OF ^'^^ piiiivi^ OCT 8 1^58 3SZ5&5 \8M r COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF MARK Other Books in the •'CLASSIC COMMENTARY LIBRARY" Commentary on the Prophicius of Isaiah hy ] . A. Alexande>' The First Epistlf. of John by Robert Candhsh The Epistle of St. James by Joseph B. Mayor The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians by /. B. Lt^htjoot St. Paul's Epistle to the Philippians by /. B. Li ^h I foot St. Paul's Epistle to thf CoLossL^Ns and to Philemon by ]. B. Li ^ht foot Commentary on Genesis by Robert Candlmh Commentary on the Epistlh to the Ephesians by John EaJie Commentary on thf Gospil of John by F. L. Godet St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians by J. B. Lightfoot ON THE GOSPEL [ d. u£2mnclj2/o, D.D Author of "Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah," -etc. ZONDERVAN PUBLISHING HOUSE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN This complete and unabridged reprint edition of Dr. Alex- ander's work is reprinted from the edition of 1864 published in New York by Charles Scribner and Sons. Printed in the United States of America J PREFACE It lias so long been the habit, both of readers and interpreters, to treat the Second Gospel as a mere abridg- ment, supplement, or compilation, without any indepen- dent character or value of its own, that some may be surprised to find it here expounded independently of Luke and Matthew, as a history complete in itself, designed to answer a specific purpose and to make a definite impres- sion. This is not the result of caprice or accident, but of a strong conviction, dating from an early stage of -exeget- ical study, that Augustin's notion as to Mark's dependence upon Matthew, although acquiesced in for a course of ages, is a hurtful error, and that this descrij)tion applies still more strongly to some later speculations of the Ger- man critics. This conviction has been strengthened and confirmed by the whole course of late investigation and discussion on the subject of the Gospels, notwithstanding the tendency of some writers to the opposite extreme of making Mark the oldest of the Gospels, and the basis upon which the rest were afterwards constructed. With- out attempting to determine its precise chronological rela- tions, there is something in its structure, as described below, which makes it eminently fit to give the first impres- sion of the Gospel History, and prepare the reader for the etudy of the other books. This, which has long been the IV PREFACE. writer's practice in academical instruction, he is happy to see sanctioned in one of the latest and best English works upon the Gospels, of which he was not able to avail him- self until his own was completed. " The notes on the Gospel of St. Mark will be found to be more full than is the case in works with a similar design. These anno- tations were written first, with the object of calling atten- tion to an independent record which has been treated in some quarters with unmerited neglect, and with the view of relieving the first Gospel as much as possible from a redundancy of notes. We would suggest to those who may put this work into the hands of their pupils at school, that tliere are reasons why the Second Gospel should be read before any other, as the best introduction to the reg- ular and systematic stud}^ of the New Testament." (Web- ster and Wilkinson's Greek Testament, with notes Gram- matical and Exegetical. Vol. I. p. 9. London : 1855.) Closely connected with these views is another feature of the plan adopted in the present volume, tliat of making it complete in itself, and leaving nothing to be eked out or supplied by reference, even to the writer's other publi- cations. This will account for the occasional repetition of what he has said elsewhere, as a lesser evil than tlie irksome necessity of seeking it in places which, to many readers of the present work, may be unknown or inac- cessible. Tlie absence of all reference to other and espe- cially contemporary writers, some of whom he highly values and has diligently studied, is partly owing to the w\ant of room, but also to the fact that his design is not to supersede or rival other works ui)on the subject, but to supplement them by preserving the specific fruits of his own labours in the same ffreat field. to* Princeton, September 1, 1858. INTRODUCTION. The Biblical History consists of two great parts, contained in the Old and New Testaments respectively. The New Testa- ment portion naturally falls into two divisions ; the Gospel His- tory or life of Christ, from his birth to his ascension ; and the Apostolical History, from his ascension to the close of the canon. The Gospel History, when measured simply by its chrono- logical dimens'ions, or the space of time included in the narrative, is but a small part of the sacred history, yet fully entitled to the place assigned it, both by its absolute and relative importance. The absolute value of the Gospel History is that arising from the dignity of its subject, as the Life of Christ, in which, to our conceptions, there is nothing little or uninteresting, since all his words and actions are intrinsically great and worthy of attention. The relative value of the Gospel History is that which springs from its connection with the rest, and especially its striking in- termediate position, as the winding up of all that goes before, and the foundation of all that follows, so that neither the Old Testament history nor that of the Apostolical Church would, without it, be of any use or intelligible import. But the Gospel History is not more distinctly marked by its subject and its relative position than it is by its peculiar form, in which it is unlike all other parts of Scripture. For although VI INTRODUCTION. we elsewliere meet with two and sometimes even tliree parallel accounts of the same events, this is the only case of four such narratives, and those not merely parts or passages of books, but complete and independent histories. But besides the mere plurality or quadruplicity of the ac counts, these four books, when compared, present a singular phe- nomenon of striking difference and no less striking likeness. For although the subject is identical, and all exhibit the same Christ, far more harmoniously than Socrates is painted by his two dis- ciples, Xcnophon and Plato, there is a surprising freedom and diversity, not only in the choice of topics, but in their arrange- ment and expression, and an independence in the statement of details amounting sometimes to apparent contradiction ; while in other cases, or perhaps in the same context, there are coincidences of form, even in minute points, too exact and yet too arbitrary to be accidental. It is this combined diversity and likeness which creates both the necessity and difficulty of constructing Gospel Harmonies, i. e. synoptical arrangements of the four inspired accounts in- tended mainly to demonstrate their consistency, but partly also to determine the precise chronological succession of events, in which attempt the harmonists have failed as signally as they have been successful in the more important object. The true use of Harmonics, as aids in the elucidation and defence of the four Gospels, as consistent and authentic narratives, has sometimes led to their abuse, as something to be substituted for the books themselves in their original and independent form, and even to their absolute amalgamation into one new narrative, distinct from all the others, but intended to include and super- sede them. This attempt proceeds upon two groundless suppositions ; first, that exact chronological arrangement is essential to the truth of history; and second, tliat the Gospels, as we have them, are merely crude collections of materials, out of which the history must be constructed by the exercise of human skill and industry; whereas they are themselves complete authoritative histories, INTRODUCTION. VII ■wliicli may bo usefully compared and harmonized, but wliicli were designed to be separately read until tlic end of time. If this be so, the quadruplicity or fourfold form of tlie Gospel History becomes a lawful and interesting subject of infj^uiry, as to its specific purpose, over and above the ultimate solution, of which all such questions are susceptible, by simp'e reference to the will of God. The question is not whether God so willed it, which is absolutely certain, but whether he willed it for a definite reason, either partially or wholly ascertainable by us, and if so not without efi'ect upon our methods of interpretation. The fact itself to be explained, to wit, the immemorial exist- ence of the Gospel History in the form of four complete books, is attested by the uniform tradition of the Church, which has never recognized as parts of the inspired canon, either more or less than these four Gospels ; nor ever attaclied any other names to them than those Avhich they now bear ; a testimony only ren- dered more imprespive by the absence of such perfect unanimity in reference to the order of their composition, and their original relation to each other, which have therefore given rise to various hypotheses of more or less intrinsic probability, intended to ac- count for the existence and the several peculiarities of our Four Gospels. In opposition to the view, avowedly or tacitly maintained by some believing Avriters, and perhaps by most believing readers, that the fourfold form of the Gospel record is a matter of course, or something altogether arbitrary, neither requiring nor admitting explanation, some sceptical critics have attempted to account for it us accidental, by assuming the existence of one or many original gospels, out of which, by various combinations, versions, and abridgments, the canonical Four Gospels were evolved and took their present shape ; a theory refuted by its complicated and gratuitous assumptions, and its total failure either to demonstrate the existence or to explain the disappear- ance of the documents, to which it traces the extant gospels. A less extravagant and no doubt partially correct hypothesis is that of an oral gospel, constantly repeated, yet inevitably VIU INTRODUCTION. varied, so as to account for both the likeness and the difference observable between the Gospels even in minute points of arrange- ment and expression. The fatal defect, both of this and of the previous suppositions, is that they ascribe the present form of this part of the sacred history to gradual and accidental causes ; whereas all believers in its inspiration must regard that form as an essential feature of the Gospel as divinely planned from the beginning. But even liolding fast to this assumption as the only safe one, we may still inquire, what was the specific purpose meant to be accomplislied l)y recording the Life of Christ in four books rather than in one '? The simplest and the most familiar answer to this question is, that the later Gospels were intended to com- plete and supplement the others by supplying their omissions. But this only throws the difficulty further back, and leaves it wholly uncx}>lained why there were omissions to be thus supplied, or in other words, why the whole was not revealed at once and embodied in a single narrative, such as some harmonists have since endeavoured to construct. An ingenious effort has been made to solve this difficulty by exhibiting a gradual formation of the Gospels to meet actual emergencies and governed by contemporary causes ; the first Gospel being written to supply the original demand near the close of the first generation, and before the oral tradition was entirely lost, and Matthew being chosen to compose it as the only apostle whose previous occupation had accustomed him to writing ; the second behig written to adapt the history to Gentile readers, and at the same time to preserve the vivid reminiscences of Peter ; the third to give it more historical completeness, as a methodical and formal composition ; and the fourth, to counteract corrup- tions which had sprung up in the interval between its date and that of tlie three others. But whatever truth there may be in these suppositions, they are not entirely satisfactory so long as they ascribe the present fourfold form of the Gospel History, if not to accidental yet to providential causes, which are themselves left unexplained. The INTRODOCTION. 15 only possible solution of the problem seems to be bj adding to these plausible hypotheses the obvious assumption, that the four Gospels were intended to present the life and character of Christ in four harmonious but distinguishable aspects, each adapted to produce its own impression independent of the others, yet all reciprocally necessary to secure the aggregate effect intended to be wrought by this part of the sacred history. The Gospels, thus viewed, have been likened to four por- traits or four landscapes, all presenting the same object:^, but in different lights and from different points of view, and illus- trative of one another, yet wholly insusceptible of mere mechan- ical amalgamation without utterly destroying their distinctive character and even their intrinsic value. So the Gospels, although really liarmonious and equally inspired, are designed to answer each its own specific purpose and produce its definite impression on the reader, a design which would be nullified by blending them together in one narrative, however chronological or skilfully constructed. This view is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration of the writers, which did not destroy their individ- uality, as may be seen from their peculiar use of words and phrases, often wholly unimportant, but for that very reason the more certainly unstudied and the evident result of personal habit, turn of mind, or special purpose, all controlled but not con- founded or destroyed by inspiration, any more than the authority of Moses is impaired because he did not write in Greek, or that of Paul because he did not write in Hebrew. AVhat is true of different languages must needs be true of different dialects and idioms, and even individual peculiarities in the use of one and the same language. The individuality and independence thus evinced by minute peculiarities of language, may be also proved by diversities of plan and method, and apparent reference, in the first instance, to different classes of readers, more especially to Jews and Gentiles, as well as by habitual attention to particular topics or to circum- stances of a certain kind, which one systematically introduces and the rest omit. Such arc Luke's repeated mention of our X INTRODUCTION. Lord's devotional habits, Mark's of his looks and gestures, Mat- thew's of the prophecies fulfilled in his history, and John's of the feasts which he attended and his double affirmation (Verily, ver.ly.) Nor is the truth of this view in the least dependent on our own capacity to trace distinctly or completely the specific purpose of each Gospel as distinguished from the rest, or the pre- cise impression meant to be produced upon the reader. It is cnougli to know or to believe, as we have already seen abundant reason to believe, that such a purpose and impression were in- cluded in the plan of these divine memorials, which are therefore to be tenderly and reverently handled, not as bundles of historical material to be wrought by us into a definite intelligible texture, but as ready-made authoritative histories, adapted to afl'ect us in a certain manner, when perused as they were written, wdiether we can account for the effect or not. But while the view, which has been now presented, of the Gospels in their mutual relations and their individual peculi- arities, does not necessarily imply that these relations and pecu- liarities are clearly traceable by us in all their manifold details, it docs imply that each and every Gospel has a character and method of its own, which may be readily detected and described by all attentive readers, and which cannot be entirely neglected without injurious effects on its interpretation, or at least without obscuring those peculiar traits by which it is distinguished from the rest, and by which alone its separate existence can in any measure be accounted for. It now remains to ascertain how far these conditions are complied with in the second Gospel. On examining the book itself, the following particulars are found to distinguish it from all the others. It is the shortest of the four, although this difference is sometimes overrated in con- sequence of measuring it simply by the number of the chapters, which are very unequally divided, and some of which in this book are unusually long. But even wlien compared with more exactness, it is still below the others in extent of surface. This is no douljt ]inrtly owing t<> another circuuistauco, by which it is distinguished, and relating more to its internal structure. It INTRODUCTION. XI contains but little that is purely biographical, and is confined almost entirely to our Lord's official life or public ministry. A third peculiarity, less strongly marked, but also serving to ex- plain its brevity, is the predominant attention given to the Sa- viour's actions, as distinguished from his words or his discourses, which are not only introduced more sparingly, but almost always incidentally, and as it were in illustration of the acts or incidents with which they were connected. In this respect the second Gospel diifers even from the first and third, but still more from the fourth, in which an opposite method is pursued, the incidents and actions seeming to be mentioned only for the sake of the dis- courses which they serve to introduce and to illustrate. As a fourth distinctive feature of this Gospel, although really included in the one just mentioned, is the curious and interesting fact, overlooked by undiscriminating readers, but sufficient of itself to show the author's individuality and independence, that to him we owe almost all the hints that \\ e possess in reference to our Saviour's looks and gestures. The same thing is evinced, in this as well as in the other Gospels, by the frequent use of fa- vourite expressions, some of which will be noticed in the expo- sition. Among these singularities of diction is the repeated introduction of Latin words and phrases, which has led to various conjectures, both as to the author and the class of readers whom he had immediately in view. That the latter were not Jews but Gentiles, is made probable, not only by this circumstance, but also by the frequent explanation of terms and usages, with which all Jews were perfectly familiar, and particularly by the Greek translation of our Lord's Aramaic or vernacular expressions, the occasional retention of which may be regarded as another striking feature of the second Gospel. Besides all these distinctive marks belonging to the book before us, and abundantly establishing its claim to be regarded as an independent and original production, there is still another, more directly relating to its structure, and of more importance in its bearing on the question of its origin and mutual relation to the other Gospels. This is the circumstance that, unlike all the 1^- XII INTKODUCTION. rest, it contains scarcely any thing entirely peculiar to itself, its incidents and topics, with a few very limited exceptions, being common to it with the others, and especially with Luke and Matthew. Its remarkable resemblance to the latter, both in form and substance, early led to the mistake, still unfortunately current, of regarding Mark as an abridgment or epitome of Mat- thew. This error, although sanctioned by the great name of Augustin, is completely refuted by the fact, that Mark not only re-arranges much of the material which he has in common with Matthew, but in many instances adds graphic and minute details not found in Matthew ; so that while his incidents are fewer, they are often far more fully and minutely stated, which is wholly at variance with the very idea of abridgment, except upon the arbitrary and unnatural assumption, that the writer, blending two almost inconsistent processes in one act, at the same time contracted and embellished his original. Another error, of more recent date but equally untenable, is that of representing Mark as a compiler, who sometimes follows Luke and sometimes Matthew. This assumes of course that the traditional arrangement of the Gospels, which assigns to Mark the second place, and which was recognized by Origen as chro- nological, has really no such foundation. Indeed modern critical conjecture has in turn adopted every possible combination of the four names, and transported Mark not only to the last but to the first place in the catalogue, as the original and fundamental Gos- pel, out of which the others have been gradually amplifii d. The specious arguments, by which this last opinion is supported, al- though far from proving it to be correct, do serve to show the superficial shallow nature of the opposite extreme, which repre- sents this Grospel as a mere epitome or compilation. The ease and plausibility, with which these opposite hypotheses may not only be propounded a priori^ but carried out in detail when once assumed, only shows that they are founded upon no sufficient data, and ought not to be adopted as the basis of interpretation. It is just as easy, by the use of such means, to establish IMavk'a priority as Matthew's ; and it is better therefore to expound them INTRODUCTION. XUI as co-ordinate and independent, or to acquiesce in old and not incredible traditions with respect to them. Among the oldest and most uniform of these traditions, so far as the main fact is concerned, although extremely variant in the details, is that ■which represents the second Gospel as em- bodying the vivid reminiscences of Peter, and composed in some sense under his direction. An ingenious living writer* has im- proved upon this ancient statement, by supposing that tho second Gospel was composed by Peter in his native language, and trans- lated into Greek under the same divine direction and authority. The proofs of this position drawn from Peter's eminent position and the strong antecedent probability that he would have a part in the recording of his Master's history, and also from supposed traces of his knowledge and experience as a seaman, although in- conclusive, are confirmatory of the old tradition that this Gospel is in some sense his, and does owe some of its most interesting contents to his recollections. The name attached by uniform tradition to this Gospel as its author is the Roman one of 3Iarh or 3farciis. Upon this, with certain supposed military attributes of style and manner, another living writer of great eminence f has founded the remarkable opinion, that this Marcus was the Roman soldier sent to Peter by Cornelius (Acts 10, 7), and therefore mentioned by the former as his spiritual son (1 Pet. 5, 23.) The arguments in favour of this singular conclusion, though ingenious, are by no means likely to subvert the old traditional belief, that the Mark who wrote this Gospel was the John Mark, often named in Scripture as the son of a Christian woman in Jerusalem (Acts 12, 12), and a near relative of Barnabas (Col. 4, 10), who attended him and Paul from Jerusalem to AntiocK (Acts 12, 25), and ministered to them in their mission to Cyprus (Acts 13, 5), but forsook them at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13, 13), and was afterwards a subject * Smith of Jordanhill, in a dissertation added to his "Vojagc and Ship- wreck of St. Paul," (2d edition, London, 185ti.) t Da Costa in his Lectures on the Gospels, called in the Engli,'>h version " The lour Witnesses." (New York, 1856.) XIV INTRODUCTION. of dispute between tliem and returned with Barnabas alone to Cyprus (Acts 15, 87-39), but appears in PauPs epistles as a valued fellow-labourer with Luke and others (Col. 4, 10. Philem. 24. 