilee, and Jesus gave his disciples instructions that they were to return by boat to that region, while he remained to dismiss the people so they could return to their homes. 6 Having sent the multitudes away, Jesus retired to a mountain to pray. 7 The boat had been making its way for several hours until evening overtook it. Still later in the night a severe wind came down upon the sea, blowing against the boat so that the rowers were having difficulty with the vessel. Jesus saw the situation and went to their rescue the fourth watch which was 3 A. M. 8 While it was night, it was possible to discern a form coming towards them and they were frightened. They thought it was a spirit which is from which means some kind of disembodied being with a visible form. 0 The familiar words, "It is I; be not afraid," assured them of their safety. 1 The presence of Jesus in the boat had a quieting effect on the storm. The disciples were baffled by the event and overwhelmed by amazement 2 Heart was hardened means it was stunned to the extent of inaction, forgetting for the time being that Jesus had only a few hours before fed the thousands. 3 Gennesaret was a narrow strip of country on the east shore of Galilee. 4 They means the people of Gennesaret who had seen Jesus before and knew about his great works of compassion on behalf of the unfortunate. 5 The people began at once to gather up the sick folks and carry them in beds to wherever they knew that Jesus was pausing. 6 Streets is from a word that means marketplaces, not an ordinary thoroughfare as one might think. They were centers where people in all the walks of life gathered, and they expected Jesus to be there a part of the time. When he did come he was requested to let the sick people touch his clothing. Such a request was a sign of their faith and Jesus rewarded it by healing them of their diseases. Verse 1 This chapter details the clash regarding the traditions of the elders (Mark 7:1-23), the healing of the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman (Mark 7:24-30), and the healing of the deaf-mute man of Decapolis (Mark 7:31-37). The first and longest of the three sections may be further subdivided thus: (a) the question of ceremonial defilement (Mark 7:1-8); (b) the counter-charge of Jesus (Mark 7:9-13; and (c) an explanation of the source and nature of real defilement (Mark 7:14-23). And there were gathered together unto him Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem. (Mark 7:1) The presence of the scribes and Pharisees should be understood as the result of the hierarchy's monitoring Jesus' teachings with a view to finding fault. These were, in effect, spies sent out from Jerusalem for the purpose of reporting the Saviour's activities to those in Jerusalem who hated him and were determined to be rid of him. Verse 2 And had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen hands.The defilement which the scribes and Pharisees thought they observed in the conduct of the Lord's disciples did not pertain to health or hygiene, but had exclusive reference to their omission of the ceremonial washing of hands as required by religious custom of the Jews. Such customs, although no part of God's law, had been elevated to a place of importance even beyond God's law. Barclay tells of a rabbi who was imprisoned by the Romans and who "used the water which was given to him for handwashing rather than for drinking, and in the end nearly perished from thirst, because he was determined to observe the rules of handwashing."[1]ENDNOTE: [1] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 167. Verse 3 (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels).These two verses are a parenthesis containing Mark's explanation of Jewish religious customs for the benefit of his Roman readers. John mentioned the six water-pots at the wedding in Cana which apparently formed part of the standard equipment in every Jewish home and were used for the numerous washings here mentioned. Significantly, the words "bathe" and "washings" in this passage are from Greek words meaning "baptize" and "baptizings" (English Revised Version (1885) margin), indicating that the pots, etc., were not merely sprinkled but plunged into water. All of the customs or rules in view here were part of the oral traditions advocated by the Jewish leaders. "The elders" refers to the ancient authors of such observances. Verse 5 And the Pharisees and scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands?This question of his critics was unworthy of any answer from Jesus; and it is of significance that he did not answer it at all, but on the contrary addressed himself to the prior question regarding the invalid and ridiculous stress that they laid upon their traditions. Verse 6 And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoreth me with their lips, But their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.The Scripture to which Jesus here referred is Isaiah 29:13. Jesus charged his critics with two violations of God's law: (1) they were hypocrites, pretending a piety they did not have, affirming a love of God they did not have, and voicing a religious concern which was non-existent within them; (2) they had substituted the precepts of men for the word of God. HUMAN IN WORSHIPAs clearly as Christ could have stated it, the principle is laid out here that the worship of God which consists in the observance of human precepts and traditions is vain and useless. Thus, the question of overwhelming importance regarding the worship of God must ever be the question of authority. Would not Jesus say the same thing of many so-called Christian observances of our own times? Are not the traditions and precepts of men the principal guidelines that men follow? Where has God ever commanded all of the things that people are doing in the name of His holy religion? In numerous innovations which human beings have imported into God's worship, in the actions which they have substituted for the baptism that Christ commanded, in the systems of government that they have invented for the control of their churches, and in the countless human opinions that have been substituted for the plain teachings of the word of God, in all these things and many others, people are operating under the traditions and precepts of men, rather than under the teachings of the Lord. The warnings of this passage should be heeded. For further comment on human tradition in religious worship, see my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 225-226. Verse 8 Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.See under the preceding verses. The universal experience of the human race throughout the centuries has been that human traditions, when received into the worship, tend ultimately to deny and contradict God's word. An excellent example of this is infant baptism, a human tradition having no support whatever in the New Testament, but which has been widely accepted and made the excuse for man's refusal to "repent and have themselves baptized" as God commanded. Verse 9 And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition.Full well ... Cranfield paraphrased this as "You are making a good job of rejecting the commandment of God.[2] Nothing so effectively and emphatically denies and contradicts the word of God as some human tradition received and honored in place of it. ENDNOTE: [2] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), p. 236. Verse 10 For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death.In this verse, and following, Jesus gave a glaring example of how human tradition had violated and circumvented the word of God. Incidentally, Christ here recognized Moses as the author of the law which he also called "the word of God" in Mark 7:13, contrasting the true authority of the Old Testament with the human traditions substituted for it. The Pharisees claimed that their traditions were a hedge around the law to PROTECT it; but as Sanner noted, it was no such thing, but "a massive human subversion of it."[3] Christ's charge against them so particularly spelled out in the presence of the people was certain to infuriate them. ENDNOTE: [3] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), Vol. VI, p. 330. Verse 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.Corban ... "Corban is a Hebrew word, meaning `that which is brought near,' or `a gift or offering to God.'"[4] Sanner declared that: If a son in anger vowed to make a gift (perhaps to the Temple) of possessions really needed for the support of his parents, the vow was binding thereafter, no matter what distress it caused ... It also became a barrier to some repentant son who regretted the vow and wished to break it. The Pharisees would not suffer him to do anything for his father and mother (Mark 7:12).[5]There could have been no better example of nullifying the word of God by means of a human tradition than the case here cited by Jesus. Many such like things ye do ... Christ fingered this one example out of many that could have been mentioned. In fact, the total corpus of the word of God had been countermanded and nullified by the hair-splitting traditions of the Pharisees. THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF In Mark 7:14-23, Christ addressed himself to the question of defilement, that being the charge against his disciples by the Pharisees. Before dealing with this, however, Christ exposed the casuistry and wickedness of the entire system of human traditions to which they were giving such strict attention and obedience. Indirectly, this was an answer to the Pharisees' charge, "because, by showing that the tradition of the elders can lead men to disregard the Law itself, he has shown that it must not be accepted without question."[6][4] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), Vol. 16, p. 293. [5] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 330. [6] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 238. Verse 14 And he called to him the multitude again, and said unto them, Hear me all of you, and understand: there is nothing from without the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man.God's dealings with ancient Israel had indeed forbidden the eating of certain meats, the regulations regarding clean and unclean creatures having had practical as well as symbolical value to the chosen people; and the words of Christ in this place are not to be understood as any kind of denial of the validity of the Law of Moses, which Christ equated with "the word of God" in Mark 7:13, immediately preceding. Christ here did for the law concerning defilement exactly what he did with regard to the Decalogue itself in the Sermon on the Mount, claiming his own authority as sufficient right to extend, change, and modify God's ancient Law. Inherent in these words of the Master is the affirmation of his own deity. The thing to which Christ addressed his remarks here was the gross externalism which had grown to characterize the Pharisees' interpretations of the sacred Law, their fantastic charge that Christ's disciples had become defiled by their violation of Pharisaical rules concerning washing of hands being a glaring example of it. Taking a great leap forward into the future dispensation, already dawning, Jesus here announced the abrogation of the divine rules regarding clean and unclean meats, which abrogation necessarily included all derivatives and corollaries of such regulations. In the Sermon on the Mount, Christ abolished the commandment which says, "Thou shalt not kill," substituting another in its place; and making anger in the heart to be the equivalent of murder (Matthew 5:21-22). In this exceedingly significant passage, Jesus abolished the laws of diet and ceremonial uncleanness, for the simple reason that these were only external to begin with, designed for teaching spiritual realities, and having been made even more useless and burdensome by the Pharisaical interpretations fastened upon them. Jesus substituted in the place of those ancient rules the holy requirement of moral and spiritual purity, internal cleanness instead of external observances. This is as good a place as any to notice a hurtful and illogical deduction which some have made, basing it, as they have supposed, on Jesus' teaching in this passage. Barclay wrote: There is no commoner religious mistake than in identifying good with certain so-called religious acts. church-going, Bible reading, careful financial giving, even time-tabled prayer do not make a man a good man. ... We must have a care that we never allow rules and regulations to paralyze the claims of charity and love.[7]The implication of such a view is that God's rules and regulations, in some cases, are capable of paralyzing the claims of love and human need; and that implication is false. God's "commandments are not grievous" (1 John 5:3); it is the ridiculous and burdensome commandments of men which are grievous and burdensome (Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46). The very strictest observance of God's rules and regulations is impossible of becoming grievous or burdensome. The other implication, in such interpretations as those of Barclay, which is sinful and unjustified is that divine law may be set aside wherever and whenever "human need" or "love" might require it. There is no sin which clever rationalists may not justify upon such a premise. The error here is twofold: (1) It supposes that ANY MAN may contradict divine law to fulfill what is called "human need," thus usurping a prerogative which pertains to the divine Son of God only. There is a world of difference in what Christ here did and what any mortal would be doing if he attempted the same thing. It was Christ's right to change divine law; man does NOT have that right; (2) Church attending, Bible-reading, and prayer were specifically cited by Barclay as things which cannot, when taken alone, make people good; and this is true in a limited sense. However, the implication that people can be "good" in the Christian sense without doing such things is a base lie. Significantly, it is these very basic Christian duties that are denied and repudiated by the people who want to be "good" without obeying rules and regulations. Mere humanism can never be an adequate substitute for the holy faith that is in Christ Jesus; and it may be dogmatically affirmed that people who will not study the Holy Bible, and never attend church, and who do not pray have, by such omissions, placed themselves outside the promise of eternal life that is in Christ Jesus. ENDNOTE: [7] William A. Barclay, op. cit., pp. 171-173. Verse 17 And when he was entered into the house from the multitude, his disciples asked of him the parable. And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Perceive ye not, that whatsoever from without goeth into the man, it cannot defile him; because it goeth not into his heart, but into his belly, and goeth out into the draught? This he said, making all meats clean.Parable ... as used here is a broad term meaning any dark saying. It cannot defile ... Here, in the words of Jesus Christ, is an end to all diet restrictions. All such things as eating fish on certain days, or refraining from swine's flesh, or vegetarianism, as well as all kinds of religious fads regarding diet, lose all significance in the light of these words. Making all meats clean ... Paul wrote that "Every creature of God is good (to eat), and nothing is to be rejected, if it be received with thanksgiving" (1 Timothy 3:4). This lifting of restrictions on diet was hard even for the apostles to accept; and long after Jesus said this, Peter affirmed that he had never eaten "anything that is common and unclean" (Acts 10:14). It may also be inferred from this that neither Jesus nor his apostles, during our Lord's public ministry, ever violated the true Old Testament laws regarding diet. Furthermore, the vision which came to Peter (Acts 10:11-15) of all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things with the injunction, "Rise, Peter: kill and eat," coming so significantly upon the occasion of God's sending Peter to the Gentile Cornelius, clearly indicates that clean and unclean meats were symbolic of the distinction that God made between Jews and Gentiles. This thesis is further supported by Jesus' extending his mercy to the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman immediately after his teaching on meats, and which Mark recorded in close connection with it. See under Mark 7:24 ff. Verse 20 And he said, that which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.This truth appeared dramatic enough on the occasion when Jesus uttered it, but it was not a new thing at all, having been emphatically taught in the Old Testament. The "heart" is mentioned no less than 74 times in the Book of Proverbs alone where it is set forth as the fountain source of all that comes out of life. "Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of life" (Proverbs 4:23). The Pharisaical shift of emphasis from the heart to externalism resulted from their evil nature and not from God's sacred law. In such a perversion, they were not innocent but guilty. Verse 21 For from within, out of the heart of evil men, evil thoughts proceed, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, covetings, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from within, and defile the man.Here Jesus named a round dozen actions and vices which are the source of actual human defilement and contrasting sharply with the ceremonial defilement so important to the Pharisees. Sanner pointed out that in the Received Greek text the first six of these terms are plural and the last six are singular. "The former possibly refers to evil acts, the latter to moral defects, or vices."[8] This list is somewhat like similar lists in the Pauline writings, but Cranfield was doubtless correct in his repudiation of the idea that they were derived from that source. He stated that there are "no adequate grounds for thinking that this list cannot go back to Jesus."[9]Fornication and adultery ... These words apply to every kind of traffic in sexual vice, whether of the married or the unmarried, whether of the homosexual or the heterosexual. Thefts ... Scholars tell us that there are two words in the Greek text for theft, [@kleptes] and [@lestes], the first meaning "pilferer" and the other "a brigand." Barabbas was the latter, Judas the former. [@Kleptes] is the word here and thus includes the most petty and the tiniest acts of thievery without excluding the more audacious robbery practiced by a brigand. All such conduct defiles. Murders ... All violent deeds under this heading are proscribed; but, as is clear from the Sermon on the Mount, anger and insulting language against a fellow-mortal are equally blameworthy, being in fact murder, according to Jesus' own definition (Matthew 5:21-22). Covetings ... This, like most of the other sins in this list, was forbidden in the Decalogue. In the New Testament, covetousness is not merely forbidden but classified as "idolatry" (Colossians 3:5). It must be supposed that this kind of idolatry motivates an inordinate amount of human behavior. How many are there whose sole passion in life would appear to be gaining and getting? Wickednesses ... Every form of unspiritual and ungodly conduct is meant by this; and the reference is not so much to specific acts as to a pattern of behavior. "Evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse" (2 Timothy 3:13), and the same is true of wickedness itself. The course of evil is downward and away from God. Deceit ... This word comes from [@dolos] also translated "guile" and has reference to the cunning, craft, and ingenuity of deception. It is at the opposite pole from Christian sincerity. It was through this vice that the ancient Greeks introduced the Trojan horse into Troy and overwhelmed the city. Many a soul has been lost through the cunning deception of evil men as well as by yielding to the temptation to use such stratagems against others. Lasciviousness ... From the Greek word [@aselgeia], this word refers to the undisciplined soul, one who acknowledges no restraint, dares to perform any act of shame or lawlessness, and who lives in arrogant insolence without regard to considerations of decency or honor. An evil eye ... Sanner described this as envy, or a jealous grudge, the attitude that looks upon the good fortunes of others with envious hatred and which would cast an evil spell upon them if it had the power. Railing ... This word comes from [@blasfemia], which means "speaking against." If against men, it is slander; if against God, it is blasphemy. Pride ... This is the principal characteristic of unregenerated man. It is the glorification of self. It is the first of seven deadly sins; and, when the Lord named seven things which are an abomination in his sight, a proud look headed the list ( Proverbs 6:16). It is the absence from the heart of the awareness of God. Consciousness of the existence, presence, and power of God produces humility in the heart, inevitably convicting men of their own sin and unworthiness. Pride is the opposite of such consciousness of God. Foolishness ... As Barclay said, "This describes, not the man who is a brainless fool, but the man who, as we say, is playing the fool."[10] The foolishness meant here is the kind of living that is not guided by moral principle nor related to any sacred standards. The conduct described by this awesome catalogue of sinful acts defiles man, the source of the defilement being the unregenerated heart which produces such actions. When one considers his own heart and the pride of life which blooms so readily in every conscience, remembering the moral defilement that inevitably accompanies every indulgence of such deeds, he must be suddenly aware of how helpless man is apart from the love and mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ. When it is considered that the unregenerated heart, the carnal nature, leads inevitably to all of the sins mentioned here, and that they come naturally to all men, it appears that man's plight is desperate. Merely forgiving such conduct is not enough. What is required in this area of human need is "the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). When one is baptized into Christ, he is raised to walk in newness of life; and nothing short of a "new creation" is the solution of the problem of carnality. THE HEALING OF THE OF THE SYRO- WOMANThis incident (Mark 7:24-30) has added significance because of its occurrence immediately after Christ's teaching regarding meats. The Gentiles were considered unclean and inferior by the Jews; but by his extension of mercy to the daughter of this woman of another race, Jesus gave his disciples a glimpse of the gospel for all people, and not merely for the chosen people alone. See under Mark 7:19, above. [8] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 332. [9] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 243. [10] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 178. Verse 24 And from thence he arose, and went away into the borders of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered into a house, and would have no man know it; and he could not be hid.As Dorris noted, "This is the only instance in the Lord's ministry when he went beyond the bounds of Palestine."[11] Tyre and Sidon were the principal cities of ancient Phoenicia and were among the most distinguished of antiquity. Tyre was founded in the 15th century B.C. on an island about half a mile from the coast and was for generations the leading seaport of the Mediterranean sea. The infamous Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal, King of Tyre; and God's prophets prophesied the doom of this wicked city, their predictions coming true when Alexander the Great, forced to pause in his mad conquest of the world for a whole seven months by the stubborn resistance of Tyre, at last overcame it in 322 B.C., slaughtering 10,000 of its citizens and selling another 30,000 into slavery. Paul spent a week there while his ship unloaded cargo on his journey from Ephesus to Jerusalem. It still exists as modern Lebanon. Sidon, even older than Tyre, and its acknowledged mother, did not possess a fortress position like Tyre and quickly submitted to Alexander the Great. It was a rich and prosperous city on the seacoast, extolled in the poems of Homer, captured and annexed a dozen times by various world powers throughout history, and displaying the same gross wickedness that characterized her sister-city Tyre and linked both their names proverbially as symbols of carnality and corruption. Yet Jesus Christ said of these twin cities that it would be more tolerable for them in the day of judgment than for the cities of Israel who rejected their Messiah (Matthew 11:20-22). Paul once refreshed himself here. The city still lives under the name of Saida. Despite the wickedness of the Phoenicians, their achievements were considerable. They are said to have invented the alphabet, developed the art of navigation to a point which enabled them to circumnavigate Africa in the 7th century B.C., and to have been skilled manufacturers of metal objects, textile fabrics, and a purple dye made from seashells. Hiram, King of Tyre, aided Solomon in building the temple. And he entered into a house ... This was the home of some unnamed friend of our Lord. And he could not be hid ... True both in context and intrinsically, this statement concerning Jesus Christ sheds perpetual light upon the Christ of glory. Not the sins, or indifference, or the hatred of men have been able to hide the light that lighteth every man. ENDNOTE: [11] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 178. Verse 25 But straightway a woman, whose little daughter had an unclean spirit, having heard of him, came and fell down at his feet.Matthew (Matthew 15:21-28) added dramatic details omitted by Mark, giving the very words of the woman as she hailed Jesus as "O Lord, thou Son of David," thus identifying the woman as one who believed that Jesus was both "Lord" and the Jewish Messiah. The understanding and tact of this heathen woman in thus addressing the Saviour are amazing. She had done her homework well before appealing to the Lord for help. She prostrated herself at the Master's feet and poured out her appeal in the presence of men whom she had every reason to suppose would despise her. Great indeed was her faith! Verse 26 Now the woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by race. And she besought him that he would cast forth the demon out of her daughter.A Greek ... The word thus translated actually means "Gentile" (English Revised Version (1885) margin), her race being Syro-Phoenician. Verse 27 And he said unto her, Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread and cast it to the dogs.Some have been puzzled by our Lord's attitude of discouraging this appellant for his mercy by such a reply as this; but we may readily believe with Trench that: He saw in her a faith which would stand the test and knew that she would emerge victorious; and not only so, but with a mightier and purer faith than if she had borne away her blessing at once and merely for the asking.[12]To this, it may be added that this miracle was performed in the presence of the apostles; and there can be no doubt that Christ's words were designed for their instruction. By giving voice to the common Jewish prejudice against Gentiles, and in the light of the woman's response to it, Christ gave his apostles a never-to-be-forgotten example to prove God's wisdom in extending salvation to Gentiles. At a time when the leaders of Israel were plotting Jesus' death, this lowly Gentile, despite the Lord's apparent rebuff, persevered to claim his mercy. For more on this aspect of the miracle, see my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 231-233. Children's bread ... the dogs ... What Christ referred to by these expressions was the fact that his primary mission was to Israel, not to Gentiles, to God's "children," not to the "dogs," as the Gentiles were called by Jews. See Matthew's account (Matthew 15:21-28). Now the significant thing about that woman's faith was her perseverance in the face of such a reply. Would not most mortals have departed the scene with anger and resentment? The average person would have said, "He called me a dog; I hate him!" Such was the desperate hope of that poor woman, and such was her astounding faith, that she at once accepted Christ's judgment upon her and made his very words the basis of her continued appeal. ENDNOTE: [12] Richard Trench, Notes on the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 375. Verse 28 But she answered and said unto him, Yea, Lord; even the dogs under the table eat of the children's crumbs.Yea, Lord ... This says, "Yes, Lord, I indeed belong to the people called `dogs' by the Jews; but is it too much to ask that a LITTLE dog under the children's table might have just a crumb of the bounty which you have given to them?" This woman's reply was rich with the profoundest truth of all time. Note the implications of what she said: (1) By placing herself under the children's table, she laid claim to a place, lowly as it was, in the household of God. As Trench observed, the woman made this plea: Saidest thou "dogs"? It is well; I accept the title and the place; for the dogs have a portion too, not indeed the first, not the children's portion, but a portion still - the crumbs which fall from the Master's table.[13](2) She appealed not to the children, but to the Master. The children, as represented by the apostles, had stood adamantly by, not interceding on the woman's behalf, actually demanding that the Lord get rid of her (see Matthew); so there was no mercy for her in the hearts of the children; therefore, she appealed not to them but to the Lord! (3) She identified the table as not belonging to the children but as "their master's table"! (Matthew 15:27). God's mercies did not derive from the chosen people but from Himself. The table of God's benefits did not belong to the children but to God! ENDNOTE: [13] Ibid., p. 373. Verse 29 And he said unto her, For this saying go thy way; the demon is gone out of thy daughter. And she went away unto her house, and found the child laid upon the bed, and the demon gone out.Matthew gave the words of Jesus, "O woman, great is thy faith: be it done unto thee even as thou wilt" (Matthew 15:28). Amen and amen! Verse 31 And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.THE DEAF-MUTE MAN OF THE The journey of Jesus and his disciples traced in this verse was rather long and circuitous and fitted in with Jesus' purpose of privacy for the instruction of the Twelve and for avoidance of the territory controlled by his enemies. Tyre and Sidon were northwest of Jerusalem and the area of Decapolis was northeast. The Decapolis was a league of ten cities, hence the name, which had been formed after the campaign of Pompey in 64-63 B.C. All of these except one were east of Lake Galilee and the upper Jordan valley. Belonging to this league were Damascus, Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Pella, Gerasa, and Kanatha. Damascus alone retains any importance today. It should be recalled that this area heard the publication of the news of Jesus Christ by the Gerasene demoniac whom Jesus had healed (Mark 5:20). Verse 32 And they bring unto him one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech; and they beseech him to lay his hand upon him.This indicates that many had believed the report of the former demoniac; and as a result, the people appealed to Christ on behalf of the deaf-mute. Verse 33 And he took him aside from the multitude privately, and put his fingers into his ears, and he spat and touched his tongue; and looking up to heaven, he sighed, and saith unto him, Ephphatha, that is, Be opened.He took him aside ... The evident reason for this action was that Jesus was required by the man's deafness to communicate with him in sign language; and the Lord definitely did not wish to permit the multitude to have any basis for supposing that his touching the man's ears and tongue, or his use of spittle, had anything whatever to do with the man's cure, such actions being only part of the process of communication with the afflicted person. If the Lord had not done such things privately, some might have considered the Lord's healing to be accomplished magically, after the manner of Greek and Jewish magicians. As Sanner said: (These were) acts evidently designed to arouse and fortify faith ... touching this tongue ... and his ears ... Jesus looked up to heaven with a sigh - a prayer without words. Jesus thus spoke in signs to the man who could not hear. His gestures declared (in a kind of pantomime) that with power from above and by the words of his own mouth he would open the closed ears and release the bound tongue.[14]Ephphatha ... means "open completely," or "be opened," as Mark explained. It may be supposed that the deaf-mute read the Saviour's lips in this word, the very syllables of which would have made it easy to read visually on the lips of the speaker. ENDNOTE: [14] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., Vol. VI, p. 234. Verse 35 And his ears were opened, and the bond of his tongue was loosed, and he spake plain.The cure was accomplished completely by the Saviour's word of command. The prophecy of Isa 35:5-6 that "The ears of the deaf shall be unstopped ... and the tongue of the dumb sing" was fulfilled by the Son of God. Verse 36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it.The type of thing that Jesus had done was too great and wonderful to be hidden. The Lord truly desired less publicity; his very purpose for having come to that part of the world certainly was, at least partially, due to his desire for privacy; but unregenerated people had little regard for the Lord's desires. Verse 37 And they were beyond measure astonished, saying, He hath done all things well; he maketh even the deaf to hear, and the dumb to speak.Note that the people, when they saw the cure, did not say merely that "he has healed this man," but that "he has done all things well," showing that they recognized in the one example of it the mightiness of the power that could do "all things." J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter SevenOpposition of Pharisees and Scribes, Mark 7:1-13. (Matthew 15:1-9) Mark 7:1. from Jerusalem.—See the note on Matthew 15:1. Mark 7:2. defiled.—Defiled, not according to the law. but according to the tradition mentioned below at verse 3. Mark 7:3. Pharisees and all the Jews.—The term "all" is used in a restricted sense; for the Sadducees rejected tradition entirely: but they were a small body of men and had little influence with the people. The masses were influenced by the Pharisees and kept the traditions. wash hands oft.—Literally "wash their hands with the fist," which means to wash them carefully, as when each hand is rubbed with the fist of the other. holding the tradition.—See the notes, Matthew 3:7 Matthew 15:2. Mark 7:4. except they wash.—By a mistranslation the text is here involved in a useless repetition. After saying that "except they wash their hands carefully they eat not," it is superfluous to add, that "when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not." Mark evidently intends to assert something that they did after coming from the market, which they did not on ordinary occasions. The difference is very clear in the original. The term rendered "wash, " in verse 3, is nipsontai (νψωνται), correctly so rendered, whereas the one rendered wash, in verse 4, is baptisontai (βαπτσωνται), they immerse themselves. This rendering is required by the meaning of the word, and this act was required by the nature of the tradition. The tradition was an extension of the law of uncleanness, so as to hold a man unclean who had been in the marketplace; and the law for cleansing the unclean required the bathing of the whole flesh in water, which was accomplished by dipping one's self in the bath. (Comp. the note under Matthew 3:1.) When we remember that bathing was a daily practice among the Pharisees, we are less surprised at this observance. washing of cups.—Here again the term "washing" yields a wrong sense. It was not peculiar to the Pharisees to wash cups, pots, brazen vessels, and couches; for every body did this, and every body does it yet. Surely Jesus did not reproach them for keeping clean their drinking and cooking vessels and their couches. But it was immersing them when they needed no washing, immersing them for an imaginary religious purification, for which he condemned them. Such is the meaning of the word (βαπτσμους), and such the significance of the practice. It is objected to this, that couches (incorrectly rendered tables in the text) could not have been immersed. Even Alford affirms that "these βαπτσμοι, as applied to couches, were certainly not immersions, but sprinklings or affusions of water." No reason is given to support this assertion, and the only one implied is the assumption that couches could not be immersed; but this is not true. They certainly could be immersed, and when the text declares that they were, this should be an end of controversy. Nothing but the modern practice of sprinkling for baptism, a practice which Alford himself admits was not known to the apostles, could have suggested the thought of sprinkling in this case. Mark 7:5-13. Then the Pharisees and scribes.—The traditionary practices just mentioned, and the fact that the disciples were seen to eat with unwashed hands, gave rise to the discussion which now follows. The points of argument are the same as reported by Matthew and already discussed (Matthew 15:1-9), but they are differently arranged and more piquantly expressed. One of the few examples of irony in the Savior's addresses is found here in the expression (verse 9), "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." Christ's Law of Uncleanness, Mark 7:14-23. (Matthew 15:10-20) The subject of this paragraph it sufficiently discussed under the parallel place in Matthew. Argument of Section 6The testimony for Jesus furnished by the preceding section, is based chiefly on the opinions which men formed concerning him. The disciples, though slow and hard of heart to realize his true nature, were constrained by the continued demonstration to acknowledge his inherent divine power. The masses of the people who had witnessed his miracles were wild with excitement wherever he went, and they brought to him their sick from every quarter, a practice which could not possibly have been kept up had not his cures been real and unfailing. His enemies, though they differed in opinion as to the source of his miraculous power, with one consent acknowledged its reality, and none of them counted him less than a prophet. The strange conceit that he was John the Baptist, or that he was one of the old prophets raised to life again, attests the struggle of unbelieving minds in trying to solve the problem of his power and of his being. Even the Nazarenes, who, of all his enemies, knew him most intimately and rejected him most scornfully, were constrained to wonder whence he obtained his wisdom and his mighty works. There was only one solution of the problem which was satisfying to the mind, and those alone were satisfied with their own conclusion and rested in it, who believed him to be the Christ and the Son of God. And to this day the men who have rejected this conclusion and have tried to account for the career of Jesus in some other way, have been driven to conceits as baseless and as unreasonable as any of those adopted by the Jews. Tour to Tyre and Sidon, Mark 7:24-37 and Mark 8:1-12 Cure of the Gentile Woman's Daughter, Mark 7:24-30. (Matthew 15:21-28)Mark 7:24. borders of Tyre.—On the locality, see note on Matthew 15:21 would have no man know it.— This remark shows that Jesus had not gone into this Gentile region for the purpose of preaching and working miracles. He was doubtless aiming to give a large amount of private instruction to the twelve. We will see that this desire for privacy characterized the remainder of his stay in Galilee, although in some other places, as in this, it was found that "he could not be hid." Mark 7:25-26. a Greek, a Syrophenician.—The term "Greek" is here used, as it was frequently by the Jews, in the sense of Gentile. (Comp. 1 Corinthians 1:24.) After Alexander's conquests, when all the world was in subjection to the Greeks, the Jews divided the world politically into Jews and Greeks. "Syrophenician" is compounded of Syrian and Phenician, and means a Syrian of Phenicia, Phenicia being at that time a part of the province of Syria. She was also a Canaanite. (See note, Matthew 15:25.) Mark 7:30. laid upon the bed.—Demons, when expelled from persons, sometimes threw them into convulsions and left them in an extremely prostrate condition. (Comp. Mark 1:26; Mark 9:26.) Such was the case with this girl, who had probably been lifted from the floor and placed on the bed before her mother came in. For further remarks on the paragraph, see the notes, Matthew 15:21-28. A Deaf Stammerer Healed, Mark 7:31-37. (Matthew 15:29-31)Mark 7:31. through Sidon.—If the corrected reading of this verse is adopted, it will appear that from the vicinity of Tyre, Jesus went farther north, so as to pass through Sidon, and then, by a detour to the east and south, reached Decapolis, southeast of the lake of Galilee, and passed through this district to the lakeshore; tor "toe came unto the sea of Galilee through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." Mark 7:32. deaf, and had an impediment.—The translation is too diffuse. The Greek words (κωφνμογιλλον) rendered "one that was deaf, and had an impediment in his speech," mean simply "a deaf stammerer." He was not entirely without hearing, or he would have been dumb. Mark 7:33. took him aside.—Jesus was still aiming to preserve a good degree of privacy; hence his withdrawal from the multitude when about to heal this man, and his subsequent charge to the man's friends, "that they should tell no man." (Verse 36; comp. 24.) put his fingers.—The process adopted in this case was peculiar. He first put his fingers in the man's ears, one finger in each ear. Then he spit: we are not told where, but the natural inference is that he spit on the ground. The object of the spitting we can not state; no conjecture that we have seen appears even plausible. He then touched the man's tongue— no doubt with his thumbs, one finger of each hand being in his ear— looked up to heaven, heaved a sigh, and exclaimed, "Be opened," and "the string of his tongue was loosed, and he spoke plain." The entire procedure indicates the deepest solemnity on the part of Jesus, and was calculated to strike the bystanders with awe. Mark 7:35. string of his tongue.—"String" is too specific. It was δεσμς, the bond or hinderance, that prevented him from speaking freely. Mark 7:36. the more they published it.—By a singular, but very common freak of human nature, the more he charged them to keep the cure a secret, "the more a great deal they published it." His very anxiety to avoid publicity made him the more wonderful in their eyes, and inspired them with a greater desire to sound his praise abroad. Mark 7:37. He hath done all things well.—A great change had come over these people since the legion of demons was cast out. They had then feared him greatly, and desired him to leave their coasts; but now they exclaim, with reference both to that miracle and this, "He hath done all things well." In this paragraph, and the parallel in Matthew, a characteristic difference between the two writers is seen. Matthew says that "great multitudes came to him, having with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and he healed them" (Matthew 15:30); but he gives no particular description of any single case. Mark, on the other hand, selects a single one of these cures, perhaps the first of all, and describes minutely both it and its effect on the people. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 71. What classes came to Jesus? 2. Why did they find fault? 3. Tell the rule of the Pharisees. 4. From whom did they get this idea ? 5. State the question they asked. 6. In answering whom did Jesus quote ? 7. What did he call these people ? 8. How did they honor Jesus ? 9. What made their worship vain? 10. They laid aside what ? 11. This was to hold what? 12. What did Moses say? 13. What did this people reject? 14. Tell the penalty Moses taught. 15. But what did these folks teach? 16. How did this affect the word of God? 17. To whom did he then explain the subject? 18. Which direction does filthiness travel ? 19. Whom should we let hear? 20. What inquiry was made in the house? 21. Why does food not defile the man? 22. From where does defilement come? 23. What are some of these defilements? 24. To what section did Jesus now go? 25. What did he enter? 26. What wish of his was disregarded ? 27. Who came to his feet? 28. State her difficulty. 29. What was her nationality? 30. State her request. - 31. Tell his first reply to her. 32. And her reasoning in return. 33. What was his reply ? 34. How did she find affairs at home? 35. To what place did Jesus next go? 36. Near what city was it? 37. Who was brought unto him ? 38. State her request. 39. Where did he take the unfortunate person? 40. State the visible means he used. 41. To what place did he look ? 42. State the expression that escaped him. 43. What did he say? 44. Tell what happened to the man’ s ears. 45. And to his tongue. 46. What indicated the man’ s recovery? 47. How long did it take ? 48. What did Jesus charge them? 49. Tell what they did about it. 50. What remarks were made by the people ? 1The Pharisees were a religious sect of the Jews, and the scribes were those whose business it was to copy the law of Moses and expound it unto the people. Both of these groups were constant foes of Jesus because he rebuked their hypocrisies. 2 These people were always watching to find a cause of complaint. They thought they had found something when they saw the disciples eating without washing. 3 This did not refer to ordinary cleansing but to a tradition of the elders. 4 The tradition required that they wash their hands as a ceremony under certain conditions, regardless of whether the act was necessary or not. 5 They based their criticism on the fact that the disciples had disregarded the tradition of the elders, not that they had gone contrary to the rules of sanitation. 6 Jesus directly called those people hypocrites and said that Esaias (Isaiah) had prophesied about them. They spoke one way and their heart was interested in another. 7 Regardless of the apparent goodness of the worship that is offered to God, if it is based on the command ments of men the worship is vain or useless. 8 A person would have the privilege of maintaining his own notions about such things as ceremonial washing of hands and service vessels, provided that was as far as it went. But these people exalted those practices above the commands of God, even to the extent of substituting them for the divine law. 9 Full well applies to the truthfulness of the statement and not to what the Pharisees were doing; truly, ye reject, etc. That ye may keep denotes they could not keep such traditions as theirs in the way they desired without disregarding the commandments of the Lord. 0 The kind of traditions Jesus was condemning is specified in this and a few following verses. First, he cited one of the positive commandments God gave through Moses, that a man should honor his parents. And this honor included the obligation of administering to their needs. 1 Corban is defined in the lexicon, "a gift offered to God." These Pharisees pretended to have put their money into the Lord's treasury instead of using it to provide some benefit for their parents. 2 On the pretense that they had put their money into the treasury, they claimed exemption from considering their parents as dependents. 3 In the aforesaid practice they made their traditions more important than the inspired law that had been delivered to them by the hand of Moses. 4 Jesus next turned his attention to the people in general. He wished them not to misunderstand what he had said about washing the hands. 5 He did not mean to belittle the importance of cleanliness. The Pharisees were dealing with the subject in a ceremonial way only, as if the soil on one's hands would cause some moral or spiritual bad effect. Jesus was denying that and then stating what would in reality defile one. This is as far as he went in his explanation to "the people." (See the reason why at Matthew 13:11.) 6 This means for every man to use his opportunities for hearing the truth. 7 After getting to themselves, the disciples asked Jesus to explain the parable to them. He did so as explained by the note cited at verse 15. 8 Jesus repeated the statement about the outward filth entering a man. 9 The reason it does not defile a man is because it is not retained, but is eliminated from the body along with other waste matter. A draught was similar to our modern sanitary stool. 0 The mere fact of its coming out is not what defiles a man. The idea is that such things as will soon be named are what makes a man defiled, and the issuing forth of them reveals what the defilements are. 1 The things named in this and the following verse are not done "on the spur of the moment," but are the deliberate intentions of the heart, and that is why they are said to defile a man. Adulteries can be committed first in the heart (Matthew 5:28). Fornication is virtually the same in the eyes of the Lord, but human laws make a difference and the scripture condemns both so there will be no doubt. Murder is taking human life unlawfully after it has been premeditated which is done in the heart. 2 A man does not steal accidentally but plans to do it. Laciv-iousness is filthy desire and they are begun in the heart. An evil eye. Thayer says, "Since the eye is the index of the mind, the following phrases have arisen," then he includes the one italicized. Blasphemy is wicked speech that is prompted by the heart. 3 These things defile a man because they corrupt his heart and then his life through the manner of conduct they induce him to practice. 4 Jesus left the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee and went on across the country to that lying near the Medi-terranean Sea in which were the cities of Tyre and Sidon. He wished to have some privacy and entered into a house for that purpose. Could not be hid. Jesus did not wish to be always performing miracles to accomplish his purposes, but often took the same course that other men would take under the same circumstances. In the present case the shelter of a house was not enough to hide him. 5 This woman's daughter had an unclean spirit which means was possessed with a devil. This daughter was young and ordinarily would not be unrighteous in her man- er of life, but the possession of a devil was an affliction and not a fault. 6 In the time of Christ all persons who were not Jews were regarded as Gentiles whatever their nationality might be, hence this woman being Greek is rendered Gentile in the margin. By nation she was a Syro-phenician which is a compound word meaning a mixture of the Phoenician and Syrian territories. The writer mentions this as an explication of the attitude that Jesus at first maintained in testing her faith. 7 The Greek word for dog is not the one ordinarily used for that animal, but one that Thayer defines as "a little dog." It refers to a creature that would be like a child's pet and allowed to play about the table while its master was eating. The crumbs that fell would not be denied the dog and the circumstance was used for an illustration. Jesus purposely used that story to suggest the humble speech the woman made. 8 The woman did not resent the comparison, but was willing to accept the temporal healing of her daughter as crumbs, and leave the bread of the Lord's teaching to the children of his Father's family, namely, the Jews. 9 The woman said just what, Jesus wished her to say, and as a reward he assured her that the devil had been driven out of her daughter. 0 She found it as Jesus stated upon her return home. After such an experience as the girl had suffered (Matthew 15:22 says she was "grievously vexed"), she would be somewhat prostrated, so the mother found her daughter lying on a bed. 1 Decapolis was a region on the east side of the Jordan. So Jesus left the western part of Palestine, crossed the country and over Jordan and on to the coast of the Sea of Galilee. 2 This man was suffering with a bodily ailment of his hearing, and that had caused him to be defective in his speech. People learn to talk from childhood by hearing others, and if they cannot hear they may not learn to talk. 3 This physical contact was the plan that Jesus saw fit to use in this case, not that he could not have healed the man otherwise. 4 is a Greek word and the King James translators retained it in the text, then gave the definition of it which is the same that is in Thayer's lexicon, namely, "be thou opened." Looking up to heaven indicated that he was looking to God for cooperation as he always worked as a partner with his Father. 5 As usual, the cure was straightway and not a prolonged affair. 6 Charged them tell no man. Jesus did not want the people to think that he was working miracles just with the motive of becoming famous. 7 The proof these people had that Jesus did all things well was the fact that visible changes came to the man with whom they were so well acquainted. Verse 1 Topics which make up the subject matter of Mark 8 are: the feeding of the 4,000 (Mark 8:1-9), the Lord's refusal to give the Pharisees the kind of sign they wanted (Mark 8:11-13), questions concerning the leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod (Mark 8:14-21), healing the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), Peter's confession of Christ (Mark 8:37-30), and the first announcement of his Passion, resurrection, and second coming (Mark 8:31-38). THE FEEDING OF THE FOUR This miracle, recorded only by Mark and Matthew (Matthew 15:29-39), is similar to that of feeding the five thousand which was recorded by all four evangelists; and yet there are very significant differences. As Cranfield noted, the ground of our Saviour's compassion in the first miracle was "the fact that the people are like sheep without a shepherd"; whereas, in this, "it is the fact that they have been so long without food."[1] Trench called attention to the fact that the multitude here had been with the Lord three days; whereas, in the other, no such time lapse had occurred. He also stressed that "the numbers fed are fewer, the supply of food larger, and the number of baskets of fragments left over is less" than in the former miracle, drawing the significant conclusion that "Legend grows; the new outdoes the old; but here it does not even stand on an equality with it."[2] Bickersteth pointed out that the people Jesus here fed were commanded to sit down "on the ground, not on the `green grass' as before. It was a different season of the year."[3] Pertinent as are all of these differences, one has to go back to Augustine for perhaps the most significant difference of all, namely, that the people fed in this miracle were Gentiles in the principal part, whereas those fed in the other were principally Jews. This key fact explains why two such miracles were performed, showing God's fairness in dealing with Gentiles as he had dealt with the chosen people; and it also explains the apostles' reluctance to suppose that Christ would do such a thing, especially in the light of their having witnessed the other miracle so recently. The entire pattern of the Lord's ministry at this point demanded this second miracle of feeding the multitudes. He had just abolished distinctions between clean and unclean meats and extended mercy to the daughter of the Gentile woman of Syro-Phoenicia, despite the apostles' reluctance to allow it; and in this marvel of feeding the four thousand, Christ wrought a wholesale wonder for the benefit of a whole Gentile multitude, just as he had done for Jews in the other case. The fact that both miracles were done on the same side of Galilee but with such diversity in the character of the multitudes benefited came about because the Jews were in that vicinity by reason of following Jesus from the west; but the Gentiles had followed from the Decapolis area in the east. The significance of this miracle lies in the rich meaning of it for the Gentiles. Christ is the bread of life for all, not merely for Jews alone. The great overtones of the wonder which identified Christ as that Prophet like unto Moses and required all men to see in Jesus the very God himself - all these implications are as rich for the Gentiles as for the Jews. [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 255. [2] Richard Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming R. Revell Company, 1943), p. 387. [3] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 331. In those days, when there was again a great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, he called unto them his disciples and said unto them. (Mark 8:1) Here is another notable difference from the former miracle. In this instance, it is Christ who provided the initiative. Verse 2 I have compassion on the multitude, because they continue with me now three days, and have, nothing to eat.Matthew's fuller account relates the countless miracles of healing which took place in the three days, thus explaining how it came about that so many people would remain in a desert place without food. What they were receiving from Christ was valued by them above food itself. See my Commentary on Matthew, p. 233. I have compassion ... This is one of the great words regarding Jesus Christ. His compassion was the source of every blessing, even that of his coming into the world. Verse 3 And if I send them away fasting to their home, they will faint on the way; and some of them are come from far.These words were plainly spoken by the Lord in a move to arouse pity in his apostles and to elicit from them a petition for the Lord to relieve the increasingly critical emergency. Some of them come from far ... Throughout the cities of the Decapolis, as far as Damascus, the people had come; but the fact of their being Gentiles would appear to have blinded the apostles to the urgency of their plight. In Mark 8:17, Christ asked them, "Have ye your heart hardened?" The apostles, having so recently seen Jesus feed an even greater multitude, should have requested Christ to do the same thing here; and the viewpoint of this interpreter is that they would have done so except for the Gentile character of that multitude. In the light of such an obvious truth, how ridiculous are the allegations of skeptics that the reluctance of the apostles is the ground for denying that two miracles occurred. Verse 4 And his disciples answered him, Whence shall one be able to fill these men with bread here in a desert place?Whence ...? Whence indeed are the supplies to feed any man or all men, if not from the Lord? The prejudice of the apostles is showing in this reply. They were not concerned at all with meeting the dire human need of the hungry multitude; they were Gentiles; so they dismissed the Lord's question with what amounts to a flippant remark that there was no place around there to buy bread for so many. However, Jesus had no intention of permitting such an attitude to prevail. Verse 5 And he asked them, How many loaves have ye? And they said, Seven.It would appear from Mark 8:7 that the apostles were even a little less than candid regarding what they did have, for they at first made no mention of the few small fishes which they also had; but, regardless of their evident reluctance, Jesus ordered the feast to proceed. Verse 6 And he commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and having given thanks, he brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they set them before the multitude.The miracle here followed almost exactly the pattern of the previous wonder in that Christ appeared not as the waiter but as the provider of the bounty, the apostles giving to the multitude what they had first received from Jesus. Thus, it is also in the realm of spiritual food; no man can supply human need except as the teacher or preacher has first received of the Lord. Verse 7 And they had a few small fishes: and having blessed them, he commanded to set these also before them.One may only deplore the comment of a scholar like Cranfield who saw in this verse nothing more than awkwardness on the part of the sacred narrator. He said that the verse was "added rather awkwardly as an afterthought."[4] The fact of our Lord's blessing the fish, however, proves that he had not already done so, and that, for some reason, these had not been available at the initial giving of thanks. Perhaps, when the apostles saw what the Lord was doing, they warmed up a little for the occasion and brought out the fish also! It is impossible to understand this miracle without regarding the twin facts of the Gentile composition of the audience and the reluctance of the apostles. ENDNOTE: [4] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 256. Verse 8 And they ate, and were filled: and they took up, of broken pieces that remained over, seven baskets.And were filled ... Wycliffe rendered this passage "they were fulfilled," the original meaning of fulfill being to fill full. Seven baskets ... The word for basket in this miracle is from a different Greek word than the word translated "baskets" in the other wonder and has a sharp difference of meaning. Both refer to wicker containers, but the one meant here is flexible and much larger. This was the type of basket used to let Paul down over the Damascus wall (Acts 9:25), and it has been surmised that these were the equivalent of what we would call "sleeping bags," and probably being the property of the Twelve. The baskets in view in the other miracle seem to have been the picnic type of basket, twelve of them having been given by the multitude to contain the fragments of the first wonder. This is another significant difference in the two miracles and cannot be explained as a matter of the sacred writers' using different words for the same thing. Christ himself referred to the baskets with this distinction (Mark 8:19-20). The shade of meaning in English would be more evident if "baskets" were used in the first instance and "sacks" in the second. Verse 9 And they were about four thousand: and he sent them away. And straightway he entered into the boat with his disciples and came to Dalmanutha.Dalmanutha ... was the destination of the Lord and his apostles on this embarkation, which was a certain location in the borders of "Magadan" (Matthew 15:39) It is a mystery to this student of God's word why great scholars find here a "problem to which no really satisfactory solution has been found!"[5] What is the problem? Is it irrational to believe that ancient villages were known by various names now lost to history, especially in the light of the fact that many modern places are called by various names? Is it fair to assert that Dalmanutha was not in "the borders of Magadan," especially when the wisest scholars on earth cannot give us any certain information at all about where either was located? Is it honest to declare that Christ did not go to both places, if indeed they were two places and not one place with two names? Does not Matthew omit altogether the name of the place to which Jesus went, identifying it: only as some village in the borders of a district called Magadan? The problem here is not in the sacred text but in the malignant skepticism of some who criticize it. For more on this question see my Commentary on Matthew, p. 235. ENDNOTE: [5] Ibid., p. 257. Verse 11 And the Pharisees came forth and began to question with him, seeking of him a sign from heaven, trying him.JESUS TO PERFORM THE SIGN BY THE This verse shows that Dalmanutha was on the western side of Galilee, for Jesus was back in the territory of his old enemies who immediately confronted him and demanded that he show them a sign "from heaven." Such a sign they had already received when God himself spake out of heaven upon the occasion of Jesus' baptism, saying, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." What they no doubt meant, however, was some celestial display of gaudy and spectacular power totally lacking in moral value. Those hypocrites who found such miracles as feeding the multitudes, healing all manner of diseases, opening the eyes of the blind, unstopping the ears of the deaf, and raising the dead, to be in some manner insufficient, betrayed in this demand their own impenitence and spiritual blindness. By demanding some other type of wonder than the miracles our Lord had so generously performed among them, they were arrogating to themselves the right to decide the kind of proof Christ should provide regarding his divine Messiahship. There was no chance that Jesus would yield to such arrogance. The mighty prophets of the Old Testament had outlined the wonders that would occur when the Messiah came, and Jesus followed that pattern perfectly. The Pharisees were demanding some other kind of proof, but in so doing, they placed themselves at variance with their own Scriptures for which they pretended such great respect. See my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 237-38. Verse 12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek a sign? verily I say unto you. There shall no sign be given unto this generation.There shall no sign be given ... This means "no sign like they wanted" would be given and does not conflict in any way with the exceptions cited in Matthew and Luke, nor should it be supposed that the other two evangelists were reporting exactly the same incident as here. Such a demand by the Pharisees was probably made over and over. Matthew made an exception in that "the sign of the prophet Jonah" would indeed be given that generation, as did also Luke (Matthew 12:38 f; Luke 11:29 f). Mark's inclusion of this demand in a different context, strongly suggests that this Pharisaical demand was repeated. It would not have been right for Jesus to have yielded to such a demand, and therefore he refused. It would also have been utterly futile to have yielded. As Luke recorded, Jesus said, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, if one rise from the dead" (Luke 16:31). Verse 13 And he left them, and again entering into the boat departed to the other side.The sea of Galilee was only six or seven miles wide at the widest place, and Jesus and his apostles must have crossed it a hundred times. It was a natural barrier between Christ and the territory controlled by the Pharisees, and Jesus often found it expedient to place its sparkling waters between himself and his enemies until the time of his offering himself upon the cross arrived. Departed to the other side ... This was the eastern shore. Verse 14 And they forgot to take bread; and they had not in the boat with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod. THE LEAVEN OF THE AND HERODForgot to take bread ... This lapse on the part of the Twelve led to their misunderstanding Jesus' reference to "leaven," but Jesus here used that term as a reference to the teachings, philosophy, and life-style of the Pharisees, Sadducees (Matthew 16:6) and Herod. It is very significant that Christ found it necessary here to utter this warning to his apostles. The leaven of the Pharisees ... has reference to their hypocrisy and deceit, and especially to the vicious campaign they had launched in an effort to refute Jesus' claim to be the divine Messiah of Israel. They were advocating the rejection of their Messiah with every cunning and lying argument possible. For a detailed catalogue of no less than twelve false charges they made against Christ, see my Commentary on Matthew, p. 240. Considering the power, respectability, and influence of those Jewish leaders, it was most appropriate that the Lord warn his apostles to prevent their deception by his unscrupulous foes. The leaven of the Sadducees ... mentioned, not here, but in Matthew, coincided with that of the Pharisees as far as it regarded opposition to Christ; but their teaching had additional dimensions of secularity and materialism beyond that of the Pharisees. They did not believe in the existence of angels, nor in the resurrection of the dead, and were as cold-blooded a group of crass materialists as ever lived on earth. The leaven of Herod ... This was the leaven of renunciation concerning all the vaunted hopes of Israel. The Herodians were a prominent sect of the Jews who were willing to give up their sacred inheritance and accommodate with the military power of the Romans, whose vassal Herod Antipas was. Herod Antipas (this son of Herod the Great) was also a profligate, licentious, and unprincipled prince whose sensuous life and dissolute family were a prime scandal of that whole generation. How strange it is that the apostles failed, at first, to catch the Lord's meaning in these words. Needless to say, the same "leaven" is found in the teachings of men today. Verse 16 And they reasoned one with another, saying, We have no bread.Mark did not include Christ's repetition of his remarks concerning leaven, by which repetition he opened their eyes to the real meaning (see my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 241-242); but it is clear here, no less than in Matthew, that their failure to understand was due not to any fault of the Lord but to themselves. If Christ had meant "bread," he would have said "bread." His use of "leaven" in connection with the Pharisees and Herod Antipas required the term to be understood figuratively. Verse 17 And Jesus perceiving it saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? do ye not yet perceive, neither understand? have ye your heart hardened?The last clause of this verse carries the implication that the apostles had, in some degree, been hardened; and this would account for their failure to petition the Lord on behalf of the hungry multitude. The attitude of the world's Pharisees and Herods was somewhat with them. And what was the connection between the Pharisees and Herod Antipas, mentioned a moment earlier? To both classes, the world was all that mattered. The only kingdom was an earthly one. Do ye not yet perceive ... The apostles' perception had failed on two counts: (1) They had failed to perceive that Christ could and would supply bread for the four thousand men. (2) They had failed to perceive that the one loaf which they had on board, WITH JESUS, was far more than enough! They had not learned the true lessons which their experiences were designed to teach. In this, the perceptive words of Barclay are significant. He said: Too often experience fills us with pessimism, teaches us what we cannot do. ... But there are other experiences. Sorrow came, and we came through it still erect. Temptation came, and somehow we did not fall. Illness took us, and somehow we recovered. A problem seemed insoluble, and somehow it was solved. We were at our wits' end, and somehow we went on. We reached the breaking point, and somehow we did not break. We, too, are blind.[6]ENDNOTE: [6] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 192. Verse 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?The apostles were here afflicted with the natural blindness that so easily pertains to mortal life. Do ye not remember ...? This question should be burned into every conscience. Do we not remember days of weakness and humiliation, our infancy and childhood, the countless times in life when only the divine will stood between us and death or sorrow? Can we not remember prayers answered, dreams realized, strength provided, and hopes fulfilled - all through God's gracious blessing? Do we not remember the solemn commitment of our souls to God when we believed and were baptized into Christ? Have we forgotten the holy intention that brought us to the Lord? Have we forgotten God? Verse 19 When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces took ye up? And they say unto him. Seven. And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand?Significantly, Christ here referred to two feedings of great multitudes, emphasizing salient features of both; and there can be no honest rationalizing of these accounts as descriptions of a single miracle. Only by a denial of the sacred record can one make the gospel narratives to be merely various accounts of a solitary wonder. For comment on Christ's use of two different words for "baskets" in these verses, see under Mark 8:8, above. Mark left out of sight the fact that the apostles fully understood and appreciated the divine instruction they received in this connection; but it appears dramatically in Matthew's account. THE BLIND MAN OF This miracle is recorded only in Mark; but Matthew's account makes it clear enough that many mighty works were done in Bethsaida (Matthew 11:21), this doubtless being one of them. Verse 22 And they came unto Bethsaida. And they bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him.Bethsaida ... was one of the cities upbraided by Jesus for its unbelief. It was the native city of Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Philip, its name meaning "house of fish," and was located on the western shore of Galilee; and, if Peloubet is correct in identifying it with Scythopolis, it was the one member of the Decapolis west of Galilee. Verse 23 And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught?Took him out of the village ... Although not so stated here, this was, in all probability, for the purpose of privacy, as in the case of the deaf-mute, and for the same purpose of preventing any allegation that the spittle was necessary to the cure. Just why Christ occasionally resorted to such practice is not known to us; but, as in the case of the deaf-mute, it appears to have been necessary for the instruction of the blind man. Dummelow observed that: The man was healed in stages, probably because his faith was imperfect. Jesus first strengthened his faith by partly healing him, and then; when his faith was adequate, completed the cure.[7]In this connection, it should be remembered that they were the citizens of Bethsaida who brought this man to Jesus; and that city was noted for its unbelief and rejection of the Lord. ENDNOTE: [7] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 728. Verse 24 And he looked up, and said, I see men; for I behold them as trees, walking.This is a rare case of Jesus' performance of such a wonder in stages, which can only be attributed to the lack of faith in the blind man, a fact that appears certain in the light of Jesus' forbidding him to re-enter the village noted for unbelief. Verse 25 Then again he laid his hands upon his eyes; and he looked stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly.Despite the fact of there being two stages in the man's healing, it was nevertheless accomplished almost immediately, the cure itself being dramatic and complete, and bearing eloquent testimony to the power and godhead of him who wrought it. Verse 26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village.The understanding of this commandment to the blind man lies in the identity of the village he was forbidden to enter, namely, Bethsaida. Jesus was reported in Matthew to have said: Woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were done in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for you (Matthew 11:21-22). The symbolism of this miracle therefore reflects upon the wicked unbelief of Bethsaida. In order to heal the blind man, Jesus had to take him by the hand and lead him out of the village. There are environments today where spiritual healing is a near impossibility, until men shall be led out of them. Why was he not allowed to return to Bethsaida? More than enough had already been done for that wicked village; and Christ here heeded his own admonition regarding the casting of pearls before swine. PETER'S AT This is a much briefer account of Peter's remarkable confession than is found in Matthew, indicating perhaps that Peter, who was Mark's mentor, had not stressed it as strongly as the other apostles, this possibly being due to considerations of modesty on Peter's part. Verse 27 And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi: and on the way he asked his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that I am?Caesarea Philippi ... is mentioned only here and in Matthew 16:13, these being the only New Testament references to the place. It was built by Herod Philip and named after Caesar, with his own name added to distinguish it from another Caesarea on the seacoast. It was situated in a beautiful valley near the base of Mt. Hermon some twenty miles north of the sea of Galilee, and was founded upon a massive limestone ledge, or terrace, the same having probably suggested Jesus' metaphor of making Peter's confession of Christ as the Son of God to be the "ledge" or "rock" upon which he built the church. Who do men say that I am ...? This is the most important question which confronts people of all generations; and it was particularly important that the apostles should be instructed in the all-important fact of WHO Jesus is, and was, and shall be forever. Verse 28 And they told him, saying, John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.Significantly, the popular appraisal of Jesus' identity had been eroded and compromised by the savage campaign of vilification and misrepresentation which the religious leaders were so vigorously prosecuting against Jesus. From implications in all the synoptics, and from the most powerful assertions in John, it is clear that in Jesus' early contacts with the people he was readily hailed as the Messiah, or the Son of God, or King of Israel, as in the case of Nathaniel; but the evil campaign of the Pharisees had taken its toll, and at this point, the popular view extolled Christ merely as a prophet, or Elijah, Jeremiah, or John the Baptist, thus according him a noble place of honor but falling short of hailing him as the Son of God. Satan was pleased to have the Lord hailed as some great one, as long as he was not recognized as the Greatest One. The episode recorded here provides the watershed of Mark's gospel; Cranfield stated that here "the second half of the gospel begins."[8] To this point, the great thrust of the gospel was directed to the establishment of our Lord as a divine person, reaching its glorious climax in Peter's confession of "the Christ." The second half of the gospel is the road to Calvary, marked here at the outset with the first announcement of his Passion and a dramatic shift of the Master's teaching to the phase of personal instructions for the apostles and away from teaching the multitudes. This verse regarding the popular opinions of our Lord's identity has been seized upon by skeptics who have made it the basis of alleging a contradiction between John and the synoptics; but such allegations are illogical and irresponsible. The point in the synoptics is not that Jesus had never been publicly recognized as the Christ but that the counter-campaign of the religious hierarchy which was directed against the general recognition of his Messiahship had, to this point, been very successful. Their campaign against it proves that the recognition of Jesus as the Christ was sufficiently widespread to demand their campaign. See more on this in my Commentary on Matthew, p. 243. ENDNOTE: [8] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 266. Verse 29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter answered and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ.It is never enough to know what others believe regarding the identity of our Lord; and the answer to the question here pressed upon his apostles by the Saviour is exactly the pivot upon which the destiny of every soul on earth is turned. Peter, apparently speaking for all of the Twelve, confessed, "Thou art the Christ." The record in Mark is a summary which omits the following references to: the Son of the living God, Christ's confession of Peter, the promise to build his church on the rock, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the gates of Hades, and binding and loosing on earth. This commentator's volume on Matthew has some eleven pages of text devoted to the discussion of these things and of such related topics as the primacy of Peter, the so-called Petrine succession, and other questions raised by Matthew's more complete account of this key episode. See my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 243-253. Thou art the Christ ... is shorter than the confession as given by Matthew, "Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God"; but it is in no sense inadequate, summarizing, as it does in these four words, the grand total of the power and godhead of the Son of God. As Cranfield declared: This title (The Christ), in spite of all the false and narrow hopes which had become attached to it (in the popular thought of that day), was peculiarly fitted to express his true relation both to the Old Testament and to the people of God.[9]ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid., p. 270. Verse 30 And he charged them that they should tell no man of him.Although Mark did not record Jesus' acceptance of Peter's confession as did Matthew, he nevertheless indicated it emphatically by this charge. Again from Cranfield, "(This) implies that Jesus did accept Peter's confession as true.""[10]ENDNOTE: [10] Ibid., p. 271. Verse 31 And he 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.THE OF THE PASSION; THE ; AND THE SECOND COMINGThis paragraph beginning with Mark 8:31 and continuing through Mark 9:1 is characteristic of Mark in that several unrelated things are gathered together in it, as in Mark 5:21-25. Scholars have a custom of formalizing three definite announcements of Jesus' approaching death, resurrection, and second coming; and despite the fact of Matthew's detailing three distinct occasions when such prophecies were given (Matthew 16:21; Matthew 17:22; and Matthew 20:17), it is the conviction here that Christ spoke frequently of those epic events which at that time began to loom so ominously upon the horizon of our Lord's public ministry. Therefore, the only way to view these various prophecies is completely, taking them all together, here is such a summary: Death would occur in Jerusalem. It would come with his own consent. It would follow his rejection by Israel. The elders would participate in it. The chief priests would cause it. The scribes would approve it. He would be killed (not merely die). He would be crucified. He would suffer many things. He would be condemned to death (indicating trials). He would be "delivered up" (betrayed). Gentiles would also be instruments of his death. He would be mocked. He would be scourged. He would rise from the dead "after three days". After three days ... Cranfield's view that these words are "an indefinite expression for a short time"[11] is unacceptable, being unsupported by any logical argument. The tradition of Friday crucifixion underlies all such meanings imported into words like these. See under Mark 15:42 for extensive discussion of "Christ Crucified on Thursday." In the entire history of humanity, there is no comparable example of one so precisely detailing in advance the circumstances of his judicial murder, and with the unique promise of rising from the dead after three days! Who but God come in the flesh could have done such a thing as this? WHY JESUS THE TITLE OF "THE SON OF MAN" The Son of Man ... We have capitalized the whole title as should have been done in the sacred text; because, as Cranfield said, "Jesus by `the Son of Man' always means himself."[12] It was the title Jesus preferred, as evidenced by his substitution of it in this passage for "Christ" (Messiah) which Peter had just used in his confession. As to why Jesus preferred this title, it may be noted that: (1) It is more majestic than "Messiah," a title accurate enough in its biblical context but somewhat inadequate because of the false notions the Jewish leaders had fastened upon it. (2) This title uniquely combined the ideas of transcendent and glorious majesty with vicarious suffering for the benefit of others. (3) During his humiliation as a man, it was the most appropriate badge of his humanity, stressing his perfect manhood and emphasizing his office as the sin-bearer for all men. (4) The very ambiguity (in Jewish idiom, the expression `son of man' often had the meaning of `a mere man,' as in Psalms 8:4) of the title was especially valuable to Jesus' purpose of proclaiming himself in such a manner that the spiritual mind would perceive his glory and the unspiritual mind would not perceive it. The meaning of the title would thus appear to some hearers in capitals, SON OF MAN, and to others in lower case, "son of man." It was thus a most effective instrument for polarizing his hearers. The double meaning of the title is also found in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament, Daniel 7:13 having a definite reference to the Messiah: "One like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven to the Ancient of days." (5) The title "Son of Man" also had the advantage of a subtle but exceedingly significant connection with the suffering Servant of the prophecy of Isaiah 53, categorically refuting the bias of Bultmann who said that "Jesus' sayings reveal no trace of a consciousness on his part of being the Servant of God of Isaiah 53."[13] "It seems scarcely open to doubt that Jesus did apply Isaiah 53 to himself."[14] There can be no doubt at all that by Jesus' use of the title `Son of Man' he meant everything that pertains to human redemption. [11] Ibid., p. 278. [12] Ibid., p. 273 [13] R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I (1948: English translation by K. Grobel, London: 1952), p. 31. [14] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 277. Verse 32 And he spake the saying openly. And Peter took him and began to rebuke him.Openly ... would indicate that Jesus' prophecy of his death and resurrection was made available to the public as well as to the apostles; and, from this, it would seem that Peter was concerned about the erosion of our Lord's popular image that would necessarily result from such a prophecy. It was part of the divine wisdom, however, that all men should know of Jesus' prophecies in this sector. The Pharisees and other leaders were well aware of what he taught in this context, and from their knowledge of it there came the sealing of the tomb and placement of the watch upon our Lord's grave. And began to rebuke him ... Matthew related the nature of Peter's rebuke: "Be it far from the Lord; this shall never be unto thee" (Matthew 16:22). Thus Peter rejected the idea of the cross; and the fact of Jesus' noblest disciples being opposed to it was a definite temptation to the Lord himself. He said, "Thou art a stumbling block unto me." This shows that some of man's greatest temptations gain access to him through friends and intimates. And Peter took him ... indicates that Peter probably took our Lord by the hand, or in some other manner led him apart to make this protest. However, the other apostles, as seen in the next verse, had followed and were witnesses of the entire incident. Verse 33 But he turning about, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and saith, Get thee behind me, Satan; for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.The words of Christ here do not mean that Peter was satanic and depraved, but that in opposing the cross he was unconsciously taking the part of Satan in opposing the divine will. He was looking at things in the light of mere human wisdom and not from the perspective of the will of God. As Erdman said: The offense of the cross has never ceased. It is still human and natural to insist that the death of Christ was not necessary; but the preaching of the cross is the very wisdom and the power of God.[15]It should be noted that Christ did not pause to justify the cross by citing the benefits that would be achieved through such a means, setting forth the principle that it was the will of God, that being the only justification needed. Turning about ... The presence of the other apostles was noted by Christ, and it therefore became necessary to rebuke Peter before them all and in terms that could leave no misunderstanding of the truth. Get thee behind me, Satan ... This is generally interpreted to mean that Peter had gone out in front of the Lord in an effort to guide him, and the Lord was here ordering Peter to assume his proper place behind the Lord as a devoted follower and disciple. ENDNOTE: [15] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 134. Verse 34 And he called unto him the multitude with his disciples, and said unto them, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it.The cross was not merely for our Lord but for all who would enter into eternal life. Deny himself ... Egocentric pride is the bane of human life; and `God's plan of salvation requires the renunciation of self by all who would be saved. It is not merely confessing Christ that is "unto salvation," but confessing "Jesus as LORD" (Romans 10:9) that makes the difference. No man who ever lived can be saved as Joe Doakes or John Doe, or Susie Smith. Salvation is "in Christ." One is saved not in his own sinful human identity but "as Christ," "in him" and through positive and complete identity with him. Take up his cross ... Cross-bearing is the soul's assumption of the role of Jesus Christ throughout life, the reception of his Holy Spirit, the indwelling of "the mind that was in him" (Philippians 2:5), the permitting of the word of Christ to dwell in the soul richly (Colossians 3:16). Taking up the cross has no reference to the wearing of any ornament, nor to the trials of life, nor the common misfortunes of humanity, but to the conscious acceptance of the Saviour's total will. The teaching in this passage is not a prescription of martyrdom for all who would be saved; but, in this original context of the words, it surely carried that implication. Cranfield said: "The meaning here is that the disciple must be ready to face martyrdom";[16] nor should it ever be ruled out completely as potentially applicable to every Christian. Whosoever would save his life ... The point of the final clauses here is that any disciple who would save his life by denying the Lord will lose eternal life, while any disciple who might lose his life through faithfulness to Christ and the gospel would gain eternal life. ENDNOTE: [16] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 282. Verse 36 For what doth it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? For what should a man give in exchange for his life?These verses stress the incomparable value of the soul, worth more than the whole world; and if, through disloyalty to Christ, one should forfeit his soul to eternal night, there is nothing with which he could hope to reclaim it. The loss would be irrevocable. Even if he should have gained the planet itself, such would be insufficient to purchase again the forfeited life. The overwhelming significance of the teachings in this entire paragraph lies in the absolute loyalty to his Person which was required by Jesus Christ. Only God could righteously demand and receive such adoration and fidelity from men; and therefore the passage is heavily freighted with overtones of the Saviour's godhead. Verse 38 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of man also shall be ashamed of him, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.This verse is actually the conclusion of this paragraph, having no connection whatever with Mark 9:1. The paragraphing here has spawned much error. Mark 8:38 andMark 9:1 regard utterly different subjects, and one may regret the gratuitous extension of this paragraph by the later versions to make Mark 9:1 appear in this context. Mark, it would appear, reported Jesus' admonition against men's being ashamed of him, either because Jesus himself repeated the admonition in this context, or because it was an oft-repeated warning by Jesus which Mark considered to be appropriate in context. Either way, it is authentic and inspired. A similar warning was recorded byMatthew 10:32-33. That human pride should lead men to be ashamed of the sinless Son of God and his holy teachings is one of the mysteries of iniquity; yet the fact of its doing so is evident everywhere. Satan has indeed deceived and deluded men in whom such being ashamed occurs. When he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels ... This is a clear and dramatic reference to the second coming of Christ at the end of the dispensation when he shall appear apart from sin and with the purpose of executing eternal justice upon his creation. The presence of the holy angels in conjunction with the second coming is affirmed throughout the New Testament. It appears in the parables of the kingdom (Matthew 13) and in the writings of Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:7 f). It is the function of the angels to separate the precious from the vile at the time of the final judgment (Matthew 13:41; Matthew 13:49). Therefore, the coming of Christ in this verse must be identified with "the judgment" so frequently mentioned by Jesus (Matthew 12:41-42, etc.). Mark 9:1 states: "And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power." Cranfield identified this verse as an "independent saying,"[17] thus giving scholarly confirmation of evident implications of the text itself. This verse can have no connection whatever with the verse (Mark 8:38) to which it is artificially joined by the unjustifiable distortion of the paragraph. The second coming of Christ in glory with ten thousand of his holy angels did not occur during the lifetime of the Twelve; therefore the coming of the kingdom of God in this verse is impossible of understanding as a reference to Mark 8:38. Having incorrectly joined the two verses (Mark 8:38 and Mark 9:1), the commentators have found it impossible to give a logical interpretation. Cranfield took notice of no less than eight radical and diverse explanations of Mar 9:1, which is here summarized: 1Jesus here taught that the second coming would occur within a very short while (this interpretation demeans the Lord of glory). 2The seeing of the kingdom of God come with power refers not to physical seeing of it but to intellectual perception of it! 3The "taste" of death mentioned in Mark 9:1 does not refer to physical death but to spiritual death. 4The persons who will not taste of death until the kingdom comes with power are those who will be alive and caught up, without death, at the second coming. 5The coming of the kingdom with power refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 6Others have thought of Pentecost and the spread of the gospel. 7The coming of the kingdom promised here is a visible manifestation of the Rule of God displayed in the life of the Elect Community. 8Mark 9:1 is a reference to the Transfiguration! Cranfield, Erdman, and others favor understanding the Transfiguration as the fulfillment of Mar 9:1; but there is no way that such a view can be satisfactory. As Bickersteth said, "The solemnity of these words (Mark 9:1) forbids us to limit them to an event that would occur within eight days."[18] Only the most imaginative devices can construe the transfiguration of Jesus Christ, witnessed by only three persons, as the coming of the kingdom of God with power. All of the above interpretations are advocated by renowned scholars; and the very proliferation of their explanations suggests a fundamental misunderstanding. It is the opinion here that "the kingdom of God" is a reference to the church of Jesus Christ. The failure of the scholars to see this derives from their failure to include the light which falls upon this place from the parallel in Matthew where Christ used the terms "church" and "kingdom" interchangeably (Matthew 16:18-19). For an extended examination of this thesis, the reader is referred to my Commentary on Matthew, pp. 337-341. Understanding the church and the kingdom as one and the same thing satisfies all the teachings in Mark 9:1. The kingdom of God coming with power on Pentecost took place at a time after both Jesus himself and Judas had tasted death, and also within the lives of the others. There is no other explanation that this student has ever encountered which so completely fulfills all the requirements of the sacred text as does this. [17] Ibid., p. 285. [18] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16 (II), p. 1. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter EightFeeding the Four Thousand, Mark 8:1-9. (Matthew 15:32-38) Mark 8:1-9.—The account of this miracle is so nearly identical with that given by Matthew that no remarks additional to those already given are deemed necessary. See the parallel in Matthew. In Dalmanutha. A Sign Demanded, Mark 8:10-12. (Matthew 15:39 to Matthew 16:4) Mark 8:10. into the parts of Dalmanutha.—Matthew says, "into the coasts of Magdala." (Matt. 15:39.) "The coasts" (τὰὅρια) of Magdala were the lands lying in the vicinity of Magdala, which was a town of Considerable size. "The parts" (τμρη) of Dalmanutha were the suburbs of the place, or the lands immediately adjoining it. If we suppose Dalmanutha to have been a village "in the coasts" of Magdala, and Jesus to have been in the immediate vicinity of the former, we have the exact conception furnished by the accounts when combined. Mark, as usual, is more specific than Matthew in regard to the locality. Mark 8:11. the Pharisees came forth.—Matthew represents the Sadducees as participating in this conversation. tempting him.—See the note on Matthew 16:1. Mark 8:12. he sighed deeply.—The excessive depravity exhibited by this demand for a sign in the midst of overwhelming demonstrations of divine power, seems to have moved Jesus to an unusual degree. The tone of his answer, especially as reported by Matthew, "A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas," is like that of the final sentence of doom on a wicked world. It was wrung from an unwilling heart by the demands of justice. no sign be given.—No sign such as they demanded; that is, "a sign from heaven." Mark, in his brevity, omits the exception named by Matthew. (See Matt. 16:4, and the note there.) Argument of Section 7This section contains an account of three more remarkable miracles— the expulsion of a demon from the Gentile woman's daughter; the restoration of speech and hearing to the deaf stammerer; and the feeding of four thousand men with seven barley loaves and a few small fishes. By these the divine power of Jesus is once more exhibited. The section also exhibits the tenderness of his compassion in his dealing with the Gentile woman and the hungry multitude, and his judicial indignation against hypocrisy in his conversation with the Pharisees. These are attributes of character which, though they do not prove their possessor to have been superhuman, are necessary to that perfection of character which must be found in the Son of God. Tour to Cæsarea Philippi, Mark 8:13-38 and Mark 9:1-50 The Leaven of the Pharisees and of Herod, Mark 8:13-21. (Matthew 16:5-12)Mark 8:15. the leaven of Herod.—On the leaven of the Pharisees, see the note under Matthew 16:12. The leaven of Herod was a corrupting political influence. They had need to be guarded against this, because the disputes of political partisans are not only corrupting to those who indulge them, but they impair the influence of men whose business it is to guide all parties in the way of holiness. The apostles adhered strictly, throughout their career, to the rule of action here given. Mark 8:19-20. how many baskets.—Mark here gives in its exact form, no doubt, a conversation which Matthew puts into a slightly different form for the sake of abbreviation. (Comp. Matthew 16:9-10.) Mark 8:21. that ye do not understand.—Mark leaves the subject without saying, as Matthew does, whether the disciples finally understood the remark or not; but he takes it for granted that his readers would understand it. For other remarks, see notes on the parallel in Matthew. Cure of a Blind Man at Bethsaida, Mark 8:22-26 Mark 8:22. Bethsaida.—This is not the Bethsaida in which Peter, Andrew, and Philip had formerly resided (see note, Matthew 11:21), but another Bethsaida, afterward called Julias, which was situated on the east bank of the Jordan, just above its entrance into the lake of Galilee. (See Smith's Dictionary, Art. Bethsaida, 2.) This is evident from the fact that the company of Jesus had crossed from the west to the northeast side of the lake, in approaching the place. (Verses 10, 13; comp. note, Matthew 16:5.) Mark 8:23. led him out of the town.—Here we see once more the desire of privacy which Jesus had manifested from the time of his tour to the vicinity of Tyre. (7:24, 33, 36.) He led the man on through the town, in the direction of his own journey, to heal him outside. spit on his eyes.—Again the act of spitting precedes the act of healing, as in the cure of the deaf stammerer. (Mark 7:33.) But now he spits on the man's eyes, the part which is to be cured. The man's eyes were probably sore, suggesting the application of saliva for its known power to soften and soothe the part thus affected. Mark 8:24-25. men as trees.—He had not been born blind, or he would not have known how trees appear as distinguished from men; but having lost his sight, when it was partially restored he received distorted vision of the men about him, so that they appeared tall and rough in their outline like trees. Another touch of the hand of Jesus completed his restoration. Jesus adopted this method of cure to give variety to the manifestations of his power by showing that he could heal in part and by progressive steps, as well as by his more usual method of effecting a perfect cure at one word. This cure was not less miraculous than others, but rather more so: for it was really the working of two miracles, each effecting instantaneously all that was intended by it. Mark 8:26. Neither go... nor tell.—If the man had gone into the town seeing, or had told persons living in the town what had occurred, the whole population might have gone out in pursuit of Jesus, and thus the privacy which he was seeking to maintain would have been broken up. It was for this reason that Jesus told him to neither go into the town, nor tell it to any in the town. Conversation near Cæsarea Philippi, Mark 8:27-30 (Matthew 16:13-20; Luke 9:18-21)Mark 8:27-30.—This conversation if much more fully reported by Matthew, and the reader is referred to the notes on Matthew 16:13-20, for comments and explanations. First Prediction of His Death, Mark 8:31-33. (Matthew 16:21-23; Luke 9:22)Mark 8:31. after three days.—This paragraph also is more fully reported by Matthew, and demands no remarks here except in reference to one striking difference in phraseology. In reporting the predicted time of the resurrection, Matthew has it, "the third day" (Matthew 16:21), and Mark, "after three days." As Jesus can have used only one of the two expressions, we know not which, the writer who uses the other must have regarded it as an equivalent. This circumstance contributes to the proof abundantly furnished in the Scriptures, that the two expressions were equivalent in Jewish usage. (See the discussion of this usage under Matthew 12:40.) Necessity for Self-sacrifice, Mark 8:34-38 and Mark 9:1. (Matthew 16:24-28; Luke 9:23-27)Mark 8:34. had called the people.—Notwithstanding the efforts of Jesus to secure privacy, it seems from this verse that the people were about him. Perhaps they were only the people of the neighborhood through which he was passing. Matthew fails to mention the presence of any but the disciples. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 81. What was the condition of the multitude ? 2. For how long had they been fasting? 3. How did Jesus feel towards them? 4. Were they nearby neighbors ? 5. What might happen if sent away? 6. State the difficulty as the disciples saw it. 7. What supplies did they have ? 8. Tell what orderly arrangement Jesus required. 9. Before serving what did he do? 10. Did he serve them personally? 11. What amount was left? 12. How many were fed ? 13. To what place did he next go ? 14. By what route did he travel? 15. Who began questioning him? 16. What did they seek? 17. How did this affect Jesus? 18. What was his remark? 19. Tell what he did then. 20. What had been forgotten? 21. Did Jesus rebuke them for it? 22. What did he charge them about ? 23. How did they reason on the matter? 24. Was their reasoning aloud? 25. How did Jesus describe their heart? 26. Also their eyes and ears? 27. What would he have them remember? 28. Could they recall these events? 29. What should this have done for their minds ? 30. To what place did he now come ? 31. Who was brought unto him? 32. To where did Jesus lead the man? 33. What was first done for him ? 34. And next? 35. Was each of these effects instant ? 36. With what instruction did he send the man away? 37. Into what region did Jesus and his disciples go ? 38. Why add Philippi to the other name? 39. What did he ask them ? 40. State the answer. 41. What was his next question? 42. Who answered it? 43. Repeat his answer. 44. What did he charge them? 45. Tell what he began to teach them. 46. Was it done secretly? 47. What did Peter do ?- 48. How did Jesus name him? 49. Of what did he accuse him? 50. Whom did he call unto him? 51. Why should one deny himself? 53. What must he take up? 53. What is lost if saved? 54. For what sake is all this ? 55. What gain is unprofitable? 56. Answer the question in 37th verse. 57. Of whom will Jesus be ashamed ? 1 Jesus did many of his works through cooperation with his disciples. 2 The compassion of Jesus was caused by the lack of food among the multitudes. That would be emphasized by the motive that had kept them there for three days, which was that they might hear the teaching He was giving. 3 For comments on this verse see those on Matthew 15:32. 4 It is strange the disciples forgot the occasion of chapter 6:35-44. 5 Jesus never had to ask questions for information (John 2:24-25), but he often asked them as a means of drawing the disciples into the matter at hand, to let them feel a sense of responsibility concerning the welfare of others. 6 They were to sit down for the sake of orderliness. The bread was first handed to the disciples who then did set ("place near"--Thayer) the bread before them. 7 He blessed is equivalent to "gave thanks" in the preceding verse. 8 Having the baskets of scraps left denoted that their being filled was not just an imagination. This is especially significant in view of the fact that they had been fasting for three days and must have been very hungry. 9 Matthew 15:38 says this many men besides women and children. 0 After dismissing the people Jesus got into a boat and came to the region of Dalmanutha, a town on the west side of the Sea of Galilee. 1 It is honorable to ask questions for information, but the Pharisees asked them as a temptation of Jesus, thus acting in their usual hypocritical manner. 2 Sighed deeply means Jesus made a deep groan over the perversity of those people. He did not consider them worthy of much attention. In Matthew 16:4 he did tell them about Jonah, but that was not what they really wanted. 3 Leaving the crowd, Jesus again recrossed the sea. 4 They were about to enter a region where public markets were scarce at best, which ought to have prompted the disciples to make special provision for it. Jesus knew they had forgotten about it and used the circumstance to test them. 5 The disciples knew that the Pharisees and Herod were in an unfavorable light with Jesus, but they did not grasp the comparison that was made to leaven. 6 "A guilty conscience needs no reproof" is an old saying, and it about describes the state of mind the disciples were in. There was scarcely any connection between what Jesus said and the fact of their having forgotten to take bread. 7 They had done their reasoning to themselves but Jesus knew about it and rebuked them for their dullness of heart which almost amounted to unbelief. 8 This verse means they did not use their faculties to arrive at just conclusions, even when they had visible facts on which to base their reasoning. 0 To show that it was not a lapse in their memory, Jesus specified that part of the previous feedings that especially demonstrated the greatness of the miracle (the amount of scraps left) and they remembered both instances. 1 Jesus rebuked them with a question as to their understanding. Matthew 16:12 states that the disciples then did understand what Jesus meant by leaven. 2 The request for Jesus to touch the man showed their faith in his power. 3 Jesus anointed the man with saliva and touched his eyes. 4 Men looked like trees walking to this man; that is, he saw that much but the vision was indistinct. 5 Jesus next touched the man's eyes and he saw clearly. This circumstance has been referred to by some as an answer to our claim that miraculous cures were instantaneous. But it is no valid argument, for Jesus just saw fit to perform two miracles, and each was instantaneous. To be like the modern so-called miracles, the man should have been receiving repeated treatments and the sight returning gradually, little by little, until he could see clearly. Instead, as soon as Jesus touched the man's eyes the first time he could see objects. Had nothing more been done he would always have seen that well. So that each of the miracles was complete and instantaneous. 6 See the comments on Mark 7:36 for the present verse. 7 The origin of the name Caesarea Philippi is explained at Matthew 16:13. The question Jesus asked his disciples was for the introduction to the more important subject of the faith they had in him. 8 These opinions were based on the doctrine called "transmigration," which is explained by a note at Matthew 14:2. 9 Whom say ye was addressed to all the apostles, but Peter usually was the spokesman and he made the confession of faith on behalf of the others. 0 This charge was not like the one in verse 26 and others as it had nothing directly to do with his miracles. It meant that it was not time to "release" the fundamental claim of his divinity to the whole world. 1 It was near enough to the end to introduce the sad information of how Jesus was to be treated by the Jewish leaders. This one verse covers the persecution, death and resurrection of Jesus. But it seems that Peter noticed only the bad part of it and overlooked the glorious assurance of the resurrection. Doubtless that was because he was still under the delusion that Jesus was to set up an earthly kingdom, which he could not do if he died a violent death. 2 With that error in mind Peter spoke against the prediction of Jesus. 3 Satan accomplished his purpose in the garden by contradicting the saying of God. Peter contradicted the statement of Jesus and hence he called him by that name. Savourest means to be interested in a thing, and Jesus meant that Peter was interested in a temporal kingdom instead of the spiritual kingdom of God. 4 Cross is used figuratively and means that following Christ requires one to make sacrifices. Many things must be denied to a man who tries to serve Jesus. 5 Two kinds of life are considered in this verse. The passage would read that whoever seeks to save his temporal life at the expense of righteousness will lose his spiritual life. And of course the opposite is true of the man who puts spiritual things above everything else. 6. Profit means to obtain from an investment more than was put into it. If a man buys the whole world with the price of his soul he will be a loser, for the price paid is many times more valuable than the thing purchased. 7 This verse has the same thought as the preceding but with a different figure. It is compared to a man pawning his soul for the pleasures of this world. When he would wish to redeem his soul from the "pawn shop" of the world he will not be able because the things of the world will then be gone out of existence. 8 Whosoever therefore. Since a wasted life will have nothing with which to redeem the soul, it is folly to disregard Jesus (be ashamed of him) in this world. Such a man will be disregarded by Jesus when he is in his presence and that of his angels. Verse 1 The transfiguration (Mark 9:2-8), teachings concerning Elijah (Mark 9:9-13), the cure of the lunatic boy (Mark 9:14-29), another prophecy of the Passion (Mark 9:30-32), discussion of who was the greatest (Mark 9:33-37), the unknown wonder-worker (Mark 9:38-42), and a collection of independent maxims uttered by our Lord (Mark 9:43-50), form the subject matter of Mark 9. Mark 9:1 was discussed in Mark 8, but a little further attention is directed to it here. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. (Mark 9:1) The final five verses of Mark 8 and Mark 9:1 are a collection of independent sayings of our Lord which Mark grouped together. This grouping on the part of the inspired evangelist, however, does not require that any connection be established in every case between two adjoining statements. Another such grouping of independent maxims is found at the end of this chapter (Mark 9:43-50). Regarding those verses, especially Mark 9:49-50, Barclay said: We often get a series of quite disconnected sayings of Jesus set together because they stuck in the writer's mind in that order. ... We must not try to find some remote connection between these sayings; we must take them individually, one by one, and interpret each one as it comes.[1]What Barclay affirmed of Mar 9:49-50 is likewise true of Mar 8:38 and Mark 9:1; and, although they occur side by side in this gospel, the two verses are independent, having reference to two distinct and utterly different events which were both in the future. Mark 8:38 has reference to the final judgment of humanity, an event which is still future; but Mark 9:1 has reference to an event which occurred in that generation, now nineteen centuries in the past. The efforts of some commentators to construe these verses as a reference in both cases to the final judgment, or any other event still in the future, has the effect of a charge of ignorance against the Saviour of the world. Interpreting Mark 9:1 as a reference to the final and glorious phase of the kingdom of God as ushered in by the second coming of Christ and the appearance of his holy angels leads to such conclusions as those of Grant who stated that "This expectation (the coming of Jesus in the glory of the Father) was universal in the early days of Christianity, and must go back to Jesus himself."[2] Of course, such a view makes the Lord Jesus Christ to have been mistaken and incorrect in such a statement as Mark 9:1. This is ground enough for rejecting all such interpretations. There is no need whatever to construe Mark 9:1 as a reference to the second coming of Christ or the beginning of the glorious phase of the kingdom. The great preachers of the Restoration have long held Mark 9:1 to be a prophecy of the establishment of the church on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dorris stated that argument as follows: The kingdom was to come with power, and the power was to come with the Spirit (Acts 1:8). The Spirit came on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ (Acts 2:1-4). As the kingdom was to come with power and as the power was to come with the Spirit, and as the Spirit and the power came on Pentecost, therefore, the kingdom came on that day.[3]In order to deny the thesis so logically advocated by Dorris, one must hold the Lord of Life to have been in error in his alleged meaning in Mark 9:1. Therefore, it is mandatory to reject the application of Mar 9:1 to the subject matter of Mar 8:38. There is no connection between them, except in the matter of their lying alongside each other within the matrix of the sacred text. It is impossible to interpret certain paragraphs in Mark without regard to his occasionally grouping of disconnected saying of our Lord. See the final verses in this chapter. [1] William Barclay, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 240. [2] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951, en loco. [3] C. E. W. Dorris, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1970), p. 202. Verse 2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.THE And after six days ... Luke placed this event as "eight days" afterward; but, as Barclay said, "There is no discrepancy here. They both mean what we would express by saying, `About a week afterward.'"[4]In counting up a week, Sunday to Sunday, one gets eight days if he counts the Sundays and six days if he counts between the Sundays. Both styles of time reckoning were in vogue in those days. Outside of particular times noted in Mark's account of the Passion, this "is the only precise note of time given by Mark."[5] This fact, however, is no basis whatever for designating the transfiguration as a fulfillment of Mar 9:1. Peter, and James, and John ... This is an example of Mark's stringing words, phrases, clauses, and episodes together by means of this simple connective. He also used "for" in the same manner, as in Mark 8:35-38. These three apostles formed somewhat of an "inner three" within the company of the Twelve, as also at the raising of Jairus' daughter, and in the Garden of Gethsemane. The special preferment given by the Lord to these three was doubtless prompted by the key roles that they would have in the church. James was the first to seal his testimony with his blood; Peter preached the first sermon; and John remained on earth the longest and delivered the final prophecy. High mountain apart ... This was doubtless Mount Hermon, or one of its adjacent spurs. Only these mountains qualify as being in the vicinity where Jesus was placed in the sacred text and also as being "high." Mount Tabor, the traditional site, was not high, being only about 1,500 feet in elevation. Moreover, it was inhabited on top in the time of Christ, and it would not have been taking the apostles "apart" for the Lord to have led them up Mount Tabor. Mount Hermon is a snow-capped peak 9,200 in altitude. Transfigured before them ... This word is found only in the New Testament records of this event and in Romans 12:2,2 Corinthians 3:18. "It means a change of form, an effulgence from within, not a mere `flood of glory' from without."[6] Both Matthew and Luke give fuller accounts of this wonder than does Mark. The parallel references are Matthew 17:1-8 and Luke 9:28-36. Each gospel writer added the priceless ingredient of some detail omitted by the others. Matthew mentioned the Saviour's coming and touching the apostles; Mark threw in that homely detail that "no fuller on earth" could have made Jesus' garments so white; and Luke provided the pertinent conversation between the Lord and Moses and Elijah. [4] William Barclay, op. cit.. p. 215: [5] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 338. [6] Frederick C. Grant, op. cit., en loco. Verse 3 And his garments became glistening, exceeding white so as no fuller on earth can whiten them.This event should be understood as a factual, objective, historical event, in which Christ deliberately permitted three of his apostles to glimpse the Lord in this manifestation of his glorious heavenly nature. Speculation as to why this was done is fruitless. Christ himself evidently received strength and encouragement from the approving words of Moses and Elijah; and certainly, the apostles received in this event an experience they never forgot. Verse 4 And there appeared unto them Elijah and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.The independence of the gospel narratives is further emphasized by the reversal of the names Elijah and Moses, and by Mark's mention of the conversation without naming the subject matter, and Luke's giving the content of it. Elijah as a representative of the prophets, and Moses as the great lawgiver of Israel both appeared before the Son of God in this event and, in a sense, laid their authority at the Master's feet, resigning their commission in the presence of Christ. The theological implications of this are profound. When the bright cloud, symbolical of the presence of God himself, caught away the great prophet and the great lawgiver, leaving only Jesus visible, it was God's way of saying, "There is only one authority now, and that is Christ!" "This is my beloved Son; hear ye him!" Verse 5 And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.Of course, Peter was wrong in this suggestion, and yet it is easy to understand his feelings. It was a glorious thing they had just seen, and how natural it was that he should have desired to prolong such a glorious fellowship. As Erdman said: Peter is not to be ridiculed; he realized the blessedness of the experience; however clumsily expressed; (and) in spite of his fear, he wished to continue in such blissful companionship.[7]Peter's desire was like that of many in all generations who experience some glorious achievement or magnificent event and thereafter seek to perpetuate endlessly the glory of that moment. Such a desire, even if it were possible of fulfillment, should not prevail. Life is not designed to freeze some glorious moment like the figures on a Grecian urn. Whatever sweet and precious moments may be provided by life on earth, they can never be permanent; there is always the journey down the mountain; and so it was for the blessed three who participated in the transfiguration. Peter's failure here was in the supposition that Jesus AND Moses AND Elijah were in some manner a greater authority or more desirable fellowship than that of Jesus alone, a notion that was quickly corrected by the event of the cloud and the voice out of heaven, after which they saw "Jesus only." In our own times, the human temptation to mix the word and teachings of Christ with some other system exhibits the same error that Peter made here. It is not Christianity with something else that blesses people; it is Christianity alone. Tabernacles ... This word was the one used to describe the arbors or booths in which the people of Israel dwelt briefly during the annual feast of Tabernacles; but the exact nature of what Peter here had in mind is unknown. ENDNOTE: [7] Charles R. Erdman. The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 138. Verse 6 For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.This is a classical example of Mark's use of "for" as a connective device for his narrative; and it should be noted that these two examples of it come right in the midst of a similar string of "ands" in the same paragraph. This is warning enough that these characteristic connectives in Mark cannot be made the basis of construing independent maxims as necessarily having any connection in thought or meaning. Verse 7 And there came a cloud overshadowing them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son: hear ye him.What is meant by the overshadowing cloud? Did it envelop all of the group or only Jesus, Moses, and Elijah? From the fact of God's presence in the Old Testament having been indicated by the pillar of a cloud by day (Exodus 13:21), as well as from other associations of clouds with the presence of God (Psalms 79:14; 1 Thessalonians 4:17, etc.), there is a strong inclination to make the same association here; but a comparison with the baptismal scene (Matthew 3:16-17) in which Christ as the Son of God, the Spirit as a dove, and the voice from the Father indicate the presence of the Trinity, suggests that the same is in view here. If so, Christ as the beloved Son and the voice from the Father would leave the overshadowing of the cloud as a symbol or manifestation of the Holy Spirit. This is not indicated absolutely, however, because the voice was said to have come "out of the cloud." In Luke 1:35, the coming of the Holy Spirit upon Mary was linked with the statement that the power of the Most High would "overshadow" her. Regarding the question of who was overshadowed, Cranfield, arguing from the premise that the disciples seemed to have been addressed outside the cloud, concluded that the enveloping included only Jesus, Moses, and Elijah.[8] Cranfield is wrong, for Luke records that "they feared as they entered into the cloud" (Luke 9:34). Hear ye him ... These words indicate far more than a mere admonition to pay attention. As in Deuteronomy 18:15, they carry a very strong meaning, "Hear and obey."[9]In context, they also have the equivalent meaning of "Do not hear Moses or Elijah, but hear Jesus only." Thus, Christians are released from any necessity of obeying Mosaic or prophetic requirements found in the Old Testament. [8] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: University Press, 1966), p. 292. [9] Ibid. Verse 8 And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.See under preceding verses and also further comment on this episode in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 17:1 ff. Jesus only ... Christ is all and in all. Necessary as Moses and Elijah were in the pre-Christian ages, humanity is no more required to heed the systems which those ancient worthies represent. They remain pertinent to Christian thought only in the sense of pointing the way to Christ. That pertinence, of course, is of vast significance and contains the most vivid and overwhelming evidence unfolding the purpose of God in Christ; but, despite this, the law and the prophets have given place to the Christ of the ages. Verse 9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead. ELIJAHThe necessity for secrecy on the part of the apostles who had witnessed this wonder was inherent in the purpose of avoiding any further aggravation of jealousies among the Twelve (Mark 9:33-34) and in the Lord's determination not to precipitate an untimely confrontation with the Pharisees. The transfiguration had left no doubt whatever that Jesus was indeed the Christ of glory (not merely Elijah, Jeremiah. John the Baptist, or some great one, as in Mark 8:28); and, if all of the Twelve had been given this overwhelming proof at that time, they might have blazed it abroad with such rashness as to upset the divine schedule. It should be remembered that Judas was yet with the Twelve. And as they were coming down from the mountain ... A great deal of Christian experience is suggested by this. It is not given that followers of the Lord should dwell perpetually in the glory of some mountain-top experience. Their pathway of service leads down into the valley where human need cries for relief, doubts and frustrations are acute, and enemies lie in wait to destroy. As Grant said, "Jesus spent his whole life going downhill from the high and lonely places where he held communion with God, to the level, crowded places of human need."[10]ENDNOTE: [10] Fredrick C. Grant, op. cit., p. 779. Verse 10 And they kept the saying, questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean.And they kept the saying ... means that the three apostles obeyed the Saviour's injunction of secrecy. Questioning ... The resurrection of Christ was an event utterly beyond the comprehension of the apostles because: (1) of the inherent preconditioning of the human race not to expect any such thing; (2) of the false idea they had concerning the Messiah and what he would do on earth; and (3) of their failure, at first, to believe Jesus' prophecies of his impending death. Commentators who themselves will not even believe the resurrection of Christ after the event are in a very sorry role when they criticize the apostles for their failure to believe it before the fact. Verse 11 And they asked him, saying. How is it that the scribes say that Elijah must first come?Several things of great importance surface in this verse: (1) The three were now fully and completely convinced that Jesus is the Christ, a fact that the scribes had been diligently trying to contradict. (2) The opposition of the scribes had made some headway in the minds of the apostles who were unable to answer their arguments. (3) The apostles here sought the answer that would refute the scribes. (4) The argument of the scribes was based on the final verses of the Old Testament which prophesied that Elijah would come and restore all things before the Messiah arrived. (5) The argument of the scribes was false in that they had interpreted the prophecy to mean that Elijah would literally rise from the dead before Messiah came, the same being a false view which thy should have known to be false because of the prophecy that attended the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:17), which prophecy had plainly identified John the Baptist as the fulfillment of the prophecy regarding Elijah. Verse 12 And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things: and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be set at naught?It would seem that Cranfield is correct in understanding the second half of this verse as a statement, not a question (punctuation being a human additive to the text).[11]The meaning would thus be: Having admitted that the scribes are correct in this that they say, Jesus goes on to suggest that "restoring all things" cannot mean just what on the surface it seems to mean, since Scripture foretells for the Son of man much suffering and humiliation.[12][11] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 298. [12] Ibid. Verse 13 But I say unto you that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would, even as it is written of him.Mark omitted the statement (Matthew 17:13) that the apostles then understood that Jesus spake of John the Baptist. Thus, the fallacious arguments of the scribes were exposed and refuted. Jesus even went further here and indicated that the death of John the Baptist was a prophecy of what would happen to himself. "As Elijah's coming was a heralding of the Lord's coming, so Elijah's rejection was a warning of the Lord's rejection."[13] All of these things were prophesied in Scripture. ENDNOTE: [13] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 346. Verse 14 And when they came to the disciples, they saw a great multitude about them, and scribes questioning with them.THE CURE OF A LUNATIC BOYThe scene which greeted the Lord and the three when they came down from the mountain is a miniature of the world itself: parental anguish, youth under the power of evil, disciples unable to do anything, scribes raising questions and discussing the situation but also powerless to do anything helpful. All in all, it was a miserable situation. Verse 15 And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.Greatly amazed ... This has been taken by some to indicate that Jesus' face still bore some traces of the glory of the transfiguration; but, since that would have been to nullify the Saviour's injunction of secrecy imposed on the three, their amazement must have derived from something else. Perhaps it was in the fact that, when they looked up from the mess they were in, they were amazed to find the answer to their problems, not in themselves, but in the Lord. It was certainly so with the nine frustrated disciples who had failed to cure the boy. Verse 16 And he asked them, What question ye with them? And one of the multitude answered him, Teacher. I brought unto thee my son, who hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever it taketh him, it dasheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able.The nature of the malady which afflicted this child seems to have been compound. The symptoms certainly suggest epilepsy; but the Greek word which describes it is literally "moonstruck" and much more reasonably bears the translation "lunatic." (Both the Emphatic Diaglott and the Nestle Greek text concur in this). Further, there is the phenomenon of demon possession, confirmed by our Savior's conversation with the Twelve afterward. The complicated nature of the malady, as well as the evident slackening of the apostles' faith, perhaps due to the campaign of the scribes, seems to have entered into the failure of the disciples to effect a cure. See under Mark 9:29. Verse 19 And he answered them and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him to me.The evident exasperation of Jesus here is understandable. All of Israel were in the process of rejecting the Lord. The scribes, so diligent in the situation, were opposing the Lord with every conceivable device, their efforts having had a perceptible influence even on the Twelve, and only the Saviour's great love of mankind motivated him to go forward. How frustrating such a situation must have been for Jesus. Verse 20 And they brought him unto him; and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him grievously; and he fell on the ground and wallowed foaming.The hatred of the evil spirit for the Lord is evident in his malignant tearing of his victim in anticipation of his impending cure. The implications of the text cannot be explained as the normal ravages of any disease. Demonic possession and affliction of humanity are indicated. The physical phenomenon evident here in the demon's aggressiveness before the boy's healing has its counterpart in the spiritual realm also. When any soul is in the act of turning to Jesus for life and redemption, evil restraints and impediments against it are always multiplied. Souls on the brink of salvation always confront the active hostility and opposition of the evil one. Spurgeon devoted an entire sermon to this phenomenon.[14]ENDNOTE: [14] Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, Vol. 2), p. 297. Verse 21 And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath come unto him? And he saith, From a child.We cannot know by what power Satan was able to dominate and possess the life of a child; but it may be that God permitted this in order that "the works of God might be manifest in him" (John 9:3). Verse 22 And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.If thou canst do anything ... By such a remark, the father of the afflicted boy would have made the burden of responsibility for his son's healing to rest upon the Lord; but he was not correct in such an insinuation, as Jesus' following words quickly showed. There are many in all generations who would like to shift the burden of all betterment to some other than themselves, but they too are wrong. A great deal of the improvement of the human condition is inherently incumbent upon the needy themselves, who under every circumstance of whatever extremity must first do everything possible to alleviate their own affliction, that being the basic and invariable precondition to any effective help from without. Here, the thing required of the father was faith in the Lord. Have compassion on us, and help us ... The use of possessive pronouns here is very poignant and touching and shows that the whole family of the unfortunate lad had identified themselves with the afflicted and considered his distress as also their own. This is an expressive picture of all members of a family suffering with one of its members. Verse 23 And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst! All things are possible to him that believeth.These words must be understood as Jesus' rebuke of the father's lack of faith, and so the father accepted them. It is as if Jesus had said, "Look, any man who has faith will not set any limit on what the Lord is able to do." As Cranfield observed: "The father, instead of doubting the power of Jesus to help him, ought to have had a faith like that of the leper in Mark 1:40."[15]ENDNOTE: [15] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 303. Verse 24 Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.Who is he who cannot identify with this distraught parent in his experience of faith with an admixture of doubt? Unbelief is never very far away from faith; and their name is legion who, like Peter of old, walk over tempestuous waves one moment and sink into faithless despair the next. This doubting believer properly appealed to the Lord as the only source of strengthening his faith. Verse 25 And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.The multitude mentioned here is not exactly identified; and Barclay and others have suggested that "Jesus must have taken the father and son apart";[16] and the crowd, already mentioned in Mark 9:14, would in such a case have been trying to catch up with the action. Jesus did not wait for them but cast out the evil spirit at once. From the Lord's command, it is evident that the son was also mute. His words must have been of the greatest consolation to the father, for they included the assurance that there would be no recurrence of the lad's pitiful condition. Thus, his halting faith, greatly strengthened by Jesus, was richly rewarded. ENDNOTE: [16] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 225. Verse 26 And having cried out, and torn him much, he came out: and the boy became as one dead; insomuch that the more part said, He is dead. But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; and he arose.Regarding the terminal activity of the evil spirit, see under Mark 9:20. Mark mentioned Jesus' taking the lad by the hand, and Luke added the detail that Jesus restored the boy to his father. It is foolish to make anything of the variable nature of these accounts except that they are the certain evidence of independent narratives. This writer rejects the allegation that Mark's account is in any sense more original than the others. All three are original accounts, and the most complicated system of comparisons ever devised fails to prove anything else. Verse 28 And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, How is it that we could not cast it out? And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer.Asked him privately ... It was well for the reputation of the apostles that they sought a private answer, for they were grievously at fault. Matthew quoted Jesus as saying their failure was due to their "little faith" (Matthew 17:20), and Mark's words indicate either a failure to pray at all or some serious lack in their prayers. Even the greatest miracles performed by Jesus were done so in answer to prayer (John 9:31; John 11:41); and, although the mention of the Saviour's prayers in connection with his mighty deeds was not always included by the sacred writers, the assumption must ever be that all of them included the Saviour's asking of God in prayer the accomplishment of the wonders recorded. The failure of the apostles here seems to have been that of omitting prayer. That they fully expected to succeed is evident, so their faith was not that of failing to expect success, but of taking it for granted that they could succeed without praying to God for the expected blessing. The apostles had often succeeded before (Mark 6:13; Mark 6:30); and they perhaps believed that they had the power IN to continue doing such things. They had to learn that God's power is not given to men in that way. It has rather ever to be asked for afresh. To trust in God's power in the sense that we imagine we have it in our control and at our disposal ... is to trust in ourselves instead of in God.[17]ENDNOTE: [17] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 305. Verse 30 And they went forth from thence, and passed through Galilee; and he would not that any man should know it. For he taught his disciples and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again. But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.ANOTHER OF THE PASSIONThese verses show the Lord's great need for privacy and the opportunity to instruct his apostles regarding the forthcoming Passion. Here Christ again mentioned, more briefly, the teachings given in Mark 8:31, which see. For their lack of understanding, see under Mark 9:10. Verse 33 And they came to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning on the way?A OF WHO WAS THE The omniscience of Christ is evident in that he already knew the subject of their conversation. He asked, not for information, but for the purpose of requiring them to bring the matter up in his presence. Verse 34 But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another on the way, who was the greatest?About the only thing accomplished thus far by Jesus' repeated reference to his approaching death was the development of an argument among the Twelve over who would be the head man afterward. Human ambition had reared its ugly head, James and John, particularly, demanding to be accounted the greatest, a post also evidently desired by Peter. Verse 35 And he sat down, and called the twelve; and he saith unto them, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.Alas, the disciples of the Lord in all ages have invariably lost their spirituality in just such a manner as this, falling into all kinds of vanity in the pursuit of human ambition. There has hardly ever been a congregation on earth in which the question of who would be the "greatest" did not at one time or another hinder the work of God. Against such ambitions, the Lord has imposed a standard of greatness that depends upon service and not upon position. However this was not a problem that the Lord confronted only once. A comparison of several New Testament references (Luke 9:48; Luke 22:26; Matthew 20:26; Matthew 23:11; and Mark 10:43) indicates that this question came up frequently in different situations, the instance before us being, in all probability, "an independent saying."[18]ENDNOTE: [18] Ibid., p. 308. Verse 36 And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. This was an acted parable teaching the same lesson which the Lord stated verbally in Matthew 18:4-6. True greatness is not a matter of position and power but in the child-like qualities of innocence, trustfulness, humility, lack of prejudice, lovableness, faith and teachableness. Receiving a little child in Jesus' name includes the unselfish care and support given for little children and also the quality of receiving an humble believer on the basis of his simple trust in the Lord, and without regard to any lack of earthly preeminence on his part. Verse 38 John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name; and we forbade him, because he followed not us.THE MAN WHO DID NOT FOLLOW USThis was another outcropping of party spirit and jealousy on the part of the Lord's disciples. The human temptation to channel all good through our own hands and to despise all groups except our own is evident here. Verse 39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.There is no special approval here for the unknown exorcist, who, for all that is stated, might indeed have proved eventually to have been an enemy of the Lord; but rather there is a prohibition against the servants of God making it their business to monitor and pass judgment upon the works of others. The lesson here is the same as that against pulling up tares, as forbidden in the parable (Matthew 13:39 f). Verse 41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.The totality of humanity belongs to God: and the divine purpose condescends to accept any human aid of that purpose, affirming the certainty that every gracious act shall receive its due reward. Verse 42 And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.In this whole paragraph, and especially beginning here, there are a number of maxims in which no clearly discernible connective theme exists. They are isolated sayings of the type that Jesus uttered frequently and in various contexts, and they seem to have been written down here in the order of Mark's remembrance of them. See underMark 9:1. The teaching of this verse regards the extreme gravity of causing any humble believer to lose his faith in the Lord. Persons guilty of such a breach of the will of God would be better off drowned in the sea. The word for "millstone" here means "a millstone drawn by an ass," that is, a very large one, and contrasting with the smaller "hand millstone." Verse 43 And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off; it is good for thee to enter life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell, into the unquenchable fire.Stumble ... was a prominent word in Mark 9:41, referring not to some inconsequential stumbling, but to a complete falling away from God so as to be lost eternally. This is another maxim related not to causing another to stumble, but to one's stumbling himself. The teaching is that whatever must be sacrificed to maintain faith and loyalty to God must be renounced and given up by the disciple, regardless of the personal loss or cost to himself. Hell, into the unquenchable fire ... The saddest teaching in the word of God relates to the subject introduced here. The word Gehenna (which is translated as "hell" or "hell-fire") refers to the Valley of Hinnon near Jerusalem, a place where the city's garbage was burned, and a valley tarnished by many unsavory memories for the Jews. Here a king made his son pass through the fire to Molech (2 Kings 23:10; see also 2 Chronicles 28:3). It was a place of defilement and horror. Perhaps it is in this place's character as a garbage dump that the most appropriate likeness to HELL is found; because hell is God's cosmic disposal device for that which is finally unconformable to His holy will. Here also is seen the necessity for it. No industry, no kitchen, no household were ever possible without the means of disposing of the refuse; and it would be illogical to suppose that God could run the whole universe without some means of taking care of the refuse. For a more extensive discussion of this, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 25:41 ff. Verse 45 And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.The teaching here is identical with that of Mar 9:43. The personal force of such an admonition was reduced by the interpretation favored by some of the ancients who applied it to the church as meaning that the church should excommunicate undesirable members whose sins demanded it. However, it seems to this writer that the Saviour had in view the need of personal sacrifice to maintain loyalty to God. The metaphor of cutting off hands and feet, and plucking out eyes, is not any more severe than that of "eating and drinking" Christ's flesh and blood (John 6:53); and it was doubtless used to emphasize the extreme importance of loyalty to Christ, as well as the awful consequences of failure. Verse 47 And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell.The teaching is the same as that in Mark 9:43; Mark 9:45; and the repetition of it by these astonishing metaphors stresses its importance. Verse 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.These words were repeated in Mark 9:44 and Mark 9:46, both of which are omitted in the English Revised Version (1885). They are a description of Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom (translated "hell" in this version), and were added to emphasize the undesirability and the awfulness of the place where the wicked shall be punished with "everlasting destruction." It should be noted that like other descriptions of hell in the New Testament, the purpose is not that of describing hell but rather showing its awful nature. Worms and fire, in nature, do not exist in the same place; and thus, as in the case of "fire and brimstone" and "outer darkness," are actually opposed to each other. It is thus clear that Christ is not here describing hell but warning people of its horrible character. When it is considered that hell is such an awful place that Christ had recourse to such terrible words as these in his warnings against it, the soul draws back at the very contemplation of such a place. Verse 49 For every one shall be salted with fire.This maxim seems to have been triggered in Mark's mind by the mention of fire in the previous verses. And what is the meaning? If we understand "fire" as a reference to the persecutions and tribulations that invariably beset the Christian pilgrimage, it means that none shall be saved except through the endurance of the world's scorn and opposition. Paul expressed this thought as "All that live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution" (2 Timothy 3:12). Of course, this is a difficult verse, and all kinds of notions have been advocated as the meaning of it. Certainly, we may set aside the superstition that this is a reference to all souls passing through the fires of purgatory! Verse 50 Salt is good: but if the salt has lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another.Jesus said of his disciples, "Ye are the salt of the earth," and their saltness would therefore be their quality of having in themselves the likeness and teachings of Jesus. Such salt is indeed good for this world. Christians are the salt of the earth in the sense of their preserving it from destruction. If the salt have lost its saltness ... is a metaphor based upon the salt commonly used in Jesus' day, which was not a pure product at all, but mixed with other elements. If the true salt had been leached out, only a worthless residue was left, a perfect metaphor of the Christian who has lost his identity with the Lord. Have salt in yourselves ... is a reference to the Christian's necessity of keeping his identity with Christ and of continuing faithfully in his teachings. And be at peace one with another ... is an admonition to brother-love and forbearance, a requirement frequently stressed by the Lord, and absolutely mandatory for all who would follow in his steps. Mark 9:1. the kingdom of God come.—Where Matthew uses the expression, "till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28); Mark uses the expression, "till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power;" and Luke, the expression, "till they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27). All of these refer to the same event, and this event was to occur before some then present would taste of death. They saw the kingdom of God in organized existence and activity for the first time on the next Pentecost after the resurrection of Jesus. They then saw the kingdom "come with power," because such was the power of the Holy Spirit's demonstrations through the apostles, that three thousand men were that day turned to the Lord. And they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom, not literally, but by manifesting his invisible presence to the eye of faith. What they saw with their eyes and heard with their ears attested his presence in his kingdom. For further remarks on this prediction, and a fuller explanation of the entire speech, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew. The Transfiguration, Mark 9:2-13. (Matthew 17:1-13; Luke 9:28-36) Mark 9:2-13.—This display of the majesty of Jesus is more fully treated by Matthew. Mark adds no material fact; hence the remarks on the parallel in Matthew are sufficient for both passages. An Obstinate Demon Cast Out, Mark 9:14-29. (Matthew 17:14-21; Luke 9:37-43) Mark 9:14. the scribes questioning.—The questioning of the scribes had reference, no doubt, to the ineffectual attempt of the nine disciples to cast out the demon. (Comp. 15-18.) It was a great triumph to these unbelievers to witness even one such failure, and they eagerly pressed the advantage which it appeared to give them. Mark 9:15. were greatly amazed.—It is difficult to account for the amazement of the people at seeing Jesus. The conjecture that his face was still shining from the transfiguration, as did the face of Moses when he came down from the mount (see Alford, Lange, and others), is not even suggested by the text. The natural impression from the text is not that it was something peculiar in his appearance, but the fact of his being seen at that particular time and place, which amazed them. I infer that the people supposed Jesus to have been at a much greater distance from them than he had been, and that his return was most unexpected. If they were partaking in the doubts and suspicions of the questioning scribes, the thought of being caught by him in such a state of mind would have added much to their excitement; or if they were pained by the momentary triumph of the enemy, they would be equally excited, though from a different cause, at his unexpected return. But whatever was the cause of their amazement, its effect was to make them run to him and salute him. Mark 9:16. he asked the scribes.—Before any one had found time to tell Jesus what had been going on, he surprised the scribes by demanding of them, "What question ye with them?" They saw at once that he knew all, and their failure to answer shows that they felt a deserved rebuke for their exultation. Mark 9:17. one of the multitude answered.—As the scribes made no answer, the father of the afflicted youth spoke out and told what had given occasion for the questioning referred to. I have brought unto thee.—The father had run forward with the multitude to meet Jesus, and had brought his son, but not into the immediate presence of Jesus. (Verse 20.) As he began the sad story he stepped forward and kneeled down at Jesus' feet. (Matthew 17:14.) a dumb spirit.—Called a dumb spirit because it deprived its victim of speech. (Comp. 25.) The young man was not only deaf and dumb, but a lunatic, and subject to fits. (Matthew 17:15.) Mark 9:18. wheresoever he taketh him.—The convulsions seem to have occurred at irregular intervals, being regulated by the whim and moods of the demon which produced them. (Comp. 20.) The father's expression, "wheresoever he taketh him," seems also to imply that he supposed the spirit to be in the child only at these periods of severe suffering; and this thought is confirmed by the words of Jesus; "Come out of him, and enter no more into him." (Verse 25.) Mark 9:19. O faithless generation.—On this expression of Jesus, see the note on Matthew 17:17. Mark 9:20. straightway the spirit tare him.—Convulsed him. This act of the spirit in the very presence of Jesus, as they brought the child near, displayed a wickedness and obstinacy on its part unequaled in the accounts of these desperate beings. Having clung to its victim in spite of all the efforts of the disciples, it now seems determined to defy the power of Jesus himself. How different from the piteous supplications of the legion at Gadara! Mark 9:21-22. How long is it ago.