2 Tim. 4, 11), which is perfectly consistent with his filial relation to Peter (1 Pet. 5, 23) as an older acquaintance and a spiritual father. This Gospel has always formed a part of the New Testament Canon, being found in all the ancient catalogues as one of the liomologumena or undisputed books, and quoted (or referred to) by the earliest Cliristian writers. The text has been preserved in many manuscripts, of which above five hundred have been critically collated. Of these about thirty are of the uncial class, written in capitals, and for the most part without stops, accents, breathings, or division of the words, all which are reckoned signs of later date. Among these are the four oldest copies of the Greek Testament known to be extant, and distinguished in the latest critical editions by the four first letters of the alphabet. A. The Codex Alcxandrinus, in the British Museum. B. The Codex Vaticanus, in the Papal Library at Rome. C. The Codex Ephraemi, in the Imperial Library at Paris. D. The Codex Bezai, in the University Library at Cambridge. The precise date of these manuscripts is still disputed, but is now commonly 11 "•reed to range from the fourth to the sixth centuries inclusive. All the important variations of the oldest manuscripts, par- ticularly those adopted by the latest critics, will bo noticed in the exposition. The only portion of the book, whose genuineness has been called in question, is the last twelve verses of the six- teenth chapter, where the grounds of this opinion will be stated and disposed of Besides the preservation of the Greek text in these copies, the book has also been preserved in several ancient versions, the most important of which are the Syriac Peshito, made in the third if not the second century, and the Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome, on the basis of an old Italic version, near the close of the fcirili century. Other early versions, from the tliird to (he ninth century, are the Egyptian in two dialects, the Ethiopic, INTRODUCTION. X7 Gothic, ArmeDian, Georgian, Arabic, and Slavonic. Occasional reference will be made, in the following exposition, to some mod- ern versions, more especially to Luther's, and the six old English versions, those of Wiclif (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), the Rhemish Version (1582), and King James's Bible (1611), the last of which is still in common use. Two of these, Wiclif's and the Rhemish, are translations of the Vulgate ; Cranmer's is little more than a reprint of Tyndale's, with a few unimportant variations ; the same is true, but in a less degree, of the Geneva Bible ; while the common version, though to some extent influenced by all the others, is founded mainly upon Tyndale's, with occasional changes for the worse and for the better, but a frequent adherence to him even when in error. Besides mere versions or translations, this book, in common with the other Gospels, has been a constant subject of interpre- tation from the earliest to the present times. In consequence, however, of the false position commonly assigned to it, as having no original or independent value, it has not received its due pro- portion of distinct consideration until recently, when some of the best writers have begun to treat it independently (though not irrespectively) of Luke and Matthew. This change for the better is especially observable in England, where it has been carried out by several of the latest and best writers on the Gospels. On the same principle the present exposition will be so conducted as to show the book to be a complete history in itself, harmonious with the other Gospels, and susceptible of illustration from them, but designed to answer a specific purpose and produce a definite impression. This idea of harmonious independence is suggested by the traditional but ancient title, the Gospel according to 3Iark^ which has sometimes been erroneously explained as meaning that he was not its author but a mere penman or amanuensis. Tliis, however, is no more true of the Gospels than of the Epistles, where the formula has never been applied by usage or tradition. The true sense of the phrase in question is that the Gospel has a fourfold form {Ivayyikiov TeT()dixopaptist (2-S). and tlic preliminaiics of our Lord's own ministry, to wit. liis baptism and temptation (0-1 H). Then comes the history of the nn'nistry itself beginning witli liis fii-.-^t public appearance in Galilee (14-15) the vocation of his first disciples (l()-20), two ex- amples of his earliest miraculous pcrfoianances (21-31), and a general description of their number and design (32-34). After a season of de- votional retirement, he begins his itinerant ministry in Galilee (35-39), and by his miracles attracts great multitudes (40-45). 1. The Lcgiuniiig of tiie gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of (tO(1 ; The simplest and most natural construction here is {this is) the beginning of (or here begins) the gospel. &c. It is then a title or de- scription of the whole book, such as we often find in the first sentence of an ancient writing. (Compare the liturgical formula, '• Here begin- neth such a chapter ; here endetli such a lesson.") Some interpreters connect it with the next verse, the beginning of the gospel (was) as it is written in the prophets ; others with v. 4, • the beginning of the go.s- pcl was John baptizing.' But these constructions seem too artificial, and the facts which they ai'e meant to indicate, though not expressed here, are suggested by the context, namcl}', that the ministry of Christ was introduced by John's, and tliat both had been predicted in the ancient Scriptures. According to the syntax first proposed, the verse describes the whole book, or the book describes itself, as the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Gospel, according to its derivation both in Greek and Enclish, means good news, glad tidings, though commonly applied in the classics to the reward paid for such intelligence. In the 1 2 MARK 1, 1. 2. dialect of Scripture it denotes by way of eminence the good news of salvation, or of Christ's appearance as a Saviour ; then the histor}'' of his saving work, whether as orally related or as written by divine au- thoiity ; and. lastly, the whole system of saving truth or Christian doctrine, of which the Gospel, properly so called, is the historical foun- dation. It is here used in the second of these senses, and denotes the history of our Saviour's ministr}'. his personal and public work on earth. The other constructions, above mentioned, suppose gospel to denote the ministry itself, or the act of preaching, which is contrary to usage. The subject of the history is Jesus Christ the Son of God. This is not a mei-e personal designation, but an ofQcial title or descrip- tion, showing in what specific character the subject is to be presented, namely, as the Saviour of his people (Jesus) ; as the Messiah of the prophecies (Christ), i. c. the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel ; and, lastly, as the Son of God, not in the lower sense of crea- ture, or the liigher sense of one intensely loved, but in the highest sense of a divine person, a partaker of the Godhead, and sustaining the rela- tion of eternal Sonship to tlie Father, from which both take their respective titles. Some interpreters dwell only on this last clause, and suppose Mark's Gospel to be distinguished by it from the others. But this description would be more appropriate to John's if taken by itself, which is forbidden by its intimate connection with the previous titles (Jesus Christ), which are equally significant, denoting the Anointed Saviour. We find, accordingly, that Mark ])resents our Lord as the Messiah and the Saviour no less than Luke and Matthew, although not precisely in the same form. The description of the subject here is not distinctive or exclusive, though specific and definite, admonishing the reader that the history which here begins is not that of a meie man or a private person, but of one who claimed to be the anointed, promised, and divine deliverer of his people from their sins (Matt. 1, 21.) 2. As it is written in tlie prophets, Behold, I send my messeni>;er before thy face, which shall prepare tliy way before thee ; Some interpreters, as we have seen, connect this in construction with the first verse, and understand it as denoting that the gospel, or the ministry of Christ, began in strict accordance with the prophecies. Eut if that verse be taken by itself as a descriptive title of the whole book, the one befoie us must be construed with what follows. As it was written .... (so) John was Jniptizing. The writer's purpose here is to connect the ministry of Christ, through that of his forerunner, with the ancient Scriptures and the church of tlie Old Testament. This he does in a very striking form b}'- quoting, at the outset of his narrative, the text of the Hebrew prophets, thus connecting the two canons in the closest manner, notwithstanding the long interval of four hundred years between them. As if he had said, in commencing the gospel of Jesus Christ, I am only recommencing the long broken scries of divine MARK 1, 2. 3. 3 coramnnications which terminated four hundred years ago in Malachi. The prophecy itself (Mai. 3, 1) is slightly varied, not in substance but in form, by being addressed to the ^lessiah as a pledge or promise, which,, though not expressed, is really involved in the original. Behold^ in Greek as well as Hebrew, introduces something unexpected and surprising. I send (am sending or about to send), the verb from which ajiostle is derived ; my messenger, the Greek word commonly translated angel, which is indeed a mere abbreviation of it, but here used in its primary and wider sense. The original passage predicts the advent of two messengers or angels ; the angel of the covenant, who is also represented as the Lord of the temple, and another who was to prepare his way before him. These two are here identified, the one expressly, and the other by necessary implication,with our Lord and his forerunner. Freimre, an expressive Greek verb, meaning to make fully ready, to equip or furnish. Thy icciy, thy advent or appearance. Before thy face, a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, which means he- fore in application both to time and space. In the Hebrew text it stands at the end of the sentence, in the oldest copies of Mark between the clauses, a transposition which has no effect upon the meaning. The repetition in the common text is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the oldest Greek manuscripts. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. The function which Malachi ascribes to the forerunner, that of preparing the Messiah's way, is evidentl}^ borrowed from an older prophecy, still extant in Isaiah (40, 3), which JNIark accordingly sub- joins, as if it were a part of the same context, and as being really the theme of which the later passage is a variation or a new edition. Isaiah's words are commonly referred to the return fioni Babylon, of which, however, there is no express mention in the text or context. The image really presented to the prophet is that of God returning to Jerusalem, revisiting his people, as he did in every signal manifestation of his presence, but above all at the advent of Messiah, and the opening of the new dispensation, of which John the Baptist was the herald and forerunner. The voice of one crying is the Septuagint version of a Hebrew phrase which might be more exactly rendered a voice crying. (The oldest English versions have a crier.') It is a kind of exclamation, as if he had said hark I one cries (or is crying.) Li the wilderness.^ both in the literal sense, thereby identifying John as the subject of the prophecy, and in the moral sense of spiritual desolation, in the midst of which, or through which, God was to re- turn to them. Prepare, not the same Greek verb that is used in the preceding verse, although Isaiah and Malachi employ the same Hebrew one, denoting a specific kind of preparation, that of clearing a road by the removal of obstructions. This was to be done by repentance on the part of the people, and by preaching repentance on the part of the 4 MARK 1, 3. 4. forerunner. Malce straight^ in Hebrew one word, straighten, rectify, in reference either to obliquity of course or unevenness of surface, more probably the latter, as expressed in English by the verb to level. Paths, or worn ways, beaten tracks, as the Greek verb properly denotes. The corresponding Hebrew word is in the singular, and means an artificial causeway or high road. Jlis jyaths, in the original, a higJuray for our God. These two predictions are combined by Mark, not inad- vertently, much less through ignorance or by mistake, as some have foolishly imagined, but from a clear view of their mutual relation, as distinct and distant but harmonious predictions of the same event, which might therefore be regarded, after the fulfilment, as parts of one and the same prophetic utterance. The subordinate relation of the later to the earlier prophecy as such, though equally inspired, would account for the reading, i)i Isaiah the proj'ihet^ found in some old copies, and regarded as tlie true text by the latest critics. (A still stronger case of the same kind occurs in Matt. 27, 9.) 4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins. As it w^as thus written centuries before, so was it now fulfilled. AsTsaiah in prophetic vision heard the voice of one summoning the people to prepare the Lord's way, and as Malachi beheld one messenger or angel pieparing the way for another, so in due time this preparatory ])rocess really began in the ministry of John the Baptist, Was (be- came or came) Vaptizing^ i. c. exercising his ministry, of which baptism was the badge or seal. In outward conformity to the prediction, he appeared in the wilderness, i. e. as we learn from ^Matthew (o, 1), the wilderness of Judea. a phrase sometimes denoting the whole desert region west of the l)ead Sea, and sometimes a particular division of it, here most probably the triiCt along the Jordan north of the Dead Sea. Preaching, proclaiming, publicly announcing. The idea of in- viting and exhorting, though implied, is not expressed. Baptism, symbolical or ceremonial washing, such as the Mosaic law prescribed as a sign of moral renovation, and connected with the sacrificial types of expiation, to indicate the internal connection of atonement and sanctitication. It was from these familiar and significant ablutions that John's baptism was derived, and not from the practice of baptiz- ing proselytes, the antiquity of which as a distinct rite is disputed. B((ptitim (not the baptism) of repentance, i. e. a ceremonial washing, which involved and denoted a profession of repentance, or a thorough change of mind, hoth of judgment and of feeling, with respect to sin. To (^or for) remission, i. e. with a view to it or for the purpose of jjromoting it, not directly or eiliciently, but as an indis])eu- sable prerequisite. Ji'emission, loosing, leaving, i. c. letting go unpun- ished, which is essentially the same with pardon or forgiveness, t^/ ii/is. without the article, not the sins,\. e. some sins, or the sins of some otienders, but of sins in general. The indefinite expressions of this MAKK 1, 4. 5. 5 clause (a haptism of repentance for remission of sins) are not unmean- ing or fortuitous, but designed to introduce John's ministry as some- thing new and previous!}^ unknown to the reader. The meaning of the verse, as thus explained, is that the ancient prophecies just quoted were fulfilled in the appearance of a preacher in the wilderness calling the people to repent, and baptizing them in token of their having done so. Mark, like Matthew (3, 1), introduces John abruptly, as demand- ing notice only in connection with his public work and that of Christ ; while Luke (1, 5-28, 39-80), as a professed historian, gives a full account of his extraction, birth, and early training for his office. 5. And there went out unto him all tlie land of Jndea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Having designated the place and described in general terms the nature and design of John's preparatory ministry, jNIark now informs us how it was received and what were its ciFccts. The statement relates onl}'- to Judca. as the province within which John began his ministrations, although in a desert part of it. The effect produced there is described as universal, the whole population going out to him from town and country. All the land of Jndea ot Jndean district^ territory, province. Tiiis was the southern portion of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It derived its name from the tribe of Judah, to which it was assigned on the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, although several smaller tribes were partially or wholl}'- settled within its limits, namely, Dan and Simeon, while the portion of Benjamin adjoined it on the north. After the schism on the death of Solomon, this whole southern district adhered to the theocrac}', and constituted the territory' of the kingdom of Judah. Under the Syrian and Roman domination, it retained its old name in the Greek or Latin form of Judea^ which is here used in its primary sense as an adjective agreeing with the noun land (or province~). By a figure of speech common in all languages, the country is put for its population. The JeruH((lemitcs, or people of Jerusalem, are not distinguished from the Jitdeans, imder whom they were included, but merely rendered prominent among them as the people of the capital and holy city. All Judea, and among (or above) the rest, the people of Jerusalem. A like combination of the same names frequently occurs in the Old Tes- tament. (Sec for instance the titles or inscriptions in Isaiah 1, 1. 2, 1. 3, 1.) It was characteristic of John's ministry, that he did not seek the people but was sought by them, in which respect he was a type or emblem of the law with its restrictive and exclusive institutions, as distinguished from the catholic or ecumenical provisions of the gospel. By a natural hyperbole, this vast concourse is described as submitting to the rite which John administered, not as an empty and unmeaning form, but at the same time confessing their sins, the Greek verb being an intensive compound, which denotes the act of free and full confes- 6 M A R K 1, 5. 6. sion or acknowledgment. This, which is prescribed as a condition, although not a meritorious ground, of pardon (Prov. 28, 13. 1 John 1, 9). is therefore one of the best tokens of repentance. The river Jordan is the only considerable stream of Palestine, rising near the base of Mount Hermon, flowing southward in a double bed or valley, with a deep and rapid current, through the lakes of Merom and Tibe- rias, into the Dead Sea. Recent surveys and measurements have shown that the valley of the Jordan, with its lakes, is much below the level of the Mediteiranean. This famous river formed the eastern limit of the province of Judea, and was probably the nearest water to the desert tract where John had made his first appearance. It was on account of this local contiguity, and for the accommodation of the crowds attending him, that John baptized there, and not for the con- venience of immersion. Even those who plead for its necessity main- tain that the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost were thus baptized at Jerusalem, where there is not only no great river but a very scant supply of water. Baptized^ i. e. bathed or washed as a religious rite. Even admitting that the word originally means im- mersed, and that the first converts were in fact immersed, both which are doubtful and disputed points, it no more follows that this mode of washing was essential to the rite, than that every elder must be an old man, or that the Lord's supper can be lawfully administered only in the evening. An analogous change in the familiar dialect of com- mon life is furnished by an English phrase, to tal-e {ov drink) tea, which is frequently employed where no tea is consumed at all, the essential idea being that of a social evening meal, and the particular refreshment a mere incident. The extent of the effect ascribed in this verse to the ministry of John is not to be explained away as an extravagant hyperbole, but must be understood as almost if not absolutely universal. It seems to have entered into the divine plan, with respect both to Christ and his forerunner, that the whole mass of the chosen race, with few if any individual exceptions, should be brought within the sphere of their official ministry. If all Judea and Jerusalem does not mean every individual, it must at least mean something more than many, namely, the great bulk and body of the population. Matthew's account of the attendance on the ministry of John is equally emphatic, and perhaps still more so, as it adds to the two terms employed by Mark, all the country about Jordan, which would seem to include at least a portion of Perca, the Greek name of the province lying east- ward of the river. Luke does not formally affirm but presu])poses the vast concourse, when he tells us what John said to the crowds (or multitudes) going out to he baptized by him. (Matt. 3, 5. 6. Luke "3, 7.) 6. And John was clothed witli camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins ; and he did eat locusts and wild honey ; He who was thus honored, both by God and man, far from being MARK 1, 6. 7 "clothed in soft raiment," or "gorgeously apparelled," and "living delicately" (Luke 7, 25), was distinguished by the plainness of his food and dress. He wore the coarsest kind of sackcloth made of camel's hair, still in use among the Arabs of the desert, fastened round him by a simple belt of skin or leather, in striking contrast with the " purple and fine linen " and " embroidered girdle" (Ex. 39, 29) of the sacerdotal dress, and of the fashionable oriental costume (Ex. 39, 29. Luke 16, 19.) In both parts of his dress here mentioned, John re- sembled Elijah, who is described as " an hairy man (i. e. clothed in hair cloth, as appears from what follows), and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins " (2 Kings 1, 8.) This is commonly explained as the ofiicial costume of an ancient prophet (compare Zech. 13, 4) ; but as Ahaziah, when he heard the description of his servants, instantly ex- claimed, " It is Elijah the Tishbite ! " it would seem to have been some- thing distinctive of his person and not merely of his office. Now Elijah is conspicuous in the history of Israel as a reformer, and a preacher of repentance, sent to (or raised up in) the apostate kingdom of the ten tribes, to convince them of their sin, and warn them of the wrath to come. Of this stern mission his very dress was a badge or symbol ; so was his austere and secluded life, especially his dwelling in the wilderness, when not engaged in some prophetic function else- where. Now the last of the Old Testament prophets, in addition to the promise of two messengers or angels, which has been already quoted and explained (on v. 2), closes the canon with a solemn predic- tion that Elijah the prophet should appear again (Mai. 4, 5. 0.) This last prophetic utterance of the Hebrew Scriptures kept the national hopes ujwn the stretch throughout the interval of four hundred years, during which the gift of prophecy was in abeyance. In the time of Christ it was the teaching of the scribes that Elijah was to come as the forerunner of Messiah ; but our Lord taught his disciples that he had already come in the person of John the Baptist, of whom it was predicted by the Angel that he should go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah, to effect the very change foretold by Malachi. (See Matt. 17, lU-13. Luke 1, 17.) We find accordingly that John conformed to his example even in externals, as to place of residence and style of dress, not for the sake of a mere personal resemblance, but to symbolize the ligour and austerity belongmg to the system of which they were both types and representatives. This view of the matter will suffice to show that the description which the gosjjels give of John's dress is not superiluous embellishment, but intended to identify two distant but closely related points of sacred history. The analogy, though less precise, is no less real, in relation to the food of the two prophets. As Elijah lived in a precarious manner, sometimes dependent upon miracle for food (1 Kings 17, G. 16. 19, 6), so John subsisted upon aliment the most remote from that in common use, at least in towns and civilized society. The attempts which have been made to explain locusts as denoting some kind of bread, or of wild fruit, are equally superfluous and unsuccessful. The Greek woid is the common one for locusts, which are still eaten by the Arabs of the 8 MARK 1, G. 7. desert. IVild honey is suppo5;cd by some to be a vcjretablc exudation, sometimes so called ; but tiiere seems to be no sutiicient reason for dej)arting from tlie sti ict sense of the name as denotinf)^ the honey made by bees, not in hives or under lunnan care, but in the locks and forests of the wilderness. The Avhole impression made by these details is that of an austere simplicity, implying separation from the ordinary habits and abodes of men. Matthew's account (o, 4) is per- fectly coincident with Mark's in substance, although so far different in form, and even in grammatical construction, as to show that one did not copy from the other. 7. Aiul preacliGcl, saying, There cometli one mightier than I al'rer nie, the hitchet of whose shoes I am not "worthy to stoop down and nnh)Ose. "While ]\Iatthew and Luke here insert John's severe denunciation and impassioned warning, addressed to both the great contending parties in the Jewish church, and Luke adds his reply to the inquiries put to liim by various classes, with a beautiful description of the popular suspicion that this might be the Messiah (Matt, o, 7—10. Luke 3, 7-15), Mark simply gives the sum and substance of his preaching, also given by the others, and almost in the same terms, tliough not precisely in the same order. Having said before (in v. 4) that JoJui icas (or came) 2)reackin(/, he now tells how and what he preached, not hy reporting all that John said, even upon any one occasion, but by sununing it all up in a single sentence, which he may or may not have delivered, once or often, totidem terbh. The sununary thus given is that John's whole ministiy was relative, prospective, and jirepara- tory ; that he was not a jjrincipal but a dependent ; further removed from his superior in rank than thehund:)le.st domestic from his master; and that the same relation existed between the ministry and acts of the two parties. That he preached repentance is implied or presup- ])Osed. as having been already stated (in v. 4; ; but even this he did as a forerunner. There coraeth (or is yet to come) the mightier (ov st ranger one) than /, not indeliuitely one )/i/ghtler, but speciticall}', the mightier^ i. e. my superior, the principal of whom I am the herald and fore- runner. But as this relation might exist between two persons nearly ecjual, or entirely so except in this particular association, John goes furtlur, and assures them that the dilfcrunce is not merely that of lirst and second, but of master and servant, nay, still more distinct and distant. For the meanest slave might Ijose the strap which bound his master's sandals to the soles of his feet ; but to stoop for such a purpose, in the presence of John's master, was too great an honour even for the nuvn whom all Judea and Jerusalem had crowded forth to l)e instructed and ])aptized by. To an oriental audience words could hardly have expressed the idea of disp u'ity in a stronger or a more revolting manner. That John should have made such a profes- sion of his own inleriority, not once but often, in the presence of the MARK 1, 7. 8. 9 people, and in the hci'j^ht of his fimazinj]^ popularity, implies their dis- jjosition to legard and rest in him as the expected saviour; his own clear view of the subordinate relation which he bore to Christ; and his sincere and humble resolution to maintain it. even in the face of popular applause and admiration, and amidst the most enticing oppor- tunities of self-aixsirandizement. 8. I indeed luive baptized you with water : but lie sliall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. What was true of the persons was no less true of the acts which they performed, and tlie effects which they produced. If Jolin was less, compared with Christ, than the meanest slave compared with his own master, what he did even by divine authority and as tlie Lord's legitimate forerunner, must be pioportionably less than what his prin- cipal would do, as to intrinsic worth and power. The idea of contrast is enhanced by the very structure of the sentence, which exhibits the favoiite antithesis of Greek prose composition, marked by con-e- sponding particles (/ntV and dt). I indeed I}ut he, &c. Common to both persons is the act of baptism (I ht/ptized he will hap- tize.) The point of difference, according to the strict sense of the words, is the baptismal element or fluid ; in the one case wafer ; in the other, holi/ spirit, or {the) Jlohj t^pirit ; for although the article is not expressed in any of the Gospels, yet the constant use of this phrase to denote a divine person has almost rendered it a proper name, and as such not needing to be rendered definite b}' any pielix like a common noun. Tlie antithesis is then not onl}' between water and spirit, but between dead matter and a, divine per.son, a disparity be3-ond all computation or expression. And even taking lioJij spiirit in a lower and a more generic sense, we have a contrast almost infi- nite. Now this extreme, incalculable difference seems to be predicated of baptism as administered by John and Christ. But Christ baptized only by the hands of his disciples (John 4, '2), and tliis of course was no less water-baptism than that administered by John. The contrast therefore cannot be between John's baptism as performed with water, and tliat of Christ (or his disciples) as performed without it. Nor can it be intended to conti-ast Christ's baptism, as attended by a sj^iritual inlluence, with that of John, as unattended by it, which would then be worthless ; whereas it is proved to be essentially identical with Christian baptism by its .source, its effects, and its reception by our Lord himself. There are still two ways in which the verse may be explained^ and each of which has had its advocates. The first sup- poses the antitliesis to be, not between the baptism of John and that of Christ, which were essentially the same, but between the adminis- tering persons. ' 1 baptize you in water, not without meaning and effect, but an effect dependent on a higher power; he will baptize you in the same way and with like effect, but in the exercise of an inherent power, that of his own S])irit.' This construction, though it yields a 10 MARK 1, 8. 9. good sense and conveys a certain truth, is not so obvious and natural as that which supposes no allusion to the outward rite of Christian baptism at all. but a comparison between that rite, as John performed it, and the gift of spiritual influences, figuratively called a baptism, as the same term is applied to sufiering (Matt. 20. 22. 23. Luke 12, 50.) The meaning then is, ' I indeed bathe your bodies in water, not without divine authority or spiritual effect ; but he whose way I am preparing, is so far superior both in power and office, that he will bathe your very souls in the effusion of the Holy Spirit.' Since this divine influ- ence is always represented in the Old Testament, either as an unction or as an effusion, it could hardly be otherwise conceived of here ; and as the figurative baptism mentioned in the last clause must correspond in form with the literal baptism mentioned in the first, we have here an incidental proof that primitive baptism was not exclusively or necessarily immersion, 9. And it came to pass in those days, that Jesns came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan. .A^ T^ie triiDsiti£mj(lilIILJi]'hli!g_JiiiJi'5iry t" t.bnt of Christ is furnished *^ by the baptism of our Lord himself, as th«-moi)t important pul)lic act of thc-ibrmer, and an immediate preparation for the latter. (^At the same time it afforded the most striking ConliTfMtiohdFvvhat John himself had taught as to his own inferiority, by means of an express divine recognition of our Lord as the Messiah.', But this was not the only nor perhaps the chief end of our Lord's subjection to this ceremonial form. Though(v\'itliout sins of his own to be confessed, repented of, or par- doned, hcidenliPK-d himself .l?y this act with his jjeople whom he came 7^ to save from sin (Matt. 1, 21) ; and gave them an assurance of that great deliverance ; avowed his own subjection to the law, as the expression of his Father's will (Matt. 3, 15), and putjionour upon John as a divinely inspired prophet and his own forerunner^ jMark's account of this trans- action, although somewhat more minute than Luke's, is not so full as Matthew's, since it passes over the preceding conversation between John and Jesus (Matt. 3, 14-15.) On the other hand, it mentions the pre- cise part of Gal ile e>. from which he came to be baptized in Jordan. This was XJ^zjortli i]i^^ ^lary lived before the buT^oTChrist (Luke^. 20. 27). and where t.kc>i again took •^-^ up their abode oh their return froni"EIgyITtf^^^t.'2, 23. Luke 2, 39. 51.) The place can sfill ba--.certttmlv-i dentifi&tnn a>tu;^l vall^ shut jn by hills, on the noVtTTcrn edge ofthe great plain of Je^^s^ or EsdraQlpn, midway bctwctii the ^Icditerranean aiid^the^ea_o^^ (Tn)(oT j^ (inio^ fjCeJordd n docs not neccssaril y^imply immcrsTonTas the^most conveiwnt-rocthoil cvun of atfusion was to"'S!and hi the water (coni- ^ pa_rc Acts S, .'U;-:;'.)), especially for those who wore the flowing oriental doiiis^ uitii LiLhci- siyndgls or no covering of the feet at all. But even if John did submergeJLiiixjCQnverts, this, wasjio more essential to the rite MARK 1, 9. 10. 11. 11 than . entire nudity, as still practised by the bathers in the Jordan. The two things naturally go together, and immersion without stripmng seems to rob the rite in part of its supposed significance, "ly* f/-t'<,^ •^IaA' '*J^ '^-ijK. 10. And straiglitway coming up out of the water, he^|'':;^f" saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dov§ de-/\"' ''"'^ scendmg npon him. ^--^, ^,v;^^^ The baptism itself was followed by an audible and visible divine __^ yonrurnjiKMi r^f nnr TiOfd ?^s th*^ T^t^p'^gin^^ whj ch is said to have occurred^^^^jj^ < ^Uined lateJ]i^sifM^(miiiQ-w<^Yd of Mark's,, in wJio&e gospel it occurs more^'vrilc ^requ cTiiry _lliaji-in all the others p_ut_ together^ although here common^ '^h'y^d* to thejthreejli^ngclists. That it is to be strictly understood appears /^ from the additional specification coming iijifrom the icntcr, not neces-^ / sarily^m^j tinder it, although lie m:\\ have dtjne so, but aicay fmm-\t^)^ M'KicHis the strict sense of the preposition (utto), or according to/ another ancient rea(Jin^?-.(iK}jOM^ oy it, i.e. from standing in.it, ag/" explained above. 'Ph^heatctis^ plur al form borrowed from the He- brew, in which the corresponding name has no singular, and' tTierefore simpijr^c^uivaleut to sZ//. 0>^«?(^the_ex2)ression_usedJ>y Luke (3, 21), and ^tatthewJ^o^lG), is not sQ.stfong as tliat of Mark, correctly rendered in ITie margin of the English Bible, rent or cloven. (Wiclif, cleft.) The Greek verb is the root qf_ the noun scZ(/sw, and is itsjelf applied to 4uoraIIan"dreirgiouscHanges (Acts, 14, 4. 23,7.) Jhe phrase as here used cannot possibly denote a flash of lightning, or the shining of the stars, or any thing whatever, but an apparent separation or division of the visible expanse of heaven;' how occasioned or pro- duced can only be conjectured^ I t seems to be here spoken of as . if be held by Jesus Q uhr ; l^nt in i\bntt lip^v anrl Tiuke the languagC-Js more gener al; and John expressl y says that the P-optict wq° to ^SUL..^^^'^ did see ti ie descent oi" the SpiciiZZj ohn^ 1 ^ 39, .-i:^ ,) ^ a djixfii- ^" form, ^fu^:.c^. and not as some suppose, in motion merely, which would convey no definite idea. The c hoice of a dove as a j'isible emblem of the Spirit has been variously explained as referring to its gentleness, and the corresponding Q.uAlity, of Christ's own ministry (compare Matthew, 12, IP) I to tlieJjTQjQding-of-tha Spirit on the waters at the irme of the creation (Gen. 1, 2); to the dove which Noah sent forth from the arlc^C Gen. $ , . 8. 12) ; to the use of the same bird in sacrifice (Lev. 1, l4.)TbA&^ CThe truth taught by the visible descent was the personal union of the ■'^*^^**" > Son and Spirit, and the .spiritual influences under which the Son was ^to perform his mission. 11. And tliere came a voice from heaven (saying), Thou art m}^ beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. The jjisilil£_pr©seftee^-of the. Spirit was attended by an audible tf's- timony from the Father, in a voice which came or hccame (audible) Jrom th^~^nt or opened) lieaveiyiCi Thou etrt my /Son, the very words 12 MARK 1, 11. 12. 13. arldresscd to the Messiah in Vs. 2, 7, and from whicli the Son of God became one of his standing appellations, (^ce above, on v. 1, and below, on 3, 11. 5. 7. 14, CI. 15, 30.) 'i3\e other words (translated in thejalilciL^nglish versions, tJ iou, art m y dmr Sojijjitcjwin I ddlght). are also bori-q\ve^ frgriL a Messianic prophec}^ (Tsa. 42, 1), am ttlcscr ibe him-»©t only as an object of affection to ttfe Fji'ther. which, indeed, is necessarily implied in thnt relation, but as an object of supreme com- placency and approbation in tlie official character which he had under- taken. Thp-^nlilp^f. innnii'ipriptQ ■■nirl latest critics rQ^^jjLj.hce (like LukeXand not in, 7r7//>w,_(]ijon oni- of his ollicial func- tions, that of teaching, making use of the facilities afforded for that MARK 1, 21. 22. 19 purpose by the Jewish institutions of the Sabbath and the Synagogue. The observance of the seventh day as a sabbath or religious rest, pre- scribed at the creation (Gen. 2, 3), and re-enacted at the exodus from Egypt (Ex. 20, 8—11), to commemorate the rest of the Creator from his six days' work, and that of Israel from Egyptian bondage, was ob- served with more and more punctilious rigour in the later periods of their history, particularly in the Babylonian exile, when the cere- monial law was in abeyance, and the Jews were outwardly distin- guished only by circumcision and the Sabbath. Upon this day, from the earliest times, it had probably been customary to assemble for re- ligious worship under the direction of the hereditary elders of the tribe or vicinage. These meetings were called synagogues in Greek, and were no doubt continued with redoubled zeal during the captivity, and perhaps with more of a distinct organization than was needed originally and at home. It is probable, however, that many of the regulations commonly described as belonging to the ancient synagogue, are of later date, and caused by the dispersion of the people throughout various countries. There is nothing in the text of the New Testament, at least, to show that the synagogues in the time of Christ were any thing more than the ancient gatherings of the people for worship under their national hereditary elders, who in that capacity were elders or rulers of the synagogue (see below, on 5, 22.) By a natural metonymy the name (like church, school, court, in English) is occasionally transferred to the place of meeting, but without disturbing its original and proper import. Of this truly national and sacred usage, that of meeting on the Sabbath for religious worship, our Lord immediately availed him- self, as furnishing the most direct and easy access to the more devout and serious portion of the people. The service of the synagogue appears to have been eminently simple, consisting in prayer and the reading of the Scriptures, with stated or occasional exhortation. That our Lord was permitted to perform this duty without any seeming opposition or objection, may be explained either from the liberty of speech allowed on such occasions by the ancient usage, or from his general recognition, even by his adversaries, as a gifted teacher. He taught, being here in the imperfect tense, may be understood to signify his general habit, or, as vs. 21-27 refer to a particular occasion, it may mean that Ite was teaching (as the Bhemish version renders it) on the day in question, when the subsequent occurrences took place. 22. And they were astonished at his doctrine : for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes. A highly important feature in the history of Christ's ministry is the impression or eftect of his teaching on the multitudes who heard it. This is here described, perhaps in reference to one particular occasion, but in terms admitting of a general application, and substantially re- peated elsewhere (see below, 0,2. 11, 18, and compare Matt. 13, 54. 22, 33. Acts 13, 12.) The grand effect was that of wonder or astonish- 20 MARK 1, 22. 23. ment, fhey were sfi^iick, literally strvch out, driven from their normal or customary state of mind by somethinj; new and strange. The object or occasion of this wonder was his doctrine^ not his leaniin;/. as Tyn- dale and Cranmcr have it, unless they use that term in its old sense (now regarded as a vulgarism) of teeaee. in Greek a passive verb, strictly meaning, he thou muzzled, si- lenced (Wiclif. irax dumb), and implying a coercive or restraining power accompanying the command. Come out of him, a.ha.ndon that myste- rious union which exists between you, and thus leave him in his natu- ral condition. This last clause clearly recognizes two distinct personal- ities, neither of which can be resolved into a figure any more than the other. 26. And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of him. The effect oj" the command is here described, and is just what might have been expected in the case of a real demoniacal possession. The evil spirit yields, but with reluctance, and not without a parting exhi- bition of impotent malignity. Tearing him, a strong but natural ex- pression for convulsions, or the violent contortion and spasmoflic agitation of the body. Crying with a great voice, either as a natural expression of pain upon the part of the demoniac, or of rage and spite in the de- parting demon. If all this can be resolved into a strong metaphorical description of an epileptic fit, as some pretend, then any other state- ment of the history may, with equal plausibility, be explained away. 27. And they were all amazed, insomuch tiiat they questioned among themselves, saying, Wliat thing is this? what new doctrine (is) this? for with authority command- cth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey liim. The effect on the spectators is described i.s powerful and univer- sal, thi y If (re all amazed. Nor was this amazement a mere stupid and unreasoning affection, but one that prompted to reflection and to rational inquiry, tio as to argue (or dispute) among (Hterally, to or with) themsehes. {Questioned is borrowed from the Khemish version; MARK 1, 27. 28. 29. 23 Wiclif has thought^ T3nidale demanded.) What is tJiis? Avhat is the mcaniii.o; of this new and strange occurrence, this m3'sterious dia!o,c:;ne and strife between a man and an evil spirit, and tlie still more wonder- ful submission of the latter? Their next question shows that they did not regard it as a mere chance-wonder, but connected it with his pretensions as a teacher. What (is) this new doctrine^ i.e. mode of teaching, with reference not so much to the truth taught as to the evi- dence by which it was attested. Why they called it a new doctrine, they explain themselves, to wit, because he claimed and exercised au- thority, not only over human minds, but over fallen angels, though be- longing to another race and sphere of being. Nor was this a mere as- sertion or pretension upon his part, but attested, verified, by actual obedience on the part of these mysterious and mihallowed visitants. The reasoning here recorded shows the effect of our Lord's miracles in authenticating his divine legation, while at the same time they relieved a vast amount of human suffering. In no cases were these two ends more effectually answered than in that of which we here have an ex- ample, and in which there was a fearful complication of bodily and mental, ph3'sical and moral ailments, and of temporal and spiritual, human and satanic agencies. 2S. And immediately his fame spread abroad tlirougli- oiit all the region round abont Galilee. Besides the immediate effect thus produced on those who wit- nessed this miracle and others like it, there was a more extensive influence exerted by all such performances, of great importance to the success of our Lord's ministry. This was the diffusion of his fame, both as a teacher and a wonder-worker, to a distance, thus promoting the important end of bringing the whole population to the knowledge of his claims and doctrines. This effect, we are told, in the present case, was instantaneous and extensive, as his hearing^ i. e. what was heard of him, his fame, report, or reputation (Rhemish version, hruit)., went out (from Capernaum, where the miracle was wrought) into the whole surrounding part of Galilee, or into the whole region around (Tyndale, bordering on Galilee)^ implying a still further extension of his fame, beyond the limits of the Holy Land, into the Syrian and Phoenician territory, where we know that it did penetrate. (See ]\Iatt. 4. 24. 15, 21. Luke G, 17.) Thus every miracle, besides relieving its im- mediate subject, and disposing him and all who saw it to the reception of the truth, helped to make our Lord more generally known, and to excite a spirit of inquiry with respect to him and his religion. 29. And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and An- drew, with James and John. To this public miracle Mark adds one of a more private and domestic kind, but in this case also, only as one instance out of many. This one 24 MARK 1, 29. 30. 31. was wroiifrlit in the bosom of a family witli which our Lord Imd now cuiitractcil intimate rehilions. tliat of Siinun reter, wliom we thus learn incidentally^ to have been married, and a liouseholdei- at Capernaum, in conjunction with his brother Andrew. This is not inconsistent with the mention of iJethsaida elsewhere (John 1, 45), as '■ the city of Andrew and Peter." They are not here said to have been natives of Capernaum, nor even to have long resided there. As the very name Betlisaida means a fishery or ])lace for lishingr, and v. as common to moie villages than one upon the lake (see below, on G, 45), it is probable that Peter and his brother lived there while engaged in that employment, and removed to Capernaum when Jesus cliose it as the centie of his opera- tions. It is even ])Ossib!e that Simon opened a house thcie for the con- venience of his Lord and Master in the mtervalsof his itinerant lal)Ours. Mark adds what is omitted both by Luke (4. 88) and Matthew (S. 14), that Jesus was attended from the synagogue to Simon's house by James and John, the other pair of brothers whom he calk'd at the same timt with Simon and Andrew. (See above, v. 19.) 30. But Simoirs wife's niotlicr lay sick of a fever ; and {inoii tliey tell him of lier. Not only was this miracle performed in Simon's house, but on a member of his family, his wife's mother (or as the older English ver- sions render it, his itiother-in-lmc), who seems to have resided with him. She iras hjliKj doicn, confined to bed, with fever, in Greek the participle of a verb which means to be feverish, or to have a fever. I.uke's more particular description (4, 38) is by some regarded as pro- fessional (Col. 4, 10.) I)iiniC(li(ttchj^ as soon as he had come in from the .synagogue, tJicy tell him of her. speak to him concerning her. which mny include not only information with respect to her disease, but a request that he would heal her, as expressed by Luke, they asled Jiiiii about hei\ i. e. whether she was curable, and whether he would cure her. 31. And lie came and took lie)' by tlie hand, and lifted her u]) ; and immediately the fever left her, and she min- istered unto them. As we never read of Christ refusing fmally to work a miracle of liealing, such a refusal was least of all to be expected here, where one so nearly related to his principal disciple was the sullerer. Accordingly wc find him promptly answering the prayer of those around her. ComiiKj to ha; i. e. entering her cliaud)er, and approacliing the bed on which she lay. he rdised her from her prostrate or recnndjcnt posture. sciziiKj ho' htdid, or laying hold upon her by the hand. Podily pres cnce and immediate contact, although not essential to the working of a miracle, and therefore frequently dispensed with (see below, on 7, 29), were in most cases used to show from whom the healing inllnence pro- ceeded. and(;stablish a perceptible connection between him and the person MARK 1, 31. 32. 33. 25 healed. The effect was the cessation of the fever, not by slow dej^rees but instantaneously. The completeness of the restoration was evinced by her i-eturninp; to her ordinary household duties, so that she who just before lay helpless in their presence, was now servinp; them or waitini; on them, no doubt with particular allusion to supplying them with food, which is the proper meaning of the Greek verb (see above, on V. 13.) The plural pronouns (tliey and them) are both indefinite, with a little difference in extent of meaning. -They means the members of the household, ot- at most the company, excluding both the Saviour and the woman. Them no doubt denotes all present, with the excep- tion of the woman, who is the subject of the clause. This use of the pronouns is common in all languages, and is especially familiar in the dialect of common life. 32. And at even, when the snn did set, they brought nnto liim all that were diseased, and them that were j30s- sessed with devils. One of the commonest and grossest errors in relation to the miracles of Christ is, that they were few in number, or that they are all recorded in detail. To guard against this very error, after recording two par- ticular miracles of healing at Capernaum, Mark adds a general state- ment of his other miraculous performances at the same time and place, from which we ma}'^ obtain a vague but just idea of their aggregate amount. In the evening of the same day upon which he heuled the demoniac in the synagogue and cured the fever in the house of Simon, all the sick of the city were collected there. The mention of the even- ing and of sunset does not imply any scruple on our Lord's part as to healing on the Sabbath, which he had already done in this case, and both did and justified in other cases. (See below, on 3, 1-4.) It might more probably imply such scruples in the minds of the people, who would then be represented as deferring their request for healing till the close of the Sabbath, at the setting of the sun. Even this, however, is unnecessary, as the fact in question is sufficiently explained by two more obvious considerations : fiist, that the cool of the day would be better for the sick themselves, and secondly, that some time would be requisite to spread the news and bring the sick together. He first describes them in the general, as all those having (themselves) ill^ or being in an evil condition. (\N\c\\^^ at malaise ; Rhemish version, i7Z at ease.) This may either denote bodily disease, as distinguished from mental and spiritual maladies, or, still more probably, disease in gen- eral, of which the most distressing foitn is separately specified. Pos- sessed with devils^ literally demonized, or under the control of demons, producing by their personal presence either bodily disease or mental alienation, or the two together. (See above, on vs. 23-27.) 33. And all the city was gathered together at the door. 2 26 MAR K 1, 33. 34. 35. The effect of such extraordinary cures, as might have been expected, was to rouse and gather the entire population of Capernaum, a state- ment wliich need scarcel}'' be explained as hyperbolical, but may be strictly understood as meaning that every individual inhabitant, who could do so, attended at the door (Wiclif, gate) of Simon's house, to obtain healing for themselves or for their friends, or at least to see and hear the new religious teacher, whose instructions were attested by such clear proofs of superhuman power and authority. 34. And he healed many that were sick of divers dis- eases, and cast out many devils ; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him. But how did Christ respond to these importunate demands for supernatural relief? By healing many^ which does not necessarily or probably imply that some were left unhealed, but rather that he healed them all (Matt. 8, Ifi). and that those whom he thus healed were many. The cures are classified as the diseases were in v. 32 : lie healed inamj having {themselves) ill icith various diseases, and expelled (or cast out) many demons. Here again the first phrase may be generic, and include the second, as the demoniacal possessions were undoubtedly diseases, but of a preternatural description ; or the two may be co-ordinate, describing two great forms of suffering, that arising from mere bodily disease, and that occasioned by the personal agency of evil spirits. In relation to these last, and in allusion to the fact recorded in vs. 24. 25. we are informed that though they recognized our Lord as the Messiah, and were I'cady to acknowledge him as such, he would not suffer them to do it ; cither because he did not need their testimony and would have been dishonoured by it, or because a premature annunciation of his Messianic claims would have defeated the whole purpose of his mission. 