—The question, "How long is it ago since this came to him," brought out the fact that it was a case of long standing, and thus rendered the subsequent cure the more remarkable. The father's answer, "Of a child," more accurately rendered, "From childhood," does not mean from his birth, but from early childhood as distinguished from youth; for Mark still calls him a child. (Mark 9:24.) The time had been when he was free from both the dumbness and the convulsions. The father's answer shows still further the malignity of the demon, in that it would often throw its victim into the fire and into the water, as if it took a fiendish pleasure in the pain which it had the power to inflict. Mark 9:23. If thou canst believe.—The father's doubting remark, "If thou canst do any thing," is echoed by the answer, "If thou canst believe." Each would be more happily rendered, "If you are able to do any thing," "If you are able to believe." The additional remark, "All things are possible to him that believeth," does not imply inability to heal an unbeliever, for many of the miracles were wrought on persons who had no faith; but it hinted at a possible refusal, as at Nazareth, to heal those who in the face of competent evidence were still unbelievers. It also served as an incentive to the father to get rid of the doubt implied in his petition, and it was an assertion in the presence of the scribes who had exulted over the failure of the disciples, that "all things were possible" with himself. Mark 9:24. said with tears.—The Savior's response brought about within the afflicted father the struggle which was intended. His tears expressed his anxiety for his son, and his words declared the weakness of the faith on which the cure was now to depend. The contradictory answer, "I believe; help thou my unbelief," can have sprung only from a heart distracted between a burning desire and a weak faith. It can not have been invented by Mark. Having said, "I believe," he feared that he had gone too far; he calls his weak faith unbelief, and begs Jesus to help it. How different this from the conduct of the scribes who were resisting the force of evidence and struggling to maintain a stubborn unbelief! Mark 9:25. When Jesus saw.—Already a large portion of the multitude had surrounded Jesus, having run to him when he first came into view. (Verse 15.) The running together mentioned in this verse was the coming of others from the vicinity, and perhaps the rush of all to get still nearer to him. This was a wide departure from the privacy which he had been maintaining, so Jesus immediately proceeded to cast out the demon, and to withdraw with his disciples into a house. (Verse 28.) Mark 9:26-27. as one dead.—Nothing but the amazing cruelty and effrontery of the demon can account for the convulsion into which he threw the young man as he left him. The outcry was not an articulate sound, but one of those fearful shrieks which are sometimes heard from the deaf and dumb, while the shock given to the nervous system of the young man left him pulseless and apparently dead. Such torture wantonly inflicted by a demon, gives an awful conception of the state of society which must prevail among these Godforsaken spirits. While the bystanders were saying that the youth was dead, the touch of Jesus, who alone can deliver us from the power of the devil, brought instant restoration to him, and joy to the heart of his kind father. Mark 9:28-29. Why could not we.—On the reason why the disciples could not cast out this demon, see the notes, Matthew 17:18-21. Return through Galilee, and Second Prediction of Death, Mark 9:30-32. (Matthew 17:22-23; Luke 9:43-45) Mark 9:30. and passed through Galilee.—They were returning from Cæsarea Philippi (Mark 8:27), whither they had gone by passing east of the upper Jordan through the district called Iturea. That they returned "through Galilee," shows that they came down on the west of the Jordan. They were on their way back to Capernaum. (Mark 9:33.) that any man should know it.—The statement that as they passed through Galilee "he would not that any man should know it," is the last mention made of the privacy which Jesus had maintained ever since his journey to the vicinity of Tyre. (Comp. Mark 7:24 Mark 7:33 Mark 7:36 Mark 8:23 Mark 8:26 Mark 9:25.) It was this privacy which occasioned the taunting remark of his unbelieving kindred, "Depart hence and go into Judea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly." (John 7:3-4.) Mark 9:31. is delivered.—Jesus here uses the present tense—"The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men"—because the sad event was so vividly present to his imagination. The usage is common in the writings of the prophets. the third day.—The corrected text has it "after three days," thus furnishing a second example in Mark of the use of this expression where Matthew has "on the third day." (Comp. Matthew 17:23, and see note on Mark 8:31.) Mark 9:32. afraid to ask him.—They could not understand the plain words of this prediction, simply because they were not willing to receive them in their obvious import, and they could not discover in them any other meaning. It is not unfrequently the case, even at the present day, that a passage of Scripture is obscure merely because it is capable of but one meaning, and this meaning one that we are unwilling to accept. Being for this reason unable to understand Jesus, they were afraid to ask him what he meant, lest he should rebuke them as he had rebuked Peter when the subject was first mentioned. (Mark 8:33.) Dispute about Who shall be Greatest, Mark 9:33-37 (Matthew 18:1-35; Luke 9:46-50) Mark 9:33. What was it.—There is an appearance of discrepancy here between Matthew and Mark. Matthew represents the disciples as beginning the conversation by asking who should be greatest, while Mark introduces it by saying that Jesus asked them, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?" We take both reports as true, and each as elliptical. As Matthew states, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (Matthew 18:1.) They ask this with an air of innocent inquiry, giving no intimation of the dispute in which they had engaged. Jesus begins his reply by asking them, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?" showing that he knew the cause and the occasion of their inquiry. Confused and conscience-smitten, "they held their peace." (Mark 9:34.) Mark 9:35-37. and saith to them.—Mark is here very brief, devoting only two short paragraphs (33-37 and 42-50) to a discourse which occupies the entire eighteenth chapter of Matthew. (For remarks on Mark 9:35-37, see notes, Matthew 18:1-5.) John's Jealousy, and Remarks about Offenses, Mark 9:38-50. (Matthew 18:6-9) Mark 9:38. we forbade him.—The expression, "he followeth not us," means that he was not one of the immediate attendants of Jesus. Seeing such a man casting out demons excited John's jealousy, because he thought that no others than the chosen twelve ought to be honored with this power. Such jealousy in regard to official prerogatives is a very common passion, and one against which men occupying positions of trust and authority should be constantly on their guard. Mark 9:39. Forbid him not.—If the man had been an enemy of Christ, using his power in opposition to the truth, it would have been right to forbid him; but, according to John's own statement, he was casting out demons in the name of Jesus, and this proved him to be a friend. Moreover, John should have known that no man could cast out demons in the name of Jesus unless Jesus had given him power to do so; and if Jesus had given him the power it was his privilege to exercise it. Mark 9:40. he that is not against us.—It is impossible for a man to occupy strictly neutral ground in reference to Christ. His influence must preponderate in one way or the other. If in no sense he is against Christ, then he is for him; and if he is not for Christ, he is against him. (Comp. Matthew 12:30.) Mark 9:41-42.—On these verses, see the notes, Matthew 10:40-42 Matthew 18:6. Mark 9:43-47. into hell.—On the origin and significance of the term hell, see the note on Matthew 5:22. The view there taken of its meaning is confirmed by the present passage; for Jesus shows the sense in which he uses it by adding the explanatory clause, "into the fire that never shall be quenched." Hell, then, is equivalent to the fire that never shall be quenched. It is also placed here in opposition to "life": "It is better to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell." The life here referred to is not the temporal life, nor the Christian life, into both of which the disciples addressed had already entered; but eternal life, into which they had not yet entered. Being cast into hell, then, which is the alternative of entering into this life, can be none other than punishment in the future state. The reader will please to notice the changes in these verses adopted by some of the critics. If they are correct, the explanatory clause, "into the fire that never shall be quenched," properly occurs only in verse 43, and the clause, "where their worm dieth not," only in verse 48. On the word "offend," see the note on Matthew 18:8 Mark 9:48. their worm dieth not.—The image is taken from Isaiah (Isaiah 66:24), and is that of worms feeding on the dead carcasses of men. Applied to the future state, as it unquestionably is in this passage, it represents those who shall be cast into hell as being in a state of decay and rottenness, while unquenchable fires are burning them but never consuming them. Mark 9:49. salted with fire.—This is confessedly an obscure passage, and on the meaning of it a variety of opinions have been advanced. The difficulty in the first clause centers chiefly, as Bloomfield justly remarks, in the word "fire." As we take it to be a symbol of punishment, or a symbol of purification, our interpretation of the entire verse must vary. If the passage were entirely isolated, it would be more naturally understood as referring to purification; for salt is the symbol of perpetuity, and fire is often used in the Scriptures as a symbol of those trials which purify the soul as the precious metals are purified by fire. But the passage is not isolated: it is the concluding part of a closely connected discourse, and is tied to the preceding by the conjunction for (γαρ). The context must therefore determine the sense in which "fire" is to be taken. But in the context this term is used with great emphasis three times according to the corrected text, and six times according to "the received text," as a symbol of punishment. Indeed, the disaster of being cast into hell fire is held up as a warning throughout the context, and, for the purpose of emphasis, it is repeated again and again. When, therefore, immediately after the last repetition of it in the words, "where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched," the remark follows, "For every one shall be salted with fire," it would be doing violence to one of the most invariable rules of interpretation to assign to the term "fire" a new and different sense. We conclude, then, that the term is used here, as elsewhere in the paragraph, to denote punishment, and that with this conclusion our interpretation of the sentence must harmonize. This being so, the expression "every one" (πᾶς) must also be limited by the context, and must mean every one who, contrary to the teaching just given, refuses to cut off the offending hand, or to pluck out the offending eye. It had just been intimated that all such would be cast into hell fire; it is now said that every such one shall be salted with fire. As salt, on account of its power to preserve meats, is the symbol of perpetuity, to be salted with fire is to be perpetually permeated by fire, or to be kept perpetually in a state of the severest pain. Editor's Comment: Heaven is a prepared place for a prepared people. Hell is a prepared place for an unprepared people. Are you remaining faithful? (Revelation 2:10) and every sacrifice.—The meaning of this clause turns on the question, whether it expresses a comparison of those who are salted with fire with the sacrifices which are salted with salt, or presents those who are salted with fire in antithesis with others who would make the required sacrifices. Alford and some other interpreters adopt the former view, and would express the idea thus: "For every one shall be salted with fire, just as every sacrifice is salted with salt." But if this had been the meaning, it is inexplicable that the conjunction and (κα) is used to connect the two clauses, instead of the adverb so (ς or στε). It is safer, and far more in harmony with the context, to take the conjunction in its proper and ordinary sense, and to understand the clause as continuing the antithesis which has been kept up throughout the context between those who would cut off the offending hand or foot, and enter into life, and those who, refusing to do so, would be cast into hell. By every sacrifice is meant every person who presents himself as a sacrifice to God in cutting off his offending members, or, in other words, by denying himself those sinful pleasures and enjoyments which are represented by these. (Comp. Romans 12:1.) That such shall be salted with salt, as contrasted with being salted with fire, means that they shall be preserved unto everlasting life— that they shall enter into that life which is contrasted with being cast into hell. The figure and the mode of expressing it are both taken from a provision in the law which required that every offering presented at the altar should be seasoned with salt. (Leviticus 2:13.) Mark 9:50. Salt is good.—Salt is here used, as in the preceding verse, to symbolize that principle in Christian life which leads to perseverance amid all required self-sacrifice. The remark is sententious and emphatic, giving preeminence to the virtue in question. wherewith will ye season it?—Here the salt is supposed to have lost its saltness, and the question is asked, "wherewith will ye season it?" The question answers itself, being the figure of erotesis, and affirms that the lost saltness can not be restored. Passing from the symbol to that which is symbolized, it is affirmed that if a man lose the power of perseverance in the Christian life, there is no restoration for him; his inevitable fate is to be cast into hell, to be "salted with fire." Have salt in yourselves.—Maintain in yourselves the quality of perseverance by making every sacrifice necessary thereto. Their contention as to who should be greatest (Mark 9:33-34), and their jealousy toward the brother who had been casting out demons (Mark 9:38), were calculated to impair this quality by causing alienations and discouragement. In opposition to this they are required to encourage patience in one another, and it is added, "have peace one with another." Strife among them would destroy their salt; peace would tend to preserve it. Argument of Section 8The two miracles recorded in the preceding section— the cure of the blind man at Bethsaida (Mark 8:22-26), and the casting out of the obstinate demon (Mark 9:14-29)— are additional demonstrations of the divine power of Jesus. They are not mere repetitions of former proofs, but they possess peculiar force in that the blind man was cured by progressive steps, each one of which was a miracle in itself, and in that the demon in question was one of peculiar power and obstinacy. The foreknowledge of Jesus is again displayed in his two predictions concerning his own death (Mark 8:31-33 Mark 9:30-32), and with his foreknowledge, his predetermined purpose to submit to death at the hands of his enemies. But the crowning argument of the section is contained in the account of the transfiguration. If the testimony of those who witnessed this scene is not false testimony, his divine majesty and his God-given right to be heard in all that he chooses to speak, are established beyond all possibility of a mistake. Mark 9: We have now reached the close of the first general division of Mark's narrative. Hitherto, after a few introductory statements in the first chapter (Mark 1:1-13), all the incidents which he records occurred in Galilee, or in the regions immediately adjoining. Now the writer leaves Galilee, and returns to it no more. (See comments on Mark 10:1.) Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 91. What was soon to come? 2. Who were assured they would see it? 3. In six days where did Jesus go? 4. Whom did he take with him ? 5. What happened to him? 6. Describe his raiment. 7. Who appeared to them ? 8. Where had Elias been? 9. What had happened to Moses ? 10. Were these men conscious? 11. State the proposition of Peter. 12. Why did he say this? 13. What came over them? 14. Tell what was said. 15. How did this differ from that at his baptism? 16. What sudden change took place? 17. How secret were they charged to keep? 18. For how long were they to keep it? 19. What subject puzzled the disciples ? 20. Tell what they asked Jesus. 21. Who was this Elias? 22. What was he to do? 23. They thought this would prevent what? 24. What were multitudes doing with the disciples 25. How were they diverted from them? 26. What did Jesus ask them? 27. State the cause of the commotion. 28. In what had the disciples failed ? 29. What did Jesus call that generation? 30. What did he then order? 31. How did the demon perform now? 32. What did Jesus do about it? 33. How long had the son been afflicted? 34. Which was required to believe, father or son? 35. After the miracle what was condition of the son? 36. Slate the private question of the disciples. 37. And the answer. 38. Where did they next journey? 39. What was Jesus’ desire now ? 40. Whom did he wish to teach? 41. On what subject did he inform them? 42. How did it affect them? 43. State what city they entered. 44. What had happened on the way? 45. Was it done openly? 46. State their behaviour at his question. 47. What did Jesus use for illustration? 48. What desire makes one the last? 49. Receiving Christ includes whom? 50. What did John report having seen? 51. Why had they forbidden him? 52. Tell what Jesus commands them. 53. In what name were these miracles done? 54. How would this name have to be treated? 55. Can one be “ neither for nor against” Christ? 56. Will trivial gifts be rewarded? 57. What will bring a penalty worse than drowning? 58. What should be done with an offending hand? 59. Tell what is worse than a maimed life. 60. What kind of fire is it to be? 61. Tell what will not die. 62. To what other members is this lesson applied ? 63. What mineral perpetuates its surroundings? 64. What other element is compared to this ? 65. Who will have this applied to them? 66. Tell when this will be. 67. When is salt not good? 68. What may it preserve in us now? 1 This statement of Jesus denotes that the kingdom of heaven was not yet set up, and also it was to come in the lifetime of some men then living. Since all of the people living then are dead, we know that the kingdom of heaven has been in existence for centuries and that much teaching on that subject today is false. 2 Six days after the conversation of the preceding verse is what is meant. These are the three apostles whom Jesus frequently took with him on special missions. To be transfigured means to take on another appearance. 3 White raiment indicates purity and heavenly splendor. A fuller is a cleanser of cloth and no man in that occupation could put a garment into the condition of whiteness that appeared upon the body of Jesus. 4 Elias is the same as Elijah of the Old Testament who went to heaven in a whirlwind (2 Kings 2:11) and hence never died. Moses was the lawgiver of the Old Testament and died (Deuteronomy 34:5). Peter, James and John had not died and were therefore still in the flesh. So at this event the three states of man were represented, the fleshly, the intermediate and the eternal. 5 Peter had a feeling of hospitality and wished to provide for the guests, which indicates they had the appearance of men who could be cared for in earthly housing. 6 Wist is an obsolete word meaning he knew not what to say, or, he did not realize what he was saying. Sore afraid means they were exceedingly amazed. 7 The announcement from the cloud was like the one heard at the baptism of Jesus except it had the words, hear him. The earthly work of Jesus was virtually completed and the authority of the Son of God over Moses and the prophets was thus announced in this important assembly. 8 The purpose of the visit of the special guests was accomplished, and when the apostles rallied from their amazement they noted the absence of Moses and Elias. 9 This vision was so special that the public in general was not yet ready for its announcement. (See the comments on chapter 8:30.) 0 The restriction Jesus placed on them which was connected with the resurrection confused the apostles. They discussed the subject among themselves and then decided to ask Jesus a question. 1 The apostles did not realize that Elias was used figuratively only. 2 Jesus affirmed the prediction that Elias was to come first and restore all things, which means to get things in readiness for Christ. 3 Jesus then explained that the prediction had been fulfilled. This matter is explained in more detail at Matthew 17:10-12. 4 Came to his disciples means the ones Jesus left waiting while he was in the mount. The scribes were generally at hand with their critical questions, and when they could not approach Jesus they contacted his disciples. 5 The people means the crowd in general who were usually in a favorable frame of mind toward Jesus. Their attention was called to him and they were greatly amazed or surprised. But they were favorably impressed by his sudden appearance for they came and saluted him. 6 Jesus asked the scribes why they were questioning the disciples. As far as the text goes they never answered the question put to them by Jesus. 7 One of the multitude (not one of the scribes) announced to Jesus that he had brought his son unto him. That denotes that he came with his son expecting to meet Jesus. But as he was not with the disciples the father had turned the case over to them. A dumb spirit is stated because it had that effect on the boy. We know it does not. literally mean the devil that was dumb for when Jesus commanded it to come out (verse 26) it cried which shows the spirit itself was not dumb. 8 These symptoms were the effects this particular spirit had on the boy. The possession of evil spirits did not always work the same, the reason for which is not made known in the text. The father then stated that the disciples could not cast the evil spirit out of his son. 9 This charge of faithfulness was meant for the disciples (Matthew 17:20). 0 These terrible symptoms were the results of being possessed with a devil. The devils knew Jesus and feared him, but as a desperate piece of vengeance when this one saw Jesus he overcame the boy and inflicted the injuries mentioned. 1 This son had been possessed with the devil most of his life. 2 The child evidently would have lost his life had it not been for friends. 3 All things are possible as far as the Lord's power is concerned, but he does not bestow that power unless the case is regarded worthy, and that point is frequently (not always) determined by the degree of faith manifested. 4 Believe and unbelief seem like opposite terms. The man said he did believe, so the request meant that his faith should be made stronger. 5 Jesus did not want the commotion to become too great so he did his work promptly. The devils are intelligent beings is the reason the Lord could command them. 6 The spirit cried which shows it was not dumb, but it had produced dumbness at times in the boy. Having suffered these attacks from early childhood the boy was exhausted when the devil was cast out so that he appeared to be dead. 7 Jesus then cured the boy of his weakness so that he arose. 8 The disciples were baffled over their failure to cast out the devil, and when they had a chance alone they asked Jesus to explain this failure. 9 The account that Mark gives is very brief. For a fuller treatment of the subject see the text and my comments at Matthew 17:20-21.. 0 This verse means that Jesus wished to have as much privacy as possible. His public work was about over and it was unnecessary to meet the public as he had. 1 Jesus warned his disciples of what was coming, and the same things had been prophesied in the Old Testament. 2 The language of Jesus was plain and he used words that were in common use. The reason the disciples did not understand them was their delusion of an earthly kingdom they thought he was going to set up. 3 Jesus did not need to ask questions for information (John 2:25), but this was his way of bringing the subject before the disciples, for he knew they had been disputing about it as they were going to Capernaum. 4 They held their peace because they felt ashamed as well as surprised that he could read what had not been intended for him even to hear. They had an earthly form of kingdom In mind that Jesus was to set up, and were contending among themselves about who should be in the highest position as a member of it. 5 True greatness is the subject of this speech of Jesus. In earthly kingdoms it is usual for men to seek prominence and try to become great from the standpoint of authority over others. In the kingdom of heaven it is just the opposite of that. One reason is that this kingdom is an absolute monarchy, and in such a government any attempt of the citizens to attain to greatness in the nature of authority must be interpreted as an infringement upon the king. 6 This child was small for Jesus took him in his arms, after he had placed him in full view of the apostles. 7 Receiving a little child in the name of Christ means to do so because of the comparison between them. A man who will do that is bound to have a humble attitude, and humility is what constitutes true greatness in the kingdom of Christ. Receiveth not me, but him, etc. This denotes the close association between Christ and his Father. No person can obtain any favor from one of them if he ignores the other. 8 We notice that no denial was made as to whether the man actually was casting out devils. The complaint was that he was not walking along bodily in the same crowd with Jesus and the twelve. John did not understand that only the apostles were required to "be with him" in that sense. (See chapter 3:14.) 9 The fact the man was actually casting out devils proved that he was a true disciple. Had he been a mere pretender he would have failed as did the men reported in Acts 19:13-16 who were brought to such shameful defeat. 0 There is no actual neutrality with regard to matters pertaining to Christ. A man may not be very active in an unrighteous life, but unless he is active in the service for Christ he is counted as being "on the other side" (Obadiah 1:11). 1 This is to be understood in the same light as verse 37. 2 When a man becomes like a little child he is then classed as a little one in the sense of the word here. This is evident from the truth that he can be offended which means to stumble or do wrong, and that is possible only with a person of responsible age and mentality. 3 Offend means to cause to stumble or do wrong. The hand is a valuable member of the body and is used to illustrate anything one might be cherishing but that causes him to do wrong. One would give up the hand if it became diseased and endangered the whole life of the man. Likewise, we should sacrifice any practice or associate however dear, if our spiritual welfare should be endangered by it. A description of hell as it is defined In the lexicon may be seen with comments on Matthew 5:30. 4 All of the illustrations that are ever used here or elsewhere as to the duration of punishment, must be interpreted to mean that the unsaved will be in punishment that will be conscious and endless: Their worm dieth not is commented upon by another writer in better language than I can produce as follows: "The awfully vivid idea of an undying worm, everlastingly consuming an unconsumable body." The reason the worm will not die is that the body will not be consumed, even though in the midst of an unquenchable fire, and hence there will always be something to keep the worm alive. 5 The foot is used instead of the hand, otherwise the lesson in this verse is the same as that in verse 48 on the subject of making self-denials. 6 Worm dieth not is explained at verse 44. 7 This is the same lesson as in verses 43 and 45. 8 See verse 44 for the explanation of this. 9 Salted with fire. Here we see fire used figuratively for salt. Salt, through its preserving qualities, tends to perpetuate an object brought into contact with it. It is thus connected with the fire of perdition because of the perpetual duration of that fire. Salt is used with the idea of perpetuation in Numbers 18:19. 0 Just as salt is used to illustrate the perpetuation of the punishment of the wicked, so it also can preserve and perpetuate the good qualities of man. Jesus exhorted the disciples not to let the salt of their good lives lose its strength. They could have peace one with another by using the salt of brotherly love. Verse 1 This chapter records a few of the events of Jesus' Perean ministry, recorded much more fully by Luke, but here comprising only this single chapter. It is nevertheless a kind of dividing line between the first nine chapters devoted to the public ministry of our Lord and the last six outlining the events of the Passion and subsequent resurrection. The following sections make up Mark 10 : Christ's teaching on marriage and divorce (Mark 10:1-12), the Saviour's blessing little children (Mark 10:13-15), the interview with the rich young ruler (Mark 10:16-22), the Lord's teaching on riches (Mark 10:23-31), further prophecies of the Passion (Mark 10:32-34), the request of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35-45), and the healing of blind Bartimaeus between the two Jericho's (Mark 10:46-52). And he arose from thence, and cometh into the borders of Judaea and beyond the Jordan; and multitudes came together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. (Mark 10:1) This is a transitional statement setting off Mark 10 from events previously recorded. The Lord is here leaving Galilee for the last time and turning his face toward Jerusalem and the cross. The days of seeking privacy and seclusion have ended. Some scholars believe that "what is indicated here is not a journey from Galilee to Jerusalem, but rather a ministry in Judea and Perea."[1] The sacred authors have not provided sufficient details for the resolution of all such questions; but this should not be viewed in any manner as a fault on their part. ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 318. Verse 2 And there came unto him Pharisees and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? trying him. AND DIVORCEMark's account here is briefer than Matthew who gave the true form of the question as "Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?" (Matthew 19:3). We have no patience with scholars who insist that Mark's account of the question is true and that Matthew has "glossed" him, or that Matthew "represents a later modification of the teachings of Jesus."[2] Such allegations are not merely inaccurate, but they are contrary to the plain indications in Mark that Jesus' answer had regard to the very limitation of the question as it appears in Matthew. William Barclay pointed out that: The exception noted in Matthew is implied in Mark's version. It was Jewish law that adultery did in fact compulsorily dissolve any marriage.[3]W. N. Clarke also pointed out that Mark's account presupposes the statement of the question exactly as it is found in Matthew: In Mark, "except for fornication" is omitted; but it is sufficiently implied ... Indeed, Mark 10:12 distinctly enforces the principle of equal responsibility (of the sexes) regarding the matter of fornication (the exception noted by Matthew).[4]Thus, here is another instance of falsely interpreting the gospels resulting from acceptance of the Markan theory of viewing that gospel as the "original" and most dependable gospel. This is not true at all; in fact, Mark, shorter than the others, is actually the most limited of them all. Trying him ... This indicates the true reason for the Pharisees' question. It was not for the procurement of information but only for the purpose of seeking some charge against Jesus. They might have had in mind opening up a conflict between Christ and Moses, instinctively recognizing that Christ's teachings would be superior to those of Moses; or they might have had in mind the Lord's entrapment with regard to the marital status of Herod, who had already beheaded John the Baptist for his comment on Herod's incestuous marriage. [2] Ibid., p. 318. [3] William Barclay. The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956), p. 248. [4] W. N. Clarke, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Valley Forge, Pennsylvania: The Judson Press. 1881), Vol. II, p. 145. Verse 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?Thus, as always, Christ sent his questioners back to the word of God. It was true that Christ had greater authority than Moses, but the authority of Moses was still the binding law upon the Pharisees. Verse 4 And they said. Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.The duplicity and deceit of the Pharisees appear in this answer which quoted Moses inaccurately and without regard to the circumstance under which in some cases, he permitted divorce. The Mosaic regulation regarding divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1) was definitely not a blanket permission of divorce for any cause, but only in cases where the husband had found something "unseemly" in his wife. To be sure, the Pharisees, following the most liberal interpretation, allowed "divorce for the most trivial of reasons."[5] The great Jewish authorities held divergent views: Shammai was extremely strict, allowing divorce only for unchastity; but Hillel allowed it for many trivial reasons, including even the burning of bread in preparation of a meal.[6][5] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 24. [6] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 346. Verse 5 But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment.In this, Jesus took account of the principle that earthly laws must sometimes take account of situations arising out of human perfidy and depravity. There seems to be here a differentiation on Jesus' part between the true law of God and the legal regulations delivered by Moses and made necessary by the problems of governing Israel. As Cranfield noted: A distinction has to be made between that which sets forth the absolute will of God, and those provisions which take account of men's actual sinfulness and are designed to limit and control its consequences.[7]Christ here was not critical of Moses, nor was he setting the commandment of God over against Moses. Furthermore, he was not brushing aside the Scriptures. Moses' permission, under certain circumstances of divorce could not mean, nor did it ever mean, that God approved of divorce, except in the very limited context of its being, under some conditions, the lesser of two evils. The same is true of divorce in all generations. It must never be viewed as something God approved; because from the beginning it was not so. When our sinfulness traps us in a position in which all the choices still open to us are sinful, we are to choose that which is least evil, asking for God's forgiveness and comforted by it, but not pretending that the evil is good.[8]Marriages indeed may fail for reasons of human sin; but there can never be any way to make the failures a good thing, nor change the ideal of marriage as God intended and purposed from the beginning of creation. Jesus stated at once the sacred ideal. [7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 319. [8] Ibid., p. 320. Verse 6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh: so that they are no more two, but one flesh.Thus, God's ideal for humanity is "monogamy, which rules out both polygamy and divorce."[9] People have no problem at all in knowing what is the will of God; their problems stem from efforts to make what they do bear the light of it! There is an extreme view, however, which should be avoided, and that is making a violation in this sector to be the unpardonable sin. As Taylor said, "The seventh commandment has no uncommon sanctity; and the guilt of the transgression does not surpass the provisions of grace."[10]One flesh ... "This is Semitic, or Biblical, idiom for `one,' as in RSV; and thus not only rules out polygamy but divorce also."[11] God's purpose, from the beginning, was clearly that of making the home a permanent institution; and, in keeping with that purpose, marriage is final and permanent. Without that finality, the security of the home is gone, the social fabric is torn, and the finest school on earth for the discipline and growth of character is on the way out.[12]By this appeal to Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 5:2, Christ bypassed Moses altogether, founding his teaching on this subject in the eternal and invariable purpose of the Almighty, and not upon the accommodative regulations which had been laid down out of considerations of man's sin. Thus, our Lord triumphed over his enemies. He had not condoned divorce; and, at the same time, he had not contradicted Moses. For further comment regarding the questions raised by these verses, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19. [9] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 354. [10] J. J. Taylor, The Gospel according to Mark (Nashville: Southern Baptist Convention, 1911), p. 132. [11] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 796. [12] Halford E. Luccock, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 796. Verse 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.Like many of the magnificent pronouncements of Jesus, this one is true both in context and intrinsically. God hath joined a man and his wife in marriage; and men are not allowed the authority to dissolve it. Appropriately, these words are used in the marriage ceremony. Christ did not, by these words, prohibit states from making laws in this sector which are required by the sinful conduct of people, the same being implicit in the fact of his not condemning Moses for doing so. Of course, Christ was not dealing with the problem of governing earthly states, but with that of revealing tht true will of Almighty God to his human creation. Intrinsically, these words apply to anything and everything that God has joined together. Thus, faith and baptism are joined as preconditions of salvation (Mark 16:16): glorifying God is to be "in the church and in Christ Jesus" ( Ephesians 3:21), thus joining Jesus and his spiritual body the church. Verse 10 And in the house the disciples asked him again of this matter, and he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her: And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery.To divorce one's wife and marry another is to break the seventh commandment; and the rule applies with equal force to putting away one's husband and marrying another. This pronouncement of Jesus went far beyond anything the Jews taught. According to Rabbinic law, a husband could not be said to commit adultery against his wife. So Jesus goes beyond Rabbinic teaching by speaking of a husband's committing adultery against his wife.[13]Mark's record of Jesus' application of the rule on adultery to both sexes is thought to have been prompted by Gentile readers to whom this gospel is supposed to have been directed. The view here is that Christ spoke all that is recorded of him, both here and in the other gospels; and the fact of one writer's having recorded one thing and another's having recorded different things (though not contradictory) is due to the difference of intention and purpose that each had. This means that the total of Jesus' teaching must be determined by the composite record of all the gospels. Such a view is in line with what Jesus himself said regarding the belief of "all that the prophets have spoken" (Luke 24:25). ENDNOTE: [13] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 321. Verse 13 And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me: forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God.JESUS BLESSES THE LITTLE Evidently, the disciples thought that Jesus would not have the time to bless little children, and their efforts would appear to have been due to misguided efforts to protect Jesus from such an encroachment upon his time and strength. How wrong they were! Moved with indignation ... Some translate this, "was sore displeased with them." They had totally misunderstood the Master's mind. As Clarke noted, the words here are the same as in Matthew 21:15, "where the chief priests were `sore displeased' at the children in the temple who were crying, `Hosanna to the Son of David.'"[14]Suffer the little children to come unto me ... Christ loved little children, and the scene here is one of beauty, love, and concern. To such belongeth the kingdom of God ... They are wrong who read this as if it said that the kingdom belongs to little children. Again from Clarke: He does not say that children are in his kingdom. Membership (in that kingdom) as Christ was preaching it, and as we must preach it, implies intelligence and personal faith. Here is no allusion to baptism; and here was his golden opportunity if he had ever wished baptism to be associated with infants. This is a place where we are justified in drawing a negative conclusion from the silence of the Scriptures.[15]Regarding the qualities Jesus might have had in mind by his statement that those who are "like" children possess the kingdom, there are three schools of thought. Some, like Barclay, thought Jesus had in mind such subjective qualities as humility, obedience, trust, and shortness of memory (not holding grudges, etc.).[16] Erdman rejected such subjective qualities as those cited by Barclay but accepted their trustfulness (a subjective quality), and the objective facts of their helplessness and dependence, as qualities in those receiving the kingdom.[17] Still others, like Turlington, see only the objective qualities as applicable. Thus: "The kingdom does not belong to the mighty, the strong, the influential; it belongs to the weak, the insignificant, and the unimportant.[18]While not denying that the objective qualities of little children are included, this student cannot exclude the subjective qualities as also having a place in Jesus' thoughts. It was clearly the subjective qualities of "spoiled children" that he made the basis of a comparison in Matthew 11:16-17; and that forbids ruling out the subjective qualities here. [14] W. N. Clarke, op. cit.. p. 146. [15] Ibid. [16] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 250. [17] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 153. [18] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 348. Verse 15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein. And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, and laid his hands upon them.As a little child ... How does one receive the kingdom of God as a little child? Clearly, the reference is to well-behaved, normal, loving children; and the qualities in view are: trustfulness, humility, obedience, spontaneity, forgetfulness of injury, slight, or hurt, and a total lack of prejudice. Teachableness is perhaps another. And he took them in his arms, and blessed them ... One is amazed to find an argument for infant baptism in such a place as this. Adam Clarke wrote: If Christ embraced them, why should not his church embrace them? Why not dedicate them to God by baptism? - whether that be performed by sprinkling washing, or immersion? (He even went on to add:) It is grossly heathenish to deprive little children of such an ordinance.[19]See the refutation of Adam Clarke by W. N. Clarke under Mark 10:12, above. The great prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-35 absolutely denies the concept that would include infant children in the kingdom of God, since it is declared there (by necessary inference) that one must know the Lord before he can be in the kingdom of God. The violation of God's will in this regard through the inclusion of unregenerated infants in the kingdom has been the historical gateway through which every possible type of unbeliever has found his way into what is called the church; and this, perhaps more than anything else, has made of the historical church a kingdom, not of God, but of the evil one. If the so-called baptism of an infant can make him a member of the kingdom of God, then such a person is saved without being taught, without repentance, without confession, without the new birth, and without anything under the sun except a few drops of water. That is truly "water salvation," and it should be rejected as foreign to everything in the New Testament. And, as for the allegation that sprinkling and pouring are permissible "forms" of Christian baptism, such is denied by every text bearing on this question in the whole New Testament. See my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 6; also my Commentary on Romans, Romans 6. And he took them in his arms and blessed them ... This verse is peculiar to Mark; but it is no basis for the fulsome comments which refer to this as "a matchless touch," proving of course that Mark is the "original gospel"![20] This is not a "matchless touch" at all, as there are many examples of some vivid gesture, look, action, or saying of Jesus being given by Matthew and omitted by Mark. One should therefore be careful to avoid the implied conclusion based upon this type of exegesis. [19] Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Whole Bible (London: T. Mason and Company, 1829), Vol. V, p. 322. [20] Richard Erdman, op. cit., p. 154. Verse 17 And as he was going forth into the way, there ran one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?THE WITH THE RICH YOUNG RULERThis is a picture of youth at its glorious best. The subject before the Lord was presented as a rich man by all three synoptics; but Matthew (Matthew 19:22) added the detail concerning his youth, and Luke supplied the information that he was a ruler (Luke 18:18). These "matchless touches" were not supplied by the so-called "original" gospel; and they are another of the hundreds of examples proving the composite nature of the gospels. The rich young ruler was a lovable and beautiful character; willing to brave the scorn of the ruling class to which he belonged, he cast himself at the feet of Jesus; and, in sacred writ, there is hardly a more thrilling picture than the opening scene here. How pathetic it is that nothing was to come of it (presumably)! Good Teacher ... McMillan thought that "the young man's words consist only of conventional flattery";[21] but Cranfield was of the opinion that: There is little justification for regarding this as a "somewhat obsequious piece of conventional flattery ... from the unreality of which our Lord recoiled." ... His use of the epithet is surely sincere.[22]What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ...? For the answer Jesus gave to this question, see under Mark 10:19 below. The question itself is the most important that ever engaged human attention, and the presence of such a query in the heart of the young man indicated true concern in his life for things of eternal value. [21] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 125. [22] C. E. B. Cranfield, op cit., p. 326. Verse 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God.Erdman is certainly correct in his comment on this: "It is a mistake to suppose that Jesus denies his own sinlessness, or disclaims divinity."[23] "The perfect goodness of God was a universal doctrine of Judaism";[24] and it is evident that the Lord was here building the young man's thoughts toward the recognition of Jesus as God. It is the equivalent of our Lord's saying, "Look, don't you know that if I am good, as you say, then I am therefore God?" Of course, the Arian heresy was partially founded upon an interpretation of these words which alleged that Jesus here uttered a disclaimer of absolute oneness with God; but, as Turlington said: Mark nowhere else hints of any limitation or lack of goodness in Jesus; and it is unnecessary so to understand this passage.[25]If Jesus did have any limitation of himself in mind here, it would have been the limitation inherent in the incarnation, and was not in any way a diminution of his claim of deity. Cranfield (as quoted by Sanner) took note of this as follows: In an absolute sense, goodness belongs to God the Father alone. By contrast, the goodness of Jesus was in some sense subject to growth and testing in the circumstances of the incarnation wherein he learned obedience by the things which he suffered (Hebrews 5:8).[26]Even David Lipscomb supported such an explanation, writing: The explanation of it, I think, is that Jesus had the nature of man ... So long as he felt the emotions to sin in his members, he did not call himself good, nor did the Holy Spirit call him perfect (Hebrews 5:8).[27]Despite the views of such respected and learned men, however, it is the conviction here that Jesus was trying to guide the young man into a more exalted appreciation of God incarnated in the person of Jesus. [23] Charles E. Erdman, op. cit., p. 155. [24] Halford E. Luccock, op. cit., p. 801. [25] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 349. [26] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 357. [27] C. E. W. Dorris, Commentary on Mark (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1938), p. 233. Verse 19 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor thy father and mother.In these words, wherein Jesus quoted from the second table of the Decalogue, our Lord answered the young man's question with regard to what he might do that he might inherit eternal life. Matthew supplied the connecting link, "If thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments" (Matthew 19:17). When the young man inquired as to "which," Jesus quoted the Decalogue. In view of this, there is utterly no way to separate keeping the commandments from the requirements God has made of them that would inherit eternal life. How absolutely opposed to the word of God is such an opinion as that of Sanner, who said, "This is a rejection of the idea that goodness is by achievement. There is nothing one can do to inherit eternal life."[28] Humanity faces the mystery of redemption in this; for it is altogether true that men do not have it in themselves to keep God's commandments perfectly, However, JESUS KEPT THEM ! Men are saved, therefore, by believing and being baptized INTO CHRIST. Thus, they are identified with Christ and AS CHRIST. (See Galatians 2:20). No man can be saved as John Doe; if ever saved at all, he must be saved "in Christ" and "as Christ." That Jesus was actually attempting to lead this young man into a higher understanding of the truth is implicit in the fact of his quoting only from the second half of the Decalogue, omitting the first section's requirement of loving God with the whole heart, mind, soul and strength. That part of the Decalogue the young man had not fully kept. Thus, the Lord here stressed the portion of it in which the life of the young man was most nearly acceptable to God. ENDNOTE: [28] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 357. Verse 20 And he said unto him, Teacher, all these things have I observed from my youth.Mark omitted the key words, "What lack I yet?" (Matthew 19:20). Still, it is perfectly evident that the young man's keeping of God's commandments had nevertheless left a void in his heart. Many a person in his circumstances would have said, "I need nothing"; but it is to the great credit of this man that he recognized his soul's need, despite all of his own sincere efforts to do God's will. It is ever beyond the power of men to achieve eternal life through their own keeping of sacred law, and yet eternal life is dependent upon the perfect keeping of the sacred law. Christ achieved eternal life for all men (potentially) by his perfect keeping of all of God's commandments, and by setting up a plan by which men become a part of his true spiritual body, thus enabling them to be saved "as Christ." Yet this does not deny that salvation results from (Christ's) keeping all the commandments. Verse 21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.The one thing lacking in the young man was his renunciation of all trust in worldly things and following Christ. Go sell ... and give to the poor ... This may not be viewed as an invariable requirement of all who would be saved; why then did Jesus lay down such a requirement here? It has been suggested that the Lord saw the cancer of greed that was eating out his heart and prescribed the drastic surgery of getting rid of his wealth. A more likely explanation is that the Lord was calling him to be an apostle, all of the apostles having been required to leave all that they had and follow Jesus. The words "Come, and follow me," are exactly the same words used in the call of an apostle (Matthew 9:9); and, as Peter would shortly point out (Mark 10:28), the leaving of all earthly possessions was a requirement the apostles had met. And come follow me ... Salvation, or eternal life, may be inherited only by those who follow Christ; and, in this requirement of total submission to Jesus' will and of following his commandments, one finds the invariable and universal condition of inheriting eternal life. Thou shalt have treasure in heaven ... The Lord did not mean that such an act on the part of the young man would in any sense "earn" eternal life. It was not in merely giving away his property that he could have eternal life, for that blessing could come only of following Jesus. If Jesus had permitted this rich young man to become a part of his company of followers without meeting the test which the apostles had all met, it would have had a disastrous consequence in their sacred fellowship; but Jesus was incapable of showing partiality merely because of the wealth of his questioner. Verse 22 But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful: for he was one that had great possessions.In the last analysis, he only thought he wanted eternal life. The allurement of this world's emoluments was, in his eyes, a benefit too great to forego. Having a choice between eternal life in the world to come and the good life here and now, he chose the latter. This is not hard to understand, because it is a choice being made by millions of people every day. He went away sorrowful ... This was the price required by his choice; and it is a price that all must pay who renounce eternal happiness in favor of temporal comforts. Sadness must ever be the lot of any man who deliberately turns away from the world's only Saviour. One may see a hundred fallen countenances on any street corner in a few minutes. For comment on Matthew's fuller account, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 19:16-17. Turlington observed that "Only here in the gospels is a command of Jesus to follow him clearly rejected."[29]ENDNOTE: [29] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 350. Verse 23 And Jesus looked round about him, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!JESUS' RICHESWhat Jesus said here was prompted by the departure of the rich young ruler a moment earlier. It was a fact then, and a fact now, and a fact in every age that the possession of riches militates against the acceptance of Jesus Christ and his saving message. This does not deny the possibility of rich men being saved, but it underlines the difficulty of their making the decisions prerequisite to redemption. Verse 24 And the disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter the kingdom of God.In this elaboration of what he meant, Jesus distinguished between them that "have riches" and them that "trust in riches," the latter being the great deterrent to entering God's kingdom. The same distinction was honored by the New Testament writers, Paul, for example, making "the love of money" and not merely "money," to be the "root of all kinds of evil" (1 Timothy 6:10). As Dorris stated it: A man may have great wealth and love God more than the wealth, and be a Christian; just as a poor man may have a little and love the little more than God, and never be a Christian.[30]Nevertheless, the temptation to trust in riches is augmented and intensified for the person who possesses them. ENDNOTE: [30] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 239. Verse 25 It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.Of course, it is impossible for a camel to go through a needle's eye, and the Lord's words are therefore hyperbole, used for the sake of emphasizing the difficulty. As Turlington put it, "The `impossible' figure is given, not to be taken literally, but to emphasize how hard it is."[31] In view of the Lord's plain statement in Mark 10:27, all efforts to understand such a thing as possible must fail. ENDNOTE: [31] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 350. Verse 26 And they were astonished exceedingly, saying unto him, Then who can be saved?The amazement of the apostles was not so much in the principle as generally stated, but in the application of it to so lovable and personable a rich man as the one who had just departed. Taken literally, the Saviour's words would mean that no rich man can be saved, but he quickly moved to counteract such a literal application of his words. Verse 27 Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for all things are possible with God.Only God has the power to cause a rich man to leave off trusting in his wealth and turn to God for salvation; and such heavenly power has often been evidenced. In the Old Testament, Abraham, Job, and David were men of immeasurable riches, as were also Isaac and Jacob; but of such Jesus himself said that they shall be in the eternal kingdom ( Luke 13:28). In the Christian era, there have been many rich men who were saved; and in John's Revelation, the final view of the Eternal City took account of the "kings of the earth" bringing their glory into it (Revelation 21:24). Only God's power can do such things, but that power is sufficient unto all things. As Taylor expressed it, "God can put the camel through, but it takes divine power to do it; and the process is hard on the camel!"[32]ENDNOTE: [32] J. J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 136. Verse 28 Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee.Only from Matthew 19:27 may Peter's intention here be read. He added: "What shall we have?" Whatever the reason for Peter's question, it was legitimate in every way; and the Lord promptly answered it in the most thorough and convincing manner. Verse 29 Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.This tremendous threefold promise of: (1) possessions and (2) family being multiplied a hundredfold in this present life, and (3) of eternal life in the world to come is one of the grandest in the word of God. No man ever tried this promise without finding it true; and yet, as Taylor said: "Such an utterance cannot be tested by human observation, because the motives that impel any man to give up temporal comforts cannot be known."[33]The rich young ruler would have been far better off if he had followed the Lord, giving up all of his wealth. If he lived so long as 70 A.D., everything that he owned was wiped out in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Whereas the Christians survived that debacle without the loss of a single life, the non-Christian portion of Israel was utterly destroyed, some 1,100,000 of the population being put to the sword.[34] Thus, when the rich young ruler turned away from Jesus, he turned his back upon his highest secular interests as well as the promise of eternal life. The Lord knew what was best for him; but it is also true that the Lord knows what is best for every man! Houses ... and lands, with persecutions ... That the material and temporal benefit of Christ's disciples is enhanced through their following of the Master is here categorically stated. The very qualities of truth, integrity, honesty, dependability, diligence, thrift, humility, self-denial, etc., which virtues are an essence of Christianity, are inevitably rewarded. Every corporation on earth is trying to find employees who will manifest such qualities. Persecutions however, are also to be expected. And in the world to come eternal life ... One may only be astounded at such a work as The Interpreter's Bible omitting this clause from both the exegesis and the exposition. This is the most important line in Jesus' entire reply, carrying the promise of eternal life in the world to come and a necessary inference of the Lord's deity. Who but Almighty God come in the flesh could make a promise like this? The conviction of Christ's church for nearly two millennia has found here in these eternal words of Jesus the most confident expectations of life after death and of an eternity of happiness with the Lord in the hereafter. [33] Ibid. [34] J.R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1937), p. 704. Verse 31 But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.This was addressed particularly, in this context, to Peter's question of "what shall we have?" What every man is to receive does not derive from his being first in the service of Jesus, but depends upon how faithfully he continues in the Lord's service. Judas was one of the first; and, among the apostles, Paul was the last; but in the events recorded in the New Testament, it turned out that Judas was last and Paul first. Matthew's account placed the parable of the laborers in the vineyard next after the events here; and, in that parable, this principle was elaborated (Matthew 20:1-16). Verse 32 And they were going on the way, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was going before them: and they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid.THE OF JESUS' DEATH AND There seems to be something very significant in the narrative at this point. Jesus' determination to go on to Jerusalem in the face of certain death and the reluctance and fear of those who followed are dramatically presented here by Mark. Turlington said, "They were frightened by the course of events, and by Jesus' determined path."[35]And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them the things that were to happen to him, saying, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and the scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles: and they shall mock him, and shall spit upon him, and shall scourge him, and shall kill him; and after three days he shall rise again.See complete discussion of this under Mark 8:31 and Mark 9:32. This is a very full announcement of the Passion and subsequent resurrection; but there was no mention of his coming in glory, as in Mark 8:38. The fullness of Jesus' teaching is found in a composite of all that the gospels relate. ENDNOTE: [35] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 351. Verse 35 And there came near unto him James and John, the sons of Zebedee, saying unto him, Teacher, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall ask of thee.THE REQUEST OF THE SONS OF ZEBEDEEMatthew, as frequently, gave a fuller account, relating the part that the mother of James and John had in this incident. This was not to "spare the Twelve" as the Markan theorists allege; for Matthew did not spare the Twelve at all, even relating the indignation of the group against "the brethren," not against their mother (Matthew 20:24). Of course, this request was childish in that they supposed Jesus would agree to their request even before they had stated it. The request itself, stated immediately afterward, had all kinds of things wrong with it: (1) It showed a lack of faith in what Jesus had just said regarding his being raised "after three days." (2) It was founded in human vanity and conceit. (3) It represented an effort on their part to gain ascendancy over the other apostles. (4) It showed a fundamental misconception of what God's kingdom would be. (5) It was a selfish maneuver prompted by the Lord's repeated announcement of his forthcoming death and resurrection in which they appeared as desiring the chief places in the presumed absence of the Lord. (6) It was a request founded in ignorance (Mark 10:38). Verse 36 And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? And they said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and one on thy left hand in thy glory.This was equivalent, in the eyes of James and John, to a request to be the chief administrators in the forthcoming kingdom of God, as if one would be the Secretary of State and the other the Secretary of the Treasury! Mark here represented the brothers as uttering the request themselves, which of course they did, through their mother. Mark's briefer account included the essentials. Verse 38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink? or to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?The "cup" and the "baptism" mentioned here are both references to the sufferings and tribulations through which our Lord was passing and which would culminate on the cross itself. "The `cup' is one Jesus is already drinking, and the `baptism' is one which is being experienced .... The `cup' will not be drained until he is taken from the cross."[36] As Dorris said: This baptism began with his personal ministry and was completed at the cross. He was completely overwhelmed with suffering. Note that he used not the past nor the future tense, but the present.[37][36] Ibid., p. 352. [37] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 245. Verse 39 And they said unto him, We are able. And Jesus said unto them, The cup that I drink ye shall drink; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized.James was to be the first martyr (Acts 12), and if the tradition that John was finally martyred is allowed, it would appear that a kind of mystical granting of their request was allowed, James being the first of the apostles to be martyred and John the last. It is more likely that Jesus merely meant that they, along with all of the apostles, would drink the "cup" of human scorn and hatred and be baptized with the "baptism" of persecution and opposition from them that hated the truth. We are able ... is a rather naive reply on their part. There was so much that they did not at that time know concerning the kingdom of God. Their confidence here reminds one of Peter's boast that he was ready to go to prison and death for the Lord. Verse 40 But to sit on my right hand or on my left hand is not mine to give; but it is for them for whom it hath been prepared.The Arian allegations founded on this verse should be rejected. We disagree with McMillan who interpreted this as saying that "they were asking him about something over which he had no control."[38] A glance at any rendition of the literal Greek shows that the limitation was not in Jesus, for it is implied that such honors, when given, would still be given by Jesus. The Greek has these words: "But to sit at my right hand, or at the left, is not mine to give except for whom it is prepared."[39] The addition of "it is for them" by the translators is incorrect. The clear meaning is that Jesus could not give such honors except to them for whom they were prepared. This writer once asked a wealthy man who was more than two hundred times a millionaire for a certain gift and he replied that "It is not mine to give," meaning not that he did not have the power to make the gift, but that my particular request was not in line with his purpose. This is exactly the meaning of Jesus' "not mine to give" in this verse. [38] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 130. [39] The Emphatic Diaglott (Brooklyn, New York: Watch Tower Society), p. 166. Verse 41 And when the ten heard it, they began to be moved with indignation concerning James and John.This unfriendly feeling of ten apostles toward James and John showed that the same virus which had infected the sons of Zebedee was also present in the others. Their indignation was clearly due to their fears that James and John might seize something which they also wanted. The Lord at once instructed them all concerning the true values to be received and honored in his kingdom. Verse 42 And Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not so among you: but whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all.This amazing passage has the style of a Hebrew parallelism in which the same thought is repeated in different words; but it definitely goes beyond a mere parallelism. "Those who are accounted to rule over the Gentiles" contrasts with "their great ones" who "exercise authority over them." Those who are accounted to rule are merely presuming to do so, whereas the great ones actually exercise authority. The same appears in the second parallel where "great" is a much weaker word than "first" or "chief." From this, it is plain that the passage allows the deduction that Christ here condemned the pyramided structure of authority prevalent in all earthly governments. In this manner of interpreting the passage, "great ones" in the first parallel exercise authority over those "accounted to rule." This would make those presuming to rule to be the antecedent of "them" instead of "Gentiles." But it is not so among you ... The government of Christ's church was not to be patterned after earthly government and organizations with their pyramided echelons of authorities in rising tiers of dignity culminating in some "head"! An utterly different conception was to prevail; but, historically, churches have slipped into conformity with the old and forbidden ways of the world. Whosoever would be first among you, shall be servant of all ... Only Jesus Christ was "chief" or "first" among the apostles, being designated by the Holy Spirit as "the Apostle and High Priest of our confession" (Hebrews 3:1); and, although the rule of greatness being determined by service applied to every apostle and to all Christians of all ages, this must be understood primarily as a reference of Jesus to himself, as the next verse emphatically proves. Verse 45 For the Son of man also came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.Coming, as it does, at the climax of a series of statements leading up to it and actually demanding it, this verse is secure against all efforts to make a gloss out of it, malignant skepticism having assailed it repeatedly, its authenticity having "been denied on various grounds."[40] See Cranfield for a thorough and most convincing refutation of skeptical fulminations against this text. We need not concern ourselves with denials regarding this verse, since they are not founded upon logical premises nor supported by any true scholarship, being in lack but the natural reflexes of the unbeliever's inherent bias against truth. And what a truth is here! This is truly one of the most magnificent declarations in holy Scripture. Its teachings include the following: (1) This verse gives the ground of the principle uttered in Mark 10:43, "Whosoever would become great among you, shall be your minister." Secular notions of rank and privilege are forbidden in God's new Israel on the grounds that such rankings are out of harmony with the Saviour's own mission to humanity. (2) "And to give his life ..." The words thus translated were understood by the Jews as applicable to martyrs, and they indicate the voluntary nature of Christ's atoning death. People did not take his life, except in a limited sense, for Jesus gave his life as a ransom for men (John 10:17-18). (3) "A ransom ..." The Greek word thus rendered denoted the ransom of a prisoner of war, or of a slave. The Old Testament use of the word in the Septuagint (LXX) meant the money a man paid to redeem his life which was forfeit because his ox had killed someone (Exodus 21:30), the price paid for the redemption of the firstborn (Numbers 18:15), or the money by which the next of kin ransomed an enslaved relative (Leviticus 25:51)[41] Thus, the vicarious nature of our Lord's death is eloquently proclaimed by the use of "ransom" by the Saviour in this verse. "For many ..." This is the same word Paul used in Romans 5:15, and it refers not to any restricted number but to all the millions of every generation who will receive salvation through Jesus Christ. Cranfield said the word carries the meaning of "all."[42](5) In this verse, as McMillan noted, "Jesus established himself as the greatest, not because he was the mastermind of some organization, but because he, in his self-sacrifice, gave the greatest gift."[43](6) Cranfield, Sanner, and many others have seen in this verse from the words of Jesus the presentation of himself as the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53, Jesus' words having a clear connection with Isaiah 53:10-11. Sanner said, "This great passage shows clearly that Jesus knew himself called to fuse in his own destiny the two roles of the Son of man (Daniel 7) and the Servant of the Lord (Isaiah 53)."[44][40] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 343. [41] Ibid., p. 342. [42] Ibid., p. 343. [43] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 129. [44] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 362. Verse 46 And they come to Jericho: and as he went out from Jericho, with his disciples and a great multitude, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar was sitting by the wayside.THE HEALING OF And as he went out from Jericho ... Luke has it, "And as they came nigh unto Jericho" (Luke 18:35); and of course this is the type of pseudocon seized upon so gleefully by skeptics. All thoughts of any contradiction in these passages disappear, however, in the fact of there being two Jericho's, the old city destroyed by Joshua, but continuing to exist as a village, and the new city built near the site of the old. Any beggar would naturally have chosen a location between the two places in order to take advantage of more traffic. William Taylor mentioned both Jerichos as follows: "Joshua razed the old Jericho ... a town grew up near the ancient site (which was) fortified in the days of Ahab by Hiel."[45] Likewise, J. J. Taylor noted that "There were two adjacent places of that name, the miracle being wrought at a point between the two, so that passing out of one was entering the other."[46]Regarding the additional alleged difficulty arising from the fact of Matthew's mentioning two blind men as being healed by Jesus, whereas Mark and Luke mentioned only one, Trench has this: That rule, which in all reconciliations of parallel histories must be applied, is that the silence of one narrator is no contradiction of the affirmation of another; thus the second and third evangelists making mention of ONE blind man do not contradict St. Matthew who mentions TWO.[47]Of course, the fact pointed out by Trench is elementary, but it needs repetition to silence skeptics who scream "contradiction" upon the slightest pretext. [45] William Taylor, op. cit., p. 400. [46] J. J. Taylor, op. cit., p. 140. [47] Richard Trench, Notes of the Miracles (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1943), p. 467. Verse 47 And when he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.Luke gave the detail of the blind man's inquiry which prompted the reply to it recorded here. Thou Son of David ... This was a common title of the expected Messiah in use throughout Israel in the times of Christ; and there is no way to deny the implications of it as used by Bartimaeus. Significantly, the Pharisees were blind to the fact of Jesus being truly the Son of David, but the blind not only knew it but shouted it to high heaven. This is a clear case of the blind seeing and the seeing being blind as mentioned in John 9:39 f. Verse 48 And many rebuked him, that he should hold his peace: but he cried out the more a great deal, Thou Son of David, have mercy on me.And many rebuked him ... This indicates that those who rebuked the blind man were not the Lord's apostles, for they were not "many." The supposition that the great crowd rebuked the blind man for fear that his cries would annoy Jesus or impede his progress appears unreasonable, because great crowds are not thoughtful on behalf of anyone. The rebuke so ardently administered here, in all probability, was instigated and principally spoken by people who strongly objected to the shouted testimony to Jesus' Messiahship, implicit in the repeated cries, "Thou Son of David." This points squarely at the Pharisees who were a definite component of every crowd that gathered around Jesus. Thus, there is an element of humor in this situation wherein a blind man was shouting himself hoarse with cries hailing Jesus as the Son of David, and the Pharisees were trying to hush him! Verse 49 And Jesus stood still, and said, Call ye him. And they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good cheer: rise, he calleth thee.Such faith as the blind man already had Jesus rewarded by demanding that he be brought into his presence. Even on the way to Calvary Jesus had time to minister to human need. Verse 50 And he, casting away his garment, sprang up, and came to Jesus.The desperation of destructive critics challenging the historicity of this gospel is nowhere more evident than in the allegations of some to the effect that the blind man's casting his garment away shows that he was a Greek, making the narrative a misfit. Such pettifoggery, however, is exposed in the fact that Mark himself described a young man in Jerusalem (most probably himself) as "having a linen cloth cast about him" ( Mark 14:51). Verse 51 And Jesus answered him, and said, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee? And the blind man said unto him, Rabboni, that I may receive my sight.Jesus did not ask the blind man for the purpose of procuring information but to bring out his faith. Christ generally healed only those who expressed a desire to be healed and who made application to him for benefit. Rabboni ... Dorris noted that "there were three titles used by the Jews for their teachers: `Rab,' meaning MASTER as the lowest degree of honor; `Rabbi,' meaning "my master," a higher dignity; and `Rabboni,' meaning "my great master," the most honorable of all."