35. And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. In the midst of this unbounded popularity, arising from substantial benefits bestowed and clear proofs of divine legation. Clirist himself not only avoids all undue publicit}^, but spends much time in private devo- tion. Very early, while it was still niyht, is not at variance with Luke's phrase, it becoming day (ch. 4, 42), since both are pojiular expressions for a point of time not certainly defined, to wit, the dawn or break of day. when light and darkness are in conflict, and although the day i.s breaking, it is really still night. (See below, on IG, 2.) At this early hour we sec him rising and going out, not only from the house but from the town, into a desert unfrequented spot, and there praying, thus affording the most convincing proof of the necessity of jiru} or to our spiritual life by using it himself, as a mysterious but real and efllcient means, not only of conversing with the Father and the Spirit, but of securing their co-operation. MARK 1, 36. 37. 38. 27 36. And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him. This indifference to popular applause, and this desire for spiritual exercises, were alike beyond the comprehension of his friends, even of those whom he had lately called to be his personal attendants and disciples. Simon Peter, in whose house he had no doubt been lodged, no sooner missed him in the morning than he set forth in pursuit of him, accompanied by others, who are not here further designated or described. Those loith Mm may perhaps mean those belonging to his household, those residing with him, but more probably, those with him upon this occasion, those who came out with him to assist him. Upon either supposition, James and John were probably included, either as inmates of his house, or as fellow disciples, and possessing the same interest in the safety and honour of their common master. They pursued him, hunted him, in Greek a strong expression used by Xeno- phon to signify the close pursuit of an enemy in war. It here denotes an eager and determined following, perhaps with some implication of displeasure at the act which caused it, showing a false view both of their privilege and his prerogative. 37. And when they had found him, they said unto him, All (men) seek for thee. Having found him, after some search and uncertainty, as this ex- pression seems to imply, they say to him (that) all are seel-iny thee. This seems to be assigned as a sufficient reason why they followed him, and why he must return, implying that his movements must be gov- erned by the will of the great multitude who Avaited for him, or rather, as we learn from Luke's account of this same matter (Luke 4, 42), who had followed or accompanied his friends, and now endeavoured to restrain him from proceeding further, thereby showing their own ignorance of the end for which he came, and of the work in which he was officially engaged. 38. And he said unto them. Let us go into the next towns, that I may preach there also : for therefore came I forth. Instead of reproving them directly for their officious interference, or asserting his own rights and independence of their will, he simply indicates the nature of the work before him, by proposing an itinerant visitation of the nearest towns, literally, village-cities, which may either mean small cities, or large villages, or towns in its strict genuine sense as comprehending both the city and the village. JV^ext, literall}', held or holding an idiomatic Greek expression for adjoining or adja- cent. Let i(s go, literally, let iis lead, i. e. lead off, lead the way, set out. perhaps implying that the work proposed was a new one, now to be begun, although the form here used (ayw/^ev) is common in the 28 MARK 1, 38. 39. 40. gospels to denote mere locomotion or departure. (Sec below, 14, 42, and compare Matt. 2G, 40. John 11, 10. 14, 31.) These words were of course addressed to his disciples, not to the accompanying mul- titude. That I nut)/ there too (not merely in Capernaum) preach (pro- claim, announce) the good news of the kingdoiA of God, as it is more fully expressed by Luke (4, 43.) For to this (end), ov for this {cause), I have come forth, not from the house of Simon at this time, as some explain it, but from the Father, as it is explained by Luke (hecause vnto this have I hcen sent.) The attempt to set the two accounts at variance, instead of letting them explain each other, must appear ab- surd to all who are familiar with the weigliing and cumparisou of evi- dence in courts of justice. 39. And he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee, and cast out devils. The plan thus proposed he carried into execution. lie not only j)rcachcd on this occasion, but he was 'preaching ; this was his employ- ment. Li (literally, Into, i. e. going for the purpose into) their syna- goyues, the plural pronoun having reference to the towns mentioned in the preceding verse, or more indefinitely to the people, to whom and among whom he was jJi'eaching. Into all (or the whole of) Galilee, tlie same construction as in the preceding clause, and here as there implying previous motiun, going into every part of Galilee and preach- iiig there. All Galilee, not only the next towns, to which his first proposal had respect, and in which it was originally carried out, but through all parts of the province he carried his divine instructions and the uriracles by which they were attested. 40. And there came a leper to liini, beseeching him, and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. After this general description of Christ's ministry in Galilee, and of the circumstances under whicli it was begun, Mark records another miracle, peiformed ssion. Under the influence of human sympathy, as well as of divine condescension, he complies with the request of the poor leper, both by deed and word. The deed, that of stretching out the hand and touching him, had no magical intrinsic power, being frequently dis- pensed with; but it visibly connected the author with the subject of the miracle, and at the same time S3'mbolized or typified the healing virtue which it did not of itself hnjiart. The words which accompa- nied this gesture correspond to those of the leper himself, but with a point and brevity whicli make them still more beautitul and striking. if thou wilt, I will. Thou canst cleanse me, Be cleansed. The version, he thou chuin^ though perfectly correct in sense, mars the antithesis between the active and the passive voice of one and the same verb {Kadupia-cu, KiidapladijTL.) 42. And as soon as lie liad spoken, ininicdiately the leprosy departed from liini, and he was cleansed. The effect, as usual, was instantaneous, and is so desciibed hy Mark's favourite adverb, hnvicdiately. The preceding words (fiVoVros' uiiroxj) are e,\punged as spurious by the later critics, and are only an ampli- fication of the adverb. The strict .sense of the aorist jtarticiple is, hdviiKj fipolen ; but u.sage would justify the version speaJciug, i. e. while he yet spoke. The effect itself is described in two forms ; first the hp- Tosi/ departed (went TL\\ii\)from him, leaving him entirely free from its defilement and its pains ; and thus, as a necessary' consefjuence. he irns purified (or elea/iKed), as he had a.sked and Christ had promised, both in a physical and moral sense. J5y being freed from the literal, cor- poreal foulness of this loathsome malad}', the lej)er became ipso facto free from the social religious disabihties which the ceremonial law attached to it, and needed only to be recognized as thus free by the competent authority. (See below, on v. 44.j 43. And he straitl}" charged him, and forthwith sent him away. It is characteristic of the miracles of Christ that they were neither preceded nor followed by unnecessary words or acts, but as soon as the desired change was wrought, the subject was dismissed to make way for another. AVe have seen Peter's niother-iu-law instantly returning to her household duties without any interval of convalescence. (Sec above, on v. ol.) So liere, the leper is no sooner cleansed than he M A R K 1, 43. 44. 31 is sent away, dismissed, or as the Greek word properly denotes, cast out but used to express not a forcible expulsion (see above, v. 12), but a prompt and peremptory dismission, the reason of which afterwards appears (see below, on v. 44.) The act of sending him away was accompanied in this case by an earnest charge or exhortation. The Greek word (enlBpifirja-ufjifvos) is a Hellenistic form denoting strong emotion, and particularly grief or indignation. (See below, on 14, 5, and compare John 11, 33-38.) Here and in JMatt. 9, 30, it can only mean a threatening in case of disobedience, charging him on pain of his severe displeasure and disapprobation. 44:. And saitli nnto him, See thou say nothing to any man ; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing those tilings which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them. From the tone or spirit of the charge he passes to its subject-matter or contents. See, i. e. see to it, be careful, be upon thy guard. Say nothing to any man, literally, to no one, the double negative enhancing the negation in Greek, instead of cancelling it as in Latin and English. Man, supplied in such cases by the English version limits the sense too much, unless explained as an indefinite pronoun, like the same form in German. The charge here given was not one of absolute and perma- nent concealment, which was not only needless but impossible, from the sudden and complete change in the man's appearance and the subse- quent effect upon his social relations. The prohibition was a relative and temporary one, and had respect to the more positive command which follows. Until that direction was complied with, he was to say noth- ing. This connection is suggested by the order of the .sentence, " see thou tell no one .... but go," &c., i. e. remain silent till thou hast gone. This was no doubt intended to secure his prompt performance of a duty which he might otherwise have postponed or omitted alto- gether. This was the duty of subjecting himself to the inspection of a priest, and obtaining his official recognition of the cure which had been wrought upon him. That recognition would of course be followed by the offerings prescribed in the Mosaic law for such occasions. (Lev. 14, 1-32.) By this requisition Christ not only provided for the full authen- tication of the mirncle, but as it were, defined his own relation to the cei-emonial law, as a divine institution, and as being still in force. This was important, both as a preventive of malicious charges, and as a key to the design of his whole ministry or mission, which belonged, at least in form, to the old and not the new economy, and was only preparatory to the outward change of dispensations. This is the meaning put by some upon the last words Jar a testimony (Tyndale testimonial^ to them, i. e. as a proof that I reverence the law and comply with its requirements. More probabl}-, however, it refers to the fact of the man's being cleansed, which could be fully ascertained by nothing but oflQcial scrutiny and attestation. 32 MARK 1, 45. 45. Bnt ho went out, and Logan to pnLlIsli (it) mnch, and to blaze abi'oad the niattor, insomuch tliat Jesus could no moi-e openly enter into the city, hut was witliout in desert places : and they came to him from every quarter. "While Matthew's narrative conchidcs with Christ's command, Mark goes on to tell how it was obeyed, or rather disobeyed in one point, namely, the suppression of the fact until attested by tlie priest. Instead of attending to tin's first, as he had been directed, gohtg out (from the house or from the presence of tlic Saviour), he J>e'jan (nt once, and as his first employment) to procJdiin many (thi/ig.s), i, e. to say much in the way of heralding his cure, and to report (circulate, or publish) the irord, not the thing or matter, a meaning now rejected by the best philologists, but the story or report of it. Some understand it still niore strictly, of the word by which the miracle was wrought (/cn^.i/u'tr^^n) he cleansed ! The singular translation hhized /(hrocd, is borrowed from the llhemish version. Whether the cleansed leper went to the pi-icsts at all is not recorded, being a matter of small historical importance in comparison with the effect of his disoljcdience on our Lord's own movements, for the sake of which it is in.scrted in the narrative. This effect was to prevent his coming into totcn. (i. c. any town, not the toicn, i. e Capernaum), at least publicly and openly. lie could not, i. e. in a moral .sense, without defeating his own purpose by exciting tumult in the towns through which he passed, and where the premature announcement of his mir- acles had predisposed the people to undue excitement. To avoid this risk he now chose for his stations unfrequented places, such as John had occupied, but not for the same reason. This change of place, however, did not abate his i)opularity, for crowds came to him in the desert from all quarters. It may hei'e be observed, that although the {U'ohibition to divulge the miracle aj)pears in this case to have been conditional and for a time, it was repeated afterwards more absolutely (sec below, on 5, 43. 7, 30), not in conformity to any fi.xcd rule, but for the general pur- pose of preventing the precipitate occurrence of events which according to his ])Ian were to be gradually brought about. Hence we iind him varying liis practice as the ciicumstances of the ca.scs varied with the same independent and original authority which marked his public teaching. (See above, on v. 27.) CHAPTER II. Thi's far tlie historian lias been tracing the progress of Christ's minis- try, from its antecedents and jiiH'litninaries to a height of popularity and influence re(piiring the enthusiasm of the masses to be checked rather than excited. liut this succes.s, thougli general, was still not MARK 2, 1. 33 universal. Upon ceitain classes of the people the impression made was altogether difTeront. To trace the growth of this unfriendly feeling till it ripened into bitter hatred and avowed hostility, is one great object of the history which now presents this dark side of the picture, and ex- hibits the original causes, or at least the earliest displays of disaffection, with the very words and actions which occasioned them. The form which the narrative assumes is that of a series of charges against Jesus, or objections to the course which he pursued, as inconsistent with the law of Moses. The first ground of objection was his claiming the power to forgive sins, while performing a miracle of healing on a paralytic at Capernaum (1-12.) The next was his intercourse with publicans and sinners, connected historically with the call of a publican to be an apos- tle (13-17.) A third was his free mode of living, and supposed neglect of all ascetic duties (18-22.) A fourth was his alleged violation of the Sabbath, of which one case is here recorded (23-28), and another in the following chapter (1-G.) The natural relation of these topics to what goes before, their mutual connection and their common bearing on the whole course of the liistory, are clear proofs of its unity, coherence, and methodical structure. 1. And again lie entered into Capernaum, after (some) days ; and it was noised that he was in the lionse. From among our Saviour's many miracles of healing (see above, on 1, 34), jNIark now selects another, for a special purpose, that of pointing out the first display of hostile feeling on the part of certain classes, the occasion of which was afforded by the miracle in question. We have two other narratives of this transaction (Matt. 9, 2-8. Luke 5, 17—26), neither of which is so minute and graphic as the one before us, that of Matthew being much the most concise and meagre. The dif^'rent con- nections in which the gospels introduce this nairative have reference to their several designs in giving it. That of Mark, alixady stated, makes the mere chronology of slight importance. His opening words show, howcvei', that the incident took place after Christ's first missionary circuit, recorded in the former chapter (1, 39.) He came again into Capernaum^ as his head-quarters, or the centre of his opeiations (see above, on 1, 21), to which he constantly returned from his itinerant la- bours throughout Galilee. After some days, the nearest equivalent in English to an idiomatic Greek phrase, strictly meaning, through daya, 1. e. after more than one day had elapsed. Noised, literally, heard, im- plying that it must have been reported, and suggesting the deep inter- est now felt in all his movements by his townsmen and neighbours. 1)1 the house, another idiomatic phrase, which sti'ictl}' means to (or in- to) hoxise, and like the corresponding German form [zu Ilause) is equivalent in sense to our at home, but with the accessory notion of previous arrival or return, suggested by the preposition {fU.) ' It was heard that he had come home and was now there.' The idea of his own or any other particular house, although implied, is not expressed in the original. The two oldest English versions have in a house. 2* 34 M A R K 2, 2. 3. 4. 2. And straightway many were gathered together, in- somuch tliat there was no room to receive (them), no, not so mnch as about tlie door : and he preached the word unto them. The public curiosit}', so far from beinp; weakened by his absence, was now more intense than ever, so tliat the house was filled at once to overflowing. Jmmediatchj, Mark's favourite connective (see above, on 1, 10. 18. 20. 21. 20. 31. 42.'43), but not on that account unmeaning or inaccurate. Ilis peculiarity is not that he describes things as imme- diate which were not so, but that he observes the immediate succession of events, where others do not mention it. So as no longer to receive (or hold them), not eren tJte (place) at the door, or, so tliat not even the (parts) next the door could hold (them, or make room for them.) The Greek verb has the same sense as in John 2, fi. 21, 25. Even the porch or cntrj^, leading from the street to the interior of an oriental house, was crowded. Before this multitude he exercised, as usual, the two great functions of his ministry, teaching and healing. Preached, (literally, simlx or talked) the word, i. e. what he had to say of him- self and of his kingdom, or, as Luke expresses it (5, 17), was teaching. 3. And they come unto liim, bringing one sick of the palsy, wliich was borne of four. It would seem, from an expression used by Luke (5, 17), that other miracles of healing were performed at this time, but that one is record- ed in detail, on account of the discourse to which it gave occasion. They came, indefinitely, tlicre came (men) to him, hrimjing a paralytic, a word now in common use, but not at the date of our translation, which emplo3's the circumlocution, sicJk o/ the j^'dsy.ixu abbreviation or corrup- tion of ^j^/?v cnunnonly the largest, anil the one used for mniicrou^ asseml)lies. (Coiniiare Acts 1.13. \\'.\9. 20.8.) On the former sujiiiositinn. some ('\|ilain tlie lun'ooling to bn simply (he remo- val of the ramjjart or buhvaik, which the law of Moses, and tlie usage M A R K 2, 4. 5. 35 of the east, require on every flat roof as a safeguard against accidents. (See Deut. 22. 8.) But this would hardly be described as unroofing, and is still more inconsistent with the phrase employed by Luke (through the tiles.') Digging out, i. e. removing the loose tiles or plates of burnt clay which covered the surface of the roof, or still more probably, dig- ging through the earth or plaster which composed the roof itself. They let down, lower, i. e. with cords or ropes, which, although not expressed, is necessarily suggested by the usage of the Greek verb (see Luke 5, 4. 5. Acts 9, 25. 27, 17. 30. 2 Cor. 11, 33.) Th^ couch (or pallet), not the common word for led, here used by Luke (5. 18) and Matthew (9, 2), but one of JNIacedonian origin, found only in the later Greek, and prob- ably denoting a couch easily carried, perhaps a camp-bed. Even the most costly oriental beds consist of cushions and light coverings, spread upon the floor or divan, bedsteads being quite unknown. On which the paralytic was lying, helpless, and therefore passive, though no doubt consenting to this bold and energetic movement of his friends, who thus succeeded in depositing him in the midst of the crowd below, and immediately before the Saviour (Luke 5, 19.) 5. When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. Seeing, both from their external acts and by his power of discerning spirits. Their faith, that of his companions, who. would not have gone so far in their endeavour to reach Jesus if they had not believed in his capacity and willingness to do what they desired. The commendation of their faith is not addressed directly to themselves, but indirectly to their suffering friend, and in a form at once affecting and surprising. Son, or rather child, the Greek word being neuter, and in usage com- mon to both sexes, even when the reference is to one, as here, and in Matt. 21, 28. Luke 2, 48. 15, 31. The same affectionate address is used by Christ to his disciples in the plural number (Matt. 10, 24. John 13, 33). and a synonymous form elsewhere (John 21, 5.) It is here intend- ed to express, not only kindness and compassion, but a new spiritual kindred or relation, which had just been formed between the speaker and the man whom he addressed. Be forgiven, like the Greek verb, is am- biguous, and may be either a command or an affirmation. It is now held by the highest philological authorities that the original word {a(^iU)VTai) is an Attic, or more probably a Doric form of the perfect passive, signifying something that is done already. Thy sins have (al- ready) heeii remitted, the verb corresponding to the noun {remission) in 1, 4, above. There is no need of supposing, as some do, that this man's palsy was in some peculiar or unusual sense the fruit of sinful indul- gence; much less that our Lord conformed his language to the common Jewish notion, that all suffering was directly caused by some specific sin, a notion which he pointedly condemns in John 9, 3. Luke 13, 2-5. Bodily and spiritual healing was more frequently coincident than we are apt to think, the one being really a pledge and symbol of the other. Saving faith and healing faith, to use an analogous expression, were 36 MARK 2, 5. 6. 7. alike the gift of God, and often, if not commonly, bestowed together, as in this case, where the singularity is not the coincidence of healing and forgiveness, but the prominence given to the latter by the Saviour, who instead of saying, ' be thou whole ' (compare 1, 41), or ' th}^ disease is healed,' surprised all who heard him by the declaration that his sins ■were pardoned. This paradoxical expression was no doubt designed to turn attention from the lower to the higher cure or miracle, and also to assert his own prerogative of pardon, in the very face of those whom he knew to be his enemies. 6. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, We here see for whom this unexpected declaration was intended, not for his friends and disciples, but for others whom he knew to be present as spies and censors of his conduct. There xcere »ome of the 8cribes,i. e. of the large class or profession mentioned in 1, 22, and there explained. These expounders of the law, and spiritual leaders of the people, had already been invidiously compared with Jesus by the crowds who heard him, and were therefore predisposed to regard him as a ri- val. Those who assembled now on his return to Capernaum were not merely residents of that place, but collected, as Luke strongly phrases it (5, 17), from every village of Galilee and Judea, as well as from Je- rusalem. However hyperbolical these terms may be, the essential fact is still that these unfriendly scribes came from various quarters, thereby showing the importance which began to be attached to Christ's proceedings, especially by those who were at once the jurists and the theologians, the lawyers and the clergy, of the Jewish nation. ASitting seems to imply that they were in a convenient and conspicuous posi- tion, and perhaps that they had come betimes in order to secure it (see below, on 12, 30.) lieasonlng, or as the Greek word primarily means, reckoning, calculating, through and through, a term implying coolness and deliberate forethought, not a sudden violent excitement. It might here denote discussion, or an interchange of views among themselves (as in 0, 33. 34, below) ; but this idea is excluded by the added words, in their hearts, so that what is here described is not reciprocal com- munication, but the secret working of their several minds, unconscious of the eye that was upon them. 7. Why (loth this (man) thus speak bhasphemies ? who can forgive sins but God only 'i The reasoninfj mentioned in the sixth verse had no doubt been go- ing on from the i)eginning of our Lord's discourse ; but the evangelist confines himself to the effect of liis surprising declaration to tlie para- lytic, that his sins were pardoned. 77//.< and thus are commonly sup- posed to be contemptuous, at least the former, which in classic Greek is often really equivalent to thix fellow, and is sometimes so translated in our Bible. (Matt. 12,24. 20,01.71. Luke 22, G'J. 23,2. John 0, MARK 2, 7. 8. 37 29. Acts 18, 13.) Thus^ not merely, as we have just heard him, but so foolishly and wickedly. Blasphemy, in classic Greek, is any evil speaking, even against man, such as slander or vituperation ; but in Hellenistic usage, it denotes specifically evil-speaking against God, or any thing said impiously either of or to him. The plural (blasphemies)^ which Luke has also (5, 21), is probably intensive (all this blasphemy), but may have more specific reference to different expressions which our Lord had used, and which they reckoned blasphemous. (See be- low, on 3, 28, and compare Matt. 15, 19. 1 Tim. 6, 4. Rev. 13, 5.) Only one, however, is expressly cited or referred to, namely, that at the conclusion of the fifth verse. Who is able to remit sins except one {that is) God ? The principle involved in this interrogation is a sound one, and appears to have been a sort of axiom with these learned Jewish scribes, who were also right in understanding Christ as acting by his own authority, and thereby claiming divine honours for himself. A mere declaratory absolution they could utter too, and no doubt often did so, but the very manner of our Lord must have evinced that in forgiving, as in teaching, he spoke with authority, and not as the scribes. (See above, on 1, 22.) 8. And immediately, when Jcsiis perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, AVhy reason ye these things In your hearts ? These cavils and repinings, though not audible, were visible to him who had occasioned them. Immediately^ here too (see above, on v. 2) is not an expletive, but indicates the instantaneous detection of their thoughts by his omniscience, without waiting till they were betrayed by word or action. Perceived, literally, knowing, a verb meaning sometimes to recognize or know again (see below, 6, 33. 54), and some- times to ascertain or discover (see below, 5, 30), but more commonly to know certainly or thoroughl}^ (see Luke 1, 1), which is probably the meaning here, the intensive compound having reference to our Lord's immediate and infallible intuition of their very thoughts. In his sjnrit, may have reference either to his divine or to his human nature. In the former case, it simply means, in the exercise of his divine cognition (1 Cor. 2, 11) ; in the latter, through that spiritual influence and illu- mination, with which, as the Messiah, he was constantly invested. (See above, on 1, 10. 12.) To our apprehensions the two meanings are the same, the distinction being one beyond the reach of our concep- tions. His question corresponds in form to theirs, as if he had said, ' I may rather ask why you weigh or reckon these things in your hearts,' not merely in their minds, but in their inner paits, or secret- ly. The fault was not in him, but in themselves, who thus presumed to sit in judgment on him. The interrogation has the same force in both cases, namely, that of implied censure. 'What right has this man to pronounce such words ? ' ' What right have you to entertain such thoughts ? ' 38 MARK 2, 9. 10. 9. Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, (Thy) sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise, and taKC up thy bed, and walk ? This is one of the most striking instances on record of our Lord's consummate wisdom in the use of what appears to be a strange and paradoxical method of reasoning or instruction. As instead of pro- nouncing the man healed he unexpectedly pronounced him pardoned, so, instead of meeting their objections by a formal affirmation of his own prerogative, he does so by a subtle but convincing argument, dis- closing at the same time why he bad so spoken. They denied his power to forgive sins, and could not be convinced of it by any sensible demonstration. But they might equally dispute his power to heal, unless attested by a visible effect. If then his commanding the para- lytic to arise and walk should be followed by his doing so, what pre- text could they have for doubting his assertion that the same man's sins were pardoned? Which (in old English whether) is easier? You may think it easy enough to pronounce his sins forgiven, whether they be so or not ; but it is equally easy to pronounce him healed, or to de- mand of him the actions of a sound man, and if this should prove ef- fectual, you must acknowledge that the other is so too, although for- giveness cannot be made palpable to sense like the cure of a paralysis. 10. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) ' That you may know by what authority I tell this man that his sins have been forgiven, I will show you what authority I have over his disease, that the possession of the one may demonstrate the exist- ence of the other, for both belong to me as the Messiah.' Son of man cannot simply mean a man, or a mere man, for this would be untrue in fact, since the powers in question do not belong to men as such ; nor could any reason be assigned for this circuitous expression of so simple an idea. The sense of 7nan hy way of eminence, the model man, the type and representative of human nature in its unfallen or restored condition, is by no means obvious or according to the analogy of Scrip- ture, and at most an incidental secondary notion. The true sense is determined by Dan. 7, 13, where the phrase is confessedly applied to the iMessiah, as a partaker of our nature, a description which itself implies a higher nature, or in other words, that he is called the Son of Man because he is the Son of CJod. This official applica- tion of the term accounts for the remarkable and interesting fact, that it is never used of any other person in the gospels, nor of Christ V)y any but himself. Even Acts 7, 5G is scarcely an exception, since the words of Stephen arc a dying reminiscence of the words of Jesus, and equivalent to saying, ' I behold him who was wont to call himself the Sun of Man.' This exclusive use of the expression by our Lord may l»t' accounted for by the consideration that it is not in itself a title MARK 2, 11. 12. 13. 39 of honour, but of humiliation, and could not therefore be employed without irreverence by any but himself, while he was upon earthj or in a state of voluntary humiliation. 11. I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. Havinp; stated his argument, he now applies it, by exhibiting the very proof of his authority to pardon sin which he had shown to be conclusive. To forgive sin and to heal disease are superhuman powers, to claim which is equally easy, and to exercise them equally difficult. If I pronounce this man forgiven, j^ou may deny it, but you cannot bring my declaration to the test of observation, since forgiveness is a change not cognizable by the senses. But if I assert the other power, you can instantly detect the falsehood of my claim, by showing that the paralysis continues. If, on the contrary, it disappears at my com- mand, the proof thus furnished of the truth of one claim may convince you that the other is no less well founded. Thus far he had addressed the scribes; then turning to the palsied man, To thee I say^ Arise, taTce up thy couch and go away into thy house. 12. And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went fortli before them all ; insomucli that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, AVe never saw it on this fashion. Familiar as we are with this astounding scene, it is not easy to imagine the solicitous suspense with which both the enemies and friends of Jesus must have awaited the result. Had the paralytic failed to obey the summons, the pretensions of the new religious teacher were refuted by the test of his ov\n choosing. But he rose (oT more exactly, was aroused or raised vji), not by slow degrees, but immediately (see v. 8). without delay, and lifting the 2^o.llet, upon which he had been lying, he went oat of the house and from amidst the crowd through which he had a little before been so strangely in- troduced, and that not secretly but openly, he/ore all, as if challenging inspection. The result, as might have been expected, was that they were all amazed, or in an ecstasy, i. e. an abnormal or extraordinary state of mind in English commonly applied to extreme joy, in Greek to extreme wonder. (See below, on 3,21. 5,42. 6,51.) But the wonder was not irreligious, for it prompted them to glorify God, i. e. to praise him as the God of glory, whose presence had been manifested in a way, of which they had experienced no previous example. 13. And he went forth again by the sea-side ; and all the multitude resorted unto iiim, and he taught them. The supposed extravagance of Christ's pretensions was aggravated, in the eyes of his accusers, by a seeming inconsistency of his behaviour 40 MARK 2, 13. 14. with respect to friendships and associations. "While he claimed an authority above that of any prophet, he consorted with the most no- torious violators of the law, who were excluded b}' all stiict Jews from their social and ecclesiastical communion. lie did so even with the publicans, whose very name was a proverbial expression for the want of character and standing in society. This excommunication of a whole class or profession arose from the singular political condition of the Jews at this time. The Romans, to whom thej"^ had been virtually subject since the occupation of Jerusalem by Pompey, and particularly since the coronation of Herod as king of the Jews by order of the senate, with their usual wise policy, suffered them in most things to govern themselves. The two points in which their domination was most sensible were the military occupation of the country and the op- pressive S3'stem of taxation. This branch of the imperial revenue was farmed out to certain Roman knights, and by them to several grada lions of subordinate collectors, each of whom was required to pay a stated sum to his superior, but with the privilege of raising as much more as he could for his own benefit. This financial system, which still exists in some oriental countries, must from its very nature be oppressive, by offering a premium for extortion and rapacity. To this was added in the case before us the additional rcpr»ach of being in- struments and tools, not merely of a foieign despotism, but of a gentile or heathen power. The odium thus attached to the office of a publican, or Roman tax-gatherer, prevented any Jews from holding it except those of the most equivocal and reckless character, who, being thus excluded, by their very occupation, from respectable society, were naturally thrown into that of wicked and disreputable men. Thus a business, not unlawful in itself, and only made oppressive by the cu- pidity of those engaged in it, came by degrees to be regarded by devout Jews as intrinsically evil, and gave rise to that familiar but without reference to these facts unintelligible combination, '' publicans and sin- ners." Tiiere was no slight analogy between this moral degradation and the physical debasement of the leper ; and the same curiosity may have been felt as to the way in which our Lord would treat it. Mark accord- ingly exhibits, as a second ground of opposition to his ministry, the fact that he not only companicd with publicans, but caused that hated and despised profession to be represented in the college of apostles (13-17.) As the first fbur of his i)ersonal attendants were fishermen, so the fifth, whose vocation is recorded, was selected from among the publi- cans, and called from the actual discharge of his official functions. The three evangelists, by whom this interesting incident has been preserved, agree in making it directly follow the miraculous cure of the paralytic. Mark adds particularly that it took place on his gohifj out atjnin (i. e. probably from Capernaum), with reference to his going in again, at the beginning of this chapter, and while he was engaged in the instruction of the crowd which still attended him. 14. And as he passed by, lie saw Levi the (son) of Al- MARK 2, 14. 41 plieiis, sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. Passing 'by or along, from the city to the lake, or on the shore of the latter, he saw a person acting as a publican. Receipt of custom., or, as most interpreters explain the term, the place of such receipt, not necessarily a house, perhaps a temporary office or a mere shed, such as AViclif calls a tolboth (^toU-hooth}, a name transferred in Scotland to the common gaol. At this place, perhaps upon the waterside, he saw a person sitting and engaged in his official duties, whom he called to follow him, a call which he instantly obeyed, abandoning his former business (Luke 5, 28.) It is not affirmed, or even necessarily implied, that this was his first knowledge of the Saviour. The analogy of the calls before described (1, lG-20) makes it not improbable that this man. like his predecessors, had already heard him, and perhaps received an intimation that his services would be required It can scarcely be fortuitous in all these cases that the persons called, though previously acquainted with the Saviour, had returned to or continued in their former occupation, and were finally summoned to attend their Master while engaged in the performance of its duties. The person here called Luke names Levi, iMark more fully, Levi, son of Alplieus. In the several lists of the apostles, one is expressly so described, namely, James the Less, and one by an almost ncccssar}' implication, namel}^, Jude or Judas, not Iscariot (sec below, on 3, 18, and compare Matt. 10,3. Luke 0,5. 16. Acts 1, 13.) In none of these four catalogues is the name of Levi found, but in one of them (Matt. 10, 3), a publican is mentioned by the name of Matthew, the veiy name which an old and uniform tradition has connected with that gospel as its author. The combination of these statements, which some German writers in their ignorance of practical and public jurisj)rudcncc, represent as con- tradictory, no judge or jury in America or England would hesitate or scruple to regard as proving that the JNLatthew of one gospel and the Levi of the other two are one and the same person. The same diver- sity exists in relation to the hypothesis or theory, b}^ which the diller- ence of name may be accounted for. While one class treats it as a mere harmonical device without intrinsic probability, the other thinks it altogether natural and in accordance with analogy, that this man, like so many persons in the sacred history, Paul. Peter, Mark, itc, had a double name, one of which superseded the other after his conveision. In this case it was natural that JNIatthew himself should use the name by which he had so long been known as an apostle, yet without con- cealing his original employment, and that Mark and Luke should use the name by which he had been known before, when they relate his conversion, but in enumerating the apostles sliould exchange it for his apostolic title. This hypothesis is certainly more probable than that of a mistake on either side, or that of a confusion between two con- versions, those of Levi and jNIatthew, both of whom were publicans, and one of whom was an apostle, but confounded by tradition with the ether 1 MARK 2, 15. 16. 15. And it came to pass, that as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples ; for there were many, and they followed him. Sat at ment^ literally, lay dow7i or reclined, a luxurious posture introduced among the later Greeks and Romans from the east. Among the ancient Greeks as well as Hebrews sitting was the universal posture, as it still continued to be in the case of women and children, while the men, by whom alone convivial entertainments were attended, leaned on their elbows stretched on beds or couches. This was also the fashion of the Jews, when our Saviour was among them, and the use of the words sat, sat doicn, sat at meat, in all such cases, is a mere accommo- dation to our modern usage, the very same verbs being rendered laij or li/inff when the reference is to sickness (see above, on v. 4, and on 1, 30, and below, on 5, 40), and in one instance leaning, where the true sense is the common one of lying or reclining (John 13. 23.) In Jt is honse might be either that of Jesus or of Matthew, whose own expression is still more inde- finite (in the house') ; but the ambiguit}' is solved by Luke (5, 29), who tells us that the publican apostle made a great reception (doxyjv) for him in his house, a circumstance modestly omitted in his own account of these transactions. We have then a double reason for the fact that many pub- licans and sinners sat (reclined) at meat with Christ and his disciples; first, the one expressed by Mark, that this unhapp}'- class was very nu- merous, and verj' generally followed Christ, to hear his doctrine and experience his kindness ; and then, the one implied b}^ Luke, that ho who gave this entertainment was himself a publican, and therefore likely to invite or to admit his own associates in ofiice and in disrepute. IG. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? The unavoidable publicity of almost all our Saviour's movements, and the agitated state of public feeling with respect to him, would necessarily prevent a private and select assemblage even in a private house. It is only by neglecting this peculiar state of things that any difficulty can be felt as to the i)resence of censorious enemies at Mat- thew's table or within his hospitable doors, if not as guests, as s})ec- tators or as spies. These unwelcome visitors aic designated by the same name as before (v. G), that of Scrihes, but also by another, that of Pharisees, here applied to the same persons, but describing them in a different manner. The word itself means se]>aratists, and is com- monly explained as a description of their austere and ascetic separation from the mass, as claiming a superior sanctity and purity of morals. It is far more prol)able, however, that the name has reference to national, not to personal seclusion, and describes the party which con- tended for the separation of the chosen people as its highest honour, MARK 2, IG. 17. 43 and insisted upon every point of difference between them and the Gen- tiles, while the rival party of the Sadducees inclined to a more liberal assimilation to the customs of the Gentiles, The word sect, commonly applied to these two bodies, convej^s the false idea of a separate organ- ization, creed, and worship, whereas they were only two divisions of the same church and body politic, and might be more correctly called schools or parties. The Pharisees appear to have included the great body of the people, or at least to have controlled them, not so much by laying claim to a higher moral and religious character, as by their patriotic zeal for national distinctions. This, which was at first a laudable and proper spirit, had become punctilious in its love of forms, preferring what was merely ceremonial, or of minor moment, to the weightier matters of the law, and often cloaking great corruption under appearances of virtue and devotion. Of these Pharisees the scribes were the official or professional leaders, and the names are therefore sometimes interchanged, and still more frequently combined as here. Nothing could be more at variance with their hollow ceremonial sanctity than Christ's association with these excommunicated sinners and apostates, and especially his free participation in their food, on which the -Jews of that age especially insisted as a means and mark of separation from the Gentiles (Acts 10, 28), and from those among themselves whom they regarded as mere heathen (Matt. 18, 17.) Un- prepared as yet to make an open opposition to the Saviour, and perhaps awed by his presence, they present their complaint in the indirect form of an interi'ogation addressed not to him but his disciples. To eat in the first clause, and to eat and drink in the second, are equivalent expressions, both conveying the same general ideas of food and of participation in it. 17. When Jesus heard (it), he saith unto them, They that are whole, liave no need of the physician, hut they that are sick : I came not to call the righteous, but sin- ners, to repentance. Though addressed to the disciples, the objection is replied to by our Lord himself, and as usual in an unexpected form, presenting the true question at issue, and suggesting the true principle or method of solu- tion. Their reproach implied a false view of his whole work and mis- sion, which was that of a physician ; the disease was sin ; the more sinful any man or class of men were, the more were they in need of his attentions. The very idea of a healer or physician presupposes sickness; they that are whole (or well, in good health) need no such assistance. The figurative description of his work is followed by a lite- ral one. The oldest manuscripts and latest critics read, I came not to call the righteous, lint sinners. This, taken by itself, would seem to niRan simply that his eri'and was to sinners, that his message was ad- dressed to them. But the parallel passage in Luke (5, 32), as well as tlie received text of Mark and Matthew (9. 13), adds the words, to re- 44 MARK 2, 17. 18. pentance, thus giving to the verb call, at least in reference to the last clause, the specific sense of summoning, inviting, or exhorting. Some interpreters suppose that this limitation of the meaning does not extend to the righteous, who are said to be called (or not called) in the vague sense above given — ' I came not to address the righteous, but to sum- mon sinners to repentance.' There is something very harsh, however, in supposing the same verb to have two senses in one sentence without being even repeated. A far more natural construction is to give it the same sense in relation to both classes, or in other words, to let the addi- tional phrase (^to repentance) qualify the whole clause. ' I came not to call the righteous to repentance, but sinners.' To this it is objected that repentance is not predicable of the righteous. This depends upon the meaning of the latter term. If it denote, as some allege, compara- tively righteous, i. e. less atrociously or notoriously wicked ; or, as others tliink, self-righteous, righteous in thtir own eyes ; then the righteous need repentance and the call to repentance just as much as others. If it mean absolutely righteous, i. e. free from sin, which is the proper meaning, and the one here required by the antithesis with sin- ners, it is true that such cannot repent, and need not be exhorted to repentance ; but this is the ver}'- thing affirmed according to the natu- ral construction. ' You reproach me for my intercourse with sinners, but my very mission is to call men to repentance, and repentance pre- supposes sin ; I did not come to call the righteous to repentance, for they do not need it and cannot exercise it, but to call sinners as such to repentance.' Ey confining to repentance to the second member of the clause, the very thing most pointedly affirmed is either left out or ob- scurely hinted. Another error as to this verse is the error of supposing that our Saviour recognizes the existence of a class of sinless or abso- lutely I'ighteous men among those whom he found upon the cai-th at his first advent. But the distinction which he draws is not between two classes of men, but between two characters or conditions of the whole race. By the riglttcous and dinners he does not mean those men who are actually righteous, and those other men who are actuall}' sinners, but mankind as righteous and mankind as sinners. ' I came not to call men as unfallen sinless beings to repentance, which would be a conti-adiction, but as sinners, which they all are ; and I therefore not only may but must associate with sinners, as the verv objects of my mission ; just as the physician cannot do his work without coming into contact with the sick^ who are alone in need of healing.' He does not mean of course that liis errand was to Publicans (as sinners), not to Pharisees (as righteous), but simply that the worse the former were, the more completely did they fall within the scope of his benignant mission. 18. And the disciples of John, and of tlic Plinrisees, used to fust: and tliey coine, and say unto liini, Why do the disciples of John, and of the Pliarisces fast, but thy disciples fast not ? MARK 2, 18. 45 Near akin to the charge of undue condescension and familiar inter- course with sinners is that of a free and self-indulgent life, to the neglect of all ascetic mortifications. It is doubtful, and comparatively unimportant, whether this charge was made upon the same or a different occasion. It by no means follows from the consecution and connection of the narratives, even in Luke (5, 33) and Matthew (9, 14), that the account of Matthew's feast is there continued, while in Mark another instance of the same kind seems to be added without any reference to the date of its occurrence ; an arrangement perfectly consistent with the general practice of the evangelists, who adhere to the exact chronological order only when it is the most convenient, and there seems to be no reason for departing from it. In the case before us it is very possible, though not a necessary supposition, that the writer goes on to complete the series of objections to our Saviour's method of proceeding, all belonging doubtless to the early period of his ministry, though not perhaps imme- diately successive. The disciples of John are commonly regarded by interpreters and readers as worthy representatives of John himself, holding his doctrines and his relative position with respect to the Mes- siah. But this .position was no longer tenable ; the ministry of John was essentially prospective and preparatorj^ ; its very object was to bring men to Christ as the lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world (John 1, 29.) Had all John's followers imbibed his spirit and obeyed his precepts, they would all have become followers of Christ, as some did. But even while John was at liberty, and in despite of his remonstrances, some of his disciples cherished a contracted zeal for him as the competitor of Christ (John 3, 26), and afterwards became a new religious party, equally unfaithful to the principal and the forerunner. These are the disciples of John mentioned in the gospel, after his im- prisonment and the consequent cessation of his public ministry. Of their numbers and organic state we have no information. From the passage now before us, where they are connected with the Pharisees, not only by the history but by themselves (Matt. 9, 14), it is probable that John's severe means of awakening the conscience and producing deep repentance were continued as a ceremonial form after the spirit had departed. A remnant of this school or party reappears in Acts 19, 1-7, and with a further but most natural corruption in one or more heretical phenomena of later history. The first clause of this verse is understood by some as meaning that they were so engaged at the date of these occurrences, perhaps in consequence of John's death. But the Pharisees could hardly be expected to unite in this observance, or in any other with the followers of John as such, except by a fortuitous coincidence, which would not have been so expressed. This difficulty lis avoided, and the usage of the language better satisfied, by understand- ing this clause as the statement of a general custom, common to both schools or parties, and accounting for the fact of the joint application here recorded. The neglect complained of would be equally offensive to the followers of John and to the Pharisees, however they might dif- fer as to more important matters. They were fasting, L e. statedly, and as a matter of observance, not as an occasional auxiliary to devo- 46 MARK 2, 18. 