[48]ENDNOTE: [48] C. E. W. Dorris, op. cit., p. 253. Verse 52 And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way; thy faith hath made thee whole. And straightway he received his sight, and followed him in the way.Thy faith hath made thee whole ... may also be translated, "Thy faith hath saved thee" (see the English Revised Version (1885) margin). From this, Turlington concluded that "the story is not only historical but a parable."[49]Cranfield concluded that Bartimaeus became a disciple of Jesus and supposed that fact to underlie the fact of his name being remembered. This would also explain why Mark mentioned only one of the two blind men actually healed, as indicated in Matthew; Mark gave an account of the one who became a disciple. The use of this narrative as an example of how men are saved from sin is seen in: (1) the condition is a figure of sin; (2) the blind man believed in Jesus as the Messiah; (3) he cried out to the Lord for mercy; (4) he persisted in spite of the rebukes of many; (5) he answered Jesus' call; (6) he cast aside all hindrances (the garment); (7) he pleaded for mercy; (8) he was saved; (8) he followed Jesus. This is the last healing reported in Mark; and this tenth chapter which is viewed as a condensed narrative of the entire Judean and Perean ministry of the Son of God is thus concluded. Significantly, no other part of God's word any more effectively portrays Jesus as God among men, the Dayspring from on high, than does this. The great passage in Mark 10:45, especially, is one of tremendous import; and we conclude this chapter by another reference to that declaration of Jesus as the "ransom for many," words which, according to Bruce, "echo the portrayal of the Servant who makes himself an offering for sin, thus making many righteous (Isaiah 53:10 f)."[50][49] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 354. [50] F. F. Bruce, The Message of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1972), p. 21. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 In Matthew's account of this conversation (chapter 19:3) the Pharisees add the words "for every cause." Mark says they asked the question for the purpose of tempting Jesus. They hoped he would say something that would disagree with the law a .d thus give them an occasion for accusing him. 3 Instead of answering di rect, Jesus asked them to repeat the law of Moses on the subject of the question they professed to have in mind. 4 They stated the law correctly as far as they went, and that law may be seen in Deuteronomy 24:1. 5 Jesus did not deny their citation but explained the reason for the law; the people were not in the favorable attitude for the strictness of enforcement, and as an emergency some tolerance was extended to them. 6 Jesus also informed them that it was not always that way, and his teaching soon indicated that a return to the original ruling would be required after the kingdom of heaven was set up. The original order was that God made them male and female; singular on both sides, not male and females. 7 For this cause means for the cause soon to be stated, a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife. The word cleave means that he should join his body with hers in the fleshly relationship. 8 The result of that cleaving was to be that the two bodies would become one in the flesh. Not only would they be one flesh at the time of the union, but it was to be permanent, for it says they would be no more twain, but one flesh. 9 It says that God joined these two, and that was because the ordinance was authorized of God. The fleshly union made them one and the unfaithfulness of either would be the way that the union could be put asunder. 0 The disciples wished to have further information. 1 The wish was granted by the statement of this verse. The simple fact of divorcing a wife does not constitute adultery, but the remarriage to another (except when the wife has been unfaithful, Matthew 19:9) does. 2 The same rule applies to a wife that does to a husband. 3 It is natural for people to want their children admired and even to be fondled. These children were brought to Jesus for that purpose, and it is not any surprise that such a desire would exist, especially in view of the importance of this great "friend of man." The disciples evidently thought that Jesus had more important things to do than to notice children. 4 Jesus overheard the objections of his disciples and concluded it was an appropriate time to give them a lesson touching the principles of his kingdom soon to be set up. Of such should be noted, for it is very significant. Little children were not to become members of the kingdom, for they do not need it. The point is that the spirit of those who are acceptable members of the kingdom of heaven must become like that of a little child. 5 Receive the kingdom of God as a little child means they must become as the child in spirit, otherwise they will not be welcomed into the kingdom. 6 Jesus then gave an example of his own teaching by taking the children in his arms and bestowing upon them a caressing touch. Blessed them means he pronounced his good wishes upon them. 7 The teaching of Jesus had given the impression that something special would be required in order to have eternal life. No doubt this man (who Matthew says was young, chapter 19:20) sincerely desired eternal life, but he had no idea what he would be required to do in obtaining it. 8 None good but one is explained at Matthew 19:17. 9 These six commandments of the Decalogue are the ones that pertain to man's dealing with man. Jesus knew that in this man's case the extra law he would give would also be in that class. 0 The man claimed to have kept all of these and Jesus did not deny it. 1 A p.art of Thayer's definition of the original for love is "to regard the welfare of." Knowing the situation with the young man, Jesus considered that his spiritual welfare was at stake. He decided to show him what would be necessary to assure him of that welfare, which was to dispose of his riches. 2. The man's attachment to his riches was the occasion of this grief. 3 How hardly shall they . . . enter the kingdom, of God. The reader should see the comments covering this whole event at Matthew 19:20-27. 4 The words trust in riches gives the key to this subject, which is expressed also by Paul in 1 Timothy 6:17, and is virtually the same as "the love of money" in the same chapter and verse 10. 5 This needle is explained in the comments cited in verse 23. 6 The disciples were taking a purely physical view of the subject. 7 With God all things are possible as far as power is concerned. 8 Have left all meant they had literally left their homes in order to travel with Jesus in his journeys through the country. 9 Many things had to be left behind if they went with Jesus in this kind of a journey, for they would have been encumbrances to the work. 0 Now in this time refers to the life on earth with these apostles, but after their bodily association with Jesus had been fulfilled. They were to have their homes and families for their personal use again (such as Peter rejoining his wife, 1 Corinthians 9:5), but would be required to endure persecutions for the sake of their religion. World to come means the age after the judgment in which the righteous will enjoy eternal life. 1 This important language is commented upon at Matthew 19:30. 2 Jesus had told his disciples that he was to be mistreated (chapter 8:31), and they seemed to think he should not voluntarily go to Jerusalem. When they saw that he was even foremost in the journey they were amazed. Although they followed along after him they were under a feeling of terror. 3 Instead of trying to lessen their fears by painting the picture in some favorable colors, Jesus repeated what he had said to them before. Deliver him to the Gentiles was to be because the Jews could not execute the death sentence. 4 Jesus usually included the resurrection in r is predictions of his death. 5 This request was for the sake of James and John, but Matthew 20:20-21 states that their mother made the plea to Jesus. 6 The Lord knows what we need or want before we ask him, but he desires that we ask him (Matthew 6:8). 7 This request was based on their idea of an earthly kingdom. 8 The disciples did not realize what was involved in their request. They thought only of the glory that was supposed to come upon those in positions of authority in the kingdoms of the world. The cup and baptism that Jesus mentioned were figurative, referring to the trials that were in store for those who were associated with Christ in the kingdom of heaven. 9 Without realizing what it meant, the disciples indicated they were ready to accept the cup and baptism. Even in a spiritual kingdom, such a cup and baptism as Jesus meant were to be expected, hence he told them they would have that experience. 0 Is not mine to give is explained at Matthew 20:23. 1 The other apostles were displeased with James and John. It evidently was because of their desire to be seated above the others in places of authority. 2 Jesus found it necessary so many times to explain the fundamental difference as to true greatness between his kingdom and those of the world. In them the strongest are the ones who exercise the rule of authority and domination. 4 It was to be the opposite of that in the kingdom of heaven. In it the truly greatest citizens will be the ones who render the most service to others. 5 The principle of service as a sign of true greatness was practiced by the Son of man notwithstanding he was to be the king. He devoted his life on earth to service unto others, then crowned that service by giving his life for the benefit of the whole world that all might be saved who would serve him. 6 Jesus came to Jericho after crossing the Jordan on the way to Jerusalem. As he and his disciples with a great number of other people were leaving that city, they passed a blind beggar sitting by the wayside. 7 This man had been asking for the necessities of life only, for he did not expect any of the people to be able to do anything for his blindness. But the fame of Jesus had reached his ears, and learning that he was passing by it prompted him to ask for more important favor. 8 The crowd thought the blind man was interrupting the work of Jesus, but he was made more persistent by the attempt to quiet him. 0 Whoever was given the command to call the blind man gave him a kindly greeting. Upon information that Jesus, had heard his plea he arose and went to him. He cast away his outer garment that he might move more easily. 1 Jesus knew the nature of the man's affliction, but wished him to express his request as an indication of his faith. (See comments at verse 36). 2 For the sake of his faith the Lord granted the unfortunate man his sight. Notice that. it was immediately as all truly miraculous cures were done. Verse 1 The Gospel of Mark condensed a great detail of material into the remaining six chapters, and not all of it is in strict chronological sequence. However, in this eleventh chapter, there are three successive days designated (Mark 11:11:11; Mark 11:11:12; Mark 11:11:20; and Mark 11:11:27). In the designed brevity of the gospel, it was inevitable that some events would be recorded with many details omitted and that some things would be omitted altogether. The sections of this chapter are devoted to: the triumphal entry (Mark 11:1-11), withering of the fig tree (Mark 11:12-14 and Mark 20:25), the second cleansing of the temple (Mark 11:15-19), and the question concerning the authority of Jesus (Mark 11:27-33). THE ENTRYThis event is recorded in all four of the gospels, a testimony of the great importance attached to it. The four accounts are independent, historical, and exceedingly significant, each in its own right. There is absolutely no ground whatever for making any one of them the "original" in its relation to the others. All are original in the sense of being founded on the event itself and bearing the most convincing evidence of being truthful accounts of the facts related. One grows weary of the knee-jerk repetition in so many of the commentaries, as, for example, in these lines from Cranfield: "The Markan account provides vividness of detail with the most notable restraint regarding Messianic colour."[1] Cranfield said this with reference to the event of the triumphal entry, despite the simple fact that Mark provided less "vividness of detail" than any of the other sacred authors. Here are the details supplied from the other three gospels which Mark omitted: The mother of the colt was a necessary part of the whole event; the colt would not have followed without her! Both animals were brought to Jesus. Garments were spread on both of them. Jesus sat on both animals (his feet probably on the colt). The colt was unbroken, unusable except in connection with its mother. The dramatic descent from the Mount of Olives. The hailing of Jesus as the King of Israel. The request of the Pharisees that Jesus rebuke such exclamations. The presence of two converging multitudes, one from the city coming out to meet Jesus, the other following from Bethany. The element of the resurrection of Lazarus stimulating the size of both converging multitudes. The stirring up of the whole city. Christ's reply to the Pharisees that, if the multitudes should remain silent, the very stones would cry out. The frustration of the Pharisees who said, "Behold how ye prevail nothing; lo, the world is gone after him." The astounding fact of the Gospel of Mark is not "vividness of detail," as so monotonously alleged, but rather an astounding lack of detail as in the instance before us. The significance of this is that the "vividness of detail" allegedly found in Mark is the principal prop of the so-called Markan theory. This pattern of Mark's omission of details supplied by the other gospels extends throughout the gospel, the few instances in which he gave more details being utterly outweighed by those in which, as here, he gave far less. Therefore, it may be dogmatically affirmed that Mark's overwhelming superiority in the matter of "vivid details" is a scholarly conceit void of all Scriptural support. The "greater vividness of details" assertion is contradicted by the very size of the gospel itself, being by far the shortest. Furthermore, there is the fact, already noted, that Mark's style is somewhat verbose, using more words to convey fewer thoughts. Note the following: Mark 8:11 And the Pharisees came forth, began to question with him, asking of him a sign from heaven, tempting him. Matthew 16:1 And the Pharisees and Sadducees came, and tempting him, asked him to show them a sign from heaven. In the above, Matthew with one less word gives all of the facts recorded by Mark, plus the added information that the Pharisees were accompanied by the Sadducees. This is characteristic throughout the gospels. ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 347. And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth two of his disciples. (Mark 11:1) Bethphage, meaning "place of figs." and Bethany, meaning "place of dates," were two villages almost adjacent to Jerusalem, being in fact nestled into the Mount of Olives, a 2,600-foot elevation lying along the eastern boundary of Jerusalem. He sendeth two of his disciples ... It is not known who these were. Verse 2 And saith unto them, Go your way into the village that is over against you: and straightway as ye enter it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat; loose him and bring him.As to which village was meant, there is no certain way to determine it; but Matthew's mention of their coming to Bethphage with no mention of Bethany suggests that the latter was the "village over against" them. Mark and Luke writing at a later date than Matthew threw in the name of the village where they got the colt. This writer is aware that this contradicts the notions regarding Mark's being the first gospel; but this is only one of a hundred examples in the text itself suggesting the priority of Matthew, a position which this writer accepts as far more likely to be true. The historical fact of Matthew's being the first book in the New Testament is of immense weight. A colt tied ... The mother would not depart from the colt if the latter was tied, hence it was unnecessary to tie both animals. Tying the mother, on the other hand, would not restrain the colt from wandering off. Both were tied. Verse 3 And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this? say ye, The Lord hath need of him; and straightway he will send him back hither.The Lord hath need of him ... Jesus here referred to himself as "Lord," a term that cannot, in context, be separated from a claim of divinity on Jesus' part. And straightway he will send him back hither ... The Greek word here rendered "hither" is actually "here";[2] it is thus a reference to the place where Jesus was standing when he gave this order. The word "back" is thus not a reference to taking the animal back but to the coming "back" of the disciples with the colt. Translators and commentators have a great difficulty with this rather unusual mode of expression; but the meaning is absolutely clear in Matthew: "And straightway he will send them" (Matthew 21:3), meaning the owner would straightway send the requested colt (and its mother) to Jesus. The notion that Jesus was here promising to send the animal back promptly is ridiculous, as if the Lord would need to promise any such thing in order to procure an animal which he already knew would be promptly given without any such promise. The appearance of this event in all three synoptic gospels is proof enough that the supernatural knowledge of the Lord regarding where the colt would be found, the fact of its being tied and being with its mother: and the fact of the owner's willingness to allow the Lord to use them that supernatural knowledge is the main point of the narrative, along with the element of fulfilling prophecy. ENDNOTE: [2] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972. Verse 4 And they went away, and found a colt tied to the door without in the open street; and they loose him. And certain of them that stood there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt?It should be noted that the disciples found the colt exactly where Jesus said they would find it, that it was tied, and that they encountered exactly the same questioning of what they were doing that Jesus had anticipated. No wonder such an event persisted in the memory of all and found its way into all three synoptics. Who but God could have exhibited such foreknowledge as this? Commentators who suppose that Jesus must have set this up in advance, or that the owner was in Jesus' company on that occasion, are not interpreting anything in the Bible but expressing their own unbelief. Significantly, it appears that the people questioning the disciples were merely bystanders, and not the owner; and it would have been impossible to have set up such a thing in advance. Verse 6 And they said unto them even as Jesus had said: and they let them go. And they bring the colt unto Jesus, and cast on him their garments; and he sat upon him.See additional details of this as set forth in the introduction to this chapter. Mark's abbreviated account omits many vivid details. Verse 8 And many spread their garments upon the way; and others branches, which they had cut from the fields.Cranfield's allegation says this "demonstration was quite a small affair."[3] Such a comment is shocking, not because of any possible truth in it, but because it is almost incredible that an intelligent man would make it. As these lines are being written, President Richard M. Nixon has just enjoyed a triumphal reception in Egypt where over two million people enthusiastically hailed him; but does anyone suppose for a moment that nineteen centuries afterward people will be studying that entry into Egypt by an American president? This entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem is still hailed by millions some two thousand years after the fact. It was immortalized by four historical records, hated to be sure, but still true, still standing as fact, still received as the word of God to mankind, still loved, honored, and revered by people of all nations. That such results could have flowed out of some "very small affair" is utterly impossible of belief. On this day, the palm branch became forever afterward a symbol of victory, which, as Dummelow said, was a thing unknown to the Jews.[4] Some "small affair"! This great outpouring of Jerusalem to welcome Jesus our Lord was a vast spontaneous demonstration in which the great masses of the people participated with Hosannas and praises and the casting of their clothes in the street before the Lord (they didn't even do that for Nixon). The King had indeed come to his people, and they hailed him as "the King of Israel" and as "the Son of David." The priests were furious, saying, "Lo, the world has gone after him" ( John 12:19). As a matter of fact, it had! [3] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 353. [4] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 694. Verse 9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest.They that went before, and they that followed ... Here are the two great multitudes, one following Jesus from Bethany, many of them being eyewitnesses of the raising of Lazarus and all of them shouting that fact as they followed, and another coming out from Jerusalem, having heard that the man who raised Lazarus was coming, and hastening out to greet him. Thus, Mark's brief words here give the basic fact of those two great masses of people converging upon Jesus. The balance of these two verses are rich with messianic implications, the mention of David, so long dead and buried, having no other possible meaning except as a reference to the Son of David, Israel's long-expected Messiah. For comment upon the fulfillment of Zec 9:9, and with regard to many of the spiritual overtones of this wonderful entry, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 21:1-11. No triumphal entry ever known at any time or place could be compared with that of the world's true Light on the last Sunday preceding his resurrection from the dead; and the truly wonderful thing about Jesus' triumph is that it is still going on! The exclamations of the multitudes hailing Jesus' entry into the city are variously reported by the four gospels: Matthew has "Hosanna to the Son of David; blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest" (Matthew 21:9); Mark has "Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom of our father David: Hosanna in the highest" (Mark 11:9-10); Luke has "Blessed is the King that cometh in the name of the Lord; Hosanna in the highest" Luke 19:38); and John has "Hosanna: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel" (John 12:13). Such accounts are exactly what one should have expected in view of the undeniable truth that such multitudes would have shouted MANY THINGS. The four samplings which have come down to us outline quite clearly the nature and intent of their exclamations. Critics who select the least extensive of these four records and then shout that "this is all that was said by those multitudes" betray not merely their lack of knowing the Scriptures but also their phenomenal ignorance of crowds such as that which hailed the Lord. Verse 11 And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.Luke recorded that Jesus went "every night" to the mount of Olives (Luke 12:37), but, of course, Bethany was on the mount of Olives. All such variations are due to the independence of the narratives. THE OF THE FIG TREEThis is one of the most interesting of Jesus' great wonders, exceedingly rich with moral significance, and, in context, a miracle of great mercy and power. Like a bat in a cave at night, however, the unbeliever sees nothing at all in such an event as this. First, we shall note a few "objections" which have been offered. Jesus is accused of "blasting fruit trees simply because they did not have fruit ready for him at the moment."[5] Such a canard as this, like Satan's lie in Eden, is merely a denial of what the sacred text SAYS. He did not wither the tree for fruitlessness but for , exhibiting leaves (which appeared AFTER the fruit, normally) yet having no fruit and being also an out-of-season freak. Another is "the unfavorable light in which it seems to put the judgment or common sense of Jesus."[6] To the contrary, nineteen centuries of the history of Israel (the actual object of this miracle) have confirmed and vindicated the Lord's perfect judgment and prophetic insight into the consequences of their rejection of the Messiah. Manson called this miracle "a tale of miraculous power wasted in the service of and quipped that such power would have "been more usefully expended in forcing a crop of figs out of season."[7] If Manson had ever read the account of Jesus' temptation, he should have known that Jesus never performed a miracle purely for the benefit of himself. Such objections as these just cited are not to be taken seriously. They ignore the sacred records themselves, have no understanding of Jesus' purpose in performing this wonder, and are actually only spiteful reactions against hated truth. The antagonism of some against this miracle is actually directed against it because it contradicts the popular, stereotyped image of Jesus which views our Lord as loving everything and everybody, a view which is true enough in the highest sense, but which in the perverted application of it makes Jesus a namby-pamby weakling willing to accept anything that evil men may do and yet giving them eternal life no matter what deeds of blood and shame mar their lives. Cranfield commented on the question of whether "this miracle of destruction" should be viewed "as inconsistent with the rest of what we know of Jesus."[8] The view here is that Jesus did this wonder for the very purpose of correcting the false view that might have prevailed if no destructive miracle had ever been wrought. That God will not destroy is a false view. Ask Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon and Nineveh, Tyre and Sidon. Ask Israel. All of the great writers of the New Testament were fully conscious of the ultimate judgment against sin which God will bring upon the world, as, for example, in the words of Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10. In the last analysis, it is sinful man's rebellion against any such judgment that underlies the cavil directed against this miracle of withering the fig tree. Inherently`, the miracle is one of gracious mercy and forbearance. The rejection of Jesus Christ was dramatically associated with this wonder by the manner of Mark's placement of the second cleansing of the temple right in the middle of it; which, of course, is the exact chronological. sequence of its occurrence; Israel was in the process of rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ, but they yet might have repented and accepted Christ after the resurrection. In view of that hope, which was indeed seized by many of them, their long-deserved judgment would be deferred until a whole generation after the resurrection; but it was absolutely necessary that Israel be made aware that eventually the judgment would fall. This miracle made that clear; for the leafy, barren fig tree could not possibly stand for anything else in heaven or upon earth except self-righteous Israel, pretending a fruit they did not have, and out of season (for the Messiah had not come; the sacrifice which alone could save men had not been offered), prematurely professing a righteousness that was not even possible under the law. But note: Instead of striking the Pharisees blind, instead of destroying the whole nation, as the vast majority of them deserved, instead of blasting the hypocrites in the Sanhedrin with the total destruction they so richly deserved - rather than this, Jesus pronounced their doom, promised that God would send his armies and destroy their temple and their city, and put them to death, and showed symbolically the certainty of that judgment by what was here done to a fig tree, which by some freak of nature (or providence) was the exact paradigm of that wicked nation. How full of mercy was the warning! Making the judgment to fall upon an inanimate object still permitted those being judged the opportunity of repentance and salvation. To emphasize the mercy and restraint of such a deed, we recall the words of an old preacher who said that when he was a boy and first read of the mockery of Jesus in the court of Israel's high priest, he threw the Bible down and said, "Why did not God strike the place with lightning?" That would have been the human thing to do; the miracle of the fig tree was the heavenly thing to do, and Jesus did it. [5] Branscomb, as quoted in The Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), Vol. VII, p. 828. [6] Ibid. [7] Manson, as quoted by Cranfield, op. cit., p. 356. [8] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 354. Verse 12 And on the morrow, when they were come out from Bethany, he hungered.He hungered ... Jesus' hunger was the occasion of his seeking fruit on the fig tree, the showy leaves of which normally indicated fruit. What followed was not a mere peevish reaction of Jesus due to his frustrated desire to eat, but the sudden realization on his part that here was a God-given example of the nation of Israel. It was not even the time of figs, the first days of Passover being far too early for that fruit to have matured, Jesus in his complete humanity having at first been unaware of that fact. As a man, he had unconsciously accepted the pretensions of that fig-tree as true; and, being hungry, he had gone to it in expectation of eating; nor does this in any manner reflect upon the deity of Christ, a deity most conspicuously present within him as the immediate events proved. Suddenly, the freakish fig tree appeared to Jesus as the exact type of Israel, and accordingly he judged it. As Cranfield said: The most satisfactory explanation of this difficult (miracle) is surely that which is given by the earliest extant commentary on Mark, that of Victor of Antioch, viz., that the withering of the fig tree was an acted parable in which Jesus used the fig tree to set forth the judgment which was about to fall on Jerusalem.[9]Then let those who cavil at the miracle deny, if they can, the judgment upon Jerusalem which it prophesied. If God did that, why should his harmless warning of it be considered otherwise than as a merciful foretelling of the fate of the chosen people with a view to restraining them and leading them to faith and salvation? ENDNOTE: [9] Ibid., p. 356. Verse 13 And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs.Having leaves ... This was the basis of Jesus' expectation, because the leaves were normally preceded by the fruit. Nothing but leaves ... This freakish fig tree, all leafed out, and out of season also, was a perfect type of Israel; but it is in one particular a type of all who profess faith in God without exhibiting any of the fruit that should accompany such faith. This cannot be, however, the full meaning of this fig tree, because in this dispensation it IS the time of figs (spiritually). It is in this differentiation that the unique correspondence of the fig tree to Israel is most evident. Despite this, the spiritual application of the wonder to all who profess and do not is valid. Verse 14 And he answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it.For ever ... Bickersteth wrote: These words, in their application to the Jewish nation, have a merciful limitation - a limitation that lies in the original words rendered "for ever," which literally mean "for the age," (meaning) ... until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.[10]For further comment upon the hardening of Israel and the duration of it, see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 11. For comment on the parallel account of this wonder in Matthew, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 21:18. THE SECOND OF THE TEMPLEOnly by a denial of the historical gospels is it possible to suppose that only one cleansing of the temple occurred. The first cleansing (John 2:13-22) occurred quite early in Jesus' ministry and was marked by Jesus' order to those profaning the temple that they should cease and desist from their profaning action. This second cleansing, coming in the last week of the Lord's ministry, contained no such order, because it was too late, the day of grace already having expired. This cleansing, here recorded totally within the narrative of cursing the fig tree, appears as a primary basis of the divine judgment against Israel. In the first, there was no statement that the leaders had made the house of God a den of thieves and robbers; but that charge was bluntly associated with the second cleansing. ENDNOTE: [10] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 121. Verse 15 And they come to Jerusalem: and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.The similarity between the two cleansings resulted from the fact that the profaners of the temple had not altered in any manner their desecration of the house of God. The court of the Gentiles had been turned into a merchandising mart; and, in the providence of God, that very court had been intended for use by devout Gentiles who worshipped God. The double gouging of the multitudes who came to worship God was a lucrative abuse on the part of the temple concessionaires. Certain animals (or doves for the poor) were required in the Jewish sacrifices; but the difficulty of transporting livestock made it more convenient to purchase them in the temple. Moreover, "Temple dues had to be paid in the Tyrian coinage, the Tyrian shekel being the nearest equivalent to the Hebrew shekel."[11] Thus, through control of the available supply of animals, and of the money required for their purchase, exploitation of the multitudes was brazenly accomplished. ENDNOTE: [11] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 357. Verse 16 And he would not suffer that any man should carry a vessel through the temple.Jesus closed the court of the Gentiles as a short-cut for the traffickers in merchandise and materials. The thorough commercialization of the place had made it, in fact, much like a street-market, despite the truth of its being, actually, a significant area within the holy temple itself. Verse 17 And he taught them, and said unto them, Is it not written, My, house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations? But ye have made it a den of robbers.Here Christ quoted from Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. For discussion of the messianic implications of what Jesus did in both these cleansings, see comment in my Commentary on John, John 2. What Jesus did in each of these cleansings was to present a dramatic claim upon his own behalf as God's Messenger who had suddenly come to his temple. One may only be amused at a comment like that of Grant who said that "`Den of thieves' ... does not necessarily imply extortion on the park of the merchants!"[12] Is such a commentator ignorant of the fact that Jesus here used the word "robbers" (not "thieves"),[13] and does he have any explanation of how robbers may be held "not guilty" of extortion? [12] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), Vol. VII, p. 830. [13] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972), p. 189. Verse 18 And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching.Note that it is not stated here that they "decided" to destroy him; that decision had already been made more than three years previously (John 5:18). Furthermore, Jesus, at the first cleansing, had associated his action with a veiled prophecy of his death and resurrection (John 2:19). Without doubt, Jesus' action in the two cleansings was a prime source of the motivation of the enemies who decided to destroy him. The principal concern of the chief priests, as revealed here, was exactly how they could bring about his death. Mark's very next verse suggests the possibility that they might have assassinated Jesus if he had not withdrawn from the city every night. That they really preferred secret murder to any public act against him is plain from Matthew 26:4. Verse 19 And every evening he went forth out of the city.In addition to the reason for Jesus' leaving the city each night and staying either in Bethany or in some secluded place on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, which was cited under the above verse, there was also the evident purpose of our Lord to avoid identification, as much as possible, with any of the places previously accounted sacred. His sitting by Jacob's well (John 4:6) dignified a place not mentioned in the Old Testament, it being nowhere stated therein that Jacob ever dug a well. Nazareth, Cana, Bethany, Bethsaida-Julius, and the majority of the places made memorable by Jesus were simply not identified among the Jews as having any notability. Jesus' refusing to stay all night in Jerusalem was fully compatible with the obvious design of his whole life, which was to show that no place, or person, was so obscure or unimportant as to deny it or him a participation in the mercy which God sent to all. Verse 20 And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig tree withered away from the roots.MORE THE FIG TREEThe pronouncement of Jesus against the freak fig tree produced a sudden and dramatic destruction of it. The tree had not merely wilted or begun to fade away; it had completely dried up, root and all, thus being in a condition that could hardly have been expected even if the tree had been cut down. Verse 21 And Peter calling to remembrance saith unto him. Rabbi, behold the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away.The astonishment of all the disciples comes into view in these words of Peter who called attention to the dramatic result which followed the Lord's pronouncement against the tree. Peter evidently expected some comment from the Lord, which was promptly forthcoming. Verse 22 And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith cometh to pass; he shall have it.This reply must have astonished the apostles as much as it has the people who have been reading of it ever since it happened. There was not a word of the symbolical meaning of the destructive wonder (Christ would shortly foretell the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and from that they would be able to deduce the meaning of the fig tree). Jesus' reply did, however, stress the fact and efficacy of prayer in relation to his wonderful signs. (See John 9:31; John 11:41.) Although clear enough in John, this clear witness in Mark is illuminating. All of Jesus' works were accomplished through Jesus' oneness with the Father, a oneness that was not expressed independently but always through and after prayerful communication with God. Thus, as always, one is obligated to see the will and purpose of the Almighty in this work of the Son. Say unto this mountain ... This promise of Jesus is not to be construed as granting his followers, nor even his apostles, blanket authority to perform monstrous and unreasonable miracles such as might be imagined by some conjurer. It was, on the other hand, a most valid and precious promise that the most awesome and overwhelming difficulties which they were to face would be removed through their faithful prayers. The literal words of these verses are another example of hyperbole which Jesus often used to emphasize his words. Another example is that of the camel and the needle's eye (Mark 10:25). Verse 24 Therefore I say unto you, All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye shall receive them, and ye shall have them. And whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any one; that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.This important passage sheds light upon the manner of Jesus' teaching the Twelve. A comparison with Matthew 6:15, where portions of this are conspicuous in the Sermon on the Mount, and with Matthew 18:35, where almost the same words were used to conclude the parable of the unmerciful servant, shows that Jesus repeated over and over many basic truths, introducing them in various contexts. Significantly, this undercuts absolutely the conceit of some of the critics and their doodlings with regard to where, exactly, such and such a statement belongs. The lines in the sacred gospels "belong" wherever one finds them; and, if they occur several times, then they "belong" several times! Forgive, if ye have aught against any one ... This prerequisite of all divine forgiveness of human transgression was most dogmatically stressed by the Son of God. (See extensive comment on this principle in my Commentary on Matthew - Matthew 6:14-15; Matthew 18:21 ff). Verse 27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there came to him the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders; and they said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things? or who gave thee this authority to do these things?THE OF JESUS' This confrontation with the religious apparatus in the Jewish capital actually concerned the second cleansing of the temple, which had just occurred; and their motives were inspired by the hope of finding some pretext for condemnation. By what authority ... Their question was indeed a proper one. In a sense, this is as important a question as may ever be raised regarding the life and ministry of the Son of God. The fact that the questioners themselves supposed that Jesus had no authority, and knowing that he had none from THEM, does not diminish the importance of the question, had it been asked in sincerity, there is no reason to suppose that Jesus would have refused an answer, but their vicious motives precluded such a thing. Verse 29 And Jesus said unto them, I will ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men? answer me.The question in Jesus' reply was a valid one. Let these hypocrites who pretended to have all authority for determining what was from God or what was from men give a ruling on a case already before them, and one that had already been on the docket a long time: the baptism of John; was it from God or from men? As always, the hierarchy appeared ineffective and unable to prevail against Jesus in open debate. This question stopped their mouths completely. Verse 31 And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say from heaven; he will say, Why' then did ye not believe him? But should we say, From men - they feared the people: for all verily held John to be a prophet.These men were shrewd enough to recognize the trap into which they had fallen; therefore, they withdrew after a profession of ignorance on their part! Such an admission from those who loved to proclaim so loudly that "We know!" (John 9:29) is a measure of the defeat which they on that occasion sustained at the hands of Jesus. Verse 33 And they answered Jesus and say, We know not. And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things.We know not ... This, on the part of the religious leaders, may be taken in only two ways. If it was true that they knew not, as alleged by Grant, that "they could not answer,"[14] then in such a circumstance they should have confessed their ignorance, resigned their pretensions as interpreters of the will of God, and cast themselves at Jesus' feet. On the other hand, if what they said about not knowing was a falsehood (and Mark left no doubt at all that it was a falsehood), then those evil men thereby forfeited the last vestiges of any respect to which they might have been entitled had mere ignorance been their fault. By their denial of what they certainly did know, namely, that John's baptism was of God, they fully identified themselves with Satan; but even an effective satanic witness they declined to make through cowardice prompted by fear of the people. Their appearance in this event is as contemptible as that of any other assembly of sons of the devil in all history. One may only marvel at "scholars" who defend the reputation of such men. Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. Jesus did not say "I cannot tell," but that "I will not tell." Such questioners were in no wise entitled to any factual reply. ENDNOTE: [14] Frederick C. Grant, op. cit., p. 835. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter ElevenIncidents and Discussions in Jerusalem. Mark 11 and Mark 12Public Entry into Jerusalem, Mark 11:1-11. (Matthew 21:1-11; Luke 19:29-44; John 12:12-19) Mark 11:1. unto Bethphage.—These words are rejected from the text by a few of the critics, but by reference to the critics the reader can see that the grounds for their rejection are but slight; and they are of undisputed genuineness in the parallel verse of Luke. (On the locality, see note, Matthew 12:1.) Mark 11:2. 2. a colt tied.—Matthew says, "an ass tied and a colt with her." According to both accounts, it was the colt that was ridden (7; comp. Matt. 21:5); so Mark, pursuing his characteristic method of singling out the one most important person or object in a group, mentions the colt and says nothing of the dam. (For other examples of this method, compare v. 2 with Matt. 8:28; 7:31, 32 with Matt. 15:29, 30; 10:46 with Matt. 20:30; 11:21 with Matt. 21:20; 12:2 with Matt. 21:34; 13:1, 2 with Matthew 24:31,.)Mark 11:5-6. What do ye;— Here Mark gives an incident which is omitted by the other writers. He states that the inquiry, "Why do ye this?" which was anticipated and provided for by the Savior (3), was actually made when the disciples were untying the colt, and that when the inquirers were told, "The Lord hath need of him," "they let them go." This was another display of foreknowledge, showing that Jesus knew where the animals would be found, and what would be the mind and word of their owner. Mark 11:10. Blessed be the kingdom.— This exclamation of the people shows that they expected Jesus to immediately set up the kingdom of David, and to assume the throne which had been vacant from the time of the Babylonish captivity. Luke, indeed, states it as a fact in connection with his departure from Jericho on this journey to Jerusalem, that the multitude who followed him "thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear." (Luke 19:11.) It was the exulting thought of national independence and glory that inspired their acclamations; and the same feeling prepared them for the reverse of feeling toward Jesus, which occurred when they found him a prisoner in the hands of Pontius Pilate. For other remarks on the public entry, see the parallel in Matthew. Mark 11:11. went out unto Bethany.—Matthew proceeds at this point of the narrative to speak of the clearing of the temple, which actually occurred the next day (Matthew 21:11-12; comp. Mark 11:12 Mark 11:15); but Mark, more observant of chronology, represents Jesus as merely "looking round about on all things," and retiring at "eventide" to Bethany. We learn from Luke that he continued to make Bethany his lodging-place until the night of the Last Supper. (Luke 21:37-38.) The Barren Fig-tree Cursed, Mark 11:12-14 (Matthew 21:17-22) Mark 11:13. the time of figs was not yet.—The fact that it was not yet fig-time made it the worse for this tree. On this kind of fig-tree the fruit forms before the leaves, and should be full grown when the leaves appear: so this tree, by putting on its foliage before the time for figs, was proclaiming itself superior to all the other fig-trees. This made it a striking symbol of the hypocrite, who, not content with appearing to be as good as other people, usually puts on the appearance of being a great deal better. (Comp. the note on Matthew 21:19.) Mark 11:14. his disciples heard it.—The fig-tree being "afar off" (13), and Jesus having gone alone to see if there was fruit on it, it was well here to note the fact that the disciples heard what he said to the tree. He intentionally spoke loud enough for them to hear him, because he wished to teach them a lesson. For the result, see Mark 11:20-26 below. The Temple Cleared, Mark 11:15-19. (Matthew 21:12-16; Luke 19:45-48) Mark 11:15. began to cast out.—On this verse, and the seventeenth, see Matthew 21:12-13. Mark 11:16. any vessel through the temple.—This statement is peculiar to Mark. The practice referred to is doubtless that of making the temple court a pass-way in carrying burdens from one part of the city to another. Persons might pass through the temple to save the inconvenience of going around, and thus disregard the exclusively sacred uses for which the temple was erected. Mark 11:18. how they might destroy him.—The scribes and the chief priests who now sought to destroy him, were responsible for the corrupt teaching which had resulted in the desecration of the temple court, and therefore they were severely rebuked by the Savior's expulsion of the traders, and by his remark that they had made his Father's house a den of thieves. This was the beginning of that final conflict which led to his condemnation and death. for they feared him.—This is given, not as the reason why they desired to destroy him, but as the reason why, instead of destroying him at once, they sought how they might destroy him: and the difficulty which lay in their way is the one stated in the next clause of the sentence, "all the people was astonished at his teaching." His teaching was so new, so divine, and so amply supported by miraculous demonstrations, that the people received it with applause. The Fig-tree Found Withered, Mark 11:20-26. (Matthew 21:20-22) Mark 11:20. in the morning.—Matthew, choosing to finish the account of the fig-tree while he had it in hand, follows the statement of the curse with the remark, "And presently (παραχρμα, immediately) the fig-tree withered away;" by which we understand that it began to wither immediately. Mark, preferring the chronological order here to the order of association, and designing to give more prominence to the incident, states that it was the next morning, as they returned toward the city, that they found the tree withered. In leaving the city the evening before, they had probably gone by a different path and had not noticed the tree. Now they find it "dried up from the roots;" the withering which began when the curse was pronounced having extended to the roots. Mark 11:21. Peter calling to remembrance.—Here we learn that it was Peter who made the remark attributed by Matthew to the disciples as a body (Matthew 21:20), "Master, behold the fig-tree which thou cursedst is withered away." The briefer expression employed by Matthew, "How soon is the fig-tree withered away," is the same in meaning, though not in word. Mark 11:23. shall believe that those things.—Here we see what the faith was by which miracles were wrought. It is not merely faith in God or in Christ, but belief, when a mountain is commanded to move, or any other miracle is commanded, "that those things which he saith shall come to pass." Of course, no one could rationally believe this who was not possessed of miraculous gifts; but a man might have these gifts and fail to make them effective for want of this faith. (See, for examples, Matthew 14:30-31 Matthew 17:19-20.) Mark 11:24. believe that ye receive.—In the original, according to the corrected text which is here supported by authority so high as to place it almost beyond the reach of doubt, the verb "receive" is not in the Present tense, but in the Aorist, and it is translated in the brackets "have received." It is an instance, however, of a peculiar use of the Aorist, which is represented in English by the Present tense. Mr. Green states that the Aorist is occasionally used in the New Testament "when a circumstance which is to issue as a matter of general certainty, is represented as an issue in fact" (N. T. Grammar, p. 136), and he cites the following passages: John 15:6, rendered in the common version, "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch and is withered," where "cast forth" and "withered" are in the Aorist; and John 16:8, "Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit;" where "glorified" and "bear" are in the Aorist. That the instance before us is one of the same class is seen by the fact that the ordinary rendering of the Aorist here involves the sentence in an absurdity. It makes Jesus say, "Believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have them." The real idea is, believe that it is a matter of general certainty to receive them, and you shall have them. The passage declares concerning prayer the same necessity for faith that is declared by verse 23 in reference to miracle working. (Comp. James 1:6-7. Other instances of the use of the Aorist for the Present are found in James 1:11, and 1 Peter 1:24.) Mark 11:25. when ye stand praying.—This expression shows that it was usual for the disciples to pray standing. Kneeling and prostration were and are more devout postures, and should be preferred when circumstances do not forbid; but standing is here recognized by Jesus as a suitable posture, and it is therefore not to be despised. Whether a worshiping assembly should habitually stand or kneel must be determined by each for itself in the light of surrounding circumstances; but it should be remembered, that while standing and kneeling are both marks of respect in the presence of a superior, sitting is not; and consequently, sitting in prayer betrays a want of reverence. forgive.—On the necessity of forgiving in order to forgiveness, see the note. Matthew 6:14-15. The logical connection of this precept with its context is somewhat obscure, but it seems to be this: The disciples had seen Jesus curse and blast the fig-tree, and they doubtless understood the significance of the act. They might, from this example, when they encountered the hypocrites represented by the fig-tree, be encouraged to curse them in a similar manner; but they are guarded against this by the precept, "When ye stand praying, forgive if ye have ought against any." Instead of praying for a curse on them, pray God to forgive them, and do so yourself. His Authority Demanded, Mark 11:27-33. (Matthew 21:23-32; Luke 20:1-8) Mark's report of this conversation is almost identical with Matthew's, and the reader is referred to the parallel in Matthew for comments. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 111. To what village did they come? 2. This was near what city? 3. And near what noted mount? 4. To where did he send two of his disciples ? 5. On what errand were they sent? 6. Would he be saddled ? 7. What explanation were they to give the owner ? 8. Did all things happen as expected ? 9. What was put on the colt when they returned ? 10. On what did Jesus sit? 11. In what way was Jesus shown respect on the way? 12. What expressions of acclaim were shouted? 13. What kingdom did they acknowledge? 14. Into what building did Jesus enter? 15. What caused him to depart from here? 16. To what place did he go? 17. Returning next morning what was seen? 18. What was on it ? 19. What should have been on it? 20. Was it the season for this fruit? 21. How should it have been expected in this case? 22. What did Jesus do to the tree? 23. On arrival at Jerusalem where did Jesus go ? 24. State the conditions he found there. 25. What occasioned this condition? 26. Tell what Jesus did. 27. What did he quote? 28. Of what did he accuse them ? 29. Who were arroused by this deed of his ? 30. Why did they fear Jesus? 31. Where was the night passed? 32. Passing by next day what was noticed? 33. Who called attention to it? 34. This called forth speech on what subject? 35. How much could be accomplished by it? 36. But what might prevent it? 37. Tell what must he included in their prayer. 38. What will this obtain from the Father? 39. To whom will God refuse forgiveness ? 40. Again where did he appear? 41. Who came to him? 42. State their question. 43. To what did they refer? 44. Was it answered directly? 45. To what ordinance did he refer? 46. Why not say “ from heaven” ? 47. Then why not “ of men” ? 48. In what regard did the people hold John? 49. How did they reply to Jesus? 50. This brought what statement from him? 1 The mount of Olives was near Jerusalem (Acts 1:12) and the towns named were on or near the mount. They are mentioned to indicate haw "nigh" they were. 2Jesus usually traveled on foot, and being so near the city he would not change his mode of travel just from being tired. But he wished to prepare for the fulfilling of a certain prophecy by procuring this animal. He instructed his disciples to bring him a colt tied in a nearby village, one that had never been "broke to ride." 3 They were given the authority to take the colt, equipped with the all-sufficient explanation to its owners that the Lord hath need of him. 4 They found the colt tied at an intersection of two streets, or rather, where they came together as "a fork in the road." 5 The inquiry was made of them that Jesus had anticipated. It was quite natural to ask for an explanation when others besides the owners were taking possession of this untrained colt. 6 Their explanation was accepted as Jesus said it would be. 7 Brought the colt . . . he sat upon him. Jesus rode the mother of the colt also although Mark does not say so. For an explanation of this subject see the comments on Matthew 21:5. 8 When a dignitary was approaching, it was customary to make a carpet on which he might proceed. These people did so with the materials at hand, namely, their outer garments. Some found the branches or leaves of palm trees to use for a carpet. 9 Hosanna is defined in the comments on Matthew 21:9. 0 Our father David. These people were Jews who had come to Jerusalem to attend the feast of the Passover. They were acquainted with the prophecies that David was to have a descendant who was to sit on his throne and here recognized Jesus as that person. (See Psalms 132:11). 1 This verse mentions only in general terms the visit of Jesus to the temple. In Matthew 21:12-13, is the account of his casting out the moneychangers, and it is also mentioned in verse 15 of this chapter. Having purged the temple, Jesus went out to the nearby village of Bethany to stay over night. 2 In the morning they returned from Bethany and Jesus became hungry. 3 See the comments at Matthew 21:19 for the explanation of the fig tree. 4 No man eat fruit of thee is the curse pronounced upon the fig tree. 5 This verse describes what is referred to at verse 11 and in the passage in Matthew. The chronological order of the events is not quite the same in Mark as it is in Matthew, but the facts are the same so that no contradiction exists. 6 This verse means Jesus stopped all commercial activities in the temple. 7 The place where this saying is written is Isaiah 56:7. Jesus called it a den of thieves because they were taking advantage of the situation to charge undue fees for their transactions; they were profiteering. 8 The scribes and chief priests feared him in the bad sense of that word. They were afraid of an uprising among the people if they did any harm to Jesus. 0 On the return to Jerusalem they observed the fig tree that Jesus had cursed. So completely did this "curse" affect the fig tree that it had withered from its top to its roots. 1 Peter called the attention of Jesus to the fig tree, evidently in a manner that indicated his astonishment. 2 The first reply of Jesus was that it requires faith in God. 3 No miracles were performed by Jesus or his apostles for the mere gratification of curiosity, or just to make a show of power. If any good reason appeared for removing a mountain in this way it could be done, for one miracle is as easy as another as far as power is concerned. Verse 24. Even miracles that are right and needed cannot be performed without the proper degree of faith. (See Matthew 17:19-21.) 5 The word stand does not refer to the posture of the body, but is a term that applies to the established practice of praying. Besides, the things Jesus instructs to be done in connection with praying to God are just as necessary in any other position of the body as they are in that of standing. 6 The duty of forgiving others in connection with our plea for pardon, mentioned in this and the preceding verse, is taught in Matthew 6:12-15. 7 The old foes of Jesus were these men who met him in the temple. 8 These things means the driving of the moneychangers out of the temple. Verse 1 This chapter presents the central one of three great parables Christ spoke against official Israel (Mark 12:1-12), the question of tribute to Caesar (Mark 12:13-17), the Sadducees' question regarding the resurrection (Mark 12:18-27), another question regarding the great commandment (Mark 12:28-34), a final question by Jesus himself (Mark 12:35-37), another denunciation of the scribes (Mark 12:38-40), and the story of the widow's two mites (Mark 12:41-44). And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged a pit for the wine-press, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. (Mark 12:1) THE PARABLE OF THE WICKED This chapter, more than any other in Mark, is a total refutation of the Markan theory regarding the priority of this gospel. As repeatedly pointed out, the synoptics are not related to each other at all, in the sense of being dependent upon each other; but they are historical, independent accounts of the great truth revealed from God in the person and teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. There were three of these great denunciatory parables: (1) that of the two sons, (2) this one, and (3) that of the marriage of the king's son; and Matthew has all three of them. Mark's use of the plural "parables" in Mark 12:1 shows that he knew all three. Cranfield's statement that the plural "does not necessarily imply that there were a number of parables"[1] is wrong; because the plural here does not merely "imply" that there were more than one, it states that fact. The most logical inference, therefore, if one accepted the notion of one gospel's being dependent upon another, would be to assume that Mark here abbreviated Matthew, a position held by many of the ancients. On the other hand, it is absolutely impossible to imagine that Matthew elaborated this one parable into three. The three parables are absolutely a unit, mutually entwined and balanced in such a manner as to deny even the possibility of their not being so. For a full discussion of the interrelation of the three and their progression in a number of particulars to the climax reached in the marriage of the king's son, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 21:28 ff. The arrangement here in Mark is absolutely incompatible with the Markan theory. In these words, as Turlington noted: The allusions to Isaiah 5:1-7 are unmistakable. The vineyard so completely tended was the "house of Israel" and the "men of Judah." The Lord himself was owner and provider.[2]With all due deference to the "one parable, one idea" method of interpretation, wherein, as McMillan said, "Most scholars subscribe to the principle that Jesus told most of his parables to point up one basic lesson or concept,"[3] the view accepted in these commentaries is that which takes account of many analogies in each parable. The very fact of our Lord's pointing out eleven analogies in the parable of the sower and an equal number in the parable of the tares growing with the wheat (see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 13:23 ff) refutes the notion of a parable's being directed only to a basic concept. The man who planted the vineyard stands for God; the vineyard is Israel; the hedge about it is God's protection of Israel throughout the history of the chosen people; the wine-press, tower, and, in a sense, also the hedge, represent the Law of Moses and the Jewish ceremonial. The owner's going into another country represents God's leaving Israel free to work out his will during a long period prior to Christ. The husbandmen represent the Jewish religious establishment. ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 364. [2] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: The Broadman Press, 1946), p. 361. [3] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 143. Verse 2 And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard.At the season ... stands for those particular times when God expected of Israel the fruits of true religion, most of all desiring that they should manifest some consciousness of their need for redemption. God, of course, expected such at all times; but upon special occasions when God sent prophets to Israel, that expectation was more urgent. A servant ... Cranfield viewed it as inconceivable that Jesus could have taken up the Old Testament figure of God's vineyard and "then speak of the owner sending his slaves one after another without thinking of the prophets."[4]The fruits of the vineyard... These were the manifestations of Israel's love of God, and particularly their awareness of the need of salvation. ENDNOTE: [4] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 367. Verse 3 And they took him, and beat him, and sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them another servant; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. And he sent another; and him they killed: and many others; beating some, and killing some.The many servants which the owner sent stand for the prophets of God, sent repeatedly to Israel, shamefully treated, and in some instances murdered. The Bible has many examples of this very type of treatment of the prophets. Isaiah and John the Baptist were both murdered; and practically all the prophets were rejected. In the sending of so many, and all of them receiving such treatment, this parable takes on the form of an allegory; because it would have been very unlikely that any earthly owner would so long have endured such rejection of his just claims, or that he would have sent a beloved son upon a mission so likely to be dangerous. However unlikely it may have been that any earthly owner would have thus persisted, this is, nevertheless, exactly the way God dealt with Israel and they with God. As Turlington said: A parable is not bound absolutely by historical realism; it is bound by its purpose, however unusual its details. It is of course true that no father would be likely to send his son on so dangerous an errand.[5]ENDNOTE: [5] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 361. Verse 6 He had yet one, a beloved son: he sent him last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son.Sent him last ... The finality of God's solicitation Israel is in this. Christ, the beloved Son, is the final revelation of God to humanity. Rejection of the Son is the rejection of God himself and the bringing down of the wrath of heaven against the rejecter. The loving forbearance of God in his offering of Jesus Christ for the redemption of men prompted this final mission of love. They will reverence my son ... The wicked husbandmen, representing the Jewish religious establishment, did not reverence the Son; they killed him; but the Father's statement nevertheless indicated that the Son would indeed be reverenced; which, of course, he was. Many of Israel received him, as also the Christians of all ages. Verse 7 But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours.This is the heir ... These words make it mandatory to believe that the Jewish hierarchy recognized Christ as the true Messiah, the lawful head of the theocracy, and the promised holy one who would deliver them. This does not contradict Paul's statement that "if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory" (1 Corinthians 2:8). Paul was speaking of the fact that they did not know that Christ was "God come in the flesh." Thus, the error of these men was twofold: (1) Although they recognized Christ as the heaven-sent deliverer who would deliver them from sin, they preferred rather to be delivered from the Romans, supposing of course that they already had a hope of heaven through the Law of Moses. (2) Although they recognized Christ as holy, sinless, and undefiled, the true Messiah promised by the word of God, "the heir" as stated in this allegory - despite all this, they did not know that Christ was God, the very judge who would sentence them eternally. The inheritance shall be ours ... Some have thought it difficult to understand their viewpoint; but Jeremias pointed out that: There was a law in which the property of a proselyte who died without a will (was thereby made) ownerless; and whoever was in possession of such property at that time had a prior claim. The tenants here assumed that the absentee landlord, so long in a foreign country, had already died.[6]Here the parable fits the reality perfectly; for the tenant husbandmen were no more wrong about the owner of the vineyard than were the Jewish hierarchy concerning their purpose of taking God's true religion away from him and running it according to their own preferences. ENDNOTE: [6] Jeremias, as quoted by Turlington, Ibid. Verse 8 And they took him, and killed him, and cast him forth out of the vineyard.Took him ... They seized him and bound him. And killed him ... They crucified the Lord. Out of the vineyard ... The crucifixion took place beyond the city walls, "without the camp" (Hebrews 13:13). Verse 9 What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others.In Mark's abbreviation of this, the important fact of the Lord's extracting the prophecy of the removal and destruction of the husbandmen and the letting of the vineyard out to others from the lips of the priests themselves is not mentioned. The fact that "others" would "render him the fruits in their seasons" was also omitted by Mark. (SeeMatthew 21:40,41). This verse is a clear prophecy that God would destroy Israel and extend salvation to the Gentiles, a prophecy fulfilled by the fact of God's sending the message of redemption to all the world (also including Israel), and by the further fact that the mainstream of true faith in God would, for nearly two millenniums, take on a Gentile identification. Verse 10 Have ye not read even this scripture: The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner; This was from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes?Jesus here quoted Psalms 118:22-23, thus claiming for himself that he was "the head of the corner," despite the fact of his being rejected by the "builders," that is, the religious leaders. Also, by the prominence of the word "stone" in this passage, Christ called attention to the great prophecies which foretold their fall upon this "stone of stumbling and rock of offence" (Isaiah 8:14; Isaiah 28:16) There is also here an implied promise of the resurrection; because Christ identified himself not only with the son killed and cast out of the vineyard, but also with the rejected stone that became the head of the corner. This is dramatically clear in Matthew where it is related that Jesus turned upon his questioners and delivered this imperial pronouncement: Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him as dust (Matthew 2:43,44). Thus, Jesus made it clear to those hypocrites that their killing him would by no means be the end of the matter. All of this is implied in Mark's brief summary. (For essay on "Christ the Living Stone," see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 9). Verse 12 And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared the multitude: for they perceived that he spake the parable against them: and they left him and went away.Sought to lay hold ... Having long ago determined to kill Christ, their concern at the time indicated here was to bring him into custody without creating an uproar among the people. They perceived that he spake the parable against them ... This means that they clearly understood Jesus' claims, there being no way for them to escape the messianic implications of all that he had said. How strange it is that some moderns are even more blind than the Jewish hierarchy, professing to find no messianic import in such words as these! This parable is exceedingly comprehensive in meaning. Ryle said: The history of the Jewish nation, from the day that Israel left Egypt to the destruction of Jerusalem, is set forth here as in a glass. Under the figure of the vineyard and the husbandmen, the Lord tells the story of God's dealings with his people for fifteen hundred years.[7]Moreover, it was skillfully and incisively related. As Erdman noted: He exposed their treachery and virtually compelled them to renounce their boasted authority as religious leaders. He does more. By a simple parable, he fully answered their question, claimed divine authority, charged the rulers with unfaithfulness to God, and with plotting to murder God's Son; yet his statements are in such a form that the rulers are disarmed, unable to arrest him, attack him, or even accuse him of fault. He only tells them a little story; and who can object to a little anecdote?[8]Truly, "never man so spake"! [7] J. C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), Matthew-Mark, II, p. 241. [8] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 174. Verse 13 And they sent unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. TRIBUTE TO CAESARThey sent... The Sanhedrin seems to have been the authority which here delegated some of their cleverest members to engage in a forensic contest with Jesus. Pharisees and ... Herodians ... Old enemies became friends in their common opposition to the Light of all ages, even the Sadducees coming in a little later. That they might catch him in talk ... A likely possibility this was, if they had been dealing with a mere man, most men being capable of entrapment by such agile debaters as those confronting Jesus. Verse 14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Teacher, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one; for thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the way of God. Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?These compliments paid to Jesus were the simple truth regarding the Christ, but in the mouths of his enemies they took on the character of insincere and obsequious flattery. They must have been confident indeed of their own ability to entrap Jesus, because such admissions on their part provided a dramatic witness on behalf of Jesus. Carest not for any one ... This means that Jesus would not withhold vital truth through inordinate regard of human prejudices and does not contradict the truth that Jesus does indeed "care" for all men. The poll tax paid by the Jews to the Romans was a symbol of their subjection and thoroughly hated by all the people. If Jesus said, "Yes," his influence among the people would have been destroyed; if he said, "No," they would have preferred charges against him before Caesar's procurator, with a view to getting him executed for sedition. It was the type of dilemma which would have frustrated any man, but Jesus' handling of it has been the marvel of the ages. Verse 15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why make ye trial of me? bring me a denarius, that I may see it.Shall we give, or shall we not give ... has the effect of "Give us a plain, Yes or No." Jesus asked them to bring him a denarius, the type of coin used in paying the poll tax, the same having an image of Caesar upon one side and of Caesar's mother on the other side, the images being particularly obnoxious to the Jews. There was also an inscription which tacitly acknowledged the divinity of Caesar, also an abomination to Israel. The Lord did not ask for the coin for the purpose of finding out what was upon it, but for the purpose of exposing the fact that they had it in their possession and were using it as coin of the realm. Verse 16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's.Cranfield wrote that: The legend (on the coin), which is abbreviated, reads (in full) "Tiberius Caesar Divi Augusti Filius Augustus Pontilex Maximum." Both legend and images set forth the mythology of the Imperial cult and so troubled the consciences of religious Jews.