19. tion, or a special means of spiritual discipline. They come to Mm seems naturally to embrace both antecedents, the disciples of John and the Pharisees, although it may possibly refer only to the former, who alone are named by Matthew (9, 14), while Luke (5, 33) does not specify the subject of the sentence, which some interpreters supply from v. 30 (^scribes and Pharisees) ; but the chronological connection of the pas- sages, as we have seen, is altogether doubtful. On the whole, it is most probable that some of either class united in the question, which implies or rather asserts, that their practice was in this respect the same. lar what, i. e. for what cause or reason ? Fast, i. e. habitually, statedly, a further confirmation of the meaning put upon the first clause, as they could scarcely mean to ask why the disciples did not join in the particular fast which they were then observing. The only stated fast prescribed in the Mosaic law is that of the great day of atonement, in which were summed up all the expiatory ceremonies of the year (Lev. IG, 29-34.) But before the close of the Old Testa- ment canon, we find traces of additional fasts added by the Jews them- selves (Zech. 8, lU), and in the time of Christ an intimation by himself that the Pharisees observed two weekly fasts (Luke 18, 12.) The Jewish traditions, though of later date, confirm the general fact here stated. The fasts observed by John's disciples were either the tradi- tional ones common to all other Jews, or formal repetitions of those used by John as temporary remedies, perhaps a servile imitation of his personal austerity and abstinence. We have no reason to believe, and it is highly improbable, indeed, that John himself established stated fasts, which would seem to be at variance with his intermediate posi- tion, as the last prophet of the old dispensation and the herald of the new, but commissioned neither to improve upon the one nor to antici- pate the other. But thy disciples fiLSt not, though a simple statement of a fact, derives from its connection a censorious character, as if they meant to say, how is this omission to be justified or reconciled with thy pretensions as a teacher sent from Giod ? (John 3, 2 ) In this case they complain to him of his disciples, as in that before it they complain to them of him (v. 10), and in the first which Mark records merely condemn him in their hearts without giving oral expression to their censures (vs. 0-8.) This charge, though indirect and interroga- tive in form, may be regarded as confirming what we know from other quarters, and especially from Christ's own words below, that his life and that of his disciples were alike free from the opposite extremes of frivolous self-indulgence and austere moroseness. 19. And Jesus said unto tlicm, Can the children of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them ? As long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. The reply to this charge is as unexpected and original in form as cither of the others, and made still more striking by its being borrowed MARK 2, 19. 20. 47 from familiar customs of the age and country, namely, from its mar- riage ceremonies, and particularly from the practice of the bridegroom bringing home his bride accompanied by chosen friends of either sex, rejoicing over them and for them. These, in the oriental idiom, were styled children of the bridal chamber, i. e. specially belonging to it and connected with it, something more than mere guests or attendants at the wedding. The specific term sons, here used in all the gospels, desig- nates the male attendants upon such occasions. The bridegroom is in Greek an adjective derived from Iride and answering to bridal, nvptial. Used absolutely, it denotes the bridal (man), or bridesman, called in English bridegroom, and differing from husbatid just as bride docs from wife. There may be here a double allusion, first, to the favourite Old Testament figure of a conjugal relation between God and Israel (as in Ps. xlv. Isai. liv. Jer, ii. Hos. iii.), and then to John the Baptist's beau- tiful description of the mutual relation between him and Christ as that of the bridegroom and the bridegroom's friend (John 3, 29.) The form of the question is higlily idiomatic, being that used when a negative answer is expected. The nearest approach to it in English is a nega- tive followed by a question. — ' they cannot — can they l ' The incapa- cit}^ implied is not a physical but moral one. They cannot be expected, or required to fast ; there is no reason why they should fast. The gen- eral principle involved or presupposed is that fasting is not a periodical or stated, but a special and occasional observance, growing out of a par- ticular emergency. This doctrine underlies the whole defence of his disciples, which proceeds upon the supposition that a fast, to be accept- able and useful, must have a reason and occasion of its own, beyond a general propriety or usage. It is also assumed that fasting is not a mere 02)us ojjeratum, but the cause and the eflect of a particular con- dition, that of spiritual grief or sorrow (Matt. 9, 15.) 20. But tlie (lavs "will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days. The duty of fasting being thus dependent upon circumstances, may and will become incumbent when those circumstances change, as they are certainly to change hereafter. The bridegroom is not always to be visibly present, and when he departs, the time of fasting will be come. To express this still more strongly, he is said to be removed or taken away, as if by violence. Then, at the time of this removal, as an im- mediate temporary cause of sorrow, not forever afterwards, which would be inconsistent with the principle already laid down, that the value of religious fasting is dependent on its being an occasional and not a stated duty. There is no foundation therefore for the doctrine of some Romish writers, who evade this argument against their stated fasts, by alleging that according to our Lord's own declaration', the church after his departure was to be a fasting church. But this would be equivalent to saying that the Saviour's exaltation would consign his people to perpetual sorrow. For he evidently speaks of grief and 48 MARK 2, 20. 21 fasting as inseparable, and in ^latthew's narrative of his reply, the former term is substituted for the latter (Matt. 9, 15.) Even the jjlural form, in tliose days, has respect to the precise time of his de- parture, much more the singular, in tlnit day. which the latest critics have adopted as the true text. 21. No man also sewetli a piece of new cloth on an old garment : else the new piece that filled it np, taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. Althourrh Mark has not yet recoi-ded any of Christ's formal parables, he gives us in this passage several examples of his pai'abolical method of instruction, i. c. by illustration drawn from the analogies of real life. Having already employed some of the prevailing marriage customs to account for the neglect of all austerities by his disciples, he proceeds to enforce the general principle which he is laying down, b}'' other analo- gies derived from the festivities of such occasions, and particularly from the dresses and the drinks which were considered indispensable at mar- riage feasts. The first parable, as it is expressly called by Luke (5. 3()). is suggested by the homelj' but familiar art of patching, and consists in a description of the general practice of what everybody does, or rather of what no one docs, in such a matter. This appeal to constant univer- sal usage shows, tliat however we may undeistand the process here alluded to, it must have been entirely famihar and intelligible to the hearers. The essential undisputed points are that he represents it as an unheard of and absurd thing to combine an old and new dros-, by sewing parts of one upon the otlier. The incongruity, thus stated by the other two evangelists (Matt. 9, IG. Luke 5, .'id), is rendered miicli more clear b}' !^Lark's explanation of a new dress, as meaning one com- posed oi uiifalhd clot]i. and therefore utterly unlit for the kind of com- bination here alluded to. Ehc. literally, if not. which may seem to say the very opposite of what our Saviour really intends and the connection here demands, but which means, if he does not act upon this prmciple or adhere to this universal custom. Both the text and the construction of the next clause have been much disputed ; but the true sense seems to be the one expressed in the common version, namely, that the new piece or filling up. l)y shrinking or b\' gieater stiength of fibre, loosens or weakens the old garment still more, nnd the rent becomes wor.se. The essential idea here expressed is evidently that of incongruity, with special reference to ohl and new. It admits of various apjtlications to the old and new economy the old and new nature of the individual, and many other contrasts of condition and of character. The primary use of it. suggested b}' the context and historical occasion, was to teach the authors of this cliarge that they nuist not expect in the Messiah's king- dom a meie patching up of what had had its day and done its ollice, by empirical repairs and emendations of a later date, but an entire renova- tion of the cliurcii and o( religion ; not as to its essence or its vital prin- ciple, but as to all its outward forms and vehicles. As the usages immediately in (luestion were of human not divine institution, whatever MARK 2, 21. 22. 23. 49 there may be in this similitude of sarcasm or contempt, belongs not even to the temporary forms of the Mosaic dispensation, but to its tra- ditional excrescences. 2:^. And no man puttetli new wine into old bottles : else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred : but new wine must be put into new bottles. The same essential truth is now propounded in another parabolic form, likewise borrowed from the experience of common life. Instead of old and new cloth, the antithesis is now between old and new skins as receptacles for new wine, the fermenting strength of yvhich distends the fresh skins without injury, but bursts the rigid leather of the old ones. The word bottles is of course to be explained with reference to the oriental use of goat skins to preserve and carry water, milk, wine, and other liquids. The attempt to determine who are meant by the bottles^ and what by the wine, proceeds upon a false assumption with respect to the structure and design of parables, which are not to be expounded by adjusting the minute points of resemblance first, and then deducing from the aggregate a general conclusion, but b}"^ first ascertaining the main analogy, and then adjusting the details to suit it. (See below, on 4. 2.) This is the method universally adopted in ex- pounding fables, which are only a particular species of the parable, dis- tinguished by the introduction of the lower animals, as representatives of moral agents. In explaining iEsop's fable of the Fox and the Grapes, no one ever thinks of putting a distinctive meaning on the grapes, as a particular kind of fruit, or on the limbs of the fox as having each its own significance. Yet this is the expository method almost universally applied to the parables. By varying the form of his illustration here, without a change in its essential import, he teaches us to ascertain the latter first, and then let the mere details adjust themselves accordingly. The last clause furnishes the key to both similitudes. New wine must 7)6 put into new bottles. In religion, no less than in secular afiairs, new emergencies require new means to meet them ; but these new means are not to be devised by human wisdom, but appointed by divine authority. 23. And it came to pass, that he went through the corn-fields on the sabbath-day ; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. A fourth charge or ground of opposition to the Saviour, on the part of the more scrupulous and rigid Jews, was his alleged violation of the Sabbath, either in person or by suffering his followers to do what was esteemed unlawful. This divine institution, as already mentioned (see above, on 1, 21). being chiefly negative in its observance, was less affected by a change of outward situation than the legal ceremonies, most of which were limited to one place, and could not be performed without 3 50 MARK 2, 23. irregularity elsewhere. ITcnce the Jews in foreign lands, being cut off from tlie oil'criiig of sacrifices and the formal celebration of their yearly festivals, were chiefly disriuguislied from the Gentiles among whom they dwelt by two ot)servances, tho.sc of circumcision and the Sabbaih, and especially the In^tter, as the more notorious and palpable peculiarity of their religion. Hence the prophets who predict the exile, lay pecu- liar stress on the observance of the Sabbath, as the badge of a true Israelite. (Isa. 50, 2. 58, 13. Lam. 2, 6. Ezek. 44, 24. llos. 2, 11.) After the restoration, when the same necessity no longer existed, the people were disposed to exaggerate this duty by gratuitous restrictions, and by pushing the idea of religious rest (which was the essence of the Sal)bath) to an absurd extreme, at the same time losing sight of its spiritual purpose, and confining their attention to the outward act, or rather abstinence from action, as intrinsically holy and acceptable to God. One of the Jewish books enumerates thirty-nine acts, with many subdivisions, which were to be considered as unlawful labour, and the Talnmd gives the most minute specifications of the distance which might be lawfully passed over, even in the greatest emergencies, as that of fire. With these distorted and corrupted notions of the Sabbath, they would soon find something to condemn in the less punctilious but more rational and even legal conduct of our Lord and his disciples. Two such attacks, with their historical occasions, arc recorded here by Mark, the first of which fills the remainder of this chapter (vs. 23-28.) It is also given by ^Matthew (12, 1-8) and Luke (G, 1-5), by the former more and by the latter less minutely, and with some variation as to form and substance, but without the least real inconsistency. One of the points of difference is in the chronological arrangement, Matthew connecting what is here recorded with his previous context by the gen- eral formula, in that time, while Luke specifics the very Sabbath upon which it happened. As Mark has no indication of time whatever, it is clear that he is putting things together, not as immediately successive in the time of their occurrence, but as belonging to the same class or series, that of the objections made by the censorious Jews, on legal grounds, to Christ's proceedings. Hence this topic occupies an earlier place in Mark than in either of the other gospels, and when taken in connection with their marked agreement, even in minute forms of ex- pression, proves that while they used the same material and aimed at the same ultimate design, each was directed to pursue his own plan independently of both the others. It came to jyann (or happened), although it decides nothing in reference to the time of the occurrence, ap- pears rather to imply that it was diflcrent from that of the preceding topic. As if ho had said, 'another incident, exhibiting the spirit of these censors, was as follows.' We/tt, literally irent hi/ or alone/, in»ply- ing that he crossed the corn-field merely on his way to some place, and not wantonly or idly, much less for the i)urpose of provoking this objection. ConiJiclcU, literally soirn (Jiehfs), i. c. .sown with corn, in the proper English sense of grain or bread-stuHs, with particular refer- ence to wheat and barley. That the corn was grown and ripe, though not expressly mentioned, is implied in all that follows. On the Sabbath ]M A R K 2. 23. 24. 51 day^ literally hi the SablatJis^ which may seem to indicate that this particular occurrence took place more than once, or that this clause is descriptive of a customary action. But the plural form of the Greek word IS purely accidental, and arises either from assimilation to Greek names of festivals (compare John 10, 22), or from the fact that the Hebrew word Sabbath (nat-) in its Aramaic form (xrasj) resembles a Greek plural (a-alSlBaTa), and is often so inflected, although singular in meaning. His discijyles, his immediate personal attendants, probably those whose call has previously been recorded, Peter and Andrew, James, and John, and Matthew, perhaps with the addition of some others who received his doctrine, and were therefore his disciples in a wider sense. Our Lord appears to have been seldom free from the society of others, either friends or foes, so that he was sometimes under the necessity of escaping from them for a time, especially for devotional purposes. (See above, on 1, 35.) Began is not a pleonastic or super- fluous expression, but suggests that they were interrupted, or that while they were so doing, the ensuing dialogue took place. Began^ as they went, to phicl% or, retaining the original construction, they began to malce icay, plucl-ing. To make way, in the sense of going or proceed- ing, is a phrase found both in Hebrew ( Judg. 17, 8), and in classic Greek, although the middle voice is commonly employed by the older writers. The obvious meaning is that they went along plucking the ears, or plucked them as they went. Yet one of the ablest German writers on this passage insists on what he calls the strict sense, namely, that they made a way or broke a path through the standing corn by plucking up the stalks, and that Mark's account, which says nothing of their eating the grains, is therefore at variance with those of Luke and Matthew 1 This may serve as an example of the influence exerted on interpretation by the supposed candor of exaggerating every real differ- ence, and ingeniously contriving false ones, rather than adopt the com- mon-sense expedient constantly employed in our tribunals, of allowing witnesses not otherwise discredited, to explain and supplement each other's statements, and of looking upon minor variations as confirming rather than impairing their essential agreement. Another objection to this forced construction is., that Mark, as well as Luke and Matthew, speaks of ears and not oi stallcs^ and must therefore equally have refer- ence to eating, and not to the breaking of a path, which could not be effected by merely plucking the ears of wheat or barley. 24. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath-day that which is not lawful ? The Pharisees, i. e. certain of that class who seem to have been near at hand whenever Christ appeared in public. This will be less sm-- prising if we consider that the Pharisees were not a small and select body, but the great national party who insisted on the smallest points of difference between Jews and Gentiles, and most probably included the mass of the nation. (See above, on v. 18.) The expression here used, therefore, is nearly equivalent to saying, certain strict punctilious 52 MARK 2, 34. 25. 20. Jews who happened to be present. Marie and Matthew represent them as complaining to the Master of his disciples ; while, according to Luke, the objection was addressed to the latter. Both accounts are perfectly consistent, whether we suppose Luke to describe the indirect attack upon them as a direct one, or. which seems more natural, assume that both our Lord and his followers were thus addressed by different per- sons, either at once or in succession. Sce^ behold, implying something strange and hard to be believed. Why^ i. e. with what right, or by what authority? The question therefore implies censure, as in v. 7. IG, above. On the Sibbath what w not lairful, i. e. what is not lawful on the Sabbath. Instead of this obvious and natural construction, the writer above quoted understands the clause to mean, why do they on the Sabbath (as an aggravating circumstance) what is not lawful at any time, meaning the injury done to the corn by breaking a way through it ? The simple act of plucking and eating was expressly allowed by the law of Moses (Dent. 23, 25.) The unlawfulness must therefore have consisted either in this wanton waste or in doing on the Sabbath what on any other day would have been lawful. But of waste or damage to the grain, the text, as we have seen, contains no trace or intimation. It was therefore not the act itself, but the time of its per- formance, that gave occasion to the charge before us, as we learn from Maimonides that the tradition of the fathers reckoned the act here described as a kind of harvesting or reaping, and as such forbidden labour on the Sabbath. 25. And lie said unto them, Have ye never read wliat David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he and they that were with him ? 26. JEEow he went into the house of God, in the da3's of Abiathar tlie hirince is properly a participle, mean- ing one who goes first, takes the lead, presides, or governs. As a noun, it denotes magistrates in general, and in Grecian history the Archons. or chief magistrates of Athens. It is apjilied in the New Testament to Moses, as the national leader (Acts 7, 35), to members of the Sanhe- MARK 3, 22. 23. 7& drim or national council (John 3, 1. 7, 50), and to the local ciders or rulers of the s3'naj!;ogue (Luke 8, 41), but also to the Evil One. or leader of the fallen angels, as tlie "ijrince of this world" (John 12, 31. 14, 30. IG, 11), as the "prince of the power of the air" (Eph. 2, 2), and as the "prince of the devils" (Matt. 0, 34. and here.) This last word is an inexact translation, as the Scriptures recognize only one Dcril, but a multitude of demons (see below, on 5, 9. 15.) The former is one of the names given to the Evil One by way of eminence, as the slanderer or false accu.ser of mankind, whereas Satan represents him as their enemy or adversary. (See above, on 1, 13, and below, on vs. 23. 2G.) The other term, commonly translated devils, is properly an adjective, and originally means divine, or rather superliiiman. compre- hending all degrees and kinds of gods belonging to the Greek mythology, but specially applied to those of an inferior rank, and bearing some par- ticular relation to individual men as their good or evil genius, in which sense Xenophon employs it to describe the tutelary monitor of Socrates. It is perhaps on account of this specific usage of the word that it is used hi the New Testament to designate the fallen angels, or evil spirit.s, as connected with the history of our race, and especially as active in those singular affections which derive fiom them the name of " demoniacal possessions." Of these dcmonia or demons. Satan, the Devil, is here called the prince or chief, but under the derisive and disgusting name Beehchul, or Dinig-god. It is a possible, though not a necessary sup- position, that this application of the name was customary and familiar. It is moi'c probable, however, as we do not find it in the oldest Jewish books now extant, that it was devised for the occasion, as a bitter sar- casm against Jesus, whom it virtually represents as united in the clo.sest manner to the most unclean of spirits, and b}^ his authority and power dispossessing his inferior agents. This view of the matter is important, as implying a terrific aggravation of tlie sin committed by these Scribes and Pharisees in representing the immediate acts of God as ojierations not of Satan merely, but of Beelzebub, which, though applied to the same being, is peculiarly insulting, as it identifies him with the Fly-god of the old Philistines, and the Dung-god into which this idol had been changed by the bitterness of Jewish controversial satire. 23. And he called tliem (unto him), and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan ? Without as yet adverting to this odious aggravation of their calumny, our Lord refutes the charge it-self, by showing its absurdity on any principle of action, whether human or Satanic. The Jews believed, and justly, that the Devil was not a mere chance opponent or occasional adversary of our race, but one whose vast capacity was wholly occupied in this great warfare ; who, so far as his own wishes went, existed only for the purpose of destroying man and defeating his deliverer. They were familiar with the protcvangclhum, the primeval promise or predic- tion of a fluctuating and protracted conflict between two antagonistic races, represented by their several heads, Christ and Satan. To sup- 70 MARK 3, 23. 24. pose that either p:\rty in this war of ages could mistake or chanj^c sides, was a paradox too gross to need any lefutation but a simple exposure of it in its nakedness ; and tliis is all that t!ie Ivcdeemer here does. It is not a formal argument, as some assume, and then decry it as illogical and inconclusive ; it is merely a statement of the charge in its true meaning, and in comparison with what they all believed and were ready to acknowledge. As this mode of reasoning rested on relations and analogies which medcd only to be hinted at without amplification or elaborate discussion, the evangelist naturally says that he sjudx to them in- j-)a7viljles^ i. e. by similitudes, comparisons, analogies, and not by syllogisms or dogmatic propositions. Calling them to him, i. e. those who had uttered this malignant charge, and whom he now singles out from among the multitude, and as it were challenges either to establish or retract it. IIow can Sy his hearers, he proceeds in the next verse to apply what he has said alread}'. 