[9]Jesus at once took up their admission of carrying and using the coins bearing Caesar's image and superscription; and the coinage of ancient rulers was held to be theirs, even though in the possession of the people. The astounding implication of this is that since the money was already Caesar's, there could certainly be no harm in giving it back to him! Such an answer had to be inspired. The mechanics of Christ's answer regards the difference in the word "give," as used by the Pharisees in "Shall we give?" and the word "render" as used by Christ in "Render unto Caesar." The latter word means "to give back" (to Caesar the property that was already his); and all of the Pharisees on earth could not have found anything wrong with a reply like that. As usual, however, the Lord did not stop with merely confounding his enemies; he went much further and showed that Caesar's dues, legal as they were, must be viewed as limited, and subordinate to the higher obligation owed to God himself. See next verse. ENDNOTE: [9] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 370. Verse 17 And Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. And they marveled greatly at him.Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's ... is the basis of the Christian's concept of the state and his obligations to the secular government. The principle uttered here by the Lord was elaborated by the apostles in Romans 13:1-7; 1 Timothy 2:1-6; and 1 Peter 2:13-17. For an essay on "The Christian's Relation to the State," see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 13. And unto God the things that are God's ... This is a higher theater of obligation; and the Christian may not violate the commandment of God, regardless of any edict published by the state; and in the most extreme conflict between God and Caesar, the Christian must not hesitate to die rather than violate the law of God. The death of all the martyrs is a testimony to the validity of this principle. And they marveled greatly at him ... No wonder. Men of all ages have marveled at what the Son of God taught in this passage. He brushed aside their silly little dilemma, as a man might brush off a mosquito, and proceeded to lay down laws which have governed and enlightened men of all succeeding ages. Verse 18 And there come unto him Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying.THE PRESENT THEIR The Sadducees were the materialists of that day, denying not only any such thing as the resurrection, but the existence of angels as well. For more on the sects of the Pharisees and the Sadducees, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 3:7. Significantly, these ancient enemies were here making common cause against the Lord. Verse 19 Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.This, of course, was a reference to the ancient law of Levirite marriage, as set forth in Deuteronomy 25:5. It was a rather fair and factual statement of that Mosaic injunction, but they were about to make it the basis of ridiculing the idea of a resurrection. Verse 20 There were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, and died, leaving no seed behind him; and the third like wise: and the seven left no seed. Last of all the woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shalt she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. Just why the Sadducees thought this was any greater problem than would have resulted from only two brothers having had the same wife is not clear. The whole allegation of such a situation bears a mark of contrivance and unreality upon it. It was only the Sadducees' manner of making fun of the idea of resurrection. That it was technically possible for such a thing to have happened was true; and Jesus proceeded to answer it without regard to the unlikelihood of any such thing ever having happened. (See exegesis on parallel account in Matthew in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 22:24-28). Verse 24 Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God?People who understand the Scriptures and who recognize the power of Almighty God do not reject the promise of a resurrection merely because they cannot understand exactly "how" such a thing may be. The infinite power of the Eternal would be no more extended in giving a person ANOTHER life than in the matter of giving him thePRESENT life. Ye know not the scriptures ... If they had truly understood the Scriptures, they would have known that a resurrection is truly taught in the word of God. Verse 25 For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as angels in heaven.Significantly, Jesus here affirmed that there will be a resurrection of the dead, that "they shall rise from the dead." Also, the new life will not be encumbered by any such thing as marriage, or any of the physical relationships so important in the present life. As angels in heaven ... This is a categorical statement on the reality of the angelic creation, making them to be examples of the kind of life the redeemed shall have after the resurrection. For article, "Concerning Angels," see my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 1:14. Verse 26 But as touching the dead, that they are raised; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in the place concerning the Bush, how God spake unto 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: ye do greatly err.The utmost significance of this passage derives from: (1) the fact that Jesus here stated that "God spake ... in the book of Moses," thus equating the Pentateuch with the word of God, (2) that he made an argument for the certainty of a resurrection to rest upon a single Old Testament verb, and the tense of a verb at that! and (3) that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in some meaningful sense, are not "dead" but "living." As Grant said, "This is probably the strongest of all arguments for immortality: not the nature of man but the character of God."[10]Ye do greatly err ... Some things must be denounced as error. As Luccock said: These words of Jesus remind us that there is a legitimate place in life for forthright, dogmatic declaration. We live so much in a world of relativism, of a "tolerance" which is really indifference - not breadth of spirit at all! - that we become tentative and apologetic rather than affirmative, even about things which are the very axis of faith.[11][10] Frederick C. Grant, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 845. [11] Halford E. Luccock, Interpreter's Bible (New York: Abingdon Press, 1951), p. 845. Verse 28 And one of the scribes came, and heard them questioning together, and knowing that he had answered them well, asked him, What commandment is first of all?THE THE GREAT From Matthew, it is clear that the Pharisees were the instigators in the question of this scribe; but, if the Pharisees had chosen him to "carry the ball," as it were, in this contest with Jesus, they had inadvertently selected a questioner who was almost persuaded to follow the Lord. Nevertheless, he asked the question, as he had been directed, "trying him" (Matthew 22:35), the purpose of trying Jesus being not that of the actual questioner but that of the class he represented. Jesus quickly discerned this and recognized it. Verse 29 Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our Lord, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength.The Lord is one ... This is a quotation from Deuteronomy 6:4; and the oneness of God, as set forth in the Old Testament, is a compound unity, like the oneness of the people, or the oneness in a marriage. The Hebrew word that denotes this is [~'echad], and must be distinguished from [~'achid], meaning an absolute unity. There is no argument here against the concept of a Trinity. The great commandment is the one from which all others are derived, the one that polarizes the soul with reference to the Creator, and is therefore the root of all true worship and obedience of God. "The measure of our love to God is to love him without measure; for the immense goodness of God deserves all the love that we can give him."[12] See an entire chapter on this commandment in "The Ten Commandments," pp. 19-29. Monotheism is dogmatically affirmed in this commandment; and the need for man to love God with his entire being is firmly declared. ... mind ... soul ... strength ... "It is impossible to exactly define each of these faculties, though it seems clear that some differentiation is intended. The command is for the complete response of the whole person."[13]MORAL AND DUTIESJesus' designation of the first commandment means that the human obligation to believe in God, be baptized, worship God, accept a place in the corporate fellowship of God's people, take the Lord's Supper faithfully, and engage continually in public assemblies of the church that all such things are a higher obligation than the moral prohibitions against such things as murder, adultery, theft and falsehood. That this is not the way people think is obvious. Almost any group of people requested to rank God's commandments would place first the very ones which are actually secondary. Jesus had in view, in this passage, the two tables of the Decalogue, the first pertaining to God-related duties, the second to man-related duties; he emphasized the first table as the greatest. The reason for the priority of the first set of duties is inherent in the fact of their relation to man's egocentric pride, whereas, in the second class of obligations, the relationship is to human weakness, lust, and emotions. Rebellion in the first tier of duties derives from pride, rebellion in the other from weakness. Also, the second tier of obligations have no meaning apart from their being grounded in the first. Even the strict observance of morality is only self-will and self-interest unless related to the prior duty of loving God. The most serious of all violations is therefore in the sector of one's attitude toward God, there being, in the last analysis, no extenuation of guilt such as the extenuation pertaining to moral lapses due to the temptation which induces them. Guilt is present in both types of violation, but the guilt is greater where no temptation supports it. Violation of the first commandment derives from pride and hatred of God; violation of the other class of duties comes from weakness and strong temptation. That God honored this distinction in the Old Testament is evident in his forgiveness of David's sin with Bathsheba, Moses' committing murder, and Abraham's lying with regard to Sara; but he struck dead the presumptuous violators such as Nadab, Abihu, and Uzzah, also removing the kingdom from Saul as a penalty for the presumption of offering a sacrifice which should have been offered by the prophet. Sin due to weakness God can and does forgive; but presumption and pride to the extent of violating covenant obligations are much more serious. The first commandment is really first in every sense of the word. THOU SHALT LOVE GODThis is actually the goal of all God's dealings with the human family, namely, that they should love God. This purpose of the Almighty explains everything in the Bible. When Adam and Eve were placed in the paradise of Eden, God could have created them so that it would have been impossible for them to have violated his will, just as animals cannot sin. God, however, desired that his human creation should love him; and, because love that is coerced or forced is not actually love, God made the principle of freedom of the will operative in humanity; but with that freedom of choice, the consequences of the wrong choice became inherent in human life. From the Adamic fall there came the need for redemption, and the whole drama of human salvation was set in motion. God's purpose, however, has never wavered, the great intention continuing to be that men shall love their Creator. Love of God is a far greater thing even than faith; for if men love God, they will also invariably obey him (John 14:15), something that is not true of faith at all. It is in this supreme truth that the justification is found for Paul's declaration that "the greatest of these is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13); and it is the undergirding of Jesus' declaration that the first and greatest commandment is to love God. Here also is the explanation of why there was a forbidden tree in Eden, why Satan had access to the human creation, the environment having been specifically ordered by an all-wise God for the purpose of giving Adam and Eve freedom of choice. Had they not sinned, there is no reason to believe that the testing inherent in such a situation would have been discontinued. It is God's will that every man shall have a right of choice, a choice that derives finally from the man's moral nature. This accounts also for the truth that God's revelation to man has never been so overwhelmingly objective as to take away from men the right of denying it IF THEY SO DESIRE. Therefore the love of God cannot be induced by purely intellectual proof, or demonstration, faith having ever been not altogether an intellectual decision but a moral one ( John 3:19). [12] St. Bernard, as quoted by E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 137. [13] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 376. Verse 31 The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.As noted in the discussion under the preceding verse, Christ here gave a summary of the Decalogue, equating the first four commandments with the love of God and the last six with the love of neighbor. Jesus' answer, however, is far more than a mere summary of ancient law. Without love, first of God, and then of other human beings, there can be no unity with God who IS love. Moreover, Jesus' mention of a second commandment is more than a mere gratuitous extension of his answer to the scribe's question; for the first and second commandments are a compound unity. Can a man love God and hate his neighbor? "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen" (1 John 4:20). Verse 32 And the scribe saith unto him, Of a truth, Teacher, thou hast well said that he is one; and there is none other but he: and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is much more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices.The inherent truth of Jesus' words fully convinced the scribe of all the Lord had said; and his repetition of Jesus' teachings indicated the profound impression the Lord had made upon his heart. Verse 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.Not far from the kingdom ... Alas, this is the epitaph for many. Men behold, in some glorious burst of apprehension, the majesty and truth of the Son of God; but the road of acceptance is rugged, being blocked at every milestone with difficulties and opposition. If this scribe had confessed the Lord, he would have been thrown out of the synagogue, possibly even stoned to death; and the silence of the record leads one to suppose that this is as near as he ever came to the kingdom of God. And no man durst ask ... No wonder. The combined cleverness of Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees, despite their flattering admissions so damaging to their cause, had produced nothing that could aid their campaign against the Lord; but on the other hand, their questions had resulted in greater glory for Jesus. Verse 35 And Jesus answered and said, as he taught in the chapel. How say the scribes that the Christ is the son of David? David himself said in the Holy Spirit, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet. David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? And the common people heard him gladly.All critical objections to this paragraph, based largely upon the variations between Mark and Matthew, come to naught in the light of the obvious unity of the whole chapter. How natural it was that Jesus should conclude a series of questions asked in turn by Herodians, Sadducees, and Pharisees, with a question of his own. To suppose Mark's account to have been original and Matthew's an extension of it is as illogical and unreasonable as making Mark's one parable (1-12) the original of the three (!) recorded by Matthew. The essential agreement of both accounts, not only with regard to the placement in this context, but also in every other important detail, places the ineffaceable stamp of independence and originality upon both. Each account is probably the abbreviation of a conversation that lasted half an hour (certainly, far longer than the twenty-one seconds required for reading either of the gospel accounts); and if we knew all that was said in that interview, the absolute accuracy of every word and every detail could be proved. Any believer of the inspired gospels is untroubled by the omission from both records of most of the details and circumstances leading up to the profound truth Jesus here uttered, a truth so important that an understanding of it underlies all adequate understanding of the Old Testament and of the person of Jesus Christ. McMillan was correct when he wrote: "It is difficult to imagine what particular set of circumstances preceded and developed into the incident described here ... However, because of the arresting content of the question, the Gospels show no extensive interest in the circumstances."[14]David himself calleth him Lord; and whence is he his son? ... How could Jesus Christ have been both the Son of David and the Lord of David? This fingers the dual character of our Lord Jesus Christ as both God and man. As a man, he was the son of David; as God come in human form, he was the Lord of David. In the great prophecies of the Old Testament foretelling the coming of the holy Messiah into this world, it was absolutely necessary for God to present through the prophets this dual nature of the Holy One. This accounts for the contradictions in the prophecies concerning Christ, some prophecies hailing him as "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6), and other prophecies making him to be "despised and rejected ... man of sorrows ... esteemed not ... numbered with transgressors ... acquainted with grief ... bruised ... wounded ... and afflicted" (Isaiah 53). Such diverse prophecies foretelling the coming of the God-man could not be understood by the religious leaders; they even premised the coming of two Messiahs; and it was their conceit that led them to reject the less glamorous prophecies and focus upon those more glorious, those being the qualities they wanted in a Messiah. Their rejection of Christ was grounded totally upon their error of misunderstanding in this very sector. This was precisely the point WHERE THEY NEEDED HELP. Lovingly, Jesus raised the issue by this quotation from Psalms 110:1, no doubt hoping that they would ask him to explain it; but the pride of those evil men would not permit them either to ask or to learn anything from their Saviour. Their scornful turning away from the Lord is suggested by Mark's record of the antithesis of it, namely, that "the common people heard him gladly." This paragraph bears witness to the Davidic authorship of Psalms 110, a fact accepted by Jesus' contemporaries, and incapable of any rational denial by men living nineteen centuries later. It also witnesses to the inspiration of the Psalms, for it was here stated that David "said in the Holy Spirit." Thus, in this incident, the Lord made one last, bold effort to break through the barrier of blind unbelief in the Jewish leaders. ENDNOTE: [14] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 151. Verse 38 And in his teaching he said, Beware of the scribes, who desire to walk in long robes, and to have salutations in the marketplaces, and chief seats in the synagogues, and chief places at feasts: they that devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long prayers; these shall receive greater condemnation.The sentiments of these verses are found in Matthew's extensive account of the seven woes pronounced upon the Pharisees, most of the scribes belonging to that party (Matthew 23). In the same context as "the woes," Mark here abbreviated a long sermon, reducing it to this single small paragraph; and yet it quite accurately catches the sentiment of the longer passage in Matthew. On the other hand, it is sheer nonsense to suppose that Matthew expanded these few lines into the dramatic, well organized sermon he quoted Jesus as delivering in this same context. Who desire ... This means that they "loved" such things, thus exposing their sin as resident in the things they loved, as so strongly stated in John 5:44 and John 12:43. Long robes ... were worn by scholars and greatly coveted as marks of distinction. Salutations in the marketplaces ... Such greetings had become with them the food of vanity and conceit (Matthew 23:7-8). Chief seats in the synagogues ... were occupied by the scribes while the congregation stood! Chief places at feasts ... Such dignitaries as the scribes were held to be, always occupied the dais or sat at the speaker's table. Thus, as Sanner said, "There were four things these men liked, all of which indicated their hunger for recognition and preference."[15]They that devour widow's houses ... This was accomplished by charging excessive fees and through the abuse of hospitality and generosity. And for a pretence make long prayers ... Nothing is quite as showy as a long prayer, and few things any more disgusting. When a popular faith-healer led prayer at the Democratic convention which first nominated Franklin D. Roosevelt for president, it (the prayer) last 31 minutes and 15 seconds; and the Cardinal who led the inaugural prayer at the installation of President John F. Kennedy droned on for 14 minutes, telling the Lord the date of the occasion four different times! See 1 Thessalonians 2:5 RSV). Shall receive greater condemnation ... As throughout the holy Scriptures, the severest judgments are pronounced against pride, vainglory, and pretense. ENDNOTE: [15] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 378. Verse 41 And he sat down over against the treasury, and beheld how the multitude cast money into the treasury: and many that were rich cast in much.THE WIDOW'S TWO MITESThe treasury ... This was located in the court of women, in which collection boxes had been installed to receive offerings. The Sanhedrin met within earshot of the place; and it was here that they brought the woman taken in adultery. It was the scene of some of Jesus' most remarkable teachings (John 8:1-20). And he beheld how the multitude cast money ... Significantly, Jesus made his evaluation of giving through regard to what men possessed, and not merely in respect of the amount given. In a spiritual sense, Jesus always sits over against the treasury, knows not merely the amount given, but the amount retained, and makes his evaluation accordingly. Verse 42 And there came a poor widow, and she cast in two mites, which make a farthing.Barnes commented on the value of this gift thus: Mite denotes a small coin made of brass, the smallest in use among the Jews, and the value of which cannot be exactly known. Their farthing was of less value than the English farthing. It was worth about three mills and a half, or about one-third of a copper cent.[16]Cranfield pointed out that the word that Mark used for MITE is related to quadrans, a term prevalent in Rome but not in Jerusalem; and from this he concluded that Mark was writing "in the west."[17][16] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 377. [17] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 386. Verse 43 And he called unto him his disciples, and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than all they are casting into the treasury.More than all they ... Cranfield said this probably means "more than all of those put together."[18](1) This teaches that a gift to be valuable in the sight of God is not solely determined by the face amount of it. The motive, attitude, and financial condition of the giver are taken into consideration. (2) Christ did not condemn the widow for giving. His commendation of her gift dramatically underlines the Scriptural teaching that the poor should give, and that the exercise of this grace is not to be omitted by any person on the grounds of poverty. (3) How is it that her gift was so great? The example she set in the faithful discharge of a religious duty incumbent upon all has inspired giving in all ages. Illustration: The City of New York was participating in a campaign among the immigrant poor of the great city to raise funds for the construction of the pedestal and supporting tower upon which Bartholdi's Statue of Liberty would be erected. The campaign was lagging until a poor woman sold her bed for $13.00 and contributed the money. Inspired by that, the people quickly responded and gave more than was needed. In a similar manner, the poor widow of this text has constructed many a church house and subscribed many a budget all over the world. (4) This encourages the poor not to withhold their gifts to the Lord, because of thoughts that they would not do much good; here is an example of a very great accomplishment having been achieved by a gift of very small actual value. As Calvin said of the poor, "If they consecrate themselves, their offering, which appears to men to be worthless, will not be less valuable than if they had presented all the treasures of Croesus."[19](5) This convinces the rich that merely giving an amount of money is not enough. The element of sacrifice should be present in every true gift; and that which can be easily "spared" by the wealthy is not enough to fulfill God's requirement. [18] Ibid. [19] John Calvin, as quoted by Cranfield, op. cit., p. 38. Verse 44 For they all did cast in of their superfluity; but she of her want did cast in all that she had, even all her living.Christ thus explained why the widow's gift was "more" and all of the others "less." Theirs were easy gifts; hers was a hard one. It may be doubted if any passage in the whole New Testament has been any more widely misused than has this one. One often hears people speak of giving "the widow's mite"; but what is evidently meant is that they are giving the amount of the widow's mite, and not that they are giving all of their living, as did she. All her living ... Whether this means merely all of her income, or the totality of her possessions, the example she set is immortal. She trusted God, relying upon him utterly to supply her need. She brought to the treasury a heart at one with the Eternal, submissively accepting a status of penury and want, and yet not making her poverty an excuse for denying the gift that the Father requires of all. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter Twelve Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, Mark 12:1-12. (Matthew 21:33-46; Luke 20:9-19) Mark 12:1. planted a vineyard.—On the description of the vineyard, see the note, Matthew 21:33. Mark 12:2 Mark 12:4-5. a servant.—Here again we find Mark, according to his characteristic method, fixing attention on a single individual when a plurality were actually engaged in the transaction. (See Matthew 21:34 Matthew 21:36, and comp. note on Mark 11:2.) Luke, like Mark, uses the singular number in this place. (Luke 20:10.) Mark 12:4-5. another servant.—The increase of severity toward the servants, the first being merely beaten, the. second being wounded in the head with stories, and the third being killed, gives the force of a climax to the description, but points to no historical feature in the significance of the parable. The servants sent to the husbandmen represent the prophets who had been sent to the Jews (note on Matthew 21:43), but there was no regular gradation in the persecutions which they encountered. Mark 12:7. the inheritance shall be ours.—The vine-dressers are here represented as hoping to become owners of the vineyard by slaying the heir. If the heir were slain, and the death of the present owner should leave them in possession, they might hope to hold the vineyard as their own. There is nothing corresponding to this purpose in the dealing of the Jews with Jesus, consequently it has no significance in the interpretation of the parable. Mark 12:9. he will come and destroy.—Mark represents Jesus as answering his own question, "What shall the Lord of the vineyard do?" But Matthew (21:41) represents the chief priests and scribes as giving the answer. Doubtless the latter is the more exact representation, and Mark reports it as the answer of Jesus, because it was the answer that he wanted, and because, when it was given, he approved it. Mark 12:10-11. The Stone.—On the meaning and the application of this remark, see the note, Matthew 21:42. Mark 12:12. for they knew.— The parties referred to are the chief priests and scribes who had introduced this conversation by asking him for his authority (Mark 11:27). They now "sought to lay hands on him"—an advance on the feeling of the previous day, when they "sought now they might destroy him" (Mark 11:18); but the Fear of the people was still, as then, in their way. they left him.—Being afraid to lay hold of him, and being too much exasperated to continue the conversation with him, they went away and devised the plot mentioned in the next paragraph. Question about Tribute to Cæsar, Mark 12:13-17. (Matthew 22:15-22; Luke 20:20-26) This paragraph contains nothing in addition to Matthew's report of the same conversation; the reader is therefore referred for comments to the parallel in Matthew. Question about the Resurrection, Mark 12:18-27. (Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-40) For the discussion of this paragraph also, see the parallel in Matthew. The Great Commandment, Mark 12:28-34. (Matthew 22:34-40) Mark 12:28. one of the scribes.—A characteristic difference between Matthew and Mark is apparent at this point. Matthew says, "When the Pharisees had heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together," and he represents "one of them who was a lawyer," as putting the question about the great commandment. Mark, pursuing his usual method of selecting an individual from a group of actors, says nothing of the Pharisees, but simply says "one of the scribes came" and put the question. (Comp. note, Mark 11:2, and references there given.) The defeat of the Sadducees by Jesus, had put the Pharisees in a sufficiently good humor to make them feel like renewing the conversation which they had abruptly terminated a short time previous. (Verse 12.) first commandment.—Not the first numerically, for this was well known; but the first in point of importance. Mark 12:29. The first.—In quoting the answer of Jesus, Mark reverses the order of the first two sentences as they are given by Matthew. The latter gives the commandment, "Thou shalt love," etc., and then the remark. "This is the first and great commandment;" while Mark makes the latter thought introductory to the former. This is an example of free quotation, in which, for the sake of brevity, there is a change in the order of the sentences without the slightest change in the meaning. Mark 12:30-31. Thou shalt love.—On the two commandments, see the notes, Matthew 22:36-40. Mark 12:32-33. the scribe said to him.—The scribe had propounded his question for the purpose of tempting Jesus (Matthew 22:35); that is, of testing his knowledge of the law. But the answer which he received was so luminous and so self-evidently true, that he at once exclaimed, "Master, thou hast said the truth." He had the good sense, too, to enlarge on the answer in a very happy and forcible style. Never was a would-be captivator more unexpectedly captured. Mark 12:34. not Far from the kingdom.—The man's response arrested the attention of Jesus. It showed a readiness in perceiving the truth, and a promptness in accepting it, which were surprising in one of his class, and the more so from the fact that he had been put forward for the purpose of testing the Master with hard questions. With a penetrating but approving look, Jesus said to him, "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God." The obvious meaning of this remark is, that the man was in a condition to very readily receive the kingdom. It was perhaps also true that he was not far from the kingdom in point of time. It would be strange if such a man did not immediately enter the kingdom when it was preached by the apostles on and after Pentecost. durst ask him any question.—They dared not ask any more, because they were not willing to be defeated as some of the questioners had been, nor compelled to give assent to his answer as the last one had been, and they could hope for nothing better. Matthew introduces the remark that no one dared to ask him any more questions, at the close of the next paragraph, but Mark more appropriately introduces it here, because this was the last question which they propounded to him, and the next paragraph discusses one which he propounded to them. The Lordship of the Christ, Mark 12:35-37. (Matthew 22:41-46; Luke 20:41-44) Mark 12:35-36.— Mark omits the part which the Pharisees played in this conversation, and gives but a synopsis of the argument made by Jesus. For remarks, see the notes on the parallel in Matthew. Mark 12:37. the common people heard him gladly.—This remark has reference, not merely to the paragraph with which it is connected, but to the entire discussion which had occupied the day. But what was true of the common people assembled then in Jerusalem, was equally true of those among whom he had taught in Galilee and Perea. It was only the elders, the chief priests, the lawyers, and the scribes, who did not hear him gladly. To these he appeared in the light of a rival and an enemy, and he appeared thus only because he persisted in exposing their errors and in pressing on the attention of the people truths which they rejected. That the common people hear a man gladly in our own age can not be taken as a proof in itself that his teaching is like that of Jesus, yet he who is most like Jesus will still be most gladly heard by the common people. He who in any great degree fails of this must have some most serious defect as a preacher of the gospel of Christ. Ostentation and Avarice of the Scribes, Mark 12:38-40. (Matthew 23; Luke 20:14-24) Mark 12:38. Beware of the scribes.—In this paragraph Mark quotes but two sentences from a speech which fills the entire twenty-third chapter of Matthew. Luke treats the subject in the same way, making the same quotation almost verbatim. (See the parallels. For remarks on the thoughts of verses 38, 39, see the notes, Matthew 23:5-12.) Mark 12:40. devour widows' houses.—This is a hyperbole to represent the extreme avarice of the scribes. The greed with which they defrauded widows is represented by the strong figure of eating up the houses in which they lived. for a pretense.—To keep up an appearance of piety which did not exist. As the prayers were made for this purpose, and made long in order to more effectually accomplish the purpose, they only added to the wickedness which they were designed to conceal. The damnation was greater because the wickedness was greater. So it must ever be with men who use the cloak of religion to serve the devil in. The Widow's Mite, Mark 12:41-44. (Luke 21:1-4.) Mark 12:41. over against the treasury.—The treasury was the chest or other receptacle into which the people cast the contributions which the law of Moses required all of them to bring when they came up to the annual festivals. (Deuteronomy 16:16-17.) Jesus was sitting opposite to this receptacle, and purposely "beholding how the people cast money into the treasury," in order that he might give a lesson on the subject. Mark 12:42. two mites.—Our translators use the word "mite" for want of any term in English corresponding to the original (λεπτον), which is the Greek name of a coin equal to about two mills of American money. The two mites, or lepta, which the woman contributed, were equal to four mills, or a little less than half a cent. To the expression "two lepta," Mark appends for the benefit of his Roman readers the clause, "which make a kodrantes" (inaccurately translated farthing); the latter being a Roman coin, and the Greek lepton being unfamiliar where the Roman coins alone were in circulation. Mark 12:43-44. hath cast more in.— More in proportion to her ability. There are two ways in which to estimate the value of contributions; first, with reference to the benevolent object on which the money is to be expended; and second, with reference to the spiritual good resulting to the contributor. Estimated according to the former standard, the larger gifts of the rich were the more valuable, because they would accomplish more in feeding the poor and in providing for the expenses of the temple. Hut from the latter point of view, the gift of the widow was greater than all, because she actually gave more in proportion to her ability, and secured to herself a greater blessing at the hand of God. She did voluntarily what Jesus had vainly commanded the rich young ruler to do; though poor herself, she gave her all to feed the poor. She did this, too, when she had only her widow's hands with which to earn more; but he had refused though he had the strength and ingenuity of young manhood to guard him against future want. Argument of Section 2In this section the historian has presented only one miracle, that of withering the barren fig-tree. The section is chiefly taken up with conversations and speeches, in which some of the peculiar teachings of Jesus are set forth, and in which his superhuman wisdom is conspicuously exhibited. In the conversations about his own authority, the tribute to Cæsar, the resurrection of the dead, the great commandment, and the Lordship of the Christ, he not only silenced his enemies, so that no man dared to ask him any more questions, but he displayed a wisdom which has never ceased to command the admiration of wise and good men. All men, in the presence of his utterances on these subjects, feel themselves in contact with a mind which towers above their own as the heavens are above the earth. They contain a subtile but irresistible proof, that he who spoke them was filled with a wisdom which came down front heaven; and such must be the ever deepening conviction of all who dwell on them thoughtfully. Questions by E.M. Zerr For Mark 121. By what method did he begin to speak ? 2. State the first subject. 3. What did the owner prepare for it? 4. To whom did he let it out? 5. Where did he then go? 6. Whom did he send ? 7. At what time? 8. Tell how he was treated ? 9. Whom did he send next? 10. With what result? 11. Was this attempt repeated? 12. What change did the owner decide upon? 13. Was this more successful? 14. State the question Jesus asked them. 15. Did they answer it correctly? 16. Who is the. owner of this vineyard? 17. And who were the servants sent? 18. Also the son ? 19. Who are the husbandmen ? 20. What scripture docs Jesus cite ? 21. Whose doing is all this? 22. Why did they not lay hold on Jesus? 23. And why did they wish to ? 24. Whom did they send to capture him ? 25. With what flattery did they approach him? 26. Tell what they then asked him? 27. Who was Caesar? 28. What did Jesus perceive in their answer? 29. Of what did he accuse them? 30. What was brought to him ? 31. What ownership did they acknowledge? 32. Give the statement of Jesus. 33. What is meant by the “ things that are God’ 34. How were they affected by his remark ? 35. What do the Sadducees deny? 36. To what writing did they refer? 37. Did they correctly quote him? 38. What question did they ask? 39. Of what did Jesus accuse them? 40. State the reason for their error. 41. How will we be like angels? 42. Of whom is God the God? 43. Where was this said? 44. Is Abraham alive? 45. What part of man dies? 46. Who next came with a question ? 47. Why are the scribes so called ? 48. State his question. 49. Give the one Jesus first named. 50. And the second. 51. How many were on the stones? 52. How many do above two include ? 53. What did the scribe reply to Jesus? 54. State the comment of Jesus on this reply. 55. How did all this affect the questioners? 56. What question did he ask them? 57. What is your answer to this? 58. Who are said to have heard him gladly ? 59. Of whom did he bid them beware ? 60. What do they affect to wear? 61. How do they desire to be noticed ? 62. Whom do they oppress? 63. By what did they try to hide their guilt ? 64. What will they receive? 65. To what was Jesus’ attention called ? 66. What did the rich contribute literally? 67. What did the widow cast in literally? 68. State the conclusion of Jesus. 69. On what basis was this conclusion ? 70. Does such basis still exist? 1 See the comments at Matthew 13:3 as to the right use of Parables. For other comments as to the householder see Matthew 21:33. 2 At the season. It takes time to produce fruit, hence the householder did not expect any products until the proper time when he sent a special servant for them. 5 This refers to the mistreatment that the Jews showed to the prophets and other righteous teachers who were sent among them by the Lord. 6 Jesus was a Jew who was sent to that nation as the rightful heir of all his Father's possessions, and he should have been received with great respect. 7 Being the heir, if he could be removed there would seem to be no one to claim the property, hence the workers planned to make away with him. 8 The wicked workers carried out their plot and slew the son of the householder, which refers to the treatment that Jesus was soon to receive at the hands of the wicked Jews. 9 According to Matthew's account (chapter 21:40, 41), this answer to the question of Jesus was made by the Jews. Having in mind some literal case of an earthly vineyard, they answered correctly, not realizing that their own answer would condemn them for their wicked attitude towards the servants of God. 1 Jesus began opening their understanding of the parable by referring to a prediction in the Old Testament. 2 They doubtless were aware of this statement and must have begun to see the light that was exposing them. But they were restrained from doing anything to Jesus because of their fear of public sentiment that was favorable to him. 3 Herodians were a family party among the Jews who favored the Romans. This is described more extensively in the comments on Mat-Matthew 22:16. 4 After some expressions of pure flattery these hypocrites came out with their question. They had the delusion that the kingdom which Jesus was soon to set up would be a temporal one, and hence a rival of the Roman Empire. In that case he would logically disapprove of any financial support of Caesar. If they could get him to say so, they would have a basis for accusing him of being an enemy of the lawful government. 5 Knowing their hypocrisy, Jesus did not answer directly by "yes" or "no," but asked to see a piece of money. 6 The coins of about all countries have the image of some important person on them, and also some saying or motto is inscribed thereon. Jesus took the critics by surprise by asking to whom the coin belonged. They answered correctly that it was the property of Caesar. Incidentally, this very coin was the kind that was used in paying the tribute to Caesar's government. 7 Anyone would have to say it is right to give back to a man that which is rightfully his. They just had said the coin belonged to Caesar, so it was natural that Jesus would tell them to give It back to him. In so doing they would be performing the very thing they asked Jesus if it was lawful to do. They marveled means they were amazed and so stunned that they had nothing more to say. 3 To save space let the reader see comments on Matthew 22:23-28. 5 For the explanation of this paragraph see Matthew 22:29-30. 6 Book of Moses is so called because God inspired him to write it. God declared himself to be the God of these patriarchs whom the Sadducees professed to love. 7 God is not a God of the dead (which these Sadducees as well as everyone else admitted), yet these patriarchs had been in their graves for centuries. That proves there is something in man that lives after the body is placed in the grave. 8 In Matthew's account of this conversation (chapter 22:34-40) it is stated that the purpose of this question was to tempt Jesus, while the present passage says nothing about that. Instead, the latter part of the conversation indicates a favorable attitude toward Jesus. Both phases of it are true and explanable on a reasonable basis. After the scribe put the tempting question to Jesus, the reply was so unanswerable that he was drawn over to the better view of it and brought forth the good remarks reported of him. The question asked of Jesus was unfair because no one of God's commands is any more important or greater than another. 9 The one great difference would be the contrast between God and man. Logically, then, a command to love God would come first in the sense of priority. 0 This command requires that God shall be loved with all the powers of man. 1 The preceding command is first in priority, but the second one is like it in the sense of authority that is back of it. 2 The scribe was affected by the answer of Jesus and verified it. He went farther and stated the reason why we should love the Lord wholeheartedly, and that was because there is only one God. 3 The scribe summed up in this verse what constitutes the entire Decalogue, in that he cites the two commandments on which all the law and prophets hung (Matthew 22:40). The reason he assigned for his conclusion was that it was better than burnt offerings. A man might offer whole droves of animals for the outward show, but not actually be moved by genuine love for God or man. 4 The kingdom of God had not been set up when this conversation took place, hence no actual distance could exist between it and any person as to specific items required for entrance into it. But the scribe expressed a principle of life that was so different from that of the Pharisees, that Jesus meant he was advocating ideas that were much like what would be required of persons in the kingdom when it did become a fact on earth. This conversation silenced the critics so that none of them asked Jesus any more questions. 5 Many of the Jews admitted that Christ was an actual descendant of David according to the flesh, but denied that he was divine or related to him spiritually. 6 Jesus then quoted Psalms 110:1 where David referred to him as "my Lord." 7 The question put to them was how Christ could be both a son of David and also his Lord. Common people has been referred to from a sentimental motive as if it was a contrast between the humble folks and the self-righteous scribes and Pharisees. We may say these people were of that type if we offer our remarks as a comment, but the word does not mean that. It is from POLUS which means "the masses." 8 Long clothing was worn to attract attention and obtain special salutations in public such as the market places where many people resorted. 9 Chief seats means the front pews that faced the audience, and uppermost rooms at feasts means the highest seats, those that gave an advantage of display. 0 Devour widows' houses means they took advantage of them to obtain their property. For more detailed comments on this verse see the comments on Matthew 23:14. 1 This money was a voluntary offering made for the upkeep of the temple. The rich cast in much in actual count of the money. 2 This widow cast in two mites instead of "one" as generally stated. 3 Jesus stated in literal language what he meant comparatively. 4. Jesus explained his statement to mean that the widow made the sacrifice in that she gave all that she had. The rich gave much and yet had much left and hence did not make any sacrifice. Verse 1 Topics appearing in this chapter are: Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:1-2); four disciples inquire as to the time of it and the sign preceding it (Mark 13:3-4); Jesus answers their compound question with (a) a special charge to the apostles (Mark 13:5-13); (b) a specific sign of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:14-23); and (c) a prophecy of the Second Advent scheduled "after that tribulation" (Mark 13:14-27); (d) a lesson from the fig tree (Mark 13:28-29); (e) the promise that "this generation shall not pass away until all these things shall be accomplished" (Mark 13:30-32); and (f) a strong exhortation to watchfulness (Mark 13:33-37). An astounding thing in this chapter, found also in the parallel accounts (Matthew 24 and Luke 21), is the mingling of Jesus' prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple and the event of his second coming (after the tribulation) in such a manner as to reveal the first event as a type of the second. The total corpus of these extremely interesting prophecies appears in the sum total of all three synoptics, which like the independent legs of a tripod are each necessary, in order to have a full understanding of them. Whatever this chapter is, acknowledged by all as "difficult and controversial,"[1] it is not "a little apocalypse," as falsely alleged by a certain school of scholars since the theory was first invented by T. Colani in 1864,[2] the late date of it being alone sufficient grounds for rejecting it. McMillan is obviously in error when he writes that "It is correct to think of this chapter as a part of this broad literary phenomenon (that of apocalyptic writing)."[3] Turlington declared that "The burden of the chapter is not apocalyptic ... unlike other apocalyptic writing, there is no reference to Satan, no dwelling on the destruction of evil forces, no drawn-out description of final judgment.[4]Moreover, Cranfield wrote: This discourse differs radically from typical Jewish apocalyptic. While the language of apocalyptic is indeed used, the purpose for which it is used and even the form of the discourse are different. It is, in fact, exhortation, not ordinary apocalyptic. Its purpose is not to impart esoteric information but to sustain faith and obedience.[5]We agree with Sanner who wrote, "It is heartening to read comments of scholars like Barclay and Cranfield, who take the chapter as genuine."[6] Of course, the whole purpose of the "Little Apocalypse" theory is to soften, or eliminate, reference in this chapter to the final judgment in which "heaven and earth shall pass away" and the cataclysmic appearance of the Son of God in the Second Advent shall take place. Again, as Cranfield said, "the signs are reminders in the midst of history of the coming of the Lord."[7]Regarding the unity of this chapter, McMillan has a scholarly summary, stressing the relevance of this chapter to the primitive church, then confronting difficulties both in Rome and in Jerusalem (soon to be destroyed). The generation which first received Mark were on the threshold of the great persecutions against the church; and, as McMillan said, "One finds Mark 13 to offer hope of the most profound kind."[8][1] Henry E. Turlington, The Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville, 1946), p. 369. [2] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 387). [3] Earle McMillan, The Gospel according to Mark (Austin, Texas: R. B. Sweet Publishing Company, 1973), p. 158. [4] Henry E. Turlington, op. cit., p. 371. [5] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 388. [6] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), p. 379. [7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 389. [8] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 156. And as he went forth out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Teacher, Behold, what manner of stones and what manner of buildings. (Mark 13:1) Mark had just recorded, at the first of the preceding chapter, one of the three denunciatory parables in which Christ had categorically predicted that God would send his "armies," destroy "those murderers," and burn "their city," prophecies which, in context, cannot refer to anything other than the city of Jerusalem. The pall of that dire prophecy was still upon the disciples here who proudly pointed out the glory of the temple, implying two things, perhaps three: (1) what a shame it would be to destroy so grand a building., (2) how difficult it would be to destroy so great an edifice, and hinting, perhaps, that (3) God might spare the glorious temple dedicated to his name, the pride of every Hebrew, including the apostles. The sentiment of this exclamation by the four apostles proves that Matthew's account of the three parables is accurate; for, if only the single parable recorded by Mark (that of the wicked husbandmen) had been spoken, it would not have prompted this emphasis on the temple by the apostles. (See Matthew 22:7). Jesus and his apostles had just passed through the temple for the last time and were ascending the mount of Olives, which eminence afforded a most impressive view. Hailed as one of the wonders of the world, the Jewish temple was a building of exceedingly great magnificence; the wealth of the nation had been lavished upon it for a full fifty years (see John 2:20, adding four years). What manner of stones ... Such stones were indeed a marvel. Josephus described them thus: Now the temple was built of stones that were white and strong, and each of their length was twenty-five cubits, their height was eight, and their breadth about twelve; and the whole structure, and that of the royal cloister, were visible to all who dwelt in the country for a great many furlongs.[9]Stones of such immensity are hard to imagine. A check with manufacturers of concrete in Houston, Texas, revealed that concrete weighs 120 to 150 pounds per cubic foot; and allowing any kind of building stone to have a density of at least 4,000 pounds per cubic yard, and taking the cubit, as used by Josephus for eighteen inches, the result is exactly 300 cubic yards in each stone, and the weight 1,200,000 pounds each! What manner of stones indeed! And what manner of buildings ... Not the temple, merely, but the royal cloisters, and the great tower of Antonio, adjacent to it, combined to form a most impressive building complex. ENDNOTE: [9] Josephus, Life and Works of, translated by William Whiston (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston), p. 472. Verse 2 And Jesus said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left here one stone upon another, which shall not be thrown down.The questioner (and presumably all the apostles) were wrong. The temple would not be spared. The impending wreck of Jerusalem would be total and complete; even the great stones would be broken up and the entire structure demolished. This astounding prophecy was not a mere clever prediction of Jesus, based upon political considerations, and the probabilities indicated by the rebellious nature of Israel and the character of the Roman authority. As a matter of fact, Rome would never have destroyed the temple of its own volition; and when Titus who had charge of the siege (A.D. 70) drew his armies around the city, he gave a specific commandment to his entire army forbidding its demolition, intending to preserve it as a "monument to the empire."[10] Therefore, Christ was here stating the purpose and intention of Almighty God. Since the destruction of the temple must then be viewed as contrary to the will of both the Jews and the Romans, being accomplished by providential circumstances utterly beyond the power of either to alter them, it is fitting to inquire as to God's reasons for determining that it should be destroyed. WHY GOD THE TEMPLE(1) It had served its purpose, having pertained to a system that was about to be terminated. One greater than the temple had already appeared (Matthew 12:6). (2) The daily sacrifices, which were the center of temple functions, would no longer be needed, after the Great Sacrifice would be offered upon Calvary, thus rendering the temple useless in its major function. (3) It was in the way of the holy apostles themselves, who were so obviously awed in the account before us. It tended to blind them to the truly spiritual nature of the kingdom of God. (4) All Israel loved the temple; and it would be a great stumblingblock, preventing many of them from accepting Christ. They loved it, along with the dazzling ritual and exceedingly impressive ceremonial - they loved it too much. (5) Its official custodians rejected and murdered the rightful heir of the temple, who was Christ, bringing upon them and the temple a weight of guilt that could not be forgiven. Divine justice required that the "den of thieves and robbers" be demolished. (6) Its destruction would prove an effective symbol of God's "taking away the old" and establishing a new system. "He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:3). (7) The temple, through abuse by its custodians, failed of its highest purpose, which was to have recognized the King when he came, and to take the lead in accepting him and advocating his acceptance by the whole world. Having failed in that, it was no longer God's house. It became, therefore, a house merely of Israel. "Behold your house is left unto you desolate" (Matthew 23:38). (8) Any further use of the temple, after the coming of Christ, for any truly spiritual purpose, being thereafter impossible, God could not allow a building of such hallowed associations to be made a vehicle of shameful and unworthy enterprises. See under (10) below. (9) The destruction of the temple and Jerusalem was a part of the divine sentence of hardening pronounced against Israel by Christ, as prophesied by Isaiah (Matthew 13:14). Judicial hardening always was followed by the destruction of those hardened, with a consequence of their total removal from any historical progression; but in the case of Israel, the historical removal of those hardened was altered, a fact prophetically declared by the apostle Paul ( Romans 11:25). See extensive discussion of this in my Commentary on Romans, Romans 11. However, the repeated hardening of Israel by themselves was at last followed by God's execution upon them of the sentence of judicial hardening; and the demolition of the temple and ruin of Jerusalem were definitely a part of that sentence. That Israel should indeed escape total annihilation, thus enabling their "generation" to continue, was the will of God; but it was not the will of God that the most summary execution of destruction upon the temple and city should be avoided. Christ loved the city and wept over it upon the occasion of his sentencing her to destruction (Matthew 23:37-39). (10) Before that week was out, the high priests and the temple hierarchy would demand of Pilate that he "release Barabbas unto them" (Mark 15:11), and it was appropriate that the consequences of such a choice should be received by them making it. Josephus devoted twenty pages to the details of how the most sordid and reprobate "robbers" took charge of the whole city, along with the sacred temple (long before the Romans came), and who "omitted no kind of barbarity, rapines, plunderings, and murderings," over twelve thousand of the nobility alone perishing in blood.[11] They filled up the Holy of Holies itself with dead bodies. Countless thousands of the common people were killed. "The robbers fell upon the people as upon a flock of profane animals and cut their throats ... in what place soever they caught them."[12] All of the nobility were destroyed; and Josephus said, "I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, ... that he cut off those great defenders (that is, the nobility)."[13] How tragic was it that the priests demanded Barabbas; and what a fulfillment of their request was this horrible rule of robbers that sacked the city far in advance of the Roman legions! This has been mentioned in some detail here, because of its bearing upon Mark 13:14, which see. There shall not be left here one stone upon another ... In view of the size of the stones, this must have seemed a most unreasonable prophecy, even to the Twelve. The stones weighed over one million pounds each! The manner of fulfilling it was spectacular. Many of the temple furnishings, and even the roof within, were overlaid with pure gold; and the fire which broke out melted the yellow metal, causing it to run down in crevices of the great stones. Defying the order of their commander, the soldiers, using the military engines available to them, broke up and dismantled the masonry, seeking the gold. The temple was never rebuilt, but it seems that a little work was done on the walls. "One of the foundation stones measured in recent times proved to be twenty-four by about four feet,"[14] only a fraction of the size of the originals. "Modern investigation shows that the present wall has been rebuilt, probably on the foundation of the older one."[15] This "rebuilt" wall never attained any status except that of a futile attempt at starting construction. [10] James Macknight, A Harmony of the Four Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1950), p. 412. [11] Josephus, op. cit., p. 745. [12] Ibid., p. 755. [13] Ibid. [14] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 197. [15] Ibid. Verse 3 And as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew asked him privately, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?"Mark, going more into detail, gives the names of those who asked him."[16] Here is another example of the illogical and erroneous attribution to Mark of "more detail." Amazingly, this instance of it comes in the very context where Mark left out the most important details of all, namely that the disciples also asked Jesus what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world (Matthew 24:3). Of course, it is impossible to understand the chapter unless the other two questions are taken into consideration. If Mark wrote after Matthew, he might have thought mention of the first question sufficient. Scholars certainly need to re-examine the Markan theory. Besides that, most, if not all, of the apostles at that time believed that all three events: (1) the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple; (2) the sign of Jesus' coming; and (3) the end of the world would be simultaneous events. The inherent conclusion demanded by the statement of the three questions at one time (Matthew 24:3) mandates the understanding of most scholars that Jesus' answer commingles the reply to all three. Sanner said, "At least two themes are interwoven: prophecies concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, and warnings concerning the second coming of Christ."[17] In fact, Jesus did far more than commingle the replies; he actually made the reply applicable to both of the two major events in view, requiring us to understand that the destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the destruction of the cosmos, the "coming of Christ" being an essential element in both. First, he came in judgment upon Jerusalem; finally, he will appear in the Second Advent at the end of all things. No adequate understanding of this prophecy is possible without taking this into consideration. THE FIRST AND SECOND Divine prophecies often combine type and anti-type in the same word. Boles cited two examples of this as follows: Jehovah told Adam that he would die in the day that he ate the forbidden fruit (Genesis 2:17); yet Adam lived 930 years. There was a primary fulfillment of this when Adam was separated from the garden of Eden, and a secondary fulfillment in his death (Romans 5:12). Isaiah foretold the birth of a son by a virgin, yet added a prophecy which confined it to his own generation (Isaiah 7:14-17). The prophet combined type and antitype in the same words.[18]There are many examples of this in the word of God. Rachel's weeping for her children (Jeremiah 31:15) was fulfilled primarily by the captivity, and secondarily by the slaughter of the innocents by Herod (Matthew 2:13). Likewise, Hosea 11:1, "Out of Egypt have I called my son," has its first fulfillment in the deliverance of the whole nation from Egypt, and secondarily in the coming of the Saviour out of Egypt when "they that sought the young child's life" were dead (Matthew 2:18). The rainbow, to which repeated reference has been made in this series, is a natural phenomenon suggesting the nature of prophecy. There are often TWO BOWS, the secondary and the primary, with a reversal of the colors. See a specific elaboration of this in my Commentary of John, regarding the "bread from heaven" (John 6). [16] Ibid. [17] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 379. [18] H. Leo Boles, Commentary on Matthew (Nashville: The Gospel Advocate Company, 1936), p. 472. Verse 5 And Jesus began to say unto them, Take heed that no man lead you astray. Many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and shall lead many astray.Although primarily addressed to the apostles, there are nevertheless overtones in this extending to eternity. Many shall come in my name ... Matthew quoted Christ as saying that these impostors shall claim to be the Christ. Bickersteth said, "Such (false christs) were Theudas (Acts 5:36) and Simon Magus (Acts 8:10)."[19] The latter, according to Jerome, claimed to be Almighty God in the flesh, clearly an example of a false Christ. The apostles were admonished not to be led astray by such claims; and the admonition is binding upon Christians of all generations who are continually tempted by all kinds of impostors and charlatans pretending divine honors. I am he ... There is a variation in Mark's record that should be noted. The Greek text omits "he," evidently supplied by the translators with respect to Matthew's account. However, it is not necessary to "reconcile" the two by any such device, for the Lord made both statements. Mark's quotation of the Lord refers to impostors claiming to be "God," that being the meaning of "I AM," as in Exodus 3:6; Exodus 3:14; Matthew 22:32; John 8:58, etc. The current era has had several such. ENDNOTE: [19] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 197. Verse 7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, these things must needs come to pass; but the end is not yet.The sign of the end of time is not to be found in the ordinary progression of human calamities, but rather in the state of the people of God themselves. "The end is not yet" comes as a repeated caution in this chapter. Verse 8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be earthquakes in divers places; there shall be famines: these things are the beginning of travail.Not merely wars and conflicts between kingdoms, but natural disorders, are not to be understood as signs of the end, these things being more or less the natural order of things upon the earth which was cursed for Adam's sake, and among the unregenerated populations of Adam's posterity. The true sign shall be something within "themselves." Verse 9 But take ye heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in synagogues shall ye be beaten; and before governors and kings shalt ye stand for my sake, as a testimony unto them.This paragraph (here and through Mark 13:13) is particularly addressed to the apostles themselves, as indicated by the prophecy of their being beaten in synagogues (tying it to that generation), and the further promise of direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit promised in Mark 13:11, a promise nowhere made to any except apostles. These things foretold here were circumstantially fulfilled, as abundantly testified by the book of Acts. Verse 10 And the gospel must first be preached unto all the nations.(1) The primary fulfillment of this was in the apostolic age, whereof Paul affirmed that it had indeed been done ( Colossians 1:23), and that well ahead of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. (2) the secondary fulfillment will take place before the Second Advent of Christ. As Crain accurately declared: The meaning of this verse is that it is part of God's eschatological purpose that before the End all nations shall have an opportunity to hear the gospel ... It is a promise that the gospel will be preached, not that it will necessarily be believed.[20]Bickersteth noted that "The whole face of the earth is now laid open to us; and there is now hardly any part of the world which has not at some time or another received the message of salvation."[21] The great increase of missionary activity over the whole earth today provides a strong suggestion that the world is hastening to the End. Thus, in the two fulfillments of this verse, the relative scope of the two events (the destruction of Jerusalem, and the end of this dispensation) appears. The apostles' preaching the gospel to all the nations was restricted to the nations known at that time; but the preaching of the gospel to all nations now is a complete and total thing, even including the reading of Genesis from the other side of the moon to everyone on earth! [20] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 399. [21] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 198. Verse 11 And when they lead you to judgment, and deliver you up, be not anxious beforehand what ye shalt speak: but whatsoever shalt be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Spirit.Barnes understood this as directed to the Twelve, saying, "God gave them power; and they spake with wisdom, fearlessness, pungency, and ability which no other men have ever manifested."[22] The inspiration of the New Testament is also affirmed by this promise. That this promise pertains to any except the holy apostles is a false interpretation, proved to be so by the fact that it was never true for any EXCEPT THEM. Perversions of this text have persisted, however; and as Ryle put it: A perversion of this consists in supposing that this passage warrants ministers in getting up to preach unprepared every Sunday, and expecting help of the Holy Ghost![23][22] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 378. [23] J. C. Ryle, Expository Notes on the Gospels (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House), Matthew-Mark, II, p. 280. Verse 12 And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child; and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.No one may doubt the literal fulfillment of such familial treachery against the Lord's disciples; for such would naturally have occurred: (1) because of craven hatred of the truth; (2) hope of saving one's own life; or even (3) from hope of sordid gain. And ye shall be hated ... As Sanner said, Has our time forgotten the chilling words of Jesus, "Ye shall be hated of all ... for my name's sake"? Let a man of God disturb entrenched ignorance, prejudice, or evil, personal and social, and he will face the sinister, stolid face of hate.[24]He that endureth to the end ... Sanner noted that this means "He who endures to the last degree,"[25] or, as Bickersteth stated: "It means, not the end of the age, but the end of the moral probation of the individual."[26][24] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 382. [25] Ibid. [26] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 198. Verse 14 And when ye see the abomination of desolation standing where he ought not (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judea flee unto the mountains. Then let them that are in Judaea flee unto the mountains.The abomination of desolation ... This paragraph through Mark 13:23 has a double application to the approaching destruction of the Holy City and to the second coming of Christ. As Cranfield expressed it: Neither an exclusively historical nor an exclusively eschatological interpretation is satisfactory; ... we must allow for a double reference, for a mingling of historical and eschatological.[27]We shall study the passage as it applies to both. I. As applied to the approaching historical disaster to be wrought in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple: There is no way to avoid a reference here to the prophecy of Daniel, quoted here by the Son of God with the admonition "Let him that readeth understand." The scholar's assumption that these latter words were injected by Mark and interpolated by Matthew cannot be true (Matthew 24:15-17). Cranfield allowed this interpretation as altogether legitimate. Daniel 9:27 is the key to the synoptics on this point: Abomination of desolation ... This means "the abomination that maketh desolate,"[28] and as noted above is quoted from this passage in the book of Daniel: Therefore, THE MATTER and consider the vision. Seventy weeks are determined upon the people and upon the holy city, and to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy. KNOW AND , that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood and unto the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined (wrath) shall be poured upon the desolate (Daniel 9:23-27, KJV). Let him that readeth understand ... See capitals in above quotation where the equivalent of these words appears twice, the same being sufficient grounds for the conclusion that they were spoken by Jesus Christ who indubitably referred to this passage by his use of this very admonition. Therefore, we reject the position of McMillan who thought that "It is Mark, not Jesus, who said, `Let the reader understand.'"[29] This prophecy from Daniel, and the Saviour's undeniable reference to it here, as also confirmed by the parallel in Matthew, requires that a little further attention be devoted to this remarkable passage from Daniel. DANIEL'S OF THE ENDIt should not be lost on the student that by these words Christ placed the stamp of divine authority upon the prophecy of Daniel, nor should anyone be troubled by critical allegations to the contrary. As Tom U. Fauntleroy said, "Is it possible that men of wisdom and understanding should look to the devil for proof and confirmation of the Bible which pronounces the sentence of death upon him?"[30]This prophecy pinpointed the exact date of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. In the seventh year of Artaxerxes, Ezra and his companions left Babylon and came to Jerusalem (for the purpose of rebuilding it, with the undeniable implication that the king had given such an order). That was in B.C. 458. Starting with this date, the end of the 490 years is A.D. 32, and the end of the 69 weeks (equivalent to 483 years) is A.D. 25.[31]This means that Daniel prophesied the beginning of the ministry of the Messiah as 25 A.D. It was however, "in the midst of the week," that is, the week of Messiah's ministry, that Messiah would be cut off, thus pinpointing the length of Jesus' ministry as three and one-half years. Christ was crucified on April 6, A.D. 30 (see article inMark 15), cutting short the projected week (seven years) of his ministry by some two years and nine months, making his death to have been "in the midst of the week." To finish the transgression ... refers to finishing of the apostasy of Israel, that they should "fill up the measure of their fathers" (Matthew 23:32). To make an end of sins... means to provide the remedy for them. To make reconciliation for iniquity ... refers to the atonement. To bring in everlasting righteousness ... This is the righteousness of Christ, brought in through his death on the cross. And to anoint the Most Holy ... refers to the setting forth of the Messiah and his universal recognition as the Christ of glory. The people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary ... A reference to the armies of Caesar who should destroy Jerusalem and the temple. And the end thereof shall be with a flood ... The end of Jerusalem shall be with a flood of terrors. He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week ... Christ shall confirm the new covenant by his teachings and vicarious death, not for a full week, but finishing it in the midst of the final week of the seventy. And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease ... The death of Christ nullified and abrogated the daily sacrifices and oblations (Hebrews 10:11). For the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate ... When the grossest of vile abominations should finally come into the Holy Place, God would make an end of it. (See article above in this chapter, re: "Why God Destroyed the Temple)." Even until the consummation ... refers to the same period of time as that mentioned in Luke 21:24 and Romans 11:15, that is, "until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." "An end shall be set sometime to the desolation of Zion, although that end may coincide with the end of all things."