2G. And if Satan rise up against liimself, and he di- vided, he cannot stand, but hatli an end. What is thus true of a kingdom and a household among men is no less true of Satan ; for //' he has risen vp against himseJj\ and been divided, he cannot (possibly be made to) stand, Init has an end, or ceases to be what he is. Had the idea of division, in these various illustrations, been the simple one of some opposing others, our Lord rS MARK 3, 2G. 27. 28. would no doubt liavc applied his arp;urnent or principle to Satan's king- dom rather than liiniself; but as he here presents the i)aradoxical idea of Satan as an inflivi(hial divided into two, and one arrayed ap;ainst the other, wc may safely infer, that tliis very paradox was meant to be tlie point of his whole argument. If they had said, Neither man nor devil can be tluis divided so as to make war upon himself, he might have answered, How absurd then upon youi' i)art to allege such a division, by accusing me of being in alliance with my opposite ! If Satan could be thus divided, he would not be Satan, but would have an end. 27. No man can enter into a strong man's lionse, and spoil liis goods, except lie will first bind the strong man ; and tlien lie will spoil liis lionso. Having shown that their idea of collusion with Satan was at vari- ance with the very nature and essence of Satan himself, he adds anothei-. likewise (h'awn from the experience of common life, to show the conclusion which they must have drawn in an analogous case, and which the}' therefoi'c sliould have drawn in this. When a rich man, able to protect his goods, is robbed, no one imagines he has robbed himself, but ever}- one regards it as the work, not only of an enemy, but also of an enemy superior in power. So, too, when they saw Satan's instruments and agents dispossessed and driven out by Jesus, instead of ai-guing that he and Satan were in league together, the}' ought rather to have argued that the prince of this woild was cast out and judged (John 12, ol. IG, 11), that he had met his match, or rather came in contact with his conqueror. AVhat clearer proof could be denu\nded, both of Christ's supeiiority and enmity to Satan, than tlic havoc which he made of Satan's instruments and tools, to which there may be some allusion in the woid translated rjoods, which properly means vessels, utensils, or im{)lements of any kind, (.see below, 11, 10, aiul compare Lidce 17, r.l. Acts 27, 17,) and may be. well applied to those inferior demons of whom Satan was the prince and leader. 28. Yeril}', I say nnto yon, All sins shall be forgiven nnto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme. Thus far the Lord has been refuting the absurdity of tlicir malig- nant ch;u-ge, without regard to its pecuHarly ollensive form ; and as he uses the word Satan, not I}cel/,cl)ub, it might appear that he intended to pass over the gross insult without further notice. I?ut he now re- bukes it, indirectly it is true, but with .so awful a severity, that few can read the words and even partly understand them without shudder- ing. Tliis pas.sagc, with its i)arariels in Luke and IMatthew. lias been always and unanimously reckoned one of the most shocking and alarm- ing in the word of God ; but it acquires a new solemnity and terror wlicn considered in its true connection with what goes before, and not M A R K 3, 28. 29. 79 as a mere insulated and detached expression of a mysterious and fearful truth. The scribes had represented him as in collusion with the devil, under an unusual and most offensive name, importing that the spirit which possessed Clirist was himself an unclean, nay, a filthy spirit. Instead of formally reproving them for this unparalleled affront to him- self and to the Spirit who was in him, he describes to them the nature of the sin which the}' had almost, if not quite, committed, and the doom awaiting it hereafter. Tliis momentous declaration, like a sentence of death, opens with a solemn foi-mula of affirmation. Amen, here trans- lated verily (or truly), is a Hebrew adjective, oiiginallj'- meaning sure or certain, but emploj-ed as an ejaculatory particle of assent or concur- rence, at the close or in the intervals of prayers, benedictions, curses, vows, or other forms of a religious kind, when uttered by one or more persons in the name of others. (Num. 5, 22. Deut. 27, 15. 1 Kings 1, 3G. 1 Chr. IG, 30. Ps. lUG, 48. Jer. 28, G. Matt. G, 13. 1 Cor. 14, IG. Rev. 5, 14. 22, 20.) But besides these cases, and some others where the word is retained without translation, there are many more in which it is ti'anslatcd verily, and stands not at the end but the beginning of a sentence. This is one of the most marked characteristics of our Saviour's manner which have been preserved to us, especially by John, who always writes it twice, a form not found in any of the other gos- pels. In the case before us, as in others, it invites attention to the fol- lowing words as uttered on divine authorit}'-, and therefore truth itself. The same idea is often expressed in the Old Testament by a divine oath. I say unto you is an expressive formula, too often overlooked as pleonastic ; but containing two emphatic pronouns. I, the Son of God, and yet the Son of man, declare to you, my spiteful enemies and false accusers. All the sins shall be remitted to the sons of men, the mem- bers of the human race, not all the sins of ever}^ individual, but every kind of sin to some one. There is no sin (with the subsequent excep- tion) so enormous that it shall not be forgiven to some sinner who commits it. Whafis thus said of sin in geneial, is then said of a sin- gle class of sins, among the most appalling that can be committed or conceived of, and the blasphemies whatever (i. e. however great or many that) they may blaspheme (see above, on 2, 7.) This is specified, not merely to enforce the previous declaration b}' applying it to sins directly against God, and in the last degree insulting to him, but also to con- nect it with the case in hand, or the occasion on which it was uttered. 29. But he that shall blaspheme against the Holj Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation. Now follows the mysterious and terrible exception. Whoever shall \las2>heme against the Holy Ghost, hath not remission (or Jbrgiveness) io eternity, hut is subject (or obnoxious) to eternal judgment. The common version of the second clause [hath never forgiveness), though impressive and substantially correct, obscures the antithesis between the cognate noun and adjective (aiwm and alo^vlov). The former properly 80 MARK 3, 20. 30. 31. denotes (hnrition, sometimes definite, as an age. a lifetime, or a dis- pensation, but, when limited by nothing in the context, indefinite and even infinite duration. This strongest sense would be implied here, even if those words were not expressed, by the siructure of the sen- tence. If some sins will be forgiven and some not, the latter must be coextensive with the former ; and as those forgiven aie forgiven to eternity, those unforgiven must eternally remain so. The same thing is more positively stated in the last clause. As his sin is not to be remitted, he is of course subject to eternal condemnation, i. e. actually subject or judicially subjected to it, and not merely in danger of it, as the word is inexact!}'- rendered. This is not the meaning even in 14, C4, below, where it is used to denote guilt or ill-desert, as necessarily inferring condemnation and execution, here included in the one word judgment. Even Si'n, the reading now adopted by the critics, must be taken in the same improper sense oi punishment. 30. Because they said, lie liatli an unclean spirit. Lest there should be any doubt as to the bearing of this fearful sentence, Mark specifically mentions what occasioned it, only ex- changing the name Bedzchiih for unclean spirit, which is really its meaning. It appears then that in charging him with being thus pos- sessed, they either did commit, or were in danger of committing, the unpardonable sin of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. It cannot consist therefore in mere obstinate unbelief oi- final impenitence, for these are chargeable on all who perish, and could not be described in such terms as a peculiar .sin distinguished from all others, and accord- ing to ^latthew (12, 31), even from the sin of speaking a word against the Son of God. There are two other explanations which have been extensively received and are entitled to attention. One of these is founded upon Matthew's statement, and supposes a distinction between Jesus, as the Son of man, i. c. a divine person in the form of a servant (Phil. 2. 7), and under that disguise liable to be mistaken, so that men might speak against him and blaspheme him, not indeed without ag- gravated guilt, but without incurring this tremendous condemnation ; and on the other hand Jesus, as the Son of God, with the manifest tokens of divinit}^ afforded by his miracles of mercy. But as this docs not account for the Holy Spirit being put in oi)position to the Son of man, and as Mark omits this opposition altogether, most interprctei'S agree that the unpardonable sin consists in obstinate rejection of the truth, and wilful apostasy from God, in opposition to one's own con- victions, and with malignant hatred of the gospel, the expression of which is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, as the illuminating Spirit by whom truth is carried home to the heart and understanding of believers, and to whom such apostasy and unbelief are therefore more especially insulting. 31. There came then his bretln-en and his mother, and standing witlioiit sent unto him, calling him. MAKK 3, 31. SI Then is not an adverb of time (rorf ) but a lopjical connective {ovv), often rendered therefore (as in 10.9. 12,0.23.27.37. 13,35). and sometimes (when preceded by fxiv) so then, when an interrupted nar- rative or arg;ument is resumed and continued. This is probably the moaninp; of the particle in this case, where it seems to connect the in- cident that follows with something in the foregoing context, as in our colloquial phrases, ' well (or so then), as I was saying.' The retro- spective reference must be to the statement in v. 21, that liis own friends or relatives came out to secure his person, thinking him beside himself. Having been led by a natural association under divine guidance to give some account of the effect produced by Christ's in- creasing popularity upon his most malignant enemies (22-30), the writer now returns to the effect upon his friends, especially those nearest to him. This view of the connection throws some light upon the conduct of his mother and his brethren, in disturbing him while publicly engaged in teaching. That they would venture to do sc without a reason, or on ordinary business, or from personal affectioUj or from pride in their connection with him, although not impossible, is far less probable than that they were actuated b}' an anxious care for his own safety, and called for him in order to arrest what they re- garded as a wild and dangerous excitement, both on his part and on that of the assembled masses. It may be difficult for us, with our habitual associations, to appreciate the motives of these anxious fiiends ; but at the juncture here described, nothing could be more natural and pardonable than precisely such solicitude, which is per- fectly compatible with true faith and affection, but imperfect viev»'s both of his person and his mission. The principal actor in this scene is his mother, the brothers merely following or attending her, but joining in her message and request. It has been a subject of dispute for ages, whether these brothers of our Lord were sons of Joseph and Mary, or of Joseph by a former wife, or nephews of either, all which hypotheses have been maintained by high authorities. Some of the questions in relation to this topic will recur below (on G, 3), and some of them belong rather to tlie exposition of Matthew (1, 25.) All that is necessary here is to observe that they were certainly his near rela- tions, and either by birth or by adoption members of his mother's family, so that they constantly attended her and acted with her upon this occasion. Without, either outside of the house, or more probably beyond the circle of his hearers in the open air. Sent to him, no doubt by passing the message from man to man until it reached him, which they could not do themselves from the extent and pressure of the crowd. Calling him {ovfor him) might appear to be a peremp- tory summons, but for the milder statement of Luke (8, 20), that they wished to see him, and of MatthcAv (12, 4G. 47), that they sought to speak to him. This last evangelist connects the incident expressly with the same discourse that here precedes it, but with a part of that discourse which Mark has not reported, and which Luke gives in a dif- ferent connection (11, 24-3G.) 4^ 82 MARK 3, 32. 33. 34. 35. 32. And the multitude sat about him ; and they said unto liim, Beliokl, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for tliee. The emphatic word here is not sat but multitude. Their posture was of no importance, even as a vivid recollection of a witness ; but it was important to observe that he was in the midst of « croircl (not tlie crowd), to explain why his friends did not speak to him directly but through others. The// said, i. c. one to another, till the nearest finally reported it to Jesus (Matt. 12, 47.) There is no ground there- fore for the singular idea, that this person wislred to interrupt our Lord's discourse as too alarming (Matt. 12, 39-45), by directing his attention to his friends who were present and inquiring foj" him. 33. And lie answered them, saying, Who is my moth- er, or my brethren ? Our Lord takes occasion from this incident to teach them that his relative position in society was wholly different from that of others, his domestic ties, though real, being as nothing in comparison witli those which bound him to his spiiitual household. This is the meaning of the question here recorded. ' Do you think tliat my condition is the same as yours, and that the wishes of my mother and my bx'othcrs are as binding upon me as those of your own households are and ought to be on you ? ' There is no doubt an implied negation of the proposition thus suggested, as if he had said, You are mistaken in supposing that my family relations are the same as yours, or that my mother and brothers are what you express by those endearing names. The con- temptuous meaning put by some upon the words, as if he had intended to say, What are they to me? or what care I for them ? is wholly for- eign from the text and context. 34-. And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold, my mother and my breth- ren ! Here again Mark has preserved to us a look or gesture of our Lord, not mentioned by the others. Looking round in a circle, that is, turning quite round, so as to survey the whole assembly, not (as in v. 5, above) with grief and anger, but no doubt with an atfoctionate and tender recognition of his true friends and disciples. See, behold, (these arc) my mother and my brothers, i. e. my family and nearest kindred. I am not bound, as you are, to a single household, but embrace, as equally allied and dear to me, this vast assembly. 35. For whosoever shall do tlie will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother. Lest this comprelicnsive statement should lead any to imagine that mere outward attendance on his teaching would entitle them to this MARK 3, 35. 83 distinction, he emphatically adds, that it belonged to none but those who acted out as well as listened to his doctrine. Tt was only he who did the will of God, as Christ announced it, that could claim the hon- our of this near relationship. But where this condition was complied with, even the poorest and most ignorant, and in themselves the most anworthy of his hearers, were as truly members of his household, and as affectionately cherished by him, as his highly favoured mother, who was blesssd among women (Luke 1, 28), or his brothers and his sisters according to the flesh. This delightful assurance, far from abjuring his natural relations, only makes them a standard of comparison for others. Far from saying that he does not love his mother and his brethren, he declares that he has equal love for all who do the will of God. Such a profession from a mere man might be justly understood as implying a deficiency of natural affection, since so wide a diffusion of the tenderest attachments must detract from their intensity within a narrow sphere. Of Christ alone can it be literally true, that while he loved those nearest to him with a love beyond all human experience or capacity, and with precisely the affection due to each beloved object, he embraced with equal tenderness and warmth the thousands who com- posed his spiritual household, and will continue so to do forever. The implied reproof of his fiiends' interference with his sacred functions, was intended only for themselves. What he said to the multitude, instead of disparaging his natural relations, magnified and honoured them by making them the measure of his spiritual friendships ; and even if he meant to sa}" that those who did the will of God were the only relatives whom he acknowledged, he must still have given a high place among them to his mother, notwithstanding her anxieties on his behalf, and to his brothers also, if believers. (Compare John 7, 5.) CIIAPTEE TV. Having shown how Christ prepared the way for the re-organization of the Church, by choosing and training men who should effect it, Mark now describes the other part of this preparatory process, which consisted in our Lord's own exposition of the nature of his kingdom, and the principles on which it was to be established. Though he does not give the piincipal discourse of this kind (commonly called the Sermon on the Mount), he exemplifies the Saviour's method of promoting the same end by parables, of which this chapter gives three specimens. The first, and much the longest, shows that his kingdom was to be erected in the hearts of men, and the various receptions which it would there meet with (1-25.) The second teaches that, although this kingdom was to be ^istablishcd in and among men, and with their cooperation, its Bucr^s vvas to be wholly indoi ■endent of their will and efforts (2G-29,) 84 MARK 4, 1. The third illustrates its expansive nature, and the divine will with re- spect to its diffusion (30-32.) To these three parables, all derived from agricultural experience, Mark adds a general statement as to our Sa- viour's use of this mode of instruction (33, 34.) The remainder of the chapter is occupied with the account of a new miracle, different from an}' one before recorded, and connected chronologically with the para- bles b}' which it is preceded in the narrative (35-41.) It is still observ- able, however, here as in the former chapters, that the order of time is altogether subordinated to the purpose of exhibiting the method and effects of our Lord's ministry. 1. And lie began again to teach by the sea-side : and there was gathered nnto him a great mnltitude, so that he entered into a ship, and sat in the sea ; and the whole multitude Avas by the sea, on tlie land. Like Luke (8,4) and Matthew (13, 1). Mark records, as a sort of epoch or important juncture in his history, the beginning of our Sa- viour's parabolical instructions, as a part of the preparatory j'rocess by which he contributed to the reorganization of the Church, although he did not actually make the change during his personal presence upon earth, because, as we have seen, it was to rest upon his death and res- urrection as its corner-stone. The other part of his preparatory work consisted in the choice and education of the men by whom the change was to be afterwards effected. (Sec above, on 1. 16. 2, 13.) JJigan, as in 1, 45. 2, 23, is not superfluous, but indicates the opening of .some new series or process, which was to be afterwards continued. A(/ain, on the other hand, suggests that this was not the commencement of his teaching ministry, but only of one form of it. He had already taught the people publicly with great effect (see above, on 1, 22), but now be- gan to teach them in a peculiar manner, with a special purpose to elu- cidate the nature of his kingdom, for the benefit of those who were to be his subjects, but without a too explicit and precipitate disclosure of his claim to the Messiahshi[). JJi/ the seaside, or alo/ir/ the sea, i. e. the lake of Tiberias or Galilee (see above, on 1, IG), not only near it, but upon the very shore. Was gathered, or, according to the oldest text, is gathered (or assemlled). a more graphic form, exhibiting the scene as actually passing. Another emendation by the latest critics is the change of the positive {great) to the sui)erlativc {greatest), either in reference to all former "gatherings, or absolutely in the sense of tery great. Multitvde, or crowd, the Greek word indicating not mere num- bers, but promiscuous assemblage (see above, on 2, 4. 13, 3. 0. 20. 32.) The situation is like that described in 3, 9, where we read that he di- rected a small vessel to be ready, if the crowd should be so great as to prevent his standing on the shore with safety or convenience. Here we find him actually entering into (or embarking in) the loat, no doubt the one already mentioned as in readiness, and sitting in the sea, i. e, upon tho surface of the lake, while his vast audience was on the land MARK 4, 1. 2. 85 (but) at (or close to) the sea, a stronger expression of proximity than that in the first clause. The scene thus presented must have been highly impressive to the eye, and still aflbrds a striking subject for the pencil. 2. And he taught them many tilings by parables, and said unto them in his doctrine, Taught is in the imperfect tense, and according to Greek usace properly denotes continued or habitual action, he icas teaching or he used to teach. This yields a good sense, as the writer is undoubtedly describing one of our Lord's favourite and constant modes of teaching. But the use of the aorist by Matthew (13, 3) and Luke (8, 4). and the specific reference by Mark himself (in v. 1) to a particular occasion, seem to forbid the wider meaning, unless it be supposed that he made use of the imperfect (as of the verb 'begaii) to intimate that, although this was the first instance of such teaching, it was not the last. Many things^ of which only sami)les are preserved, even by Matthew, and still fewer in the book before us, showing that the writer's aim was not to furnish an exhaustive history, but to illustrate by examples the ministry of Christ. In paraMes, i.e. in the form and in t!ie use of them. Favable is a slight modification of a Greek noun, the verbal root of which has two principal meanings, to 'propound (throw out or put forth), and to compare (throw together or lay side by side.) The sense of the noun derived from the former usage, that of any thing pro- pounded, is too vague to be distinctive, comprehending as it does all kinds of instruction, which, from its very nature, must be put forth or imparted from one mind to another. The more specific sense of com- parison, resemblance, is not only sanctioned by the usage of the best Greek writers (such as Plato, Aristotle, and Isocrates), but recom- mended, not to say required, by the emploj'ment of a corresponding Hebrew word (VtLtt from Vi'tt to resemble) in precisely the same way. Li its widest sense, a paralle is any illustration from analogy, including the simile and metaphor as rhetorical figures, the allegoiy, apologue, fable, and some forms of proverbial expression. In a more restricted sense, the word denotes an illustration of moral or religious truth derived from the analogy of human experience. In this respect it dijQTers from the fable, which accomplishes the same end by employing the supposed acts of inferior animals, or even those ascribed to inani- mate objects, to illustrate human character and conduct. The only fa- bles found in Scripture, those of Jotham (Judg. 9, 8-15) and Joash (2 Kings 14. 9), are given on human, not divine authority. The para- ble, in its more restricted sense, as just explained, is not necessarily narrative in form (see above, on 2, 18-22), much less fictitious, although this is commonly assumed in modern definitions of the term. There is good reason to believe that all the parables of Christ are founded in fact, if not entirely composed of real incidents. They arc all drawn from familiar forms of human experience, and with one exception from the present life. This creates a strong presumption that the facts are true, 80 MARK 4, 2. 