[32]In view of the above, there is no wonder why Jesus referred to the passage, nor is there any wonder at the rage and screams of unbelievers who would like to deny the whole prophecy of Daniel if they could. We rest in the supreme assurance that Jesus believed it and here quoted from it! (See Matthew 24:25). Luke did not mention "abomination of desolation," except by inference, saying, "And when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand" (Luke 21:20). From this, it has often been concluded that the "abomination of desolation" referred to the Roman ruin of the city and temple; but from Daniel's prophecy it is clear that the armies were not primarily the abomination but rather the instrument of desolation that should follow the "overspreading abominations," the two being closely related of course. The Roman armies were a sign from without, but the abomination was a sign from within the temple itself. Josephus relates how: There was a certain ancient oracle of those men (the Jews), that the city should be taken and the sanctuary burnt, by right of war, when a sedition should invade the Jews, and their own hand should pollute the temple of God.[33]That such a sedition and pollution actually occurred at the hand of Jews themselves is clear. See item (10) under "Why God Destroyed the Temple," above in this chapter. They filled the entire temple with dead bodies, and the sanctuary became a "refuge and shop of tyranny."[34] We agree with Bickersteth that "their outrages against God were the special cause of the desolation of Jerusalem ... the abomination that filled up the measure of their iniquities and caused the avenging power of Rome to come down upon them and crush them."[35]Thus there were two phases of the abomination that desolated Jerusalem: (1) the utter reprobacy of the Jews themselves in filling the Holy of Holies with dead bodies, etc.; and (2) the avenging wrath of the Roman armies. The Jews made the sanctuary desolate morally; the Romans made it desolate by their ruthless destruction of it. Therefore the New Testament writers warned both Jews and Christians concerning the approach of such a disaster. Eusebius tells how the Christians fled from Jerusalem on the occasion when the Romans most unpredictably lifted the siege, without any apparent reason, how they fled to Pella, established the church there, and how not one of them lost his life during the awful siege. The army of Titus was commanded by Cestius Gallus, who for some unexplainable reason lifted the siege, providing the Christians a chance to flee. Josephus said, "Cestius removed his army, and having received no loss, very unadvisedly departed from the city."[36]Having now examined this remarkable verse (Mark 13:14) as it applied to the destruction of Jerusalem, we shall view it again in the larger context of its application to the End of all things. II. Mark 13:14 as prophetic of the consummation of all things. We have already noted the dual nature of this entire chapter as predicting on the one hand the historical overthrow of the Holy City, and also on the other hand predicting the Second Advent of Christ and the final judgment, the first event being also a type of the second. The abomination that made the temple desolate is a prophecy of the "man of sin" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-10), or Antichrist; and, as, Cranfield said, "The curious use of the masculine is perhaps further support of this interpretation."[37] The teaching is that the church of Christ shall suffer a pollution from within, becoming within itself corrupted and evil; a great apostasy shall come. And, although the medieval church is there may indeed be a greater and more terrible fulfillment yet future. The sacrifice of a sow on the sacred altar by Antiochus Epiphanes was an "abomination that made desolate"; but Christ did not view that as the final fulfillment of Dan 9:27; there was to be a final abomination that would result in the total destruction of the city and temple. In the same manner, whatever "Antichrist" may have appeared in the historical church, the ultimate fulfillment might indeed be something far more terrible. As Sanner thought, "Jesus was seeing in the demise of the Holy City a picture of later judgments, and finally the end of all things."[38]Let him that readeth understand ... This repeated admonition from the great passage in Daniel was not a statement by that prophet, but a statement of God through that prophet, and directed to him primarily that he should concentrate upon thoroughly understanding the vision and accurately reporting it. So here; these are not the words of Mark at all, but the words of Jesus paraphrasing Daniel's prophecy and indicating that careful concentration and study of the prophecy is demanded. Failure to obey this injunction has led to the mistaken view that Christ understood the overthrow of Jerusalem and the Second Advent to be simultaneous. Even in Jesus' words, as Mark recorded them, "There is discernible a certain restraint, which leaves room for the possibility that the impending ruin of Jerusalem may be followed by other crises before the End comes";[39] but in Daniel a very long time, equivalent to the "times of the Gentiles," is plainly stated as following the abominations that accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem. Jesus' appeal to that prophecy, in context, shows clearly that he did not view the event of 70 A.D. and the final coming as simultaneous. The critical scholars could have seen this if they had not been blinded by the prejudice that these words "Let him that readeth, etc." are an exclamation by Mark, slavishly "copied" by Matthew! There has been nothing that ever came out of radical criticism quite as ridiculous as such a view. Christ thought of his hearers constantly as "readers" of God's word, another instance of it being found in the question he asked of a certain lawyer, "What is written in the law? how readest thou?" (Luke 10:26). [27] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 402. [28] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 198. [29] Earle McMillan, op. cit., p. 157. [30] Tom U. Fauntleroy, a private manuscript (Paducah, Kentucky, 1974). [31] J. E. H. Thompson, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), p. 276. [32] Ibid., p. 269. [33] Josephus, op. cit., p. 758. [34] Ibid., p. 746. [35] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 199. [36] Josephus, op. cit., p. 702. [37] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 402. [38] A. Elwood Sanner. op. cit., 5:383. [39] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 402. Verse 15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down, nor enter in, to take anything out of his house: and let him that is in the field not return back to take his coat.These verses were primarily meant to stimulate haste in the Christian community who, upon seeing the armies about the city, were commanded to flee to the mountains. Housetop not come down ... This means that one on the housetop should not come down to take anything out, but that he should come down and flee without hesitation to the mountains. Verse 17 But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that it be not in the winter.The compassion of the Saviour who foresaw the suffering and hardship, especially upon mothers, in the coming disaster, shines in his exclamation here. And pray that it be not in winter ... Their prayers in this were answered, for the siege reached its climax in the spring and summer, the fall of the city coming on August 10,70 A.D. Verse 19 For those days shall be tribulation, such as there hath not been the like from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never shall be.The tribulation that befell Jerusalem was as great as any disaster ever known, some eleven hundred thousand of the population being butchered by the sword.[40] But even so great a disaster is only a prophecy of the far greater thing that shall come at the End. Cranfield agreed that "The thought here is eschatological, the final tribulation of history being in view."[41][40] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 704. [41] C. E. B. Cranfield, op cit., p. 404. Verse 20 And except the Lord had shortened the days, no flesh would have been saved; but for the elect's sake, whom he chose, he shortened the days.The elect's sake ... These were Christians, "whom he chose," not through some immutable decree, or capricious election before all time and eternity, but through the gospel. God chose and elected the people who would receive and adore the Christ, obey his gospel, and accept God's forgiveness. No one was excluded by such an election, each man deciding for himself whether he would come into the community of "the elect" or continue with the rebellious. He shortened the days ... The use of the past tense, both by Christ and by Mark, is prophetic, speaking of that which God has decreed for the future as being already done. How this shortening was accomplished is not exactly known. Sanner wrote, "Impelled by matters of pressing personal concern, the Roman generals hastened back to Italy."[42] Some of the events that might have entered into their breaking off of the Jewish war without the total destruction of the whole nation were: (1) disturbances in Gaul that interfered with the campaign of Vespasian; (2) the death of Nero plunged Rome into war as Otho and Vitellius each sought to be emperor; (3) Vespasian was declared emperor by his soldiers, their verdict being final, due to the might of the military; (4) Vespasian returned to Rome as emperor, and (5) his son Titus concluded the siege. ENDNOTE: [42] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 384. Verse 21 And then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is the Christ; or, Lo, there; believe it not: for there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show signs and wonders, that they may lead astray, if possible, the elect. But take ye heed: behold, I have told you all things beforehand.Although Mark 13:14-23 are principally concerned with the predicted destruction of Jerusalem, Mark 13:14, particularly, has strong overtones applicable to the final judgment. Likewise here there are strong indications that the same prevalence of impostors and the deceptions perpetrated by the Lord's enemies will occur near the end of probation. False prophets and their lying miracles shall proliferate, requiring that "the elect" shall study to avoid deception. There was never more necessity for such an admonition than at the present time. And how shall "the elect" avoid being deceived? Their only hope is to accept and believe the Holy Bible, a hope made more difficult by the fulminations of the devil against it. Satan's emissaries are identified quite easily by their invariable efforts to discredit or destroy the word of God. Verse 24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light.THE OF THE ENDAfter that tribulation ... Not "after THE tribulation," as if this had been an apocalypse, but after the destruction of Jerusalem. The sun shall be darkened, and the moon ... Some have construed these words as a metaphorical reference to the covering of the Sun of righteousness, so as to reduce and darken the light, accomplished by the devices of wicked men and to the failure of the church (the moon) to shine any more as God intended by reflecting the true Light that came into the world. Of course, such could be the meaning; but it seems to this interpreter that such an event would compromise the promise that "the gates of hell" shall not prevail against God's church. Therefore, the view here is that the center of our solar system will fail at the time of the end, involving as a result the failure also of the moon. If the sun was darkened at Calvary, why not again at the Second Coming? Verse 25 And the stars shall be falling from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens shall be shaken.These words too are taken to be a strong metaphor for the fall of mighty princes and rulers; but, since it is a good rule of interpretation that the secondary fulfillment of prophecy greatly exceeds in scope and significance the first fulfillment; and since, in the first fulfillment of this chapter, many notable princes and rulers among both the Romans and the Jews fell, it is the conviction here that something far more is prophesied of the end of all things. Regarding the quibble that "stars cannot fall," it need only be remarked that if our earth was suddenly blasted out of its orbit, they would certainly appear to fall. Moreover God has promised a second time to "shake" this earth in the sense of removing it (Hebrews 12:26). We should believe God's promise and construe the words here as a reference to cataclysmic future events incapable of description by finite men. In this connection, see 2 Peter 3:8-13. Bickersteth's comment is pertinent: The powers may here mean those great unseen forces of nature by which the universe is held in equipoise. When the Creator wills it, these powers shall be shaken. "The pillars of heaven tremble" (Job 26:1); "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll" (Isaiah 34:4). As the end of the world approaches, the elements will quiver and tremble.[43]ENDNOTE: [43] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 201. Verse 26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.That this is a literal factual statement of what Christ promised and the holy apostles believed to be true is undeniable. Writing a full generation after the resurrection of Christ, Mark could not thus have quoted Jesus as referring to any ordinary spiritual event. The end of the age and the second coming of the Son of God are promised here. Verse 27 And then shall he send forth the angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.The angels ... are always associated with the final judgment in the New Testament (Matthew 13:41; Matthew 13:49; 2 Thessalonians 1:7, etc.). Elect from the four winds ... This is an idiom meaning "from everywhere." Uttermost part of earth ... heaven ... That both earth and heaven are mentioned here as places from which God will gather the elect is remarkable, recalling Paul's words: "All things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth" (Ephesians 1:10). Verse 28 Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh.THE LESSON FROM THE FIG TREEThe conclusion to be drawn from observance of the fig tree is stated in the next verse. In the realm of nature, the budding of trees and the appearance of the foliage have the invariable meaning that the summer is not very far away. Verse 29 Even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that he (Greek, it) is nigh, even at the doors.He is nigh ... By this rendition the translators evidently understood this to be a reference to the Son of man, which is surely indicated by the masculine pronoun; but the Greek word in this place, as also in Matthew 24:33, is "it," not "he." This facilitates the application of the fig tree parallel to both events, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Advent. But just how can the latter event be "nigh"? Its near approach shall be indicated by the appearance of the conditions described in this chapter as being antecedent to it; and the application of the words "it is nigh" to both events does not mean they were to occur simultaneously. Of course there is a sense in which the Second Advent is always "nigh." As Cranfield put it: If we realize that the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection-Ascension, on the one hand, and the Parousia (Second Coming), on the other, belong essentially together and are in a real sense one Event, one divine Act, being held apart only by the mercy of God who desires to give men opportunity for faith and repentance, then we can see that in a very real sense the latter is always imminent now that the former has happened. It was, and still is, true to say that the Parousia is at hand and indeed this, so far from being an embarrassing mistake on the part either of Jesus or of the early Church, is an essential part of the Christian faith. Ever since the Incarnation, men have been living in the last days.[44]ENDNOTE: [44] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 408. Verse 30 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall mot pass away, until all these things be accomplished.This generation ... has two meanings. First, it means that group of people alive at any given time on the earth; this first meaning, as should have been expected, applies to the first event of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple and the city, which, right on schedule, occurred while many who were alive when Christ uttered these words were still alive. Second, it means a strain of people, in this case the Jewish people (this understanding of the word going all the way back to Jerome).[45]Logically, this secondary meaning of the word applies to the second event predicted, namely the end of time. So understood, it simply means that the Jewish people shall not perish until the summation of all things, a fact also categorically affirmed by Paul in Romans 11:25. The continued existence of Israel, therefore, despite the avowed efforts of mighty rulers to annihilate that people, is a fulfillment of this prophecy. ENDNOTE: [45] Ibid., p. 409. Verse 31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.Heaven and earth shall pass away ... This is an affirmation by Christ that the physical removal of heaven and earth was envisioned by the preceding prophecy. Christ was clearly talking about the cataclysmic destruction of the earth and its environment (at least), a fact properly understood by the apostles and mentioned in their writings, as for example, in 2 Peter 3:8-13, etc. This is also a prophecy that the words of Christ "shall not pass away." Even the most diligent efforts of radical, unbelieving scholars to discredit the gospels have an opposite effect; because, if they truly believed that the words of Christ were not true, there is no power on earth that could induce them to waste a lifetime of employment on the study and criticism of his words. The wrath of man still praises God. The words of the Lord have not passed away, nor shall they ever pass away until all shall be fulfilled. Verse 32 But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.Commenting on this verse, John Wesley said that as a man, "Christ was no more omniscient than omnipresent."[46] Such is an oversimplification, however, because there are many examples of Jesus' omniscience. From this, we conclude that when Christ "emptied himself" (Philippians 2:7); he emptied himself of some phases of omniscience and not of others. As Erdman expressed it, "Of that (the day and hour mentioned in this verse), he who became a man and emptied himself, is voluntarily ignorant."[47] Bickersteth, however, has the most satisfactory view of this, saying: The eternal Son, as God, knows perfectly the day and hour; but as man, and as God's messenger to men, he did not know it so as to be able to reveal it to men. As an ambassador, he only communicated those things committed to him.[48]"The full reality of the incarnation involved such ignorance on the part of Jesus during his earthly life";[49] and there is nothing any harder to understand here than inLuke 2:52, where it is written that Jesus advanced in "wisdom and stature." As Barnes said, "He had a human nature; and, as man, his knowledge must be finite, for the faculties of the human soul are not infinite."[50] That Christ did indeed know all the future had just been proved by the accurate prophecy of the destruction of a city, and this binds us to the conclusion that whatever was unknown to the Son was unknown to him by his own choice of not knowing. [46] John Wesley, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1972), en loco. [47] Charles R. Erdman, The Gospel according to Mark (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966), p. 197. [48] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 202. [49] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 411. [50] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1955), p. 379. Verse 33 Take ye heed, watch, and pray: for ye know not when the time is. TO This duty of watchfulness extends to all Christians of all ages. Mark's brief summary of this exhortation naturally leads one to think of the three parables on this topic recorded in Matthew 25. Verse 34 It is as when a man, sojourning in another country, having left his house, and given authority to his servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch.Nothing in this paragraph should be construed as a promise that the Lord would return within that lifetime; Jesus' words a moment earlier were a sufficient warning against such a view. The element of uncertainty on the part of the servants and the porter as to when the master of the house would return is the factor stressed. Verse 35 Watch therefore: for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at cockcrowing, or in the morning.The Jews had for long recognized three watches of the night, lasting from sundown to 10:00 P.M., and from then to 1:00 A.M., and from then until sunrise. But, with the establishment of the Roman empire in Judea, these had been changed to the four watches mentioned by Jesus in this admonition: even ending at nine; midnight ending at twelve; cock-crowing ending at three; and morning ending at six. Verse 36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.This is the order of the day for all ages of Christianity. The onward rush of mighty events, the sweep of earth's populations through history, the bloody conflicts as great nations make the sword the arbiter of their destinies, the confusion, bitterness, and struggle of disciples in all times, the terrible apostasy, the rule of materialism, the secularization of humanity, rampant wickedness of all kinds, increasing indifference, malignant unbelief the progression of the church through history will be one of continuing challenges and battles; and the constant need throughout time to the judgment is, for both the church and the Christian, ! J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter ThirteenThe Destruction of the Temple Foretold,Mark 13:1-37 Occasion of the Prediction, Mark 13:1-4. (Matthew 24:1-3; Luke 21:5-7) Mark 13:1. as he went out.—See the note on Matthew 24:1. Mark 13:1-2. Seest thou.—In this passage we see a striking instance of the difference between the style of Mark and that of Matthew. Mark is more specific, saying that "one of his disciples" said "Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here," and that Jesus "said to him, Seest thou," etc.; while Matthew, in his more indefinite manner, says that "his disciples" called his attention to the buildings, and that he said "See ye not all these things?" (Comp. Matthew 24:1-2, and see the note 11:2.) Mark 13:3. Peter and James.—Here again Mark is more specific than Matthew; for the latter says, "the disciples came to him privately," while Mark states that it was "Peter, James, John, and Andrew." This is one time that Andrew was in company with the "chosen three," when they were apart from the other disciples; but even now he is separated, in the arrangement of the names, from his brother Peter, and put last, as being the least conspicuous of the four. over against the temple.—These words, appended to the statement that Jesus "sat on the Mount of Olives," have been construed as indicating to Gentile readers that the Mount of Olives was "over against the temple." But the Mount of Olives extended north and south as far as the walls of the entire city, and we think the true design of the words, "over against the temple," was to designate the particular part of the mountain on which he sat— that part immediately opposite the temple, from which he could therefore have a full view of the temple while discoursing on its future destruction. Mark 13:4. when... what.—As in the report of Matthew, the question of the disciples contains two distinct points of inquiry; first, "When shall these things be?" and second, "What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?" Jesus answers the latter much more definitely than the former, as will be seen from the following paragraphs. False Christs, Wars, Earthquakes, and Famines, Mark 13:5-8. (Matthew 24:4-8; Luke 21:8-11) Mark 13:5. lest any man deceive you.—The false Christs who were to come, while properly viewed, would furnish proof of the prophetical powers of Jesus, and thus confirm the faith of the disciples in him; but if not thus viewed they would be likely to deceive; hence this warning. Mark 13:6-8. many shall come.—On the historical fulfillment of the predictions contained in these verses see the two paragraphs under Matthew 24:4-8. Persecution of the Disciples, Mark 13:9-13. (Matthew 24:9-14; Luke 21:12-19) Mark 13:9. take heed to yourselves.—The disciples were not only to watch carefully for the preceding signs, but to keep watch on themselves, lest the temptations which are about to be named should overcome them. to councils.—The predictions contained in verses 9-13 have an almost exact verbal parallel in Matthew 10:17-22, where all of them are found except the one in verse 11, that "the gospel must first be published among all nations." In that place Jesus was addressing his disciples concerning their future labors as apostles. It is not a mistake in Mark to reproduce these predictions here; for doubtless Jesus himself reproduced them because they were as well suited to this discourse as to that. This appears not only from the fact that Mark quotes them as being uttered on this occasion, but from the fact that Matthew, in the parallel paragraph, quotes language that is manifestly but an abbreviation of what Mark quotes more fully. He quotes, "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you; and you shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake." (Matthew 24:9.) the gospel... published.—For remarks on this prediction, see the note under Matthew 24:14; and for an exposition of the other clauses of this paragraph, see under Matthew 10:17-22 Matthew 24:9. The Last Sign, and the Time for Flight, Mark 13:14-20. (Matthew 24:15-22; Luke 21:20-24) This paragraph is almost identical, both in thought and in verbiage, with the parallel in Matthew, where see the notes. Other Warnings against False Christs, Mark 13:21-23. (Matthew 24:23-28) All of this paragraph, and more on the same subject, is given by Matthew. See the parallel for comments. Coming of the Son of Man, Mark 13:24-27. (Matthew 24:29-31; Luke 21:25-28) Mark 13:24. in those days.—Matthew indicates the time of the second coming by the expression, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days; Mark, by the words, "In those days;" while Luke has at this point no note of time. The two expressions used by Matthew and Mark are equivalents, and they are alike indefinite. For their meaning, and for comments on the other items of the prediction, see the parallel in Matthew. Mark 13:27. of the earth... of heaven.—The singular expression, "from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven," is taken from the ancient conception of the earth as a vast plain extending in length from east to west, and in width from north to south, and terminating where earth and sky come together. From the utmost part of the earth, in one direction, to the remotest part of the sky where it touches the earth on the other, is the meaning of the expression. Matthew employs as an equivalent expression, "from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."Parable of the Fig-tree, Mark 13:28-31. (Matthew 24:32-35; Luke 21:29-33) Mark 13:29. shall see these things.—The meaning of this parable is fully set forth in the notes on the parallel in Matthew, and we might content ourselves with referring the reader to those notes; but Mark's application of the parable furnishes an independent argument in support of the interpretation there given, and at the risk of some repetition in thought, we present this argument. In the words of verse 29, "when ye shall see these things, know that it is nigh, even at the door," the pronoun "it" is not expressed in the original, but understood; and the antecedent of the pronoun is either "Son of man," in verse 27, or the noun "coming," in the expression "coming of the Son of man." It is more reasonable, as we have shown in our note on the parallel verse in Matthew, to refer it to "Son of man," and to render the clause, "know that he is nigh, even at the door." Whether it be "he" or his "coming," however, the meaning is the same. The statement of verse 29, then, when expanded, is this: "When you shall see these things come to pass, know that he (the Son of man) is nigh, even at the door." In this statement, the events designated as "these things" are distinguished from his coming, so that when they saw "these things," his coming would still be in the future, but they would know him to be near. But his coming had been a part, the last part of the preceding series of predictions, and consequently we must construe the expression "these things" as confined to things mentioned that shall precede his coming. This being the case, when Jesus immediately adds, "This generation shall not pass till all these things be done," we must understand "these things" with the same limitation as before; that is, as not including, but as excluding the coming of the Son of man. All the things predicted in the previous discourse, then, except this last event, were to be done before that generation passed away; and when they were all done the coming of the Son of man was to be still in the future. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Notwithstanding the seeming indestructible form of the building, Jesus predicted that the time was coming wlien it not only would be wrecked, but the destruction would be so great that all the stones would be scattered out over the ground. 3 The mount of Olives was near Jerusalem (Acts 1:12), and Jesus went from the temple to that place and sat down. The usual trio of disciples, Peter, James and John, was joined by Andrew, and they asked Jesus privately for information. 4 The subject matter of this and the remaining verses of the chapter is the same as that in Matthew 24. It has been dealt with in much detail at that place and the reader is urged to consult those comments. In view of saving space, the comments in the present chapter will be brief and the reader may supplement the information obtained in this chapter with the more exhaustive remarks in Matthew. 5 The false prophets would purposely confuse the destruction of Jerusalem with the second coming of Christ, and he warned his disciples to beware. 6 It was known that a great person to be hailed as the Christ was predicted by the prophets, and these impostors would take advantage of the disturbed conditions to make a claim to the prophecy before the readers of the Old Testament. 7 These wars were the conflicts going on in the northern parts of Palestine and Syria between the Romans and Jews and other people. 8 The Roman Empire was made up of various small nations, and they were set in motion of war activities against each other by the general disturbance between the Romans and Jews. Beginnings of sorrows is commented upon in Matthew 24:8. 9 They shall deliver you up refers to the false teachers who were to come among the people. When the disciples resisted they were persecuted and put to death. 0 By the time the wars ended in the destruction of Jerusalem, the Gospel was preached in all the countries of the world. (Romans 10:18.) 1 The apostles were assured of moral and. spiritual victory even though they were brought before the courts. The things necessary to be said would be given them by inspiration from the Father. 2 These family troubles would be caused by the fact that some of the members would be true followers of Christ and others would not. (Matthew 10:34-37.) 3 All men would hate the true disciples for the same reason that their own family relations would turn against them. Endure unto the end means to the end of the turmoil caused by the Jewish wars. 4 Abomination of desolation means the Roman army that was a heathen group. Standing where it ought not refers to the territory of Jerusalem which was considered as holy ground. Flee to the mountains. (See Matthew 24:16.) 5 Houses had flat roofs and the buildings joined one against the other. The roofs were used in much the same way that a veranda is today. If a man was on the roof of his house when he saw the Roman army, he should go from one roof to another until he reached the wall of the city and then get down and flee. 6 The man in the field should not wait to recover anything. 7 A woman in the condition described here could not travel very well. 8 Winter would be a difficult time to travel, hence the prayer suggested. 9 See particularly the long historical quotation at Matthew 24:21. 0 The elect means the people who had elected or chosen to serve the Lord. For their sake the Lord was going to bring an end to the Jewish wars. 1 The scene is changed here and Jesus is talking about his second coming. The disturbances of the Jewish war about Jerusalem would give a pretext for the false prophets to say it was the end of the world, and would announce some certain person to be the Christ who was predicted by the prophets. 2 Signs and wonders would be in the form of some kind of trickery, and even the elect (verse 20) would be deceived were they not warned beforehand. 3 This verse is to emphasize the warning already given. 5 This paragraph is explained in detail at Matthew 24:29. 6 Then means that after the long period of the Dark Ages which is the subject of the preceding paragraph, the next great event which the Lord was considering in this broad space of centuries was the second coming of the Son of man. 7 This verse denotes the day of judgment, when the heavenly reapers, the angels, would gather up the people of God from all over the world. 8 Jesus interrupts his main subject to make an illustration. People judge the nearness of summer by the appearance of the fig tree. 9 The presence of the Roman army and other conditions would indicate that the things predicted of Jerusalem were about to be fulfilled. 0 The original word for generation is defined, "all of the people living at one time." The persons living when Jesus was speaking would not all be dead before these things (the destruction of Jerusalem) would be fulfilled. 1 It was intended that the universe was to pass away,. but the sayings of Christ were to hold firm until they had been fulfilled. 2 The verse corresponding with this in Matthew 24:36 says nothing about the Son directly. Our present verse specifically mentions him and hence the comments here are to be more decisive than the ones at the former passage. But whether the Father has seen fit to tell him about it since then is another question. 3 If we are always watchful and living right, it will not matter when he comes, for we will be prepared to meet him with joy. 4 This short parable has the important lesson of the necessity of being faithful to the trust bestowed upon the servants of Christ. 5 The periods named are parts of the 24-hour day when people are usually the least active. That would be the special reason for being watchful. 6 Coning suddenly shows that the second coming of Christ will not be a drawn-out affair. That is taught also in 1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16. 7 The duty of being watchful is on the shoulders of everyone. Verse 1 This and the final two chapters comprise the heart of all that Christianity means. Mark and the other three sacred authors devote more space to the narrative of the arraignment, trials, mockery, suffering, crucifixion, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ than to any other subject. The events and circumstances of this final week of Jesus' ministry are the most important of all human history. Here the decisive battle for human redemption was won; the Seed of Woman bruised the head of the serpent; everlasting righteousness was made available to men in Christ and the moral justification for any further divine toleration of Adam's race was accomplished. On Calvary, and in the events leading up to it, Satan threw in his last reserves, committed his total strength, and brought evil to its mightiest crescendo at the cross, where the tides of moral shame and darkness reached their all-time flood. The sufferings of the Son of God were such as to chill the stoutest heart; and, when it is considered that a single word from Christ could have annihilated his foes, the marvel of ages is that he endured it all to redeem fallen and sinful men. Oh Christ, blessed is thy Holy Name! Now after two days was the feast of the passover and the unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him with subtlety, and kill him: for they said, Not during the feast, lest haply there should be a tumult of the people. (Mark 14:1-2) THE PLOT OF THE CHIEF PRIESTSClearly, the chief priests did not wish to have a public execution of Christ during the feast, the popularity of our Lord with the masses being far too great to risk such a thing. How then did it come to pass otherwise? As the anti-type of the passover lamb, it was fitting that the Lord should be sacrificed at the Passover season, as the Father's plan required, and as Jesus himself prophesied (Matthew 26:1-5). The Lord, not the priests, was the architect of the crucifixion. Take him with subtlety ... They intended to assassinate Jesus in a gangland type murder. The religious leaders of Israel had, in such a purpose, descended to a record low plane of immorality. From its placement, both here and in Matthew, the next event related seems to have triggered the betrayal by Judas and a dramatic change of strategy by the priests. Verse 3 And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster cruse of ointment of pure nard very costly: and she brake the cruse and poured it over his head.JESUS WAS FOR HIS BURIALThis is a second anointing of Jesus, the other being recorded in Luke 7:37-50; but "it is absurd to represent the two anointings as the same."[1] Simon, a leper had been healed by Jesus; but he retained the name to distinguish him from other Simons, that being a very common name. Simon evidently made this dinner in honor of the Lord. A woman having an alabaster cruse ... This was Mary, the sister of Lazarus and Martha. All of the synoptics refrained from any publicity for this family, perhaps out of respect for the desire of the family for privacy following the resurrection of Lazarus. Such a conclusion is mandatory from the facts: (1) of the Lord's prophecy that this deed would be an everlasting memorial for Mary; (2) which would have required publishing her name; and yet (3) her name was conspicuously omitted until the publication of John. For a number of critical questions arising from variations in the sacred accounts, see under parallels in Matthew and John in this series of commentaries. ENDNOTE: [1] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), p. 187, footnote. Verse 4 But there were some that had indignation among themselves, saying, To what purpose hath this waste of the ointment been made.A number of the apostles were indignant, but it was Judas who became the spokesman of their disagreement and uttered the question here (John 12:4-6). To a certain type of mind, any money lavished upon spiritual and religious projects is nothing but "waste." Verse 5 For this ointment might have been sold for about three hundred shillings, and given to the poor. And they murmured against her.There is a glimpse here of the concern that Jesus and the Twelve had for the poor; because, judging from this verse and from John 13:29, it is clear that help of the poor was a project frequently engaged in by the sacred company. The value of the ointment is seen in the fact that the shilling, worth approximately 17 cents, was considered to be an adequate day's wages in that era (Matthew 20:9). They murmured ... Their attitude may be expressed as indignation and frustration that so great a sum had been "wasted" in a purely emotional gesture toward the Lord. However, Mary's gift had a practical value that Jesus would shortly explain. Also, there was the providential use of the incident to bring about the fulfillment of the prophecies regarding the betrayal by Judas, etc. Verse 6 But Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me.She hath wrought a good work ... The definition of what Christ considers "good work" is evident here. A spontaneous, lavish gift, poured out upon the Lord's body, as given by Mary, has its counterpart in the same manner of giving to the church, the Lord's spiritual body. Money given to the church and prompted by motives of love and spirituality may be classified as "good work." This cannot mean that other types of service do not also qualify for such a commendation; but it does mean that the people who pay the bills are also "doing something." Verse 7 For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them good: but me ye have not always.Whensoever ye will ... These words are found only in Mark. They show that it was no part of Jesus' purpose to restrict or prohibit help of the poor, a duty always capable of fulfillment through the projected existence of the poor throughout the ages. Human nature being what it is, there is no system, environment, or government with the power to eliminate poverty. Commendable as efforts to do so assuredly are, they invariably find frustration in the terminator of human nature. Verse 8 She hath done what she could; she hath anointed my body beforehand for the burying.We may not certainly know if the purpose of preparing Jesus' body for the tomb was the motive that prompted Mary, or if this was the use to which Christ assigned her glorious gift. In either view, such was indeed its holy purpose. Verse 9 And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of her for a memorial of her.This verse requires important deductions: (1) Christ did not believe that the end of all things would occur at some near time in the future, this verse envisaging a worldwide proclamation of the gospel throughout the ages. (2) That this memorial "of her" intrinsically demanded the publication of her name is evident; and therefore the silence of the synoptics regarding it must be accounted for by supposing that it was deliberately concealed for a long while afterward, perhaps during the lifetime of Lazarus and his sisters. John, writing long afterward, supplied the name of Mary (John 12:3). (3) This has the effect of all three synoptics corroborating the gospel of John regarding the resurrection of Lazarus from the dead, their silence regarding the name of Mary having no other reasonable explanation except upon the premise that such a resurrection had indeed occurred and that the privacy of the family demanded her name's omission in the earlier gospels. One may read a library of comments and find no other reasonable explanation of such an omission (in the face of the Saviour's command) except that inferred here. JUDAS' Stung by Jesus' rebuke, the traitor, already out of sympathy with the spiritual nature of Christ's kingdom, decided to take matters into his own hands. Verse 10 And Judas Iscariot, he that was one of the twelve went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver him unto them.With a member of the group of the apostles in their power, the chief priests immediately revised their strategy and opted for a public trial and execution, thinking, no doubt, that Judas would swear to anything they suggested. This must have looked like a windfall situation to Jesus' foes; but it was exactly the opposite, proving to be the very thing that spread the whole ugly record of their shameful campaign against Christ upon the open records of all subsequent history. That he might deliver him ... With the aid of Judas, they could look forward to a positive identification of the Lord, and they readily consented to pay for his services. Verse 11 And they, when they heard it, were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently deliver him unto them.Mark made no mention of the exact time of payment, but the fact of Judas' returning it that same night shows that there was no long time-lapse, perhaps only time enough for the priests to be sure that Judas would keep his part of the bargain. Regarding the amount and disposition of the thirty pieces of silver and the fulfillment of prophecy connected with this incident, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:14. And they were glad ... Thinking they were then completely in charge of events, they changed their strategy from that of secret assassination to judicial murder. The strategy of the priests required that Christ be seized when the multitudes were not present; and it was natural that Judas would have counted upon his knowledge of some rendezvous on the slopes of Mount Olivet where Jesus might be spending the night. Verse 12 And on the first day of the unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest eat the passover? On the first day of unleavened bread ... The Jewish Passover always began at sundown on the 14th of Nisan, the following day, the 15th of Nisan, actually being the Passover day. The first day of unleavened bread was the preceding day, the 13th of Nisan (beginning at sundown on the 12th of Nisan). Since Christ died at the same hour the paschal lambs were being slain, that is, at 3:00 p.m. on the 14th, the event Mark mentioned here took place on the afternoon of daytime Nisan 13. Of course the meal that followed those preparations took place after sunset (the beginning of a new day by Jewish reckoning) and therefore on Nisan 14. For a detailed chronological list of events comprising this exceedingly important week, see my Commentary on Luke under Luke 22:2. In the Hebrew method of counting time, the Last Supper, all events of the long night following and the crucifixion itself all occurred on the same day! Where wilt thou that we eat the passover ...? From this, it has long been alleged that the meal of the Last Supper was actually eaten on the Passover, Nisan 15th; but there is no way this can be correct. The soldiers were ordered to break Jesus' legs to prevent his being on the cross upon that holy day; and, if the Lord had eaten the passover meal the night before, no such precaution would have occurred. Therefore, the Last Supper was called by Mark "the passover," because it took the place of the passover and so nearly resembled it. See article below. WAS THE LAST SUPPER ON THE ? The answer to this question must be in the negative for the following reasons: (1) Christ was taken down from the cross and buried before sundown on the day the Passover officially began, that being the purpose of the breaking of the legs of the thieves and of the order that Jesus should have received the same treatment. (2) Note that it was not Christ, but the disciples, who mentioned eating the passover, and that Christ referred rather to "keeping" it, a far different thing (Matthew 26:18). Christ kept it by the solemn observance of the Last Supper, a full 24 hours before the actual passover. (3) All of the gospels represent Jesus and his disciples as "reclining" for the meal; and, if it was indeed the passover supper, their actions would have been contrary to the commandment of God that it should be eaten "standing up" (Exodus 12:11). It is true, of course, that the chief priests of Israel had changed God's ordinance and that in the times of Christ it was customary to eat the passover lying down, or reclining; but how can a child of God believe that the Son of God consented to such a categorical contradiction of sacred law? Would Jesus have been any more inclined to accept their traditions in this matter than he was to allow their traditions in regard to the sabbath? This student cannot believe that the Christ accepted any such change by the Pharisees in God's law. The unanimous record of the gospels to the effect that the Last Supper was eaten in a reclining position was their way of saying that it was not the passover at all. (4) There was no lamb eaten at the Last Supper, at least none being mentioned; and, if there had been, it is inconceivable that the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world would not have mentioned it. (5) Mark's statement here that the meal was "on the first day of unleavened bread" is not the same as saying it was on the Passover. As Dummelow said: In strict usage "the first day of unleavened bread" meant the first day of the Passover festival, which began with the paschal supper. But it is possible that the day before this, when the paschal lambs were sacrificed, and all leaven was expelled from the houses, was popularly spoken of as "the first day of the unleavened bread."[2]It is the conviction here that this popular usage of the expression was made in Mark's record here. Only by contradicting the Gospel of John can anything else be maintained. (6) Christ's death at 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon before the Passover began with the paschal supper after sundown that same day corresponded with the time of sacrificing the paschal lambs, as required of the anti-type fulfilling the type. (7) The fact of the temple guard, accompanied by the priests and soldiers supplied by Pilate, bearing arms on the night Jesus was betrayed (after the Last Supper), proves that it was not Passover. They would never have engaged in such a mission, bearing arms, on such a holy day as the Passover. (8) Joseph of Arimathea and others would not have prepared spices and have taken the body of Jesus to the tomb on Passover. (9) There is no way that an apostle could have referred to the day Jesus was crucified as "The Preparation" (John 19:31), if it had been actually the Passover. From these and many other considerations, it is evident that the day spoken of by Mark in verse 12 was after sundown of Nisan 13, counted the 14th. ENDNOTE: [2] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Holy Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 709. Verse 13 And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.These two disciples were Peter and John (Luke 22:8), and here is evident the fact that Mark never mentioned Peter any more than was necessary, a reticence which must be traced to Peter himself, and which also explains the apostolic modesty also evidenced in the gospel of John. Bearing a pitcher of water ... That this pitcher of water was in some way connected with the observance of the passover meal, and that the man bearing it was doing so in such a connection is unreasonable. If indeed there was such a "pitcher carrying" in connection with the passover meal, there would have been thousands of others doing the same thing, and such a "sign" would have been useless. Those who find here a proof that this was Passover find what is not in it. Verse 14 And wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the master of the house, The Teacher saith, Where is my guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?Eat the passover ... Christ, in this instruction, accommodated himself to the language of the disciples who had brought up the subject. Tradition has it that this was the home of John Mark, a not impossible thing, in view of Acts 12. Verse 15 And he will himself show you a large upper room furnished and ready: and there make ready for us. And the disciples went forth and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the passover.They made ready the passover ... These were preparations necessary to the observance of the feast, but only certain of the total preparations were made, the proof of this being in the fact that during the ensuing meal, when Judas left, following Christ's commandment, "What thou doest do quickly," "No man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him, for some thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus said unto him, Buy what things we have need of for the feast (the passover)" (John 13:27-29). Therefore, the meal that followed that evening was not the passover meal, for the excellent reason that there were still some things needed, and as yet not even purchased, that would have been required for the passover. Verse 17 And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve. And as they sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth with me.And as they sat ... The Greek word here is "reclined." And were eating ... Mark did not say, "eating the passover," but eating, that is, having a meal together the night before the paschal supper, in a room where preparations were only partially complete for the solemn beginning of Passover festival the next night. One of you shall betray me ... John has a full account of the conversations and events leading up to this, but Mark abbreviated it. Judas, of course, was the one indicated. Regarding the prophetic identification of the traitor, see parallels in John and Matthew in this series. Verse 19 They began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I?How pathetic is the weakness of men! Every one of the Twelve felt some possibility within his own soul that led to the question, Is it I? Every man feels this undertow of evil, and cannot deny the possibility of betraying the Lord, such thoughts always issuing in sorrow, as was the case here. Verse 20 And he said, It is one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the dish.Of all the Twelve, only Judas fulfilled the dual qualifications of being trusted (carrying the bag) and sitting next to Jesus at the table; and, in the light of this, Psalms 41:9 prophesied the exact identity of the traitor. Verse 21 For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been born.All theories regarding the possible salvation of Judas are frustrated by the Saviour's pronouncement here. That fate which is worse than never having been born cannot, by any device, be made equivalent to eternal life. Also, there is the necessary deduction from this word of the Master that the fate of the wicked is something other than mere annihilation, but something far more dreadful. Verse 22 And as they were eating, he took bread, and when he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take ye: this is my body.THE OF THE LORD'S SUPPERIn context, here was a mighty declaration of the godhead of Jesus. On the morrow, he would die; but on that night he instituted a memorial looking to the centuries afterward, a memorial in which his body and blood were offered in the symbols chosen as the soul's true food. The full meaning of this sacred memorial was to be more fully discernible in the gospel of John; but here the basic facts of it were clear enough. Verse 23 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave to them: and they all drank of it. The gospel records leave no doubt of the perpetual obligation imposed upon his followers by this sublime memorial, composed not of stones, or towers, but of bread and wine, such humble, commonplace articles being transmuted by the Saviour's employment of them into the most sacred symbols of Christianity and the vicarious sufferings of the Son of God. Note that not bread alone, nor the cup alone, but both together comprise the privilege and duty of them that follow Jesus. No man can be true to Christ and faithless with regard to observance of the Lord's Supper. Verse 24 And he said unto them, This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many.The covenant ... means "the new covenant," that which supplanted the institution of Moses; and concerning which, Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10 give a full discussion. Christ's is the blood which purifies from sin, which is poured out for many, without which there is no remission of sins. The very fact of Christ's associating these symbols of the Lord's Supper with so sacred a thing as his blood is a testimonial of its relevance and importance to all who would be saved. Verse 25 Verily I say unto you, I shall no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.The fruit of the vine ... This designation of the cup after his blessing it proves that it was still what it was before, "the fruit of the vine," and that no transubstantiation had taken place. What Christ did not do is the complete refutation of what it is alleged that men do in this connection. Verse 26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of Olives.When they had sung a hymn ... There is no way to convert the Greek word here rendered "hymn" to "the Hillel," which was the song by the Jewish worshipers at the conclusion of the paschal meal. There is thus no support here for the theory that this was that meal. Verse 27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad.PETER'S DENIAL WAS The Lord was about to foretell the denial of Peter and the flight of the Twelve, but he began by appealing to the prophecy here quoted from Zechariah 13:7. God had revealed himself in the Old Testament under the extensive use of the metaphor of "the shepherd of Israel" (Psalms 23; Ezekiel 16, etc.); but here it was stated that the Shepherd would smite the Shepherd, thus God laid upon himself, in the person of the Son, the iniquity of us all. Inherent in this was the failure of all human support. Verse 28 Howbeit, after I am raised up, I will go before you into Galilee.Christ here went far beyond the detailed prophecies of his Passion and calmly set up an appointment to meet the Twelve in Galilee after the Great Sacrifice had been offered. Nothing in literature, fable, myth, legend, or imagination is worthy to be compared with what Christ promised in this verse. What's more, he did it! Verse 29 But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet will not I.Peter was not alone in rejecting the idea of their failure, for both Mark and Matthew relate how "all the disciples" made the same affirmation of loyalty. What none of them realized was that the source of true spiritual strength had not yet been provided through the death of the Christ, and that it was therefore impossible for them to have stood without that strength. Peter, more vehement than the rest, and, as always, the spokesman, was in the forefront here. Verse 30 And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that thou, today, even this night, before the cock crow twice, shalt deny me thrice.Peter denied Christ three times, later confessing his love three times, as recorded in John. Before the cock crow twice ... is a variation from Matthew's "cock crow," thus giving the skeptics another pseudocon. Matthew referred to the event of the cock-crow, a phenomenon taking place every morning, and Mark had reference to the beginning of a cock-crow, which always starts by one or two roosters leading all the rest. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:34. Matthew did not refer to the number of crowings in a cock-crow. Verse 31 But he spake exceeding vehemently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all.Peter's failure here was in disputing his Lord; there was also an element of overconfidence. For full discussion of the reasons for Peter's denial, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:58. Verse 32 And they come to a place which was named Gethsemane: and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly amazed and was sore troubled.AGONY IN The awful scene of the Saviour's anguish was not viewed by all the Twelve, only Peter, James, and John being the witnesses. Having already seen the transfiguration of Christ, their faith could withstand the shock of that tearful garden, but it might have proved too much for the others at that time; thus, the Lord chose three who would be able to see it and tell others of the sorrow that crushed the Lord that night. Here God laid upon him the iniquity of US all; here it pleased God to bruise him; here the pressure upon him was so great that he would have died under the weight of it had not the angels come to strengthen and support him. Verse 34 And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto death: abide ye here and watch.Jesus did not meet death with the joyful attitude of some of the martyrs, nor in the gay serenity of Socrates, but with overwhelming sorrow, convulsive grief, and with the sweat of blood. Why? (1) Satan was particularly active in the assault upon the Prince of Life (John 12:31), every demonic device in the arsenal of the evil one being employed against the Saviour. (2) Perhaps even more important, there was the burden of human transgression that he bore. God made him to be sin upon our behalf (2 Corinthians 5:21). He bore our sins in his body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24). (3) The Saviour's supernatural knowledge of the fate evil men were bringing upon themselves was complete; and the knowledge that the chosen people, through their leaders, were bringing upon that beloved people the full wrath of Almighty God was a fact of inexpressible horror to Jesus who "had compassion" on the multitudes. Martin Luther said, "No one ever feared death so much as this man!"[3] It was what Jesus knew of death and its cause and consequences that released that awful sorrow within his soul. (4) Before Christ, death involved a separation from God, the most awful part of it for Jesus. In the case of the martyrs, such a separation was no longer a part of death; and as for Socrates, he had none of the knowledge that broke the Saviour's heart that awful night. (5) The temporary triumph of Satan in the act of "bruising" the "Seed of Woman" was also a dreadful thing for Christ. In the wilderness Jesus had met and overcome Satan; but now, Satan had returned with the full complement of his human servants and in his full majesty as the prince of this world. As Barth put it, "The bill was being presented!"[4] In Gethsemane, the prospect of seeing Satan victorious (from the worldly point of view) was utterly repugnant to the Son of God. Strong cryings with tears marked our Saviour's human response to such a repulsive situation (Hebrews 5:7). [3] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 431. [4] Ibid., p. 432. Verse 35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass away from him.The problem of Jesus' overwhelming grief and sorrow, humiliation, and repugnance was brought to the Father in prayer, with the agonizing request that "if possible" the hour might be taken away, "the hour" here being a reference to the approaching crucifixion, called also the "cup." If it were possible ... But are not all things possible with God? Yes! except that the human family had fallen into such a state that only God could redeem them, and that at awful cost to himself. The complete answer to this question cannot be fully known by men; but in the Garden of Gethsemane, it was crystal clear that the death of Christ could not be avoided, short of abandoning the whole project of human salvation; and Christ even considered that (Matthew 26:53). See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:53 ff. Verse 36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee: remove this cup from me: howbeit, not what I will, but what thou wilt.Of course, God could have removed the cup; but to have done so would have enthroned Satan as the Lord of man, and the destruction of all men would have resulted at once. Reading the character of Satan in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, one is compelled to see the destruction of God's human creation as a prime objective of Satan, reaching all the way back to Eden; and, if Christ's redemptive death had been aborted, absolutely nothing would have stood in the way of Satan's total achievement of his goal. See my Commentary on Hebrews, Hebrews 2:14. Howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt ... At such overwhelming cost to himself, the Lord consented to the Father's will, despite the agony within himself. Here, in the garden, the human nature of our Lord was, for a time, in the ascendancy; and the final put-down of the flesh was achieved at the price of the agony detailed in the Gospels. Verse 37 And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou? couldest thou not watch one hour?Simon, who vowed that he would go to prison and to death for Jesus, found that an hour's watch was beyond his strength. More in amazement than in rebuke, it seems, Jesus addressed him as in this verse. Verse 38 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak. The apostles here, sleeping, instead of watching and praying, have had their counterpart in all ages of the church. When temptation comes, it is often too late, because the hours of preparation that should have been made were spent in idleness or sleep. Christ, however, explained their failure as "weakness," and, in a sense, made this excuse for them. Verse 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words.There is no authority for rote prayers here. Jesus indeed used the same words; but, as a comparison with Matthew shows, there was an interval between the three petitions, and also a variation in the Master's phraseology which showed that he had succeeded in bringing his human will into total accordance with the Father's. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:42. Verse 40 And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they knew not what to answer him.The busy affairs of that eventful week had taken their toll of the apostles' strength; they went to sleep at each opportunity. Naturally, they could not defend such lapses on their part. Verse 41 And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough; the hour is come; behold the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.Sleep on now ... has the meaning of "as far as your need to watch with me is concerned, that is over; go ahead and sleep." However, that state of things prevailed only for a moment. The traitor with the armed men, the lanterns, and torches was already coming. Verse 42 Arise, let us be going: behold,, he that betrayeth me is at hand.Arise, let us be going ... Coming so swiftly after "sleep on now," a sudden change is indicated. The traitor was on the way, and Jesus, far from skulking in the darkness, would go out to meet Judas Iscariot! Verse 43 And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.JESUS WAS The arresting party, fully armed, was made up of temple guards and a detachment of soldiers sent by Pilate. The presence of the priests and the guards indicates that it was not Passover. It was forbidden to bear arms on such a day. John added the detail that they carried lanterns and torches. Verse 44 Now he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he; take him and lead him away safely.This act on the part of Judas deserved the everlasting infamy that came of it. What an insult of shame and arrogance it was! Christ identified himself; the traitor's assistance in such an identification was as useless as it was wicked. Verse 45 And when he was come, straightway he came to him, and saith, Rabbi; and kissed him.Kissed him ... The Greek word means "kissed him much," such action being as repulsive as any ever recorded. Verse 46 And they laid hands on him and took him.Why did they not also arrest the apostles? See under Mark 14:50. Verse 47 But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the servant of the high priest, and struck off his ear.This was Peter who struck off the ear of Malchus (John 18:8-11). Peter's being emboldened to do such a thing probably sprang from the devastating effect of Christ's prostration of the whole company of guards and soldiers upon their faces (John 18:6). Thus, the synoptics support the Johannine record by recording an event that would hardly have taken place at all except in connection with the circumstances related more fully in the gospel of John. Verse 48 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords and staves to seize me?Such incongruous and malappropriate actions by the establishment of priests were an index of their fear and hatred of the Lord. When one goes out to take a lamb, it is hardly necessary to recruit the militia. Christ's amazement was further explained by his words in the next verse. Verse 49 I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not: but this is done that the scriptures might be fulfilled.Here is corroboration of the extensive ministry in Jerusalem; and note that this is not at all "a hint" of such a ministry, but a definitive statement that it occurred in dimensions that were fully commensurate with the marvelous deeds and teachings recorded in John. That the scriptures might be fulfilled ... The evil throng carrying out the arrest of Christ were fulfilling Scripture, but they knew it not. It is of singular importance that many of the prophecies fulfilled during that eventful week were fulfilled by the Lord's enemies. As to what Scriptures are meant here, there were many, among themZechariah 13:7; and the next verse shows that Jesus had that one in mind. Verse 50 And they all left him, and fled.Peter's rash attack upon Malchus was rebuked by Jesus, and the excised ear was restored. In the face of his enemies, Jesus proclaimed himself as God, "I AM" (John 18:8); from the sudden outflashing of his divine power, the soldiers faded backward and lay prostrate. Having shown the completeness of his power, the Lord required the arresting group to refrain from taking the Twelve into custody (John 18:8 f), thus revealing the wonder that had just taken place as a work wrought, not upon his own behalf, but upon theirs. The apostles, true to the Lord's prophecy, and perhaps totally bewildered by the complexity of events which they, at that time, only partially understood, forsook him and fled. This action on their part was probably necessary for the preservation of their lives, because there is every reason to believe that the hierarchy would have liked nothing better than to have had the whole group in custody. Verse 51 And a certain young man followed with him, having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body: and they lay hold on him; but he left the linen cloth, and fled naked.These verses, peculiar to Mark, are presumed by many to be a narrative of what happened to Mark himself; and there is general consent that this is the case. It cannot be proved, of course; but the supposition fits all the facts. As to the reason for his inclusion of this incident in a gospel that omits so many weightier matters, it has been alleged that this may be construed as a kind of signature to the Gospel. It is the conviction here, however, that the significance of it lies in the fact that as soon as the arresting group had Jesus in their power they began also to arrest his followers. Certainly, they did lay hold on the young man here; and the parallel fact of their not taking any of the Twelve gives powerful inferential corroboration of the Johannine account of Jesus' forcing an exemption of the apostles from that arrest. Verse 53 And they led Jesus away to the high priest: and there come together with him all the chief priests and the elders and the scribes.JESUS' TRIAL BEFORE THE This was the second of Jesus' six trials, the first having been the arraignment before Annas, perhaps in the same palace where apartments for both Annas and Caiaphas were located around the courtyard. For detailed account of the entire six trials of Jesus, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 26:57 ff. The meeting of the Sanhedrin was probably not at full strength, its more noble members, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, having already withdrawn. Also, such an all-night session of so august a body doubtless found many of their members at home in bed. It may well be doubted that even a quorum was present; but, on the other hand, it may be assumed that every effort was made to attain one. Verse 54 And Peter had followed him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming himself in the light of the fire.The use of the past perfect tense, "had followed," shows that Mark's account here is retrogressive in part. Having introduced the illegal, all-night convention of the Sanhedrin, he returned to relate Peter's denial earlier that night in the court of the high priest. It is likely that this "court" was the official residence of both Annas and Caiaphas. (See comments on the parallel account in my Commentary on John.) The scene here is not the usual meeting place of the Sanhedrin, just off the court of women, but the official residence of the high priests (the legal high priest Caiaphas, and the man regarded by the Jews as the rightful high priest, Annas). Warming himself ... Peter's association with the Lord's enemies, his participating in benefits they made available, and his desire to remain unrecognized were factors entering into his denial. (See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 25:57ff). Closely associated with Peter as Mark was, he nevertheless did not soften this account of Peter's shameful failure. Verse 55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to put him to death; and found it not.What happened to their traitor-witness, Judas? During the night, Judas had heard of developments, and the next morning, after Jesus was bound over to the governor, he flung the money at the feet of the high priest, confessed his sin of betraying innocent blood; and, from the total lack of any testimony from Judas at the trials, it may be assumed that he refused to aid the campaign against Christ any further. He died the same day, a suicide. The whole council ... has been interpreted as suggesting the scene of the daybreak meeting; but the long and extensive search for witnesses indicates the all-night preliminary trial in the palace of the high priests. We may explain it by assuming that most of the council were present at both trials. Verse 56 For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not together.The sacred religious court of the Jewish nation engaged themselves all night in the subornation of perjury, but despite this, no usable testimony against Jesus was uncovered. Verse 57 And there stood up certain, and bare false witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I wilt destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands.This testimony was untruthful. Jesus actually said, "(You) destroy this temple (referring to his body), and in three days I will raise it up (that is, rise from the dead)" (John 2:19). In context, Jesus' words were a prediction that the religious leaders would take his life and that he would rise from the dead three days later. There was no suggestion whatever of such a thing as the false witnesses alleged. Even such a misrepresentative and malicious garbling of Jesus' words, however, was useless to the chief priests, because there was no coherent account of such an alleged statement. One said one thing; another declared something else. All night long, the preliminary investigation had gone forward, and nothing had come of it. In desperation, Caiaphas, who was beginning to find the judge's bench a very uncomfortable place, forsook the judicial status, usurped the role of a prosecutor, placed Jesus under oath, and demanded an answer; but he would ask a question first. Verse 60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee?Up to this point, the conclave of Jesus' foes had nothing. No capital charge against the Lord could even be alleged, much less proved. It was a most frustrating night for the religious leaders. Verse 61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?Answered nothing ... Jesus did not need to reply. Everyone knew that no offense had been proved against Jesus, Caiaphas himself being painfully aware of this. Again the high priest asked him ... This is a reference to repeated questions regarding Christ's identity. In Mark's word "again," it is evident that more than one question and more than one reply came out of this confrontation. Thus, we may dispose of all alleged discrepancies regarding the reply quoted by Matthew and the one here quoted by Mark. The replies have exactly the same meaning; but in the reply quoted by Mark, there was not the slightest trace of ambiguity. Art thou the Christ the Son of the Blessed ... Mark omitted the adjuration as given in Matthew, that being the formal placement of the Saviour upon oath. Since the adjuration was omitted here, it is possible that, following the reply recorded in Matthew, Caiaphas here repeated the question without mention of the oath, that having already been administered. This was precisely the question which the Pharisees had so long attempted to force Jesus to answer; but Christ, until this hour, had refused them, since to have answered sooner would have been premature. Now that no insurrection could be alleged against him, now that the other-worldly nature of his kingdom had been established, now that the whole sacred court of the Hebrews was in session, he would answer. He would, by such an answer as he would give, force their condemnation of him to rest upon their denial of the sacred truth that he was indeed the divine Messiah. All other charges had been disposed of. They did not, on this solemn occasion, accuse him of breaking the sabbath day; they had long ago lost that argument. They did not accuse him here of casting out demons by the power of the devil. Even that canard about destroying the temple was left out of sight. One charge alone they had God's permission to use, and Christ promptly gave it to them. Verse 62 And Jesus, said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.When this writer was a boy 15 years of age, he received from his mother a copy of the New Testament as a birthday gift, and the thrill of this verse is remembered from that day. I read the New Testament through, but there was wonderment about the passages in Matthew where Jesus had said, "Thou hast said"; and then came the reading of this majestic reply and the flood of tears that followed. God spoke to me in this verse! I AM ... These words affirm Christ's deity, the same as in John 18:8; and here also is the explanation of the different form of reply here, as compared with Matthew 26:83. There the question was indirectly stated, "Tell us whether, etc.," and could not be answered by the majestic I AM, as here. Not only Mark's "again" in Mark 14:61, but the fact of Caiaphas' first question being indirect, and the question here being direct, afford undeniable proof of the multiple nature of the questions and replies in these passages. Christ's I AM here lays claim to Godhead. Sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven ... refers to the final judgment when all men shall stand before the throne of God for sentencing. It was astounding that Christ would here transfer the thought from that prejudiced and corrupted court to the Great Assize where all shall receive justice and they that are Christ's shall receive mercy. Ye shall see ... The Sanhedrin, along with all who ever lived, shall see the event foretold by Jesus. The ridiculous notion that Jesus here envisioned some sudden glorious coming that would "convince" these hypocrites, and that he predicted that they would, in their lifetime, see such a thing has utterly no foundation in this passage. As Cranfield saw the meaning here: They will see the Son of Man when he comes as Judge - possibly indeed during their lifetimes, but equally possible after their deaths, when they are raised up for the last judgment ... Henceforth they will not see him at all till they see him in his glory.[5]ENDNOTE: [5] Ibid., p. 445. Verse 63 And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?This was quite an act on the part of Caiaphas; how noble he would have men suppose that he was; how outrageous it was to such a righteous one as he pretended to be that the exalted Christ should bear witness of the truth in his presence! Rent his clothes ... This was unlawful for the high priest to do. God had specifically commanded even Aaron and his sons: Uncover not your heads, neither rend your clothes, lest ye die, and lest wrath come upon all the people (Leviticus 10:6). As Bickersteth said: Some of the Fathers think that by this action Caiaphas involuntarily typified the rending of the priesthood from himself and from the Jewish nation.[6]What Caiaphas doubtless intended here was to dramatize his shock at the alleged "blasphemy" of Jesus' testimony; but his actions were as phony and illegal as the subornation he had been engaged in all night. ENDNOTE: [6] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16. p. 238. Verse 64 Ye have heard the blasphemy, and what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.Through his illegal and violent behavior in rending his garments, the sacred garments of the high priest, he had already announced the court's decision; and what he called for here was an assent to his self-proposed verdict. The conduct of Caiaphas in this scene dramatizes the claim of Christ as being equal to God. Skeptics who deny that Christ made such a claim are left without any explanation at all of what this unbelieving high priest did on that occasion. What think ye ... There is no way that Cranfield's unsupported opinion that "they were not pronouncing a sentence but rather giving a legal opinion"[7] can be correct. Instead of putting the matter to secret ballot, required by every capital case, Caiaphas here was procuring a death sentence against the Lord of Life by acclamation. The words have the equivalent meaning of "All in favor say Aye!" This was the official condemnation by the chosen people of their Lord and Messiah, and the most phenomenal results would immediately flow out of it. Before the day was ended, they would renounce God himself as their king, long the vaunted glory of Israel, and shout, "We have no king but Caesar" (John 19:15). That this was indeed an official condemnation is inherent in their immediate march upon Pilate with a demand for his crucifixion, in whose presence it was finally resolved that the only grounds they had for demanding Jesus' death was that "he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). ENDNOTE: [7] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit. Verse 65 And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.Such mockery was unworthy even of a pagan court; and such malicious treatment of any prisoner, even a guilty one, was a shameful blot upon the history of Israel. Mockery by the pagan soldiers of Herod was in keeping with the sadistic nature of the times; but mockery in the confines of the palace of God's high priest was particularly shameful. For fuller discussion of each set of mockeries, see under the parallel accounts in Matthew and in John in this series of commentaries. PETER'S DENIAL RELATEDMark, having reached the climax of the all-night trials, returned to events earlier in the evening, which were marked by Peter's denial of the Lord. Verse 66 And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest; and seeing Peter warming himself, she looked upon him and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. But he denied, saying, I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest: and he went out into the porch; and the cock crew. And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them that stood by, This is one of them.One may well sympathize with Peter. It was none of that maid's business whether Peter was or was not a disciple of Jesus; and Peter's purpose was clearly that of observing the proceedings unrecognized; but now this nosey maid was blabbering about his being a follower of Jesus. It is evident that Peter only wanted to get her to shut up. It was thus only a little deception that he proposed at first; but once a leak in the dyke appeared, the flood quickly overwhelmed him. Peter tried to avoid further questioning by going out on the porch; but the maid saw him. As the devil's particular servant in that hour, she made it her business to run him down and pin the truth on him. Hearing the cock crow while he was on the porch did not help Peter's nerves at all; and he returned to the unequal contest with the maid. She, on her part, sounded the alarm and appealed to everybody present. From John, it is plain that a relative of Malchus whose ear Peter had cut off was in the assemblage, and he took up the questioning also. This explains the fear and panic which came upon Peter and issued in his triple denial of the Lord. Verse 70 But again he denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art one of them; for thou art a Galilean. But he began to curse, and to swear, I know not this man of whom ye speak.Only Mark records the incident of the cursing and swearing; only John introduced the factor of Malchus' kinsman being in the company of accusers; only Matthew recorded the fact of Peter's language being the basis of the charge that he was from Galilee. Each sacred author made his contribution to our understanding of this tragic episode. Verse 72 And straightway the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept.The lone rooster crowing only a little while earlier while Peter was on the porch was then followed by another; and, after the manner of such things in all ages, the whole city was soon vibrating with the full cock-crow, ten thousand roosters heralding the morning. It shook Peter, and his great heart ached for what he had done. He went out alone into the darkness to weep; and there is a parable of all who ever denied the Lord. For them also, it is the darkness and sadness. It is not fair to the memory of this grand apostle to leave the narrative here without recalling the triple confession that he made at the sea of Tiberius. Ever afterward, his life was worthy of the vows of loyalty made earlier in that tragic evening; and one should behold in the facts related here, not any particular culpability in Peter, but the universal weakness of all men. Peter would yet live to go both to prison and to death for Jesus; but he would do so in a strength not at that time available. The Prince of Life was, for a little while, under the domination of the powers of darkness; and it can be no wonder that Peter was temporarily powerless to untangle himself from the snare of the devil into which he had ,been inadvertently drawn by the circumstances of that awful night. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 The Jews were more concerned about the condition of society than they were about the killing of Christ, even though it might have been on a holy day. 3 See the comments on Matthew 26:7 for the explanation of this verse. 4 The word some has specific reference to Judas (John 12:4). 5 Judas pretended to be concerned about the poor, but his real motive was covetousness (John 12:6). 6 Good work is explained at length at Matthew 26:12. 7 Poor with you always denotes we will always have poor people with us. 8 She hath done what she could is a significant statement. No special amount of service is required of us but we are expected to do what we can for Christ. 9 This means that the deed of this woman would become a part of the Gospel record and hence would be mentioned wherever the sacred book went. 0 Judas was peeved because the ointment was "wasted" on Jesus and he conceived the idea of counteracting the deed through the cowardly betrayal. 1. By the transaction for money at the expense of the freedom of Jesus, the traitor hoped to "recover" what he thought was lost by the act of the woman. 2 It was the first day of unleavened bread for Jesus and his apostles. See again the comments on Matthew 26:2. 3 The pitcher of water was merely an item by which the disciples were to contact the right man, who would be going to a certain house. 4 The man with the pitcher seems to have been used as a guide for the apostles. When they followed him into the house they were to speak next to the householder and ask to be shown the guestchamber to be used for the Passover. 5 The Lord had caused the householder to have a room reserved for their use. 6 The preparation for the feast was done by the apostles. 7 Let it be noted that the twelve (apostles) were still with Jesus. 8 The prediction as to the one to betray Jesus was not made yet. 9 They began . . . to say . . . Is it I, which includes Judas, for had he not joined in the inquiry, his silence would have been significant. 0 The dish means the vessel containing the flesh of the lamb used in the Passover. It was customary to dip a piece of bread in the broth and then eat it. Jesus did this at the same time with Judas so as to answer the question they all had asked. 1 Judas refused to repent after his dark deed and therefore he went to perdition (John 17:12). This is why Jesus said it would have been good for him not to have been born. 2 The events of this last night are not all given in any one place, and the ones that are given are not in chronological order. See the note and references on this point with the comments at Matthew 26:20. I shall now comment on the verses as they appear in the present chapter. Jesus blessed the bread by giving thanks for it. He broke it as an act of decency because more than one person was to eat of it. Otherwise the breaking of it has no religious significance to us. 3 Instead of "blessing" the cup he gave thanks, which shows that the two terms mean the same and that nothing supernatural was done to the "emblems." 4 The Old Testament used the blood of beasts, while the blood of the New Testament is that of Christ. Shed for many which means the whole world, although many will reject its benefits through unbelief. 5 The passage cited at verse 22 shows that our present verse was spoken while they were still engaged in the Passover feast. 6 According to Thayer and Robinson this hymn was a Psalm of David. 7 To be offended denotes that one falters or stumbles in his devotions. The prediction quoted is in Zechariah 13:7. 8 Jesus always included his resurrection in the predictions of his death. He not only was to arise but would come into the presence of his apostles again. 9 Peter was always sincere in his general principles of life, but he was rash and did things from impulse as he did in this declaration. 0 Jesus was specific and predicted Peter's third denial would be before the second cock crowing. 1 This pointed prediction only caused Peter to be more positive in his assurance of faithfulness, even to the point of dying with Christ. The emphatic attitude of Peter seemed to stir up the others so that they agreed to the same promise of loyalty. 2 On this verse see the comments at Matthew 26:36. 3 Leaving most of the apostles where they first paused, Jesus took with him Peter, James and John and went on into the garden. The humanity of his nature now beagn to manifest itself which caused him to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy. 4 Exceeding sorrowful unto death is a highly-colored figure of speech, meaning he felt sad enough to die. Wishing for still more privacy he left them here. 5 Jesus went still farther from the three so as to be alone with his Father. He prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. This is the same prayer that is termed "cup" in Matthew 26:39. The crucifixion was not to take place until the next day, so we know that the prayer about this "cup" and "the hour" could not refer to the cross. (See also the comments at Matthew 26:39.) 6. This prayer had to do with the hour just commented upon. 7 Their sleeping was not from mere indifference. (See Luke 22:45). 8 The flesh is what gave way and caused the apostles to fall asleep. Jesus admonished them to let their spirit or better part of their being have more influence over them and lead them into a more watchful attitude. 9 The prayer in this instance was the same as that in verses 35, 36. 0 Eyes were heavy because of their grief and worry over the situation. 1 Jesus had gone away the third time and now when he came back he found them sleepy as before. In his great compassion he bade them go on and take a nap. But it was not for long because the mob was seen coming toward the garden. 2 Jesus then roused the apostles with the announcement that the one who was to betray him was at hand. 3 Jesus had no sooner said the words of the preceding verse than the mob approached with Judas in the lead. Staves is from a word that means "clubs," as if they were hunting for some hardened criminal who was a foe of society. 4 The sign agreed upon was a kiss and they were to watch for that demonstration. Lead him away safely. (See the comments at Matthew 26:48.) 5 The mere act of kissing Jesus would have seemed too cold, hence Judas added warmth to the salutation by recognizing him as Master. 6 They means the mob composed of the chief priests and scribes. 7 The one who used the sword was Peter (John 18:10). See the remarks that Jesus made to Peter and my comments on the same at Matthew 26:52. 8 Jesus charged the mob with coming out against him as if he had been a thief who deserved to be taken with the unrefined weapons like clubs. 9 It was rather late for them to be showing such concern on behalf of public safety. Jesus was in the temple and other public places daily before this. When a dangerous person is at large (such as these clubs would imply), it is the custom not to "stand on ceremony" but to take such a person at once. Jesus then explained the seeming contradiction in their conduct by saying that it fulfilled the scriptures. 0 They all means the apostles. Seeing Jesus was being taken without any resistance, they concluded that all was lost and in their fright they fled. 2 Mark is the only one of the writers who records this event. There is no information as to the identity of the young man. Linen, is from the Greek word SINDON which Thayer defines, "thing made of fine cloth." He then explains it by saying, "so of a light and loose garment worn at night over the naked body." Robinson gives virtually the same definition and explanation as that of Thayer. That accounts for the fact that the young man had nothing else on. It was night, and the commotion had attracted his attention so that without taking time to dress he went to the scene of excitement. The apostles had just fled while the young man still followed along after Jesus. The men of the mob thought he was sympathizing with Jesus and decided to arrest him. This frightened him so that he escaped by giving up his nightrobe. 3 The chief priests assembled to discuss what to do about the case. 4 Peter was afraid to be known as a friend of Jesus so he followed afar off. 5 And found none means they could not find anyone who was prepared to testify as they desired. They wanted to get some person to affirm some word or act of Jesus on which they could secure the death sentence. 6 There were plenty of men who would have been disposed to give such testimony, but since they were falsifying their statements did not agree and hence their pretended testimony was rejected. 7 Other pretended witnesses told what they had heard Jesus say. 8 A look at John 2:19 will show how grossly these men falsified. 9 No wonder these so-called witnesses did not agree. When men conspire to bear false testimony they are sure to overlook something that will expose them. 0 The high priest was surprised that Jesus did not reply. 1 Jesus said nothing in reply to the falsehoods of these men; in that way he fulfilled the prophecy in Isaiah 53:7. The high priest then asked Jesus a question touching his personality which was the same as his divinity. That was important and we will see that he answered it. 2 Jesus not only answered the question of the high priest, but added a prediction that was in line with his divinity and authority as a king. 3 Decisions of the Sanhedrin were made by vote, supposed to be based on the testimony of valid witnesses. The statement of Jesus agitated the high priest so that he declared there was no need for witnesses. 4 The high priest called for the vote of the assembly and they all condemned Jesus to death. This means that all who woted at all did so. There were some who did not take part in the voting (Luke 23:50-51). 5 The Jews could pass a sentence of death but could not execute it. But they gratified their wicked feeling against Jesus by gross personal mistreatment. The things they said and did to him would not be permitted today in any responsible court, regardless of what sentence might have been pronounced. 7 The point to be noted is that being with Jesus was regarded as significant. Association indicates fellowship or participation. 8 Peter understood it that way, for he denied it very emphatically, then moved out farther in his fearfulness and stopped at the porch. At that instant the cock crowed the first time. 9 This maid spoke to the people standing by and not to Peter. She made the declaration on her own information (indicating Peter), "this is one of them." 0 Peter denied her statement which made his second denial. The next time it was the people standing near who made the statement, and they supported their claim by referring to the similarity of speech used by Peter and Jesus and his disciples. 1 Curse and swear are explained at Matthew 26:74. This made the third time that Peter denied even knowing Jesus or having been with him. 2 Matthew says this second crowing was immediately after the third denial (Matthew 26:74). This fact, (together with the look that Jesus gave him, Luke 22:61), recalled the specific prediction of Jesus about his denials. When he thought thereon, he wept, or, upon considering the whole event, he was overwhelmed with remorse. Matthew 26:75 says "he went out and wept bitterly." The conduct of Peter was different from that of Judas. Both men were disappointed over the way matters were going with Jesus, and the things they had said or done. But Judas destroyed his own life while Peter repented through godly sorrow. Verse 1 Final events leading up to the crucifixion, burial and resurrection of Christ are unfolded in this chapter. Mark's record is far more brief than the other Gospels, and it is refreshing for a scholar like Cranfield to admit that this record is obviously later than the Gospel of Matthew.[1] With regard to some of the subjects treated at greater length in the other Gospels, reference is made to this writer's Commentary on Matthew for the following: The Six Trials of Jesus (Matthew 26:57 ff); Pilate's Efforts to Release Jesus (Matthew 27:14-23); The Mockery (Matthew 27:27-28); The Via Dolorosa (Matthew 27:32); Regarding the Inscriptions (Matthew 27:37); The Calvary Miracles (Matthew 27:53); Pilate's Order to Break Jesus' Legs (Matthew 27:56); Joseph of Arimathea (Matthew 27:57); and The Seven Words from the Cross (Matthew 27:66). ENDNOTE: [1] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to St. Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 458. And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate. (Mark 15:1) This was the third trial of Jesus, evidently convened for the purpose of lending some aura of legality to the all-night circus of a trial conducted in the palace of the high priests. It did not last long; but it may be assumed that the same witnesses testified, the same questions were asked of Jesus, and the same replies (perhaps in different words) were given. This accounts for the fact that in one Gospel the key aspects of the trial are related as occurring in the all-night trial, and in another as occurring in the more legal trial in the morning. All thought of contradictions disappears in the light of the obvious truth that the trial was repeated in the session mentioned here, for the sake of appearances. Here too is the obvious reason that Jesus' reply to Caiaphas' question has a different form, but the same substance, in the Markan and Matthew accounts. Despite the intentions of the hierarchy to dress up their kangaroo trials of the Lord with some semblance of respectability through the device of having a legal trial after daylight, they were not at all successful. As Sanner noted, regarding the all-night trial: The Sanhedrin broke most of its own laws ... fourteen such violations have been totaled. The council was not permitted to meet at night, nor on a feast day. The death penalty could not be carried out until a night had passed ... each member of the court had to be polled individually, etc.[2]Likewise, the trial in view in this verse was illegal. As Bickersteth said: For form's sake, they tried afresh; but another law was violated; it was now the Preparation (making this illegal) ... also, a condemnation could not be announced on the day of the trial; yet our Lord was condemned and crucified in the same day.[3]And delivered him to Pilate ... Mark's omission of any explanation whatever of who Pilate was is very significant. It has the effect of an admission on his part that Matthew had long ago been published, that it was well known throughout the Christian world, and that therefore it would have been superfluous for him to have wasted any space on explaining that Pilate, the fifth procurator of Judea, who was in power between 26,36 A.D., was at that time the governor with jurisdiction in the case of Jesus Christ our Lord. The Markan theory receives in this verse a mortal blow. The reason why the Sanhedrin did not go ahead and stone Jesus to death lies in the fact that they did not have at that time the authority to execute the death penalty. This has been disputed; but John 18:31 is the only proof a Christian needs of the fact that they could not. [2] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964) p. 400. [3] E. Bickersteth, The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1962), Vol. 16, p. 303. Verse 2 And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.There were many details Mark omitted, such as the other charges, which the Sanhedrin alleged against Jesus, these being: that he perverted the nation, stirred up the country all the way to Galilee, etc. Mark remembered that Pilate here focused on their charge that Jesus was making himself King. Mark omitted the event of Pilate's sending Jesus to Herod. Art thou the King of the Jews ... The deceit of the Sanhedrin was never more diabolical than here. The popular and erroneous conceit that the divine Messiah would be a literal King of Israel was their allegation, not that of Jesus. It was precisely because our Lord would not consent to be such a King that they so thoroughly hated him. If our Lord had accepted such a view of his Messiahship, the Sanhedrin would have supported him and aided him in every possible manner against the Romans. Pilate's question centered upon the charge of greatest interest to the governor who was charged with protecting Caesar's interests. Jesus' reply has the effect of "Yes, I am the King of the Jews, but not in the sense meant by the accusers." Pilate accepted Jesus' answer as proof of his innocence. Verse 3 And the chief priests accused him of many things.See under above verse. Verse 4 And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? Behold how many things they accuse thee of.There was an extensive interview between Jesus and Pilate recorded by John, but omitted here, the extreme likelihood of just such an occurrence adding corroboration to John's account. In John's Gospel, it is clear why Jesus answered nothing. First of all, it was unnecessary in the light of all absence of any proof of the Sanhedrin's charges and the further fact that Herod too had agreed upon Jesus' innocence. In the second place, Pilate was of a strong mind to have released Jesus, and there is no doubt that Christ could easily have persuaded him to do so. Also, he could have performed one little miracle and have scared the wits out of the pagan governor. Here, more than anywhere else, the act of Jesus laying down his life of his own accord is in view. Verse 5 But Jesus no more answered anything; insomuch that Pilate marveled.Pilate marvelled because both he and Jesus knew that our Lord could have enlisted the governor's aid, having in fact only to ask it; no wonder Pilate marvelled that he would not ask. Verse 6 Now at the feast he used to release unto them one prisoner, whom they asked of him.THE CHOICE OF This custom of the governor is nowhere mentioned in any secular history; but the sacred historians mention it in connection with its bearing upon the crucifixion of Jesus. Verse 7 And there was one called Barabbas, tying bound with them that had made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had committed murder.Barabbas ... is a patronymic meaning "Son of father," possibly paraphrased as "Papa's Boy." He was a bad number, a murderer, and a robber, guilty also of sedition, and awaiting the execution which his conduct merited. Verse 8 And the multitude went up and began to ask him to do as he was wont to do unto them.Regarding the identity of this crowd, Turlington said: They may have been friends of Barabbas, who had come to ask for his release. This would be, as Rawlinson says, "a strangely dramatic historical coincidence"; but it accords with what happened.[4]If such was the case, the coincidence would have been one of Satan's "providences," such as Jonah's finding a ship ready to sail; but this interesting and speculative interpretation does not have the ring of truth. If that crowd had indeed been friends of Barabbas, they could not have known Jesus, nor would there have been any motivation for them to shout, "Crucify him!" As the Gospels attributed such a demand for Jesus' death to the fact of the priests "stirring up the multitude," it is not unlikely that they were the ones who "got the crowd out" in the first place, having no doubt anticipated the governor's customary clemency at Passover and making sure that it should not be extended to Jesus. It was one of those pat demonstrations that rabble-rousers, through their followers, know how to produce. ENDNOTE: [4] Henry E. Turlington, Broadman Bible Commentary (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1946), p. 394. Verse 9 And Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews?The extreme brevity of Mark here leads to the conclusion, as supported by Matthew, that Pilate had seized upon this device of a Passover clemency in another of his seven efforts to release Jesus, and that he, not the multitude, had introduced this question of clemency. The notion that Pilate confronted a mob asking for the release of Barabbas and asked them to accept Jesus instead is wild and irresponsible. The priests knew that when Pilate proposed two names, those of our Lord and of Barabbas, the multitude would have chosen Jesus if left to themselves, which they would not have done if they were friends of Barabbas; hence, it was necessary for the priests to stir up the multitude to make the decision for Barabbas. See Mark 15:11. Verse 10 For he perceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up.One thing to keep in view throughout is that Pilate was never for a moment deceived into believing that Jesus was a seditionist. He knew the essential facts of the whole dramatic event thoroughly, being insufficient only in his failure to see Jesus as God in the flesh. The inscription he affixed to the cross did not deny Pilate's knowledge of Jesus' innocence, but it was a sadistic joke on the Sanhedrin, from his point of view. Verse 11 But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he should rather release Barabbas unto them.See under Mark 15:9. This choice of the chosen people through their highest authorities and representatives that they should receive Barabbas received the most signal fulfillment historically. They not only received that Barabbas whom they requested; but, before that generation expired, the Holy City and the Holy of Holies itself were infested with a vast multitude of the most vicious and bloody robbers ever known to history, who seized the government, filled the holy place with dead corpses, murdered the entire nobility, and with rapine and slaughter unparalleled historically, they accomplished the total ruin of Jerusalem, being in fact the "abomination of desolation." See under Mark 13:2, especially item (10) in the article, Why God Destroyed the Temple. Nineteen centuries have not diminished the wonderment over the choice which evil men made that day. Verse 12 And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?Pilate was still trying to accomplish the release of Jesus, as his exasperated question a moment later proves. However, his form of the question here could only have infuriated the priests by its inference that "they" called Jesus the King of the Jews. Verse 13 And they cried out again, Crucify him. And Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, Crucify him.What evil hath he done? Mark leaves it out; but John gave the answer which the hierarchy finally spat out on that occasion. This demand of Pilate came late in the proceedings, at a point when it became painfully evident to the Sanhedrin that Pilate might not yield to their will at all; and this demand of the governor for the statement of a capital charge was proof enough that none of the prior allegations bore any weight at all, being nothing but false and unproved allegations inspired by envy and unworthy of the governor's further attention. In such an extremity, the Sanhedrin, under such duress that they could no longer conceal it, at last admitted the truth. As John has it: "The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God" (John 19:7). It was upon their statement of what they alleged as a capital crime that Pilate then yielded to the popular clamor and ordered the crucifixion; but even then, not until the priests had injected the question of Pilate's loyalty to Caesar. Verse 15 And Pilate wishing to content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.Mark here passed over a great deal of material, in all probability out of respect to the fact of its prior publication in Matthew. See the introduction to this chapter. Scourged him ... From the manner of the sacred authors' mentioning it, some have supposed that Jesus was scourged twice, but this is not true. As Bickersteth said: Pilate anticipated the time of the scourging, in the vain hope that by this means he might save our Lord from capital punishment. A comparison of Mark with Matthew and John makes this clear; for they all three refer to one and the same scourging.[5]Had scourged him ... has the meaning of Pilate's having done so earlier in the trial. Pilate's bumbling attempts to release Jesus and his obvious knowledge of Jesus' innocence resulted in the canonization of St. Pilate (!) by the Abyssinian church;[6] but the more accurate judgment of history has been preserved in the phrase from the Apostles' Creed, "Suffered under Pontius Pilate." There is no way that this weak and vacillating governor deserves anything except the infamy which fell upon his name. He knew Jesus was innocent; and, after announcing such a verdict, he should have had the guts to release Jesus and order the soldiers in the tower of Antonio to disperse the mob. [5] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 305. [6] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 404. Verse 16 And the soldiers led him away within the court, which is the Praetorium; and they call together the whole band.THE MOCKERYThe mockery about to begin was not the only mockery of Jesus, there being in fact no less than six, as pointed out by Major: The Evangelists record six mockings of Jesus by: (1) the High Priest's servants; (2) Herod Antipas and his soldiers; (3) the soldiers of the Roman garrison; (4) the general public; (5) priests and scribes; and (6) the two crucified brigands.[7]The Praetorium ... was the name of the area where soldiers were quartered at Caesar's official residence, or, as here, at the residence of any of Caesar's representatives. In this case, the reference is either to the tower of Antonio or to the old Hasmonean palace of Herod. Called together the whole band ... The type of sadistic sport engaged in by soldiers of the imperial army was as brutal and detestable as anything that can be imagined. Turlington thought the group here was the Second Italian Cohort, but their military identity is not important. The Roman war machine was constantly engaged in bloody conflict in one part of the empire or another; and the dehumanization of the soldiery was an inevitable result. Notwithstanding this, the army was the last stronghold of the virtues which had held together the sprawling empire, and this accounts for the repeated favorable mention of centurions. See under Mark 15:39. ENDNOTE: [7] H. D. A. Major, The Gospel according to St. Mark (New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, 1939), p. 189. Verse 17 And they clothe him with purple, and platting a crown of thorns, they put it on him.Purple ... Not only was this supposed to represent royalty in the soldiers' program of mockery, but it also had deeply religious significance imperceivable by the goon-squad that thus mocked him. There were probably three colors in the robe they cast upon Christ: blue, purple, and scarlet, these being the three colors of the sacred veil in the temple. See the introduction to this chapter. Crown of thorns ... "The thorns were, in all probability, the Zizyphus spina Christi which grows abundantly in Palestine, fringing the banks of the Jordan."[8] Only Satan could have inspired a soldier to prick his own hands gathering thorns to mock a man the governor had just declared to be innocent. ENDNOTE: [8] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 305. Verse 18 And they began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews!It was enough for the soldiers that Jesus was a Jew, belonging to a race despised by many Romans, especially those in the army charged with keeping order among them. Their insincere and mocking honor of him was shameful, but it is no more so than the insincerity of many in all ages who have bowed the knee and sung, "Hail to the King," without really meaning it. Verse 19 And they smote his head with a reed, and spat upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him.We pass over this heart-breaking episode wherein the Christ endured such taunts at the hands of calloused and evil men. Verse 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they led him out to crucify him.The typical nature of the colored cloth upon Jesus was noted above; but there were also other prophecies to be fulfilled with regard to the Lord's own garments, and it was thus necessary that he should wear these to the cross. Providentially, the soldiers clothed him again in his own garments, little realizing that they were making possible the fulfillment of God's word. Verse 21 And they compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, coming from the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear the cross.SIMON BEARS THE CROSSIt was evident to the soldiers in charge of the execution that the strength of our Lord was fading and that he would not be able to carry the cross, which was a large instrument 15 feet in the long beam and 8 feet in the cross-member.[9]The father of Alexander and Rufus ... These names occur only in Mark, and concerning these persons Dummelow said: They were clearly Christians of eminence, well known in the Roman church for which this gospel was composed ... Rufus is probably the same as the Rufus in Romans 16:13, where he is called "chosen of the Lord."[10][9] Ibid., p. 306. [10] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 732. Verse 22 And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull.THE From this, many have identified the actual place of the crucifixion as a skull-shaped hill northwest of the old city of Jerusalem. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:33-34. Verse 23 And they offered him wine mingled with myrrh; but he received it not.Cranfield noted that: It was a Jewish custom, based on Proverbs 31:6, to give wine drugged with myrrh to those who were about to be executed: in order to dull the senses. His refusal to drink may be explained as due to his vow in Mark 14:25.[11]The view here is that Cranfield was certainly correct in linking Jesus' refusal to drink with the promise that he would not drink henceforth of the fruit of the vine until he should drink it new with his disciples in the kingdom of God. The offering of wine (and myrrh) here was not new, was not offered by a disciple, and was prior to the setting up of the kingdom on Pentecost. John 19:30 mentions "when he had received the vinegar"; but there is no mention that he drank it, the previous verse saying only that it was "brought to his mouth." The incident in John came at the end of the agony; this here was at the first; but it is safe to assume that Jesus regarded the vow in both instances. ENDNOTE: [11] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 455. Verse 24 And they crucify him, and part his garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take.This was in fulfillment of the prophecy recorded in Psalms 22:18, and for a fuller discussion of this intriguing episode, see the comments of this author on the parallel account in John. John gave the most careful description of the clothes, even telling how they were made, the robe being woven in a particular manner without a seam. Also, for the callous indifference of the gamblers, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:36. Verse 25 And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.This was 9:00 o'clock in the morning, according to the Roman method of reckoning time, which was followed here by Mark. Verse 26 And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.A composite of the four Gospels gives the entire superscription as: THIS IS JESUS OF THE KING OF THE JEWS . It was written in three different languages; and from this some have accounted for the variations in the separate reports of the sacred gospels by supposing them to have found such variations in the three languages, some quoting from one language and some from others. No such device of reconciling the accounts is necessary or, for that matter, reasonable. Each author quoted from memory; all recorded the words given here by Mark; and not one of them recorded a single word that was not in the total inscription. See my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:37. Verse 27 And with him they crucify, two robbers, one on his right hand, and one on his left.Someone has observed that upon the crosses there appeared both the best of men and the worst of men, society always having that paradoxical quality of crucifying both its saints and its sinners. This association of Jesus with the vilest of criminals was an added stigma of his crucifixion; but God overruled it in making it the fulfillment of this prophecy: And they made his grave with the wicked (plural) and with a rich man (singular) in his death (Isaiah 53:9). The fulfillment of this is usually allowed to be the actual crucifixion between two thieves (or robbers) and the provision of the tomb by Joseph of Aramathaea. However, it is quite clear that two graves are actually required for the complete fulfillment of this prophecy. It may be assumed that the soldiers dug shallow graves on Golgotha for all three condemned men, long before they knew that anyone would claim the body of Christ. See article, The Two Graves of Jesus in my Commentary on John, parallel account. Verse 29 And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha! thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days.This is one of the six instances of the mockery of Jesus, as noted under Mark 15:16. The priests had done a good job of spreading their infamous lies regarding Jesus, so good in fact, that passers-by were able to repeat it exactly. The truth was far different from their insinuations, as seen from John 2:19. Verse 30 Save thyself, and come down from the cross.Implicit in this element of the mockery was the fundamental nature of Jesus' mission to mankind, that being to save men from sin. It was that basic premise of all that Jesus did and taught that outraged unregenerated men who adamantly refused to believe that they needed any such thing as salvation. Their hatred of such a premise was evident here. Verse 31 In like manner also the chief priests mocking him among themselves with the scribes said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.As Cranfield said: In the sense in which they meant it, these words were untrue - he who raised the dead could also have come down from the cross. On the other hand, he could not save himself if he was to remain true to his mission, if he was to save the world.[12]ENDNOTE: [12] bid., p. 457. Verse 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him.That we may see and believe ... Well, why did not Christ do it? Simply because it was impossible; not for Christ, of course, for he could have descended from the cross at the expense of his message of salvation; but it was impossible that such a thing, even if Jesus had done it, would have had the slightest effect on the priests. There was no miracle which God might have performed which could have changed a hypocritical Pharisee into a loving follower of Jesus. The Lord did a far more wonderful thing than merely coming down from the cross, when, three days later, he rose from the dead. Even then, however, he did not appear to them. It would have done them no good at all. They that were crucified with him reproached him ... This is a reference to the early part of the crucifixion scene, at which time both the robbers reproached Jesus. In a little while, however, the nobler robber lovingly invoked Jesus' blessing and received it. Verse 33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.The supernatural darkness that enveloped the whole earth at that time was foretold by the prophet Amos (Amos 8:9); since it was the full moon, no eclipse of the sun was possible, the darkness here having been caused by "the sun's light failing" (Luke 23:45). It signified, among many things, the summary end of the sabbath day, the presence of God himself in the events of that day, and the mantle of loving privacy that God cast over the shameful business of that awful day. For more extensive comments on the nature and meaning of this darkness, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:1. Verse 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?The traditional interpretation of this place views it as a quotation from Psalms 22, where no less than twenty specific prophecies of the crucifixion are detailed, and to which it must be supposed Jesus here made reference by quoting the first line of that well known Psalm. That is the view accepted by this interpreter, and extensive comment in support of this view is in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:66 ff. However, it must be confessed that something deeper and far more imponderable could be indicated. As Cranfield expressed it: The burden of the world's sin, his complete self-identification with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment by his Father. It is in the cry of dereliction that the full horror of man's sin stands revealed ... While this God-forsakenness was utterly real, the unity of the Blessed Trinity was even then unbroken.[13]The full mystery of the awesome events of Calvary cannot ever be fully known by mortal and finite men. Nevertheless, "In the cross of Christ I glory!" ENDNOTE: [13] Ibid., p. 458. Verse 35 And some of them that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold he calleth Elijah.Their misunderstanding came about by Jesus' use of the Hebrew language in the words [Eloi, Eloi], which in Hebrew could be mistaken for the name of the prophet. Here again surfaces the undeniable priority of Matthew. Cranfield said. "We should regard the Matthew form as the original."[14]Here again the evil campaign of the Pharisees so long directed against the Lord, and particularly their slander that Elijah would have to rise from the dead before the Messiah came, is evident. The refutation of their error is in Mark 9:1; Mark 9:12, which see. ENDNOTE: [14] Ibid. Verse 36 And one ran, and filling a sponge full of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let be, let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down.Vinegar ... was the sour wine comprising a part of the daily rations of the soldiers, and this incident may be viewed as the only act of true mercy extended to the Lord on the cross. Put it on a reed ... This is the same incident as in John 19:30, apparently; and, if so, the reed was "hyssop," the stalk of the caper plant. Gave him to drink ... It is not necessary to suppose that Jesus drank it. He had requested drink by his exclamation, "I thirst"; but, after tasting it, he rejected it. See under Matthew 15:23. Let us see whether Elijah cometh ... If our assumption is correct that this was one of the soldiers, his remarks were prompted by the mocking mention of Elijah by the priests. Verse 37 And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.It is heartening to read Cranfield refuting Bultmann's slander to the effect that Jesus never said anything on the cross, only making this loud cry, into which the early church retrospectively read the saying attributed in the Gospels! As Cranfield affirmed, "We are on firm historical ground here."[15]Bickersteth's interesting words on this cry are: Usually the voice fails the dying man ... but Christ cried out just before he expired, by that supernatural power which his Godhead supplied to him ... he did not die of necessity, but voluntarily ... Victor Antiochanus said, "By this action the Lord Jesus proved that he had his whole life, and his death, in his own free power."[16][15] Ibid. [16] E. Bickersteth, op. cit., p. 309. Verse 38 And the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom.This is numbered among the Calvary miracles, and a full treatment of the extensive symbolism of this event is found in my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:53. Briefly, the veil symbolized the flesh of Christ himself, through which a new and living way has been opened for Christians (Hebrews 10:19). It means that the Old Testament must be understood in the light of the New Testament (2 Corinthians 3:14-16). It signifies the abolition of the old covenant, the victory over death, the rending of Christ's flesh in his death, and the granting of access of Christians to the presence of God himself. Verse 39 And when the centurion, who stood by over against him, saw that he so gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.The centurion ... This was the officer in charge of the crucifixion. An early legend, or tradition, supported by Chrysostom, has it that this centurion was Longthus, "who was led by the miracles which accompanied the death of Christ" to become a Christian, later suffering martyrdom.[17] Whether the tradition is true or not, it is clear that the exclamation of this centurion supports all that Matthew recorded, concerning the earthquake, the supernatural darkness, the opening of the graves, etc. Truly this man was the Son of God ... It is ridiculous to tone this down by rendering it "a son of God"; for, as Cranfield noted, "The Greek text does not at all necessitate the rendering `a son.'"[18][17] Ibid., p. 310. [18] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 460. Verse 40 And there were also women beholding from afar: among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joses, and Salome. Mary Magdalene, out of whom Christ cast seven devils, another Mary, the mother of James the less and Joses, and Salome, the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John, are the three women. Beholding from afar ... The relative distance of the women from the cross itself, appearing quite near in some accounts, and far away, as here, refers to different times of the day when the women were first in one place, then in another. The stereotyped view of the women standing stock still in a single spot all day is impossible of being true. Verse 41 Who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him; and many other women that came up with him unto Jerusalem.The Gospels present women as the spiritual leaders of the race. They were last with Jesus at the cross, first to behold his resurrection, and everywhere more perceptive than men. It was a woman that won the city of Sychar for Jesus, a woman that anointed him for burial; and here Mark recounts a multitude that followed him from Galilee. Thank God for women, without whose spiritual perception and fidelity the race of man would indeed be almost helpless. Blessed are their names which are written in the book of life (Philippians 4:3). Verse 42 And when even was now come, because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath.THE BURIAL OF JESUSThe day before the sabbath ... This is generally understood to mean that it was Friday, but the scriptures do not teach any such thing. See in my Commentary on Luke under Luke 22:7. WHAT DAY WAS JESUS ? This question, admittedly difficult, actually relates to the promise Jesus made in Matthew 12:40 that he would be "in the heart of the earth three days and three nights"; and the importance of it is such that a careful study of the problem is here presented. For generations, the view that Christ was crucified on Friday has prevailed and, since he rose very early on the first day of the week, even while it was yet dark (John 20:1), and if he was buried shortly before sunset on Friday, such would limit his stay in the tomb to one day and two nights, contradicting the Scripture which says: For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40). Many devout students, in all ages, have found Friday crucifixion difficult of acceptance. R. A. Torrey, in 1907, wrote a book rejecting Friday as the day our Lord was crucified.[19] J. W. McGarvey gave a list of scholars who solved the problem by making Matthew 12:40 an interpolation.[20] And this writer must confess that the "explanations" which allegedly justify the Friday date have never been satisfactory. THE ALLEGED The "three days and three nights" are held by many scholars to be a Jewish idiom meaning "any part of three days and three nights," as indicated by certain Old Testament passages: (a) Joseph put his brothers into ward "three days," yet he released them "the third day" (Genesis 41:17-18). (b) Rehoboam asked the people's delegation to "depart yet for three days, then come again to me ... All the people came to Rehoboam the third day as the king had appointed" (1 Kings 12:5; 1 Kings 12:12). Queen Esther requested of her maidens that they "neither eat nor drink three days, night or day" ... "on the third day" she went to the king (Esther 4:16; Esther 5:1). McGarvey was impressed with such examples, but he apparently did not notice the omission in every one of them of the key words "three nights." The Hebrew method of reckoning time was somewhat indefinite; but the proposition maintained here is that there are no known examples of "three days and three nights" being used idiomatically for part of three days and two nights! McGarvey also made reference to Hebrew usage in the New Testament, in which Stephen said that Moses was "full forty years old," alleging, from this and other examples of the use of "whole" or "full" in connection with time periods, that if Jesus had meant three days and nights in their entirety, he would have used the term "full" three days and three nights. The view here is that the expression "three days and three nights" means exactly the same as if he had used "full," the use of such a word being made unnecessary by his mention of the three nights. The utter absence of the key words "three nights" from all of the Scriptures cited as proof of the alleged idiom disproves its existence: In fact, as far as has been determined by this student, there is no other example in the entire Bible except Jonah 1:17 and Jesus' quotations from that passage. For these reasons, the idiom theory is not satisfactory. Torrey spoke thus: There are many persons whom this solution does not satisfy; and this writer is free to confess that it does not satisfy him at all. It seems to me to be makeshift, and a very weak makeshift.[21]It is refreshing to find that the distinguished Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Tennessee, in Christianity Today, March 29,1974, questioned this idiom theory by pointing out that from Friday evening to early Sunday morning would be only a little more than 24 hours. "Can this be called three days and three nights? Really? Is not this just another supposition made to support a theory?"[22]WHEN WAS THE ? I. It was on the Preparation of the feast of Passover, meaning the day before the Passover began; and, since the Passover always began on the 15th day of Nisan, that means Christ was crucified on the 14th of Nisan. All four of the gospels confirm this categorically: (a) Matthew related how, on the day after Jesus was buried, "Now on the morrow, which is the day after the Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees were gathered together unto Pilate" requesting a guard at the grave (Matthew 27:62). (b) Mark recounted how Joseph begged the dead body of Jesus from Pilate on "the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath" (Mark 15:42). (c) Likewise Luke stated that the burial took place on "the day of Preparation, and the sabbath drew on" (Luke 23:53). (d) The apostle John records that the trial of Jesus before Pilate took place "on the Preparation of the Passover: it was about the sixth hour" (John 19:14). This makes it absolutely certain that Christ was crucified on the 14th of Nisan. But, like any given day of the month, the 14th of Nisan could occur on any day of the week. Mark and John both mentioned that the Preparation was the day before the sabbath; and, if that had been all the information we have, it could be safely declared that Christ was crucified on Friday, which is the day before the ordinary sabbath, that is, Saturday. However, "that sabbath" was not an ordinary sabbath. John's gospel declares: The Jews therefore, because it was the Preparation, that the bodies should not remain on the cross upon the sabbath (for the day of that sabbath was a high day), asked of Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away (John 19:31). John's identification of the sabbath immediately after the Preparation mentioned by all the gospels makes it certain that it was not Saturday the ordinary sabbath at all, but another kind of sabbath. Exodus 12:16 instructed Israel to observe both the first and seventh days of the Passover week as days of rest and holy convocation upon which occasions no work at all could be done. Thus the 15th of Nisan was a sabbath regardless of what day of the week it was. These special sabbaths were called "high days," and John identified the sabbath following the Preparation as that kind of sabbath, "a high day." The argument from John 19:31 against Friday crucifixion is reinforced by other considerations: (a) Harmonies of the gospel accepting Friday as the day of the crucifixion do not assign any event to Wednesday, skipping from Tuesday night to Thursday afternoon.[23] As Rusk said: About one third of the Gospels is taken up with the record of the events of the last week of the life of Christ. We might infer that such a detailed account is intentional and is designed to relate all the events of this short time with the utmost detail. Yet, in order to preserve the hypothesis of the Friday crucifixion, all harmonies of the gospels call for an entire day on which there is no account of any activity on the part of Jesus, a day of silence in the midst of this very busy week, a day usually designated as Wednesday. The Gospels say nothing about any such day of silence. It is an invention designed to support the Friday thesis.[24](b) Jesus' fulfillment of the type seen in the passover lambs does not fit Friday crucifixion at all. If it is assumed that Christ was crucified on Friday, then the Passover began on Saturday, and "six days before the passover" (John 12:1) was Sunday when the supper was made for Jesus with Lazarus present, and the triumphal entry would then have been on Monday the day after that. That is clearly incorrect. However, if he was crucified on Thursday, then the supper was on Saturday "six days before the Friday Passover" and the triumphal entry was on Sunday, as generally acknowledged. All of this ties in with the Lord's being the antitype of the passover lamb. To have fulfilled, the type, Jesus had to be selected on the tenth day of Nisan, kept "shut up" until the fourteenth day, and slain in the afternoon of the fourteenth day. No event in the whole period can be viewed as the "selection" of Jesus except the triumphal entry. That event occurred on the tenth of Nisan, and the fourteenth would therefore be Thursday, and not Friday. In the intervening three days between the tenth and the fourteenth, Jesus appeared in Jerusalem many times, always within a sabbath day's journey, spending each night in Bethany. This would be the lamb "kept up," according to the type. (a) A third source of corroboration for this view comes from Matthew's use of the plural "sabbaths" (Matthew 28:1). The Greek text in this place is specific, "end of the sabbaths," [25] showing that there were back-to-back sabbath days when our Lord slept in the tomb, these being Friday, the first day of the Nisan Passover, and Saturday immediately following, which was the ordinary sabbath. The theory of Friday crucifixion contradicts Matthew's revelation that there were plural sabbaths involved. The above considerations have been considered by many students of the Bible for many years as sufficient grounds for believing in a Thursday crucifixion; but the matter could not be proved, really without a definite knowledge of exactly what year Jesus was crucified. This author wrote in his Commentary on Matthew in 1968 that "It can never be known what day of the week was the 15th of Nisan until the overriding question of what year is fixed" (my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 12:40). The significance of this review of the question lies in the fact that Roger Rusk, Physics Professor Emeritus of the University of Tennessee, has recently related the scientific work of Herman H. Goldstine to the problem in hand. In Goldstine's book, New and Full Moons, an exciting new tool has been added for use in determining ancient dates. As Rusk said: The principal equations describing the positions and motions of the moon, which require enormous quantities of time for computation by hand. were fed into a very sophisticated computer that completed the calculations, giving the exact times for some 66,000 new moons and full moons. These calculations should now be taken into account by all students of history who seek a chronological scale for these early centuries.[26]From these scientific calculations, Rusk calculated the following table for the years A.D. 25-36: THE NEW MOONS NEAR .D. Date Hour Day 25 March 7 9:39 PM Thu Fri Sat Fri March 22 26 April 6 6:50 AM Sat Sat Sun Sat April 20 27 March 26 8:24 PM Wed Thu Fri Thu April 10 28 March 153:01 AM Mon Mon Tue Mon March 29 29 April 2 8:06 PM Sat Sun Mon Sun April 17 30 March 22 8:22 PM Wed Thu Fri Thu April 6 31 March 12 12:52 AMMon Mon Tue Mon March 26 32 March 29 10:31 PM Sat Sun Mon Sun April 13 33 March 19 1:04 PM Thu Fri Sat Fri April 3 34 March 9 5:48 AM Tue TueWed Tue March 23 35 April 7 2:03 PM Wed Thu Fri Thu April 22 36 March 28 6:26 AM Mon Mon Tue Mon April 11 Only twice in this twelve-year period did the fourteenth of Nisan (the day our Lord suffered) fall on a Friday, namely, in 25 A.D. and in 33 A.D. This means that if the Lord suffered on Friday, he died in either 25 or 33 A.D., one of these days being too early and the other too late. But what about Thursday? The fourteenth of Nisan began on Thursday in 27 A.D. and in 30 A.D., the latter being the date usually agreed upon by scholars as the year of our Lord's death. Thus, scientific evidence harmonizes with Thursday crucifixion, but not Friday crucifixion. Dogmatism is not in order when considering a question so long pondered with diverse conclusions; but we may safely say with Rusk: The rules governing the observance of Passover and the astronomical limitations governing the application of these rules combine to make Thursday, April 6, A.D. 30, the most plausible of the dates suggested for the crucifixion of Christ.[27]Therefore, with regard to Mark 15:42, "the Preparation" means the day before Passover, thus the 14th of Nisan, which was the day our Lord suffered; and Mark's word here that it was the day before the sabbath cannot mean that it was Friday, but that it was the day before the high day (Nisan 15), also called a sabbath. In the light of this, there is no way to make the Last Supper coincide with the paschal meal; the Saviour was in the tomb when Israel ate the passover after sundown the night Jesus was crucified. Since all four Gospels concur in this fact, it is unaffected by any question of what day Jesus suffered, whether Thursday or Friday. See note under Luke 22:7 in my Commentary on Luke. [19] R. A. Torrey, Difficulties in the Bible (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907). [20] J. W. McGarvey, Jesus and Jonah (Cincinnati, Ohio: The Standard Publishing Company, 1896), p. 6. [21] R. A. Torrey, op. cit., p. 104. [22] Roger Rusk. "The Day He Died" (Christianity Today, Vol. 18, No. 19), p. 4 (720). [23] A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1922), pp. 188-189. [24] Roger Rusk, op. cit., p. 4 (720). [25] Nestle Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972). [26] Roger Rusk, op. cit., p. 6 (722). [27] Ibid. Verse 43 There came Joseph of Arimathea, a councilor of honorable estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked for the body of Jesus.Again in the history of God's people, the Lord raised up a Joseph to meet some crisis. When the nation of the chosen people were threatened with famine, God sent Joseph ahead of them to sit next to the throne of Egypt and prepare the way before them. When the Christ child was an infant, it was the strong arm of Joseph that protected him from the hatred of Herod. Again, in this situation, when Peter and others had forsaken the Lord and fled, when it might have appeared that the Son of God would lie in the makeshift grave like the ones prepared for the robbers, God again raised up Joseph the honorable councilor. Nor was he alone. Nicodemus, another great and honorable man, joined in the project of arranging suitable burial for the Lord Jesus Christ. For a more extended discussion of the worthy Joseph of Arimathea, see my Commentary on Matthew, Matthew 27:57. Verse 44 And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead: and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead.If the place of the crucifixion was the skull-shaped hill mentioned earlier, even an ordinary messenger in the employ of the governor could have covered the distance in less than five minutes; so the time factor here is of no great importance. Pilate's surprise was due to the fact that crucifixion was designed as a slow death; and for Jesus to have been dead so early, evidently at a time after Pilate's order to break his legs, and before such an order could have been carried out, was certainly phenomenal. A couple of important deductions hinge on the revelation here. The request of Joseph, coming after Pilate's order to break Jesus' legs and before the order was executed, resulted in Pilate's demanding a conference with the centurion in charge. This key fact accounts for the independent action of the soldiers in changing their orders by not breaking Jesus' legs and, instead, thrusting a spear into his side, conduct which would have been impossible had the centurion been present. Therefore, the absence of the centurion was providential. The second deduction from the event here is that the death of Christ so quickly was almost unbelievable to the governor, even to the extent of his rejecting the report as false until he checked it with his centurion. The conclusion is reached that Christ did not die of crucifixion at all, there having been insufficient time for it, but that, as he said he would do, he laid down his life of his own accord. This also harmonizes with Mark 15:37, which see. Verse 45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the corpse to Joseph.Here appears corroboration at the highest official level of the fact of Jesus' actual death. The swoon theory of the resurrection cannot stand against the evidence here. Pilate made sure that it was a corpse that he released to Joseph; and as the Scriptures foretold, Jesus died. Verse 46 And he bought a linen cloth, and taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb.Sanner noted five aspects of Joseph's ministry to the Lord thus: He purchased fine linen (Mark 15:46), removed the body from the cross and wrapped it in the linen shroud (see John 19:40), laid him in his own new rock-hewn sepulchre (which was in a garden on a nearby hillside), and rolled a heavy stone against the door of the tomb as a protection against marauders.[28]Note, however, the difference in what Mark here said and the significant variation from it in Sanner's comment. It is perfectly natural to suppose that Mark actually meant that they "wrapped" Jesus in a "shroud." Countless faithful students of God's word have made the same erroneous deduction. Nevertheless, it was a far different thing that took place. From Luke and John, it is clear that the linen cloth was first cut into small medical-type bandages, and that these were "wound" around Jesus' body, a far different thing from wrapping. Mark is exactly correct in the use of the word "wound." See the article in my Commentary on John, the parallel section concerning the grave-clothes of Jesus. He rolled a stone against the door of the tomb ... It is exactly here that Satan would have delighted to close the sacred Gospel. With the Christ dead and buried, Satan would no longer have suffered any restraint in the execution of his ancient purpose to destroy the Adamic creation. God, however, was not at all hindered by stones deployed by the hands of men. For discussion of Thomas Jefferson's New Testament and his ending of the Gospel at this verse, see my Commentary on Matthew,Matthew 27:59-60. In addition to the stone that Joseph quite properly placed against the door of the sepulchre, the governor, acting on suggestions from the priests, provided an armed guard at the tomb and sealed it with the official seal of the Roman government. Very neat; but the Son of God rose anyway! No grave could contain the Prince of Life! ENDNOTE: [28] A. Elwood Sanner, op. cit., p. 410. Verse 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Jesus beheld where he was laid.The granting of precedence in this verse to Mary Magdalene, out of whom the Lord had cast seven devils, and the mention of her name ahead of that of Mary the mother of Jesus, defies any human explanation of it. Such unexpected and utterly amazing elements in the gospel of Christ afford incidental but overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of the divine nature of the sacred records. No forger could ever have thought of anything like this; nor can it be supposed that any mistake has been made. It was not to Mary his mother, but to Mary Magdalene, that Jesus first appeared after he was risen from the dead. Surely God's ways are not like the ways of men. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter FifteenJesus Accused before Pilate, Mark 15:1-5. (Matthew 27:1-2 Matthew 27:11-14; Luke 23:1-5; John 18:28-38) Mark 15:1-5.— See the notes on the parallel in Matthew. It varies from this only in a few expressions. Barabbas Preferred, and Jesus Rejected, Mark 15:6-15. (Matthew 27:15-26; Luke 23:13-25; John 18:39-40) Mark 15:7. had committed murder.—Matthew says of Barabbas no more than that he was "a notable prisoner." Mark here gives the cause of his notoriety. He had been engaged in an insurrection, during the progress of which he had committed murder, and he now "lay bound with them that had made insurrection with him." Luke locates the insurrection within the city (Luke 23:19), and John states that Barabbas was a robber (John 18:40). He was probably the chief of a band of robbers, and had ventured into the city for some deed of violence, but had been overpowered and cast into prison. Why the people sympathized with him is not explained. It was probably because his insurrection had been a blow at the Roman government, causing the people to forget his crimes for the sake of his hostility to the common enemy. Mark 15:8. "began to desire him.—It seems from this verse, that the multitude first mentioned the subject of releasing a prisoner, by calling on Pilate "to do as he had ever done unto them." Pilate, having already pronounced Jesus innocent, and having proposed to release him with a mere chastisement (Luke 23:13-15), now sought to take advantage of the people's clamor by proposing to release Jesus (verse 9); but the chief priests circumvented him by persuading the people to ask for Barabbas (verse 11; comp. note on Matthew 27:20). On the remainder of the paragraph, see the notes under the parallel in Matthew. Argument of Section 5If Jesus had been arrested on some charge of criminal conduct, and if his trial and sentence had been marked by the due forms of justice, these facts would have detracted somewhat from the force of the evidence of his innocence. But the proceedings connected with his arrest and condemnation by the Sanhedrim, and those by which the sentence of death was procured from Pilate, furnish evidence in favor of his claims. It is only when justice is to be perverted, and the innocent condemned, that men resort to practices so corrupt. Though false witnesses were purposely employed in his trial before the Sanhedrim, and though their testimony when presented was contradictory, still the high priest pretended that it contained evidence of guilt. (Mark 14:57-60.) Not willing, however, to rest the case on this testimony, Jesus was then called on to testify in his own case, and though his answer was merely a repetition of what he had claimed for himself from the beginning, on this he was pronounced worthy of death. (Mark 14:61-64.) After thus condemning him on a false charge of blasphemy, they went before Pilate with an entirely different charge, that of disloyalty to Cæsar, a charge of which they had special reasons to know that he was not guilty. (Mark 15:1-2; comp. Mark 12:13-17.) Pilate was now subjected to the alternative of either vindicating the cause of justice, or giving success to the iniquitous prosecution of Jesus. He knew that the chief priests had accused him through envy (15:10), and he openly proclaimed that he could find no evil in his conduct (Mark 15:14); yet, "to content the people, he released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus to be crucified" (Mark 15:15). Thus the condemnation and the sentence of Jesus, viewed merely in the light of Mark's account, contain unmistakable proofs that they were brought about by the employment of such measures, and such only, as are employed in the condemnation and death of innocent persons. The Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus, Mark 15:16-47 and Mark 16:1-20 Jesus Mocked and Led away by the Soldiers, Mark 15:16-21. (Matthew 27:27-32; Luke 23:26-32; John 19:1-3 John 19:16-17) Mark 15:16. called Praetorium.—The word here rendered "Praetorium," is the same that is rendered "common hall" in Matthew 27:27, and "judgment hall" in John 18:28. It is the Latin word proetorium, which had been adopted into the Greek language, and means the tent or dwelling of a praetor, or of any other commanding officer. In this case it was Pilate's dwelling. Mark 15:17. with purple.—John and Mark both represent the robe which the soldiers put on Jesus as one of purple (comp. John 19:2), while Matthew (Matthew 27:28) calls it a scarlet robe, more properly rendered crimson. This difference is accounted for by the fact that the term purple was used by the Romans to include several different shades of red. (See Alford in loco,and Robinson's Greek Lexicon of New Testament, where an example is given from Horace.) See, for other notes on this paragraph, the parallel in Matthew. The Crucifixion, Mark 15:22-28. (Matthew 27:33-38; Luke 23:33-34 Luke 23:38; John 19:17-24) Mark 15:22. Golgotha.— See the note, Matthew 27:33. Mark 15:23. wine mingled with myrrh.—Matthew says, "vinegar mingled with gall." But the vinegar of the Jews was a cheap and sour wine, and the two terms designate the same liquid. Gall is the humor found in the bodies of men and beasts, otherwise called bile. But the Greek word here rendered gall (χολ), is used in the Septuagint to represent a Hebrew word which means any bitter herb, and myrrh is a bitter gum that exudes from the bark of a tree. Matthew, then, uses the term gall indefinitely for something bitter, while Mark, aiming to be more specific, names the particular herb which was used. (See Robinson's N. T. Lexicon on χολ, and Smith's Bible Dictionary on Gall.) In reference to the refusal of Jesus to drink, see the note, Matthew 27:34. Mark 15:24. casting lots.—The remarks already made on these words, under Matthew 27:35, are equally appropriate here. Mark 15:25. it was the third hour.—That is, about 9 o'clock. John says it was "about the sixth hour" that Pilate delivered Jesus to be crucified. (John 19:14-17.) It could not have been the sixth hour according to the Jewish mode of reckoning; for Matthew, Mark and Luke all testify that the darkness occurred at the sixth hour, and this was after Jesus had been on the cross for a considerable length of time. (See Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44.) Neither could it have been at the sixth hour according to the Roman method of counting, which would be 6 o'clock; for this would not allow time for all of the proceedings which were had previous to the crucifixion. We conclude, then, that Mark fixes the true time of the crucifixion, and that the text of John has been altered by some mistake of transcribers. John could not himself have made a mistake; for, independent of his inspiration, he was an eyewitness of the scene, and could not have miscalculated it by the space of three hours. Mark 15:26. The King of the Jews.—Matthew expresses it, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews;" but he probably expands the expression by the addition of the words, "This is Jesus"—words which are implied, though not expressed, in the inscription as given by Mark. The variations in Luke and John (Luke 23:38; John 19:19) are doubtless of the same character, Mark alone preserving the laconic form employed by Pilate. Mark 15:27. two thieves.—See the note on Matthew 27:38. Mark 15:28. And the scripture.—This verse is canceled by the critics on the very highest manuscript authority. Revilings by the People, Mark 15:29-32. (Matthew 27:39-44; Luke 23:35-37) The facts of this paragraph are more fully reported by Matthew, and need no additional comment hero. The Darkness, and the End, Mark 15:33-41. (Matthew 27:45-56; Luke 23:44-49; John 19:28-30) Only two points in this paragraph, in which Mark differs slightly from Matthew, seem to demand attention in this place. Mark 15:36. saying, Let alone.—The expression, "Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down," is not intended as an objection to giving him the vinegar; for the man who used these words had already given it to him. He gave Jesus the vinegar to moisten his tongue and lips, and the remark, "Let alone," is an indefinite expression addressed to the bystanders, and meaning that they should be quiet and patient to see the result. In the same way must we construe the remark addressed by some of the bystanders to the man who gave the drink, as reported by Matthew. He says, "The rest said, Let be (φες, in the singular number), let us see whether Elias will come to save him." They made the remark to him, and he to them; but neither had reference to the drink of vinegar. Mark 15:39. when the centurion.—Mark does not state so clearly as Matthew does, the causes of the centurion's exclamation. He merely says, "When the centurion saw that he so cried out and gave up the ghost," he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God;" but it is implied that he was convinced by the events that preceded and accompanied the last cry of Jesus, and not by that outcry alone. Mark's language, indeed, is intended to state the time rather than the cause of the exclamation. The Burial, Mark 15:42-47. (Matthew 27:57-66; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:31-42) Mark 15:42. the preparation.—It was not the preparation for the Passover, which had already been celebrated the evening previous, but for the Sabbath of the Passover week, which was a "high day." (John 19:31.) Mark explains it thus by adding, "that is, the day before 'the Sabbath.'" It had become a preparation day by custom, and not by force of law; for there is nothing in the law on the subject. The fact that it was the preparation is given by Mark as the reason why Joseph went to Pilate and asked for the body (comp. Mark 15:43); while John states it as the reason why "the Jews" besought Pilate to have the legs of the crucified broken and their bodies taken away (John 19:31). The same cause operated on both the friends and the foes of Jesus, each party having, in other particulars, a different object in view. Mark 15:43. of Arimathea.—It is supposed by some that Arimathea, the home of Joseph, was the ancient Ramah, the birthplace and home of the prophet Samuel, about two miles north of Jerusalem. (See Smith's Dictionary.) an honorable counselor.—Matthew says of Joseph personally no more than that he was a rich man of Arimathea and a disciple of Jesus. Mark adds that he was an "honorable counselor"—that is, a member of the Sanhedrim; Luke, that he was "a good man and a just" who "had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;" and John, that though a disciple of Jesus he was secretly so for fear of the Jews. (See the parallels.) He was one of those men to whom John refers when he says, "Among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:42-43.) went in boldly.—Men who are ordinarily timid sometimes exhibit great boldness in a trying crisis. The boldness of Joseph in identifying himself at this crisis as a friend of Jesus, is the more apparent when we contrast his conduct with that of the other male disciples, not one of whom seems to have taken any steps for the proper care of the body. of Jesus. It required great moral as well as physical courage to act as his friend when his cause appeared hopeless and when all men seemed to be his enemies. Mark 15:44-45. Pilate marveled.—Pilate "marveled if he were already dead," because it was not uncommon for crucified persons to remain on the cross two or three days before death ensued. Not until he had made inquiry of the centurion, who had perhaps returned to the praetorium, leaving the soldiers to watch the bodies, did he grant Joseph's request. This procedure shows that Joseph's request for the body of Jesus preceded the request of the Jews that the bodies be taken away. (John 19:31.) Mark 15:46-47.— See the notes on Matthew 27:59-61. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 To be a king under the Romans might imply some rivalry, but Pilate restricted his question to the Jews, which would not mean any necessary opposition to the law of the land. To the question of Pilate Jesus merely said thou sayest it. 3 To the accusation of the chief priest Jesus made no reply, not even to the extent of denying them, although they pertained to his alleged conduct. 4 Pilate called the attention of Jesus to the accusations, doubtless thinking that he had not noticed them, or at any rate had not observed the nature of them. 5 It is usual for a prisoner to deny the charges made against him, whether he cares to defend himself or not. Jesus did neither which caused Pilate to wonder. 6 It was customary to celebrate that feast with the release of a prisoner to be selected by the people, not the officers or priests. 7 Pilate knew about the situation, and he therefore was aware that Barabbas was a noted criminal whom no good society could tolerate. 8 While the governor was delaying his action the multitude began clamoring for him to follow up with the usual practice. 9 Pilate thought this would give him an opportunity of releasing Jesus without clearing him of the sentence the Sanhedrin had pronounced against him. 0 The chief priests had no voice in selecting the prisoner to be released. They had caused Jesus to be delivered into the hands of this court with an envious motive. In view of that, Pilate thought the people would take a better view of the case and call for the release of Jesus. 1 It is possible that they would have done so, had the chief priests not moved or influenced them to call for the release of Barabbas. 2 Pilate was evidently surprised at the selection of the people. If they were willing to have so wicked a prisoner as Barabbas turned loose upon the community, they certainly could not wish for anything severe to be done to as harmless a person as Jesus, hence he asked them directly for their verdict concerning him. 3 They cried out again. Mark does not tell of their having made this demand before, but Matthew 27:21 gives that instance. 4 According to Mark's account the Jews would not state any evil against Jesus, but John 18:30 reports that they accused him of being a "malefactor," which merely means an evildoer, so that they evaded the governor's question. 5 It was a practice of some of the courts to scourge a condemned prisoner before delivering him to the executioners. It was a harsh ordeal imposed on his bare body. 6 The whole band means a part of the army to be used as executioners. 7 Purple and scarlet were the royal colors, and this kind of robe was put on Jesus in mockery. The crown of thorns was for the same purpose because he had claimed to be a king, and also in order to torture him in his humiliation. 8 This was a salutation of mockery and contempt. 9 These men did not worship Jesus in any proper manner as we may well conclude. (See the note on "worship" at Matthew 2:2.) 0 After these acts of mockery were concluded, the soldiers replaced the robe with his own clothing. Matthew, Mark and John mention the crown of thorns and also the robe of royal colors. They tell of the removal of the robe but neither of them says a word about removing the crown of thorns. We can reasonably conclude that our Lord was compelled to wear the instrument of mockery and torture throughout the six long hours of the scenes of the cross. 1 Compel Simon . . . to bear his cross. (See notes at Matthew 16:24.) 2 See a full explanation of Golgotha at Matthew 27:33. 4 The act of crucifixion is so cruel that a detailed description of it, as given by the works of reference, is given in the comments at Matthew 27:35. 5 The third hour corresponds with our nine o'clock A. M. 6 Accusation is defined, "The crime of which one is accused." Hence those who passed by would see that Christ was crucified for being The King of the Jews! 8 The scripture referred to is in Isaiah 53:12. 9 Again the mob misquoted Jesus, for he never said he would destroy the temple. What he did say is recorded in John 2:19. 0 There can be no question that Jesus had the power to come down from the cross. Had he done so, however, the scriptures could not have been fulfilled (Matthew 26:24; Isaiah 53:7-12). 1 This remark of the chief priests fulfilled Luke 4:23. 2 That we may see and believe was a hypocritical statement. They had known of miracles that Jesus performed that called for as much power as this would have required, yet they were still in unbelief. They that were crucified with him means the thieves. According to Luke 23:40-42, one of them repented of his saying and appealed to Jesus for mercy and asked to be remembered. 3 Jesus had been on the cross three hours when the darkness started (verse 25). It lasted until the ninth hour which was three o'clock P. M. 4 See the comments at Matthew 27:46 for use on this verse. 5 This is explained at Matthew 27:47. 6 In John 19:28-29 is the record of why this vinegar (sour wine) was served to Jesus. He had expressed his condition which was one of thirst, the kind that so often comes upon one at the approach of death. 7 Cried with a loud voice. This is commented upon at some length at Matthew 27:50. Gave up the ghost (or spirit), which proves that man possesses something besides his flesh which leaves the body at death. 8 A description of the importance of this veil is at Matthew 27:51. 9 According to Matthew 27:54, the earthquake and other demonstrations in the natural creation, helped to convince the centurion that it was no ordinary person who had just died and was thus accorded such distinction. 1 These women were faithful to the last, but with feminine timidity they had stood some distance away watching. They had come from the same district where Jesus was brought up, Galilee, and had served him on various occasions. 2 The day before the sab-bath is a general explanation, meaning that every sabbath or holy day is preceded by a preparation day. Whatever manual exercise would be needed in preparing food and other necessary articles for life must be done on these preparation days. The regular Passover came on Friday the fourteenth. Jesus was crucified on the day before, which was the reason for saying this was the preparation. 3 Beingca counsellor means he was a member of the Sanhedrin. For extended comments on this man see those at Matthew 27:57. 4 Pilate was surprised that Jesus was dead. Crucifixion causes a slow death and the victim usually has to suffer on and on for hours until late in the night, and this was the cause of Pilate's surprise. To make sure that Joseph was not planning to recover Jesus alive, the governor sent the centurion to see if Jesus had died. 5 The centurion reported that Jesus was dead, and Pilate then gave the body to Joseph. This good man had made special provision for tire care of the body. For further comments on this phase of the subject see at Matthew 27:58. 6 John 19:38-40 tells us that, Nicodemus assisted Joseph in this service of Love. He was the man who had come to Jesus by night (John 3:1-2). 7 The women witnessed the burial of Jesus and the rolling of the stone against the door of the sepulchre, which explains their concern at Mark 16:3. Verse 1 For critical discussion leading to the conclusion that this whole chapter is a valid part of the Gospel of Mark and of the Word of God, see the introduction to this commentary. The Christian student has no need whatever to be concerned with allegations to the contrary, none of which are founded on anything except subjective conclusions of scholars, many of whom are obviously influenced more by bias against the content of the chapter than by any objective evidence favoring its exclusion. Even J. R. Dummelow, while admitting that the external evidence against the last twelve verses "is certainly not enough to justify their rejection,"[1] nevertheless decided to reject them on grounds of form, vocabulary and style. However, of all the evidences bearing on questions of this kind, nothing could be of less weight than arguments from style and vocabulary. Mark is said to have used words in this chapter which he used nowhere else in the gospel; but that is incapable of proving that the words were not in his vocabulary. The conceit that Mark used every word that he knew in the first fifteen chapters is untenable! Furthermore, the sudden change to singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 was a part of the essential design to make clear who would be empowered to do the "signs" of Mark 16:17-20; and the alleged awkwardness of the re-introduction of Mary Magdalene in Mark 16:9 disappears completely when Mark's purpose of mentioning the sevenfold exorcism is discerned. That purpose was not to identify Mary Magdalene, already mentioned twice, but to explain the "hardness of heart" on the part of the eleven (Mark 16:14). It is such a failure to read what the gospel is saying that results in misjudgments based upon style. ENDNOTE: [1] J. R. Dummelow, Commentary on the Whole Bible (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), p. 733. And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.(Mark 16:1) Mary Magdalene ... The three women here are doubtless the same as those mentioned in Mark 15:39. When the sabbath was past ... Matthew has "At the end of the sabbaths (plural)" which recognizes the fact of their having been back-to-back sabbaths due to the 15th of Nisan falling on a Friday. Mark's mention of only one is characteristic, just as he mentioned the healing of only one blind man at Jericho (Mark 10:46), whereas there were actually two (Matthew 20:30); and just as he mentioned only the colt (Mark 11:2), whereas both the colt and its mother were brought (Matthew 21:2); and just as he mentioned only one angel (Mark 16:5), whereas there were two (Luke 24:4). Inherent in Mark's purpose of composing a short, abbreviated Gospel was the necessity for leaving out a great many things that could have been related. On the basis of this characteristic of Mark, it would be extremely unwise to assume that these three women alone were in that company. By the nature of the event, it is reasonable to conclude that there were many others not mentioned. Verse 2 And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the tomb when the sun was risen.Mary Magdalene had already made one visit to the tomb quite a bit earlier "while it was yet dark" (John 20:1); and, being aware that the tomb was empty, she had told Peter and John. Nevertheless, after sunrise she returned to the tomb with the group who had brought spices. There are some elements of the sacred narratives of these events that cannot be fully catalogued as to time and personnel due to the brevity of the accounts regarding what must have been a day of exceedingly many episodes and involving at least hundreds of people. As Cranfield said: It would be suspicious, if just here everything agreed exactly. The discrepancies (this student likes the word instead of - J.B.C.) are at least evidence that we have not to do here with a piece of carefully concerted deceit.[2]ENDNOTE: [2] C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to Saint Mark (Cambridge: The University Press, 1966), p. 463. Verse 3 And they were saying among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the tomb?Mary Magdalene already knew that the stone was rolled away; but as this verse relates what some of them were saying among themselves, there was no cause for her to speak, the same fearful reticence being already upon her which came upon them all a little later (Mark 16:8). Who shall roll us away the stone ...? Who indeed solves every human problem too great for men to solve themselves? It was God who sent an angel and removed the stone, and it was God who sent the Christ to pay the price of human salvation and restore the broken fellowship between man and his Creator. Verse 4 And looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back: for it was exceeding great.Many an insurmountable obstacle has yielded before God's children engaged on missions in harmony with his will. Their fears and apprehensions regarding the great stone were perfectly well founded from the human viewpoint; but when they arrived at the place where frustration had been anticipated, the obstacle had been removed. That the event here recorded was an actual historical happening is surely true; but it is no more wonderful than similar things which have been happening ever since in the spiritual sector. Verse 5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe; and they were amazed.The young man ... Mark surely intended that we should understand that this was an angel of heaven. Some people refuse to believe in the existence of angels, having been poisoned by the leaven of the Sadducees; and, like the Sadducees, they "do greatly err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). Again, from the words of Cranfield: Here a protest must be made against the widespread tendency to dismiss angels as mere pious fancy ... The purpose of angels at the tomb was to link the actual event of the resurrection and the women. Human eyes were not permitted to see the event of the resurrection itself... The angels as the constant witnesses of God's actions saw it ... By their testimony the resurrection ... was made known to men.[3]ENDNOTE: [3] Ibid., p. 465. Verse 6 And he saith unto them, Be not amazed: ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, who hath been crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold, the place where they laid him.The Nazarene ... How unlike any human designation was this! When the Lord Jesus addressed Saul of Tarsus from glory, he said, "I am Jesus of Nazareth whom thou persecutest" (Acts 22:8). Just why the angels of God and Christ himself should have brought the name of that wretched Galilean village into such identifications cannot be fully known; but one thing was certainly in it, namely, a rejection of human value-judgments. He is risen: he is not here ... Was this really true? The great heart of humanity has invariably received it as gospel truth, the wisest and best of all ages since then having concurred in the conviction that our Lord did in fact rise from the dead. There could have been no Christianity if he did not. The great historical witnesses of: (1) the calendar, (2) the Lord's Day, (3) the Lord's Supper, (4) Christian baptism, and (5) the progression of Christianity throughout history are perpetual and undying monuments to the fact of Jesus' resurrection. Not one of them has any explanation at all apart from the truth that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. Behold, the place where they laid him ... The angel here called attention to the undisturbed grave-clothes of Jesus. the evidence thus lying before them being sufficient to convince them of the resurrection. John elaborated this detail (John 20:1-10), indicating that it was the evidence which convinced him of the resurrection. The grave-clothes, having been applied by the winding of the whole body of Jesus in small medical-like bandages cut from the linen cloth, were intact, as if the body of the Lord was still encased therein, even the napkin being in a roll as if Jesus' head was still in it. Christ had risen through the grave-clothes in exactly the same manner that he had risen through the tomb. The angels had rolled away the stone not to let Jesus out, but to let the witnesses in! This is developed extensively in the parallel place in John (see my Commentary on John), and also in my Commentary on Mark, 1. THE EMPTY TOMBSatan has vexed himself endlessly regarding the phenomenon of the empty tomb. His emissaries have alleged that someone stole the body, or that the women mistakenly went to the wrong grave, or that Jesus walked out after a long swoon, etc., etc., endlessly; but all of the devices of the devil fail in the light of the facts: (1) that if the enemies of Christ had stolen the body, they would have used it to destroy the infant faith, and (2) that if the disciples had stolen it, it would have resulted in Christianity's having been founded upon a fraud, an assumption so monstrous that only a fool could believe it. There was nothing in heaven or upon earth that could have sent the last one of those apostles of Jesus up and down the Roman empire preaching Christ crucified and risen again, except the unqualified certainty that they were preaching the truth. Most of them, if not all, sealed their testimony with their blood; and the Spirit-filled church swept over the ancient empire like the breath of God himself. The empty tomb proved the resurrection of Christ, independently even of the remarkable epiphanies which followed. Verse 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.Tell his disciples and Peter ... Peter's denial had left him in an estranged position with regard to Jesus, and such a message as this would have greatly encouraged him. No doubt he needed such encouragement. If the Lord had intended by this special mention of Peter to indicate any preeminence among the apostles, his name would have come first. Into Galilee ... This anticipates the Galilean appearance to the disciples, as recorded in Matthew 28:16-20, in which the great commission was given, disproving absolutely the theory that the last twelve verses do not belong to this gospel. Mark 16:7 points squarely at Mark 16:15-16, where the world-wide commission to teach and baptize all nations was recorded in perfect harmony with the report in Matthew. Verse 8 And they went out, and fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them: and they said nothing to any one; for they were afraid.Trembling and astonishment had come upon them ... These graphic words indicate dramatically the soul-shocking nature of the truth those women had just learned. The mystery and heart-stopping meaning of what they had come to know was as devastating a body of information as mortals ever received; and the implications of it are enough to challenge and awe any man who ever contemplated it. Christ is eternal; he came out of the grave; he ever lives to save and redeem men, and to judge them! The powers of hell itself trembled at the significance of what those women became suddenly aware of; and there can be no marvel that they were afraid. Of extreme importance is the fact that women played such a large part in the drama unfolded that day, a fact so utterly out of harmony with anything in Judaism, or the whole ancient world, that it stands as independent and conclusive proof of the new dimensions in which the faith of Jesus Christ came to mankind, being a thing, as Cranfield noted, "which the early church would not be likely to invent."[4]And they said nothing to any one ... This fearful reticence was a testimony to the greatness of the revelation that had come to them. The silence on their part was not for long. As Sanner said, "It was a different matter, later, when understanding brought a surge of joy (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9)."[5]For they were sore afraid ... Such fear was natural, arising not merely from conversation with an angel of the Highest, but also from the shattering impact of the information imparted to them. [4] C. E. B. Cranfield, op. cit., p. 463. [5] A. Elwood Sanner, Beacon Bible Commentary (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 1964), P. 413. Verse 9 Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons.Mary Magdalene ... The radical critics love to assert concerning this verse that "Mark here introduced Mary Magdalene, just as if she had not been mentioned twice already in a few verses," concluding from this that Mark could not have written these words. This is not even reasonable. True, Mark had mentioned her twice already; but here, in his account of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances, he was compelled to speak of her a third time; and the incredible thing from the human standpoint, that this woman should have enjoyed the top priority in such a list is pinpointed and emphasized by this reference to the fact of the sevenfold exorcism. Thus, Mark mentioned this, not for purposes of identification, but for the wonderment of it in connection with her being the first to see Jesus after his resurrection. Verse 10 She went and told them that had been with him and they mourned and wept.From John, it is clear that this woman was also entrusted, first of all, with the message that Jesus would ascend to the Father in heaven, and if that was also part of the message she told them here, there is no wonder that they disbelieved. Verse 11 And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved.Disbelieved ... Does this not refer back to the sevenfold exorcism in Mark 16:9? It was not so much an inherent unbelief in the resurrection of Christ that is meant here, although that was in it, but the further incredibility of the fact that such a person as Mary Magdalene was the first to whom the Son of God appeared. Verse 12 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way into the country.Unto two of them ... This is usually understood to be the same appearance as that recorded in Luke 24:13, the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. In another form ... has reference to the fact that Christ withheld his identity from them, so they at first did not recognize him. Verse 13 And they went away and told it to the rest: neither believed they them.Luke recounted in detail how these two returned to Jerusalem and reported to the eleven as they were gathered together; and, although Luke did not mention the fact of the eleven's unbelief of their report, he did relate how Christ suddenly appeared in the midst of them for the express purpose of causing them to believe. Thus, the sacred records sustain and corroborate each other (Luke 24:33-35). Neither believed they them ... From the Lucan account, it is clear that the "eleven" were the ones who did not at first believe. In the verses following this, one of the most fantastic exhibitions of the use of pronouns to be found anywhere in all literature is in evidence; and the pronouns are the key to the next passage. Verse 14 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven themselves as they sat at meat; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them that had seen him after he was risen.This verse establishes, by its repetition of it, the fact that the eleven apostles were the persons meant by the pronoun "them," not only here but completely to the end of this Gospel, there being utterly no grammatical device known to man by which any other antecedent for this pronoun appears anywhere in the whole passage. The last "them" in this verse, of course, is the lone exception and has reference to the "them" in Mark 16:12-13. Upbraided them with their unbelief ... The eleven apostles were unbelievers regarding the fact of the resurrection, at first; and their reluctance to believe the two who came back from Emmaus and Mary Magdalene may have stemmed partially from human pride. After all, they had frequently engaged in discussions of who would be greatest in the kingdom of God; and, on the very first day of the resurrection, the Lord had appeared to once-notorious Mary and to two nameless disciples not even belonging to the sacred company of the apostles. No wonder they could not believe it. It was not that they did not believe that Jesus was alive, Peter and John having already seen the convincing evidence in the tomb early that morning. It was simply that they could not believe that Jesus had appeared to THOSE people! All this is implied in the next clause. And hardness of heart because they believed not them that had seen him ... Ah, there it was! Mark had similarly recorded another instance of the Twelve's hardening of their hearts in Mark 6:52. On that occasion also, the Twelve were not in full harmony with the will of God, just as in the case of the eleven here. Verse 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and reach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned.Notice the dramatic shift to singular pronouns in these verses; although addressed to THEM and YE, that is the eleven, there is not a plural word afterward in these verses, this no doubt being designed by the Holy Spirit in order to thwart any application of Mar 16:17-20 to any persons whomsoever except the eleven. Matthew's account of the great commission is loaded with plurals, but there is not one in Mark's account. Go ye into all the world ... Christ's assignment to the apostles was that of the universal proclamation of the saving gospel. There is not even one obscure village on earth which Christ intended to be left out. Preach the gospel to the whole creation ... The use of the word here is significant, this being the same word Paul used in Roman 8:19-21, where it is sometimes rendered "creature." The meaning does not include lower orders of life, but only humankind. Many speculative theories are built on a misunderstanding with regard to this. The KJV has "every creature" in this place; but the meaning is "every person on earth." He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ... In linking faith and baptism as binding preconditions to salvation, Christ made it clear enough that salvation is the result, not of merely believing but of believing and being baptized. The reasons underlying this are as profound as the New Testament itself. Salvation depends upon the absolute and perfect righteousness of the individual saved, there being nothing that a sinner can either believe or do that could endow him with any degree of righteousness approaching what is required for salvation. The Medieval theory of God's imputing righteousness to a sinner is ridiculous. There is nothing that God could put into a sinner that would make him righteous. And if it is suggested that God's Spirit could do so, let it be recalled that God's Spirit is not given to sinners, but to sons (that is, persons in Christ), as stated in Galatians 4:6. However, there is a way that God makes people righteous. What is that? He transfers the sinner into Christ WHO IS ; and thus the sinner is saved in Christ and as Christ. (See Galatians 2:16; Galatians 2:20). Thus, God's plan of salvation is not that of imputing righteousness into sinners, but the transference of sinners INTO Christ. The preconditions upon which Christ promised to transfer sinners into himself are here stated as faith and baptism. For extended discussions of the theological questions involved in such considerations, see my Commentary on Romans, Romans 3. Since Christian baptism is the initiatory rite by which the sons of Adam are inducted into Christ, it was absolutely correct for the Lord to have linked it with faith in this passage as a prerequisite of salvation. There is no way that people can remove this teaching from the doctrine of Christ; but that they are able to get it out of THEIR doctrine is evident everywhere. What this passage does to the theory of salvation by "faith only" is the inherent reason for the "reservations" that some have as regards the authenticity of this passage. He that believeth not shall be condemned ... Ah, but this does not say, "He that believeth NOT and is NOT baptized shall be condemned." True enough, but that is exactly what it means. The quibble raised by such a question is unworthy of intelligence and faith alike, it being implicit in the nature of baptism that, unless one believed, he COULD NOT be baptized. The close resemblance between the words of the Great Commission, as stated here and as recorded in Matthew, makes it clear that Mark is here relating events of the great Galilean appearance referred to in Mark 16:7, the same being further strong evidence of the unity of the entire chapter. Verse 17 And these signs shall accompany them that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.SIGNS WHICH WERE TO THE In this passage lies the probable explanation of why the unknown scribe of the Vatican manuscript omitted to write these words, yet left a space for them. Having read it, and knowing it to be untrue in the sense in which he read it, he skipped these verses, intending to put them in as soon as he could be sure they belonged. This is speculative, of course, but it is only one-hundredth as speculative as the wild reasons alleged by radical critics. What that ancient scribe thought he read in this place was exactly what some moderns are reading into the passage, understanding it as a promise that ALL in Jesus Christ shall be empowered to cast out demons, take up serpents, drink deadly poison without harm, and recover the sick by the laying on of their hands. There was one significant difference: that ancient scribe knew that such a reading of the passage is a lie, that it was not true then, nor was it ever true that all Christians can do such things. What a pity it is that some present-day readers of this place are not so perceptive. What, then, does this passage say? These signs shall accompany ... The word "accompany" here is significant, meaning to "go along with one on a journey," the journey in view here being the travels of the apostles in the carrying out of the great commission just spoken. There was nothing in the use of this word to be construed as an endowment of permanent settlers not going anywhere, and provided merely for their benefit and comfort. Them that believe ... The antecedent of "them" is "the eleven themselves" (Mark 16:14); and the only way this can be avoided is to change the singular pronouns inMark 16:15-16 into plural pronouns contrary to the Greek text. There is nothing difficult in this interpretation, since it is simply basic English. They shall cast out demons, etc. ... The antecedent of "they" is likewise "the eleven apostles themselves," determined by the primary allusion to "them" in the same clause. There is no grammatical device by which this word may be understood as reference to any persons whomsoever except the eleven apostles. From these observations it is clear that the utmost importance must be attached to the preservation of the singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16; because, once these are changed, whether by alteration of the text or by a subjective projection into the passage of "them that shall be saved" through the preaching of the commission, the denotation of Mar 16:17-18 is thereby perverted and contradicted. Note the following example of such a perversion: Those who believe it and receive baptism will find salvation; those who not believe will be condemned. Faith will bring with it these miracles: believers will cast out devils ... speak in strange tongues, etc. - New English Bible (1961). Take another example: Those who believe and are baptized will be saved, and those who refuse to believe will be condemned, etc. - Living Word Bible (a paraphrase). The tragedy of such corrupt renditions of the sacred text is that they so pervert the Word of God as to make it teach a lie. In either of the two examples here cited (and there are many others), the Gospel of Mark is made to say categorically that every believing Christian shall be able to do the signs mentioned in this passage. The proof that such a thing is untrue lies in the obvious fact that the truest Christians in our whole generation cannot do these things. The news media, this very week (at the time of this writing), are carrying another story of a preacher in Tennessee who was killed by a large rattlesnake while attempting to demonstrate his ability to do these signs. But why not? Any one of a dozen so-called translations of the New Testament assured him that he could do so; but they "lied unto him" (1 Kings 13:18). Any translation of the New Testament that substitutes PLURAL for singular pronouns in Mark 16:15-16 is false. There is no Greek scholar who ever lived who could justify such a rape of the sacred text! Churches that pass out these "translations" to their young people, or read them from their pulpits, should not be surprised at all to see their youth swept away in some charismatic movement, relying on the perverted text here as their "authority" from God. May God open the eyes of the elders of his churches! The Book of Acts affords many examples of how most of the signs mentioned here were indeed "accompanying" gifts of the apostles. Peter even raised the dead; Paul shook off a poisonous viper into the fire; and the eleven spoke with new tongues on Pentecost. There is no Scriptural report of their being unharmed by poison; but the Saviour's word in this passage is sufficient for assuming that this sign was also fulfilled in the apostles. Verse 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God.In the year 177 A.D., Irenaeus quoted this verse and another from the beginning of this gospel, thus proving that this passage was received as a part of God's word at that early date, long before the Sinaiticus or Vaticanus manuscripts were written, and indicating the rightful place of this portion of Mark in the sacred canon, independently of these manuscripts. See the introduction. Here Mark did not state exactly where the ascension occurred; and the alleged contradictions regarding this event as having occurred in Galilee, or in Bethany, are of no weight at all. There is every likelihood, if not certainty, that the actual ascension to God was unseen by human eyes, just as the resurrection was not actually seen; and there could have been more than one (there certainly were) instance of Jesus' "going up" in the presence of his disciples, just as he disappeared in the interview with the disciples at Emmaus, or later with the eleven. At the right hand of God ... Our flesh, in the person of Jesus, is upon the throne of God, henceforth called the "throne of God and of the Lamb," and herein is the basis for the uttermost of human hopes and aspirations. Verse 20 And they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs which followed. Amen.Confirming the word ... In this appears the reason for the "signs" Jesus promised to "accompany" the apostles on their worldwide mission; they were given for the purpose of confirming the Word of God. Just what, it may he inquired, could be the purpose of any such signs in our own generation? Does the Word of God need confirming? And how is it that the religious sects claiming to work such signs are as contradictory as a barrel of scorpions? Can anyone really believe that God is "working with them," confirming every sort of religious error ever known? Believe it who can! Amen ... Thus concludes the magnificent Gospel of Mark and its authentic witness of the power and Godhead of Jesus Christ the Son of God. May the Father help all who read it to receive and obey its glorious message unto eternal life. J.W. McGarvey Commentary For Mark Chapter SixteenThe Visit of the Women to the Sepulcher, Mark 16:1-8. (Matthew 28:1-8; Luke 24:1-11; John 20:1-2) Mark 16:1. had bought.—The original verb is not in the pluperfect tense, as the rendering would indicate, but in the first Aorist (ἠγόρασαν). The clause should read, "And when the Sabbath was past Mary Magdalene," etc., "bought sweet spices." Having bought a portion of the spices which they thought necessary, on Friday evening (Luke 23:56), they completed the purchase "when the Sabbath was past;" and while this May have been after sunset on the evening of the Sabbath, it is more likely that it was done as the women were on their way to the sepulcher early on Sunday morning. Mark 16:2. very early.—mark uses two expressions in this verse to indicate the time at which the women came, viz., "very early in the morning," and "at the rising of the sun." Alford says that as the sun was up, it could not be called very early; but in this he differs in opinion from Mark, as he does about some other matters. It was very early for them to reach the sepulcher, when we consider the distance they had come, and the business they had attended to by the way. It was so early that it had necessitated their starting "as it began to dawn," and "while it was yet dark." (See the note above and the one next below.) at the rising of the sun.—Literally, "the sun having risen" (ἀνατείλαντοςτοῦἡλίου). Matthew says they came "as it began to dawn;" and John, "while it was yet dark." Between Matthew and John there is no difference except in expression: for it is yet dark when it begins to dawn. But between both of these writers and Mark there is a difference which demands attention. It is common with skeptics, and with some from whom better things might be expected, to pronounce all such differences contradictions, and to dismiss them from consideration without a serious attempt to see whether they are real contradictions. A contradiction can justly be affirmed only when two statements are such that both can not be true. When they may be true, it is unjust to cast suspicion on either unless it is in itself improbable. In the present case, we have only to inquire whether it may be true, in a proper sense of the terms, that the "women went to the sepulcher at the rising of the sun," and yet true that they went "as it began to dawn." If I were to see a man who had walked from the city of Lexington enter the gate at Ashland (distant nearly two miles) at sunrise, I would not hesitate to say that he went to Ashland at sunrise. But another person who saw him start from his home in Lexington would as truthfully say that the man went to Ashland about daybreak. Again, if I were to pass from Lexington to Louisville on the train which leaves here at 6 A. M., and arrives there at 11 A. M., a friend with Lexington in his mind would say that I went on the the six o'clock train; while another, with Louisville in his mind, would say I went on the eleven o'clock train; and both would speak the truth. A man as far away as Boston or London, on reading either of these accounts, might be a little puzzled at first, but if he were reasonable and just he would not charge a contradiction; for similar localities and expressions at his own door would soon suggest the true explanation of the apparent discrepancy. Give our sacred historians the benefit of this common justice, and all is clear. Matthew says the women went to the sepulcher "as it began to dawn." Does he mean that they arrived then, or that they started then? Beyond all question the language may mean either, and it must be understood according to the probabilities of the case. But what are the probabilities? Another credible writer says they went at sunrise. His statement, considered by itself, might also mean either that they started, or that they arrived, at sunrise: but as the time that he designates is the later, and that of Matthew the earlier, we at once perceive that Matthew must be speaking of the time at which they started, and Mark of the time at which they arrived. This is the conclusion which justice and common sense alike demand. It is not a strained attempt at harmony, but a harmony which actually exists and is clearly perceptible. It is made still clearer when we remember that Bethany, the place where Jesus and his disciples had lodged every night during the preceding week (Luke 21:37), and whence the women had almost certainly come, was nearly two miles from Jerusalem, so that the women would have had to walk briskly in order to reach the city, purchase more spices, and arrive at the sepulcher by sunrise. Mark 16:3. who shall roll.—The fact that as the women approached the sepulcher they raised the question, "Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulcher?" shows that the sealing of the stone and the placing of a guard there were unknown to them; otherwise they would not have expected that the stone would be removed at all, nor would they have come for the purpose which brought them. It is probable that none of the disciples know this until after the resurrection, and therefore the fact that they did not try to steal the body away is sufficient proof that they had no such purpose as was suspected by the chief priests and the Pharisees. (Matthew 27:62-66.) Mark 16:4. for it was very great.—Just as the women had raised the question, who should roll the stone away, they looked and saw that it was already rolled back. To the statement of these two circumstances, the historian adds, "for it was very great." Its great size is mentioned to account both for their question and for the implied surprise when they saw that the stone was removed. Mark 16:5. they saw a young man.—Although Mark does not say expressly that this young man was an angel, the narrative clearly implies that he was. He was the same angel who had rolled the stone away, and who sat on it until the guards fled, when he entered the sepulcher, and there awaited the arrival of the women. (Matthew 28:2-5.) He was also one of the two mentioned by Luke (24:4), he alone being mentioned by Matthew and Mark because he was the actor and speaker. Mark 16:6-7. his disciples and Peter.—In the words, "Tell his disciples and Peter," the angel recognized Peter's preeminence, and intended also, perhaps, by the very honor conferred on him, to rebuke him for his recent denial of his Lord. Mark 16:8. neither said they any thing —Mark expresses more emphatically than Matthew does, the great excitement of the women. They "fled from the sepulcher," they "trembled and were amazed," "neither said they any thing to any man." This last declaration means that they said nothing to any man on the way as they ran to tell the male disciples (verse 7). If they had been less frightened, they might have cried out to every man they met, "The Lord is risen." As it was, people saw in them as they passed, only a group of frightened women running on some unknown errand. Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene, Mark 16:9-11. (John 20:1-18) On the genuineness of the remainder of this chapter, see the dissertation at the close of the volume. Mark 16:9. when Jesus.—The name "Jesus" is omitted from the text by Green and Alford, for want of manuscript authority, and this omission makes the present paragraph connect more closely with the preceding. first to Mary.—Inasmuch as Mary Magdalene came to the sepulcher in company with the other women (verse 1), the statement that Jesus appeared first to her implies that she had become separated from the others; for otherwise he would have appeared to all of them at once. But he appeared to the other women as they were going to tell the disciples (Matthew 28:9-10), consequently Mary's separation from them and the appearance of Jesus to her must both have taken place between the time that they all approached the sepulcher together and the time that he appeared to the other women. This much is implied in the accounts of Matthew and Mark, and the details are furnished by John. He, mentioning Mary alone because she alone brought the news to him, says: "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early when it was yet dark to the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth and cometh to Simon and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him." (John 20:1-2.) These words contain a double proof that she left the company of the other women as soon as they discovered that the sepulcher was open; for first, it is said "she seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher. Then she runneth," etc.; and second, had she remained with the other women till the angel spoke to them, her report to Peter and John would not have been, "They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher, and we know not where they have laid him;" but she would have reported the statement of the angel that he had risen from the dead. She inferred that the body had been taken away, because she could see no other reason for rolling away the great stone. Peter and John, who were evidently separated from the main body of the male disciples, on hearing the startling news, ran with all their might to the sepulcher, followed by Mary. On seeing and believing what Mary had reported, they departed, leaving her still at the tomb, where Jesus appeared to her first. (John 20:3-18.) On disappearing from Mary, he appeared the next moment to the other women, who, by this time, had examined the sepulcher, conversed with the angel, and gone some distance in the direction of the other male disciples. The movements about the sepulcher that morning were animated in the highest degree, and they followed each other in quick succession. When the angel came down like a stream of light from heaven, rolled back the stone, sat down on it, and turned his flashing eyes on the Roman guards, though the latter fell like dead men to the ground, in another instant they arose and fled. The angel enters the tomb, and the five women draw calmly near, not knowing what was done. They see that the stone has been rolled away, when one of them, without a word, runs swiftly away. The others grow pale, and draw near with trembling to the tomb. They look within, they enter, and for a moment they look around in wonder. Two angels suddenly become visible to them, and one of them tells the wonderful story of the resurrection. Wild with joy and fear, they fly away to tell the news. They have scarcely left the spot, when the swift-footed John bounds up to the open door, stoops down and looks with eagerness into the vacant tomb. The impetuous Peter follows hard after, rushes past his companion into the sepulcher, and gazes around. They both for a moment look thoughtfully at the napkin lying here, and the linen clothes lying yonder, then they solemnly walk away. Mary has now returned. After a momentary burst of tears, the first she had found time to shed, she stoops and looks within. The angels, whom none but female eyes could see that day, are visible to her, and commence a conversation which is interrupted by the approach of some one behind her, when she turns, and the risen Lord himself is before her. One moment of rapture, and he is gone. Another swift race for the bewildered Mary, to tell this better news, and to have her story this time treated like an idle tale! Wonderful sepulcher! The center of attraction to heaven and earth, and none the less so as ages have passed away, and the question, Did he rise? goes round the world. seven devils.—The recorded history of Mary Magdalene is almost entirely confined to her connection with the cross and the sepulcher. Only two other facts in her life are known. She was one of the women who in Galilee followed Jesus and ministered to him out of their substance (Luke 8:1-3; Mark 15:41), and out of her, as we see in this verse, the Lord had cast seven demons. Mag-da-lé-ne means a woman of Magdala, and indicated that the town of Magdala, on the western shore of the lake of Galilee, was her native place. There, perhaps, Jesus had first met her, and bound her to himself in bonds of everlasting gratitude by casting out the seven demons. Her possession by these demons was a fearful calamity, but it implies nothing derogatory to her character (see the note, Matthew 8:16); neither is there any thing else in the sacred narratives to justify the popular conception that her character had been bad. The supposition that she is identical with "the woman that was a sinner," spoken of in Luke 7:37-38, is without a shadow of foundation. In reality, all of the indications of her character and position which are furnished by the Scriptures point to a woman in easy circumstances, with a benevolent disposition, tender sensibilities, and commanding influence. Her name stands first among the female attendants of Jesus at almost every mention of it, and on her he conferred the peculiar honor of making her the first human witness of his resurrection from the dead. It is a shame on the Christian world, that a woman of virtue so preeminent has come to be commonly regarded as a reformed harlot; and that her cognomen which served only to distinguish her from other Marys by indicating her birthplace, has become, in the contracted form of Magdalen, the name of societies and institutions for the reformation of abandoned women. This is an illustration, however, of the corrupting and degrading tendency of human tradition when it dares to tamper with the sacred narratives. It is Rome that has given Mary the false and low repute in which she is erroneously held. (See Smith's Dictionary.) Mark 16:10-11. as they mourned and wept.—When Mary left the sepulcher she doubtless followed Peter and John, who had gone but a few moments before. The mourning and weeping here mentioned are best accounted for by supposing that Peter and John had now joined company with a different group of disciples from those to whom the other women had already borne the news of the resurrection, and had told them, what they still supposed to be true, that the body of Jesus had been taken away they knew not whither. This announcement was in itself distressing, and would naturally open afresh all the wounds within them that his death had inflicted. It is possible, however, that the mourning company were the other apostles (Mark calls them "them that had been with him"), and that they had credited the story of the women as regards the emptiness of the tomb, but totally discredited it as regards the resurrection of Jesus. In either case, when Mary came in with her story it was but natural that they should discredit it. Jesus Appears to Two in the Country, Mark 16:12-13. (Luke 24:13-35) This paragraph is an epitome of the account given in the parallel place in Luke, but there are two statements in it which call for especial attention here. Mark 16:12. in another form.—While Mark here says that Jesus "appeared in another form" to these two disciples, Luke accounts for their not recognizing him by the fact that "their eyes were holden that they should not know him." (Luke 24:16.) The statements are not inconsistent; they only show, when taken in connection, that Jesus appeared in another form by holding in some way, their eyes, so that he would appear to be a different person. Mark's account implies that they eventually saw through his disguise, without stating how. Mark 16:13. neither believed they them.—On these words Alford, who will by no means allow that the Evangelists do not occasionally contradict one another, says: "Here again the Harmonists have used every kind of distortion of the plain meaning of words to reconcile the two accounts." Certainly a reconciliation effected at such a sacrifice is not desirable. But is it true that such a distortion is necessary, in order to remove the appearance of inconsistency between Mark and Luke? Let us see. Luke's account of the return of these two men to the city, and of their reception by the eleven, is this: "They rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon. And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known to them in breaking of bread." (Luke 24:33-35.) Here are two things asserted concerning this interview: first, that on the arrival of the two they were told by the eleven and those who were with them, that the Lord had arisen and appeared to Simon; second, that the two then gave an account of his appearance to them. It is clearly implied that those who announced that the Lord had arisen and had appeared to Peter, believed it to be true; but whether they believed the story that was then told by the two who came from the country, Luke neither affirms nor denies. For aught that he says to the contrary, though they believed Peter's story, and believed that the Lord had actually arisen, they may not have believed the story told by these two; and that they did not believe it is the very thing affirmed by Mark. He says, "They went and told it to the residue, neither believed they them." He does not say that they did not believe Jesus had arisen, but that they did not believe the story of his having appeared in another form to the two as they went into the country. There is, then, no inconsistency at all between the two accounts, and it is surprising that so acute a critic as Alford should have thought there is. He surely would have detected his error, had not an erroneous theory of inspiration caused him to be indifferent to questions of this kind. Here we might rest this question, but lest it may appear to some unaccountable that the company believed that Jesus had arisen, on the testimony of Peter, and yet doubted the story of the others who claimed to have seen him, we remark that this is in perfect harmony with the other facts of the resurrection history. These same persons had treated as an idle tale the story of the women who claimed both to have seen Jesus, and to have seen angels who declared that he had risen from the dead. (Luke 24:10-11.) They were now convinced by the additional testimony of Peter, that Jesus had actually arisen; but the story of the two from Emmaus had some peculiarities which were calculated to throw doubt on it until more mature reflection on its merits brought its strong points into view. For instance, that Jesus had walked with them several miles, conversing all the time— conversing, too, about himself; that he had gone with them into the house; had taken a seat with them to dine; and still they did not recognize him till he was in the act of blessing and breaking a loaf, were circumstances all calculated to throw doubt on the story when it was first told; and at that time the disciples were disposed to be suspicious of every new story they heard in regard to the resurrection. But though the circumstances must have cast doubt on the story at first, the more the entire story, was weighed in the scales of evidence, the more credible it appeared; for it is quite certain, that if the two men had undertaken to invent a pretended appearance of Jesus to them, such details as we have named would have been carefully excluded from the story, for fear that on their account it would not be believed. Only when men are compelled by the pressure of a truth which they are trying to hide, do they give testimony which, like the story of the guards (Matthew 28:11-15), bears its falsehood on its face. Jesus Appears to the Eleven and Gives the Commission, Mark 16:14-18. (Luke 24:36-49; John 20:19-23) Mark 16:14. as they sat at meat.—The circumstance that the disciples "sat at meat" when Jesus appeared to them, as recorded in this verse, seems to identify this appearance with that recorded in Luke 24:36-43, at which he called for food and ate it in order to convince them that he was not a spirit. And as that appearance occurred on the evening of the first day of the week, this identifies it with that recorded in John 20:19-23. because they believed not.—Mark has thus far mentioned only such testimony to the resurrection as had been discredited by the disciples, and it is true that to the extent of this testimony "they believed not them who had seen him after he was risen." Yet, as we learn from Luke, this discrediting of the testimony was not universal, for they did believe the testimony of Peter. (Luke 24:33-34, and comp. the note above on verse 13.) Mark 16:15. And he said unto them.—Here there is a silent transition from the interview on the evening after the day of the resurrection, which is the subject of verse 14, to one which occurred on the day of the ascension (verse 19), forty days later (Acts 1:3). From Mark's narrative alone we would not be able to discover this transition, but would suppose that the words of Jesus in verses 15-18 were spoken at the time of the appearance mentioned in verse 14: but this is only one among many instances in which details not essential to an understanding of the chief thought to be conveyed, are omitted from one narrative but found in another. Go ye.—Here begins the Apostolic Commission, as given by Jesus on the day of his ascension. It had already been given, as recorded by Matthew, on the mountain in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20), and now it is repeated in a slightly different form. It is properly called a commission, because it committed to the apostles what they had not before received, the authority to preach the gospel, and to announce the conditions of salvation. Hitherto they had been forbidden even to tell any man that Jesus was the Christ. (See Matthew 16:20 Matthew 17:9.) Now their lips are unsealed, with this only limitation, that they are to tarry in Jerusalem until they are "endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:47-49; Acts 1:7-8.) Then they are to "go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." Mark 16:16. He that believeth.— That is, he that believeth the gospel (verse 15). It was to be preached in order that it might be believed, and belief, both on this account, and because it is, from the nature of the case, a prerequisite to repentance and obedience, is the first act of compliance with its demands. and is baptized.—The collocation of the words, and the fact that baptism is an act of obedience, which it could not be without faith, show that baptism is to be preceded by faith. This commission both authorizes the apostles to baptize believers, and restricts them to believers as the subjects of baptism. No comment can make this clearer than it is made by the words of the commission itself. It is impossible, therefore, that the apostles could have found authority in their commission for baptizing infants, and it is equally impossible for modern Pedobaptists to find it. (Comp. the notes on Matthew 28:19.) shall be saved.—To be saved is to be made safe. It implies that the person saved was in danger, or in actual distress, and that the danger or the distress is removed. When the term refers to the eternal state it includes the resurrection from the dead, and perpetual safety from sin and suffering. But death and all suffering are but the consequences of sin, and therefore to be made safe from sin exhausts the idea of the salvation provided in the gospel. When the term saved is used in reference to the state of the Christian in this world, as it frequently is (Acts 2:47; 1 Corinthians 1:18 1 Corinthians 15:2; Ephesians 2:5; Titus 3:5), it means that he is made safe from his past sins, which is effected by pardon, and can be effected in no other way. If it be said that when a man is once saved he is saved forever, because he can not fall away, still it must be granted that the salvation affirmed of him includes the present forgiveness of his past sins. Consequently, in the statement, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," the salvation promised must include at least the forgiveness of sins, whatever it may be supposed to include in addition to this. It really includes no more than this, and is equivalent to the promise of pardon to all who believe and are baptized. If any man's mind revolts at the idea of placing baptism in such a connection with salvation or the forgiveness of sins, let him remember that it is Jesus who has placed it in this connection, and that when our minds revolt at any of his words or collocation of words, it is not his fault but ours. It is always the result of some misconception on our part. If one should be tempted to say, True, he that believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believes and is not baptized shall also be saved, let him ask himself why Jesus, in this formal commission, says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," if the same is true of him who is not baptized. Men do not, on solemn occasions, trifle with words in this way. If the Executive of a State should say to the convicted thieves in the penitentiary, He that will make a written pledge to be an honest man, and will restore fourfold what he has stolen, shall be pardoned, there is not a man in any penitentiary who would expect pardon without the restitution required; and if it were ascertained that the Executive meant by these words to promise pardon to all who would make the pledge, whether they would, being able, make the restitution or not, he would be justly chargeable with trifling, and also with offering different conditions of pardon to the same class of criminals. So in the present case. If he that is not baptized, being capable of the act, is as certainly saved as he that is baptized, the Savior spoke idle words in the commission, and he offers two plans of pardon to the same class of sinners, showing partiality by offering to release one on easier terms than another. Such is the absurdity in which we are inevitably involved if we allow not the words in question their proper and natural force. When the apostles went out to preach under this commission, they knew only from its terms to whom they should promise pardon, and consequently they never encouraged any person to hope for it previous to baptism, nor gave any unbaptized person reason to think that his sins were already forgiven. If any of the unbaptized, therefore, are pardoned, it is because God has granted to them more than he has promised. This he may unquestionably do, if the circumstances of individuals shall make it right in his eyes to do so, but of these circumstances He alone can judge, who knows all things and whoso judgments are guided by infinite wisdom. he that believeth not shall be damned.—The term "damned" has no more reference to the eternal state than the term "saved" in the preceding clause. They both have primary reference to the present state, and the former is the exact counterpart of the latter. The original term means "condemned," and this should be its rendering. Condemnation already rests on those who believe not (John 3:19), but the apostles are here told that it shall especially rest on those who hear the gospel and believe it not. It rests on them now, and it must, of course, rest on them forever unless, at some subsequent period of life, they shall become believers. In this way the state of condemnation which now exists will reach forward into eternity, unless its cause be removed, in like manner as the state of salvation enjoyed by the baptized believer will reach into eternity, unless it be forfeited by subsequent apostasy. It has frequently been observed, that though Jesus says, "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved," he does not, in stating the ground of condemnation, mention the failure to be baptized as part of it, but simply says, "He that believeth not shall be condemned." From this it is again inferred that baptism is not one of the conditions of pardon. But the conclusion does not follow; for the fact that baptism is not mentioned in stating who shall be condemned, can never remove it from the place it occupies in stating who shall be saved. In the supposed case of the convicts above mentioned, if, after saying to all the convicted thieves, "He that will make a written pledge to be an honest man, and will restore fourfold what he has stolen, shall be pardoned," the Governor had added, "but he that will not make this pledge shall serve out his time in prison," none but a crazy thief could think that because restitution is not mentioned in the latter instance he would be pardoned without making restitution. Equally unreasonable is the conclusion in question. The leading thought in the commission is to state the ground on which men would be saved, and not that on which they would be damned. The apostles were to be concerned with saving men, not with damning them; consequently, Jesus tells them in detail on what ground they are promised salvation; but as damnation is his own work, not theirs, he speaks of that comprehensively by naming the one sin of unbelief which renders all acceptable obedience impossible, and is the chief cause of all condemnation. A man should come to the commission, then, not to learn how he may be damned, but how he may be saved; and this it teaches him right plainly. The assertion, "He that believeth not shall be condemned," implies that all who hear can believe— that no innate or acquired incredulity can justify unbelief of the gospel. This is asserting the highest possible claim in behalf of the evidences of Christianity, and he who makes the claim is He who will judge the world at the last day. If, in the face of this declaration, any man will venture to the judgment in unbelief, alleging that the evidence is not sufficient for him, he must settle the issue with Jesus himself. Mark 16:17-18. these signs shall follow.— The promise is, not that these signs shall follow for any specified time, nor that they should follow each individual believer; but merely that they shall follow, and follow "the believers" taken as a body. They did follow the believers during the apostolic age— not every individual believer, but all, or nearly all, the organized bodies of the believers. This was a complete fulfillment of what was promised. He who claims that the promise included more than this, presses the words of the promise beyond what is necessary to a full realization of their meaning; and he who affirms that the signs do yet follow the believers, should present some ocular demonstration of the fact before he asks the people to believe his assertion. Signs were intended to convince the unbelievers, and they were always wrought openly in the presence of the unbelievers: let us see them, and then we will believe. Paul's expectation was that prophesying, speaking in tongues, and miraculous knowledge, would vanish away (1 Corinthians 15:8); and so they did with the death of the apostles and of those to whom they had imparted miraculous gifts. The Ascension, Mark 16:19-20. (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12) Mark 16:19. after the Lord had spoken.— The statement that "after the Lord had spoken to them he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God," establishes a close connection in time between the close of the speech and the ascension of Jesus. The same connection is indicated by Luke both in his gospel and in Acts, where, although he quotes none of the words reported by Mark, he reports a conversation quite similar to it which occurred on the same occasion and was immediately followed by the ascension. (See Luke 24:49-51; Acts 1:4-9.) Mark 16:20. And they went forth.—In this sentence Mark overleaps the stay of the apostles in Jerusalem, and reaches forward to the period of their greatest activity, when "they went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." Thus he brings to a most appropriate termination his narrative of those events that had gradually prepared the apostles for the mission of mercy on which they were sent forth, and which, when recited in their preaching, led men to believe in Jesus, and to accept the offered salvation. Argument of Section 6This closing section of Mark, like the corresponding section in Matthew, contains two proofs of the divinity of Jesus. The first is found in the darkness that covered the earth during three hours of his suffering. It is common, when we would make a comparison to indicate the impossibility of an undertaking, to say that you may as well attempt to blot the sun from the heavens. But this, God did, in effect, when the noonday sun was shining on the dying agonies of Jesus. It was accomplished by no natural eclipse, for the moon was on the opposite side of the globe (the moon was always full at the Passover); but it was done by the simple fiat of Jehovah. No stroke of his almighty hand since the sun was created has been more wonderful. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/zerrcbc/ 2 Early in the morning and rising of the sun are phrases used in the same sense. This agrees with Matthew 28:1, and shows that the 24-hour period of time began and ended in the morning; not at sundown or midnight. 3 This verse is referred to at chapter 15:47. 4 Matthew 28:2 says the angel rolled the stone away from the sepulchre. 5 Entering. It will be well again to quote the description of a sepulchre as given by Smith's Bible Dictionary. "A natural cave enlarged and adapted by excavation, or an artificial imitation of one, was the standard type of sepulchre." Hence we understand the sepulchre as a whole was a spacious cavity, in the far side of which would be a sepcific spot arranged for a body; the outside entrance would be closed with a stone. This young man is called an angel by Matthew which is not strange. Angels often appeared on earth in the form of men, and the long white garment of this person agrees with that idea. 6 The angel spoke encouragingly to the women, and let them know he was aware of their purpose in coming to the tomb. As an evidence for their eyes that Jesus was gone he led them to the spot where he had been laid. 7 Tell his disciples, and Peter. This does not mean that Peter was not a disciple; but he had denied Jesus three times, and it was fitting that his attention be especially called to the evidence that his Lord was alive again as he had predicted. 8 The whole scene was so unusual and solemn that the women were virtually overcome, and were speechless for the time being. 9 The first few verses of this chapter pertains to the scenes at the sepulchre. This verse begins to tell of things that took place elsewhere after the resurrection. The seven devils had nothing to do with the character of Mary Magdalene (it being an affliction), for she was a good woman and was interested in the work and fate of Jesus (Matthew 27:61; Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:1; John 19:25; John 20:14-15). 0 They mourned and wept fulfills chapter 2:20. 1 It was somewhat on the principle of a phrase "too good to be true" that the disciples believed mt. But according to Luke 24:25 Jesus rebuked the disciples for such unbelief. 2 Appeared in another form. Luke 24:16 explains that the disciples' eyes were holden (restrained) so that they did not know him. Doubtless the unusual character of the report so overcame them that they were confused. Under such conditions a person whom they well knew would not look natural. 3 These disciples reported what they had seen and heard, and the ones to whom they told the story were as doubtful as themselves. 4 The eleven means the apostles except Judas who had hanged himself. We should note that these apostles at this time believed not. Jesus rebuked them for their unbelief in the face of testimony of those who had seen him after his resurrection. 5 This and the following verse corresponds with Matthew 28:19-20 It is commonly referred to as The Great Commission, although the New Testament does not so name it. World is from KOSMOS which has a wide range of meaning, but its usual sense is, "the inhabitants of the earth." Preach is from KERUSSO which Thayer defines, "to be a herald; to officiate as a herald; to proclaim after the manner of a herald." He then explains his definition, "always with a suggestion of formality, gravity, and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed." The word may be used occasionally in a general sense, but its primary meaning is to tell something that is new. That is why an apostle had to be inspired because he would be expected to publish the Gospel for the first time, and to the people of various languages. Creature is from the same original word that is used in Colossians 1:23 where Paul says that the Gospel had then been preached to every creature which is under heaven. Whatever Jesus meant by every creature, Paul says it had been done, and hence the "great commission" was carried out by the apostles. That means that when a preacher says he is preaching under the "great commission" he is perverting the scripture. 6 He that believeth necessarily means to believe what is preached which is the Gospel; the good news of the death and resurrection of Christ for the sins of mankind. The believing must be followed by being baptized. That word is from the Greek word BAPTIZO which Thayer defines, "To cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; to overwhelm." Robinson defines it, "to dip in, to sink, to immerse." Saved is from sozo which Thayer defines, "To rescue from danger or destruction," hence it does not cover all that may follow in a person's life. A man might be rescued from drowning, and afterwards he could carelessly fall into the water again and perish. If a man does not believe the Gospel he will be condemned regardless of whether he is baptized or not, hence it was not necessary to mention baptism on the negative side. 8 Them that believe are the believers of the preceding verse. It cannot be restricted to the apostles on the ground that "believe" is in the present tense, for _verse 14 says that even the apostles did not believe at the time Jesus was speaking. Follow means to attend or accompany one, and refers to the spiritual gifts that were bestowed upon Christians in the first years of the Gospel age (Acts 6:8; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians chapters 12, 13, 14; Ephesians 4:8-14; James 5:14-15). Matthew then names some of the miracles that Christians were enabled to perform in that period. 9 The ascension is reported also in Luke 24:51 and Acts 1:9.