3. unless there 1)C some positive reason for supposing them fictitious. Now the necessity of fiction to illustrate moral truth arises, not from tlie deficiency of real facts adapted to the purpose, but from the writer's limited acquaintance with them, and his consequent incapacity to frame the necessary combinations, without calling in the aid of his imagina- tion. But no such necessity can exist in the case of an inspired, much less of an omniscient teacher. To resort to fiction, therefore, even ad- mitting its lawfulness on moral grounds, when real life affords in such abundance the required analogies, would be a gratuitous preference, if not of the false to the true, at least of the imaginary to the real, which seems unworthy of our Lord, or which, to say the least, we have no right to assume without necessity. In expounding the parables, inter- preters have gone to very opposite extremes, but most to that of mak- ing every thing significant, or giving a specific sense to every minute point of the analogy presented. This error is happily exposed by Au- gustine, when he says, that the whole plough is needed in the act of ploughing, though the ploughshare alone makes the furrow, and the whole frame of an instrument is useful, though the strings alone pro- duce the music. The other extreme, that of overlooking or denying the significance of some things really significant, is much less common than the lirst, and for the most part found in writers of severer taste and judgment. The true mean is difficult but not impossible to find, upon the principle now commonly assumed as true, At least in theory, that the main analogy intended, like the centre of a circle, must determine the position of all points in the circumference. It may also be observed, that as the same illustration may legitimately mean more to one man than to another, in ])roportion to the strength of their im- aginative faculties, it is highly important that, in attempting to deter- mine the essential meaning of our Saviour's parables, we should not confound what they may possibly be made to mean, with what they must mean to attain their purpose. In addition to these principles, arising from the nature of the parable itself, we have the unspeakable advajitage of our Saviour's own example as a self-interpreter. In his doctrine, i. e. in the act of teaching, or perhaps the meaning here may l>e, in this peculiar mode of teaching. (See above, on 1, 22-27.) 3. Hearken ; Behold, there went out a sower to sow. Mark has preserved one introductory ejaculation, not in Luke, and one neither in Luke nor Matthew. Hear ! implying the power and intention to communicate something particularly worthy of atten- tion. This word, perhaps a part of Peter's vivid recollection, may be said to introduce the whole succession of our Saviour's parables. Behold! (1 Matt. 13, 3), lo, see, in one or two specific cases, but in- tended, no doubt, as a model and a guide in others (see below, on vs. 10-20), both in Hebrew and Hellenistic usage, introduces something unexpected and surj)rising. Some take it even in its primary and strict sense, look ! see there ! implying that the object indicated was in sight or actually visible ; in otljcr words, that Christ was led to use this illus- MARK 4. 3. 4. 87 tration by the casual appearance of a sower in a neighbouring^ field ; and this is often rcjjrescntcd as tlic usual occasion of his parabolic teachings. It seems, however, to regard them as too purely accidental, and too little the result of a deliberate predetermination, such as we cannot but assume in the practice of a divine teacher. A safer form of the same proposition is the one already stated in a different connection (see above, on v, 1), namely, that our Saviour's parables, though not inva- riably suggested by immediate sights or passing scenes, are all derived from the analogy of human experience, and in most instances of com- mon life. Thus the three here given by jMark arc designed not only to exhibit different aspects of the same great subject, the Messiah's kingdom, but to exhibit them by means of images derived from one mode of life or occupation, that of husbandry, with which his auditors were all familiar, and in which, most probably, the greater part of them were constantly engaged. But besides these objections to the general supposition that our Saviour's parables were all suggested casually, such an assumption is forbidden in the case before us by the form of ex|)rcs- sion used by all these evangelists with striking uniformity. It is not as it naturally would be on the supposition now in question, See, a sower goes (or going) out^ but with the article, and in the aorist or past tense, Zt>, the sower icent out. The sower, like the Fox and tlte Lion in a fjible. is generic, meaning the whole class, or an ideal individual who represents it. Went out. as we say in colloquial narrative, once upon a time, the precise date being an ideal one because the act is one of constant occur- rence. As if he had said, ' a sower went out to sow, as you have often done and seen your neighbour do.' To sow, distinguishes his going out for this specific purpose from his going out on other errands. The sower went out as such, as a sower, to perform the function which the name denotes, 4. And it came to pass as lie sowed, some fell by the way-side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. It came to pass, or something happened, implying something not indeed uncommon, but yet not belonging as of course to the process of sowing seed. As he sowed, literally, in the (act of) soicing, and therefore in the field, not merely on the way to it. Bg the wag must therefore mean along the jto-th trodden by the sower himself and hard- ened by his footsteps, not along the highway leading to his place of labour. This idea is distinctly expressed by Luke (8, 5), and it was trodden down, i. e. it fell upon the path where he was walking. Some is understood by every reader to mean some of the seed which he was sowing, the noun, although not previously mentioned as it is in Luke (8, 4), being necessarily suggested by the kindred verb, to sow, in sow- ing. The principal circumstance in this part of the parable is not the treading of the seed, which Luke only adds to specify the place, but its lying exposed upon the trodden path, and there devoured by the birds. Foiol, now confined to certain species of domesticated oirds, is co-ex ten- 88 MARX 4, 4. 5. 6. Bive in old English with llrd itselT. Of the air, literally of heaven, a Hebrew idiom, according to which heaven (or heavens^ see above on 1, 10), is applied, not only to the whole material universe, except tho earth (Gen. 1, 1) and especially to that part of it regarded as tho more immediate residence of God (Gen. 19, 24), but also to the visible expanse or firmament (Gen. 1, 14), and to our atmosphere, or rather to the whole space between us and the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 20.) The version, therefore, is substantially correct, supposing these words {tqv ovpavov) to be genuine; but the latest critics have expunged them as a probable assimilation to the text of Luke (8. 5) : nothing more is here intended by the phrase than birds in general, or the birds which his hearers well knew were accustomed to commit such depre- dations. The familiarity of this occurrence, and of those which follow, must have brought the illustration home to the business and bosoms of the humblest hearers, and, at the same time, necessarily precludes the idea of a fiction, when real facts were so abundant and accessible. It is idle to object that this particular sower never did go forth, when the opposite assertion can as easily be made, and when the terms em- ployed, as we have seen, may designate the whole class of sowers, including multitudes of individuals, or any of these whom any one of the hearers might select as particularly meant, perhaps himself, per- haps some neighbouring husbandman. Such a use of language, when applied to incidents of every-day occurrence, is as fur as possible remote from liction. 5. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not niiich eartli ; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth : Another (seed, or portion of the seed sown) fell upon the stony (or rocky soil), collective singulars equivalent to Matthew's plurals (13, 5.) The reference is not to loose or scattered stones (see below, on 5. 5), but to a thin soil overspreading a stratum or laver of concealed rock. Immediately, here used by ^Matthew also, is emphatic, the rajjid germination being a material circumstance, and seemingly ascribed to the shallowness of the soil, allowing the seed no room to strike deep root, but only to spring upwards. The same idea is suggested by the verb itself a double compound meaning to spring vp and forth. The cause assigned by Luke (S. C), is not that of the speedy germination, but of the premature decay that followed it, as Mark describes more fully in the next verse. 6. But when the sun was up, it was scorched ; and oecause it had no root, it withered away. When the sun was vp (or risen), is the literal translation of tho text adopted by the latest critics, while the common or received text, though the ,same in meaning, has a different construction, the sun h((rinff risen. There is u peculiar beauty in the Greek here, which cannot be MARK 4, 6. 7. 8. 89 retained in a translation, arising from the use of the same verb (but in a less emphatic form) to signify the rising of the plant and of the sun, as both are said in English to be up, when one is above the surface of the earth and the other above the horizon. Scorched (or burnt) and withered (or dried, see above, on 3, 1), are different effects ascribed to different causes. The first is the evaporation of the vital sap or vegetable juices by the solar heat ; the other their spontaneous failure from the want of a tenacious root. Together they describe, in a man- ner at once accurate and simple, the natural and necessary fate of a plant without sufficient depth of soil, however quick and even prema- ture its vegetation. 7. And some fell among thorns, and tlie thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. Another, as in v. 5. Into the thorns, or in the midst of them, as it is more fully expressed by Luke (8, 7.) The thorns, which happened to be growing there, or which are usually found in such situations. Came tqj, appeared above the surface, an expression constantly em- ployed in English to denote the same thing. Cholrd, stifled, or deprived of life by pressure. This word, though strictly applicable only to the suffocation of animal or human subjects (see Luke 8, 42), is here by a natural and livcl)' figure transferred to the fatal influence on vegetable life of too close contact with a different and especially a ranker growth. Matthew (13, 7) uses a still more emphatic compound of the same verb, corresponding to our own familiar phrase cJioked off. And fruit did not give, though implied in all, is expressed only in Mark's account, which throughout this parable exhibits no appearance of abridgment. 8. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang np, and increased, and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. Another, as in vs. 5. 7. It is a minute but striking proof that the evangelists wrote independently of each other, and that their coin- cidence of language arose not from mutual imitation, but fi'om same- ness of original material, that in these three verses Matthew al- ways says upon (^iiri), Mark into or amonij (ds.) Good ground, in Greek, tlie earth, the good, earth or soil properly so called in distinc- tion from the beaten, rocky, thorny places before mentioned. Gave fruit coming up and growing, the fruit or ripe grain being represented as passing through the changes which are really experienced in the earlier stages of the vegetable i)rocess. Bore, the same idea that was before expressed by gave, the latter having more explicit reference to the use and wants of men, the former to production in itself considered What the seed Ijore, whether reaped or not, it yielded only on the former supposition. One. i. e. one seed, the proportion stated being that of the seed sown to the ripe grain harvested. As the Greek nu» 90 MARK 4, 8. 9. 10. meral (ev) here rendered one is distinguished from the preposition in (fV) by notliino; but its accent and its aspiration, which are not given in the ohiest copies, one distinguished modern critic substitutes the latter, in thirty and in sixty, i. e. in this ratio or proportion, and an- other gives as the most ancient text a different preposition (etr ), mean- ing to (i. e. to the amount of) thirty, sixty, and a hundred. The pro- ductiveness ascribed to the nutritious grains in this place is by no means imexampled either in ancient or in modern times. It is indeed a moderate and modest estimate compared with some recorded b}^ Herodotus, in whicli the rate of increase was double or quadruple even the highest of the three here mentioned, and the recent harvest in our western states affords exami)les of increase still greater. 9. And lie said unto them, lie that hath ears to hear, let him liear. This idiomatic and proverbial formula, like many others of perpet- ual occurrence in our Lord's discourses, is never simply pleonastic or unmeaning, as the vi-ry repetition often tempts us to imagine. On the contrary, such phrases are invariably solemn and emphatic warn- ings that the things in question arc of the most momentous im])Ort, and entitled to most serious attention. They appear to have been framed or adojjted b}^ the Saviour, to be used on various occasions and in the pau.ses of his different discourses. There is something eminently simple and expressive in the one before us, which involves rebuke as Well as exhortation. ' Why should you have the sense of hearing, if you do not use it now ? To what advantage can you ever listen, if you turn a deaf ear to these admonitions ? Now, now. if ever, he who can hear must hear, or incur the penalty of inattention ! ' But besides the importance of the subject and the juncture, it is here suggested that the very form of the! communication calls for close attention, in default of which it can impart no knowledge and confer no benefit- Tins may be understood as having reference to the parabolic method of instruction which our Saviour now began and afterwards continued to employ so freel3^ (Sec below, on v. 11.) 10. And wlien he was alone, they that were about liim, with the twelve, asked of him the parable. Alone, not absolutely but comparatively, by him.self, in private, free from the pressure of the crowd, surrounded only by disciples, not in the strict sense of apostles, but in that of friendly hearers and adherents. This is clear from Mark's description, those about him with the fixelve, i. e. those who in addition the twelve were in habitual at- tendance on his person, following him from place to i)lacc ; or those who, ui)on this ]»artirular occasion, still remained about him after the 'li^jjersion of the nudtitude. Explained in either way, the words are probably descriptive of the same class, and imply that what now fol- lows was addressed neither to the vast mixed multitude, nor to the MARK 4, 10. 11. 91 twelve apostles only, but to an intermediate body, smaller than the first and larsrer than the second, but composed entirely of disciples (Matt. 13, 10. Luke 8, 'J) or believ.ers in liis doctrine. Aslced hhn of the pdrdhlc^ in Greek, asked 1dm the parahlc itself, a pregnant phrase resolved by Luke and Matthew into two distinct inquiries, first, the general one, why ho tauglit in parables at all (^latt. 13, 10), and then, the more specific one, what this first parable was meant to teach (Luke 8, 9.) It is observable that Mark, although he gives the question in a single form, and that a vague one, gives the answers to the two inqui- ries really involved in it ; a circumstance which all but hypercritical sceptics will regard not as discrepancy but agreement. The question thus interpreted shows that the parabolic method of instruction, as applied now for the first time to the doctrine of the kingdom, was ob- scure or unintelligible even to the more enlightened of our Saviour's hearers; a deficiency which furnished the occasion of his own author-/ itative exposition, making known not only the precise sense of the parable to which it was immediately applied, but also the more gen- eral principles and laws which are to govern the interpretation of all others. 11. And lie said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God : but unto them that are without, all (these) things are done in parables : We have here the answer to the first inquiry really involved in that which Mark records (in v. 10) and more distinctly stated else- where (Matt. 13, 10), namely, why he spake in parables at all. In answer to this question, he informs them that a sifting, separating pro- cess had begun already and must be continued, with the unavoidable eflect of throwing all his hearers into two great classes, those witliin] and those irithotit the magic circle of his enlightening and saving in-; fluence. The difl'erence between these classes was not one of personal/ intrinsic merit, but of divine .favour. To you it has hcen given, thel perfect passive form, impl3'ing azi authoritative predetermination, being common to all three accounts, as in our Lord's assurance to the para- lytic. Thy sins hare leen forgiven thee (see above, on 2, 5.) Give7i, not conceded as a right, but granted as a favour, 7'o know, i. e. di- rectly, by explicit statement, either without the veil of parable, or with the aid of an infallible interpretation. Mysteries, in the usual sense of that word as employed in scripture to denote, not the intrinsic nature of the things so called, but merely their concealment from the human mind until disclosed by revelation. The mystery in this sense here particularly meant is that of the kingdom of God, to be erected by Messiah in the heart of man and of society, and to receive its final consummation in a future state of glory. The use of this expression {of the kiiigJ(i)/i), common to all three accounts (see INlatt. 13,11.^ Luke 8. 1(1;. is not without importance, as evincing that the parables of Christ had reference, not merely to personal duty and improve- ment, but to the nature of his kingdom and the mode of its establish- 92 MARK 4, 11. 12. ment, a reference too often overlooked or sacrificed to mere individual | edification. To those loithont the sphere or scope of this ilhiniinatinf^ | infiuence. All tilings {t/tcse is omitted by the latest critics), i. e. all' things of the kind in question, namely, all communications and in- structions in relation to Messiah's kingdom. Are done, take place, happen, an expression also used by Herodotus in reference to dis- course or teaching. Ja parables, obviously implying that this mode of exhibition might be used to veil and to obscure as well as to eluci- date the same tilings, but to different hearers or spectators. This darkening influence of parabolic teaching is assumed in this place, as a fact sufficiently implied in the inquiry which our Lord was answering, and not explained till afterwards. (See below, on vs. 24. 25.) 12. Tliat seeing they mav see, and not perceive ; and hearing they may liear, and not nndei'stand ; lest at any time they shonld be converted, and (their) sins shouhl be forgiven them. Thus far it might have seemed that this obtuseness of the masses to divine instruction was a mere misfortune, having no connection with their moral character and state. But now the Saviour represents it as the consequence of sin, left by God in his righteousness to operate unchecked in one class, but gratuitously counteracted in another. The expressions here are borrowed from that fearful picture of judicial blindness in Isaiah G, 10. Matthew's quotation (13, 14. 15) is more full and formal. Luke's (8, 10) even more concise than that of Mark. Common to all, and therefore to be reckoned the essential part of the quotation, are the words, that seeing the)/ might see, and hearing might not vndcrstand. To see and not see, hear and not hear, was a para-i doxical Greek proverb, used by Demosthenes and yEschylus to signify a mere external sensuous perception without intellectual or moral con-' viction. Luke gives it nearly in its classical form, while iMark retains the Hebrew idiom of using two forms of the same verb for intensity or more precise specification. Seeing indeed, or seeing still, continu- ing to see, or seeing clearly, so far as concerns the outward object. And not perceive, with the mind or heart. The Greek verbs might be also rendered look and see. Hearing might hear, i. e. distinctly, con- stantly, again, or still. And not ?/??(/rr5?rt»'i (or apprehend) the things heard in their spiritual import. ^lark adds from Isaiah the judicial end or purpose of their being thus abandoned, lest at any time (or some time) they should turn (to God, or, as it is passively expressed, be converted), a familiar scriptural expression for that total change of character and conduct, heart and life, which is essential to salvation. And the sins [oi \s\\\c\\ they have been guilty) ic' remitted {\^h un- punished, pardoned), is the sense but not the form of the oiiginal ex- pression, here retained by Matthew (1.'5, 15), and representing sin as a disease, of which God heals men liv fortrivincr tlieni. (Conqxire Ps. 41,4. Jer. 3. 22. IIos. 14,4. 1 Pet. 2, 24^) 'I'ho clause here quoted is dcrivedj with little variation, from the Septuagint version of Isaiah. MARK 4, 13. 14. 93 13. And he said unto them, Know ye not this para- ble ? and how then will ye know all parables ? And he says to them, a common form, especially in Mark (see above, on 3. 25. 27). to indicate a change of subject in the same discourse, or at least a transition from one part of the same topic to another. So in this case, having answered the first question latent in the statement that they asled him (of) tlie jxa-ahle, to wit, the question why he spoke in parables at all (see INIatt. 13, 10), he proceeds to answer the other, namely, what he meant to teach by this one in particular (see Luke 8, 9.) Before explaining it, however, he propounds a preliminary ques- tion, which has been differentl}'' understood. Some make it an expres- sion of displeasure and surprise that they should need his explanation of so clear a matter. Ikit as this is incon.sistent with his own ascrip- tion of an obscuring power to this method of instruction (see above, on V. 11), the woids are rather to be taken as a concession of the fact that they could not be expected to understand this or other parables, with- out at least some general idea of the principles on which they were to be expounded. As if he had said, ' you find that you cannot understand this parable without assistance ? how then will you understand the rest unaided ? ' The necessity suggested is not that of a particular elucidation to be added to each parable as it was uttered, although this was often actually given (see below, on v. 34), but of a general and comprehensive key to the whole series of his parabolic teachings. Such a key might be furnished in either of two ways, b}' a series of general and abstract rules applying to all parables, or by a few examples set- ting forth the same laws in a concrete, practical, experimental manner. While the former might have met the wants or gratified the wishes of a body of philosophers, the latter M'as undoubtedly best suited to the actual condition and necessities of Christ's immediate hearers ; and we find accordingly that he adopts it, by expounding two of his first para- bles (the Sower and the Tares) upon the same day that he uttered them and in the presence of his own disciples (see above, on v. 10.) Matthew has preserved both these invaluable expositions (13, 18-23. 3G-^0), ^lark and Luke (8, 11-15) only that of the Sower, which is suf- ficient of itself to teach the fundamental principles of parabolical inter- pretation. It is impossible to overrate the value of this clew to guide us through the labyrinth of various and discordant expositions, or its actual etiect, when faithfully employed, in guarding the interpreter against the opposite extremes of meagre generality and fanciful mi- nuteness. It was not only placed here in the history, but uttered when it was, that it might serve as an example and a model in inter- preting those parables which Christ has not explained himself Some of the errors thus forbidden and condemned, if not prevented, will be noticed in expounding the ensuing verses. 14. The sower soweth the word. Human expounders, unchecked by our Lord's example and author- ity, would no doubt have begun with something more specific and 94 MARK 4, 14. 15. IG. minute, such as tlie quantity and kind of seed, the place and mode of sowing, the significance belonging to the act of going forth, &.c. But the Saviour teaches us to strike at once at the essential likeness or analogy which governs and determines all the minor correspondences. The soirer (or one sowing) sotcs the word, i. e. the word of God (Luke 8, 11), or more specifically still, the word (or doctrine^ of the l-'ingdom (see above, on v. 11.) This expression shows that our Lord's primary design in these instructions was not merely a generic one, including all the cases that can possibly arise in the experience of men, but a specific one, relating to the wants and dangers of his own immediate hearers, the contemporary generation, among whom the advent of ^Messiah and his kingdom had been lately preached, and the kingdom itself was to be founded. 15. And these are tliey by the way-side, wliere tlie word is sown ; but when they have heard, Satan conietli immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their liearts. These are those along the tea]/, i. e. the characters about to be de- scribed are tliose wliose case is represented by the falling of the seed upon the path. The incongruity, alleged by some, of making the seed represent the man, and not the word as just explained (v. 14), is a mere rhetorical punctilio, and presents no dilliculty to the mind of any unbiassed reader. The j)arable has answered its design for ages, not- withstanding this alleged Haw in its imagery, which probably occurs to none but hypercritics. Where, i. e. on the path and in the cars of those whose case is represented by it. 77ie icord is soicn, a mixture of the sign and the thing signified, producing no confusion, and objection- able only on the ground of rhetorical preciseness. When thei/ (the persons i-epiesented in this portion of the parable) hear (or have heard) the. icord (just represented as seed sown), immediately comes Satan (or the adversary), elsewhere called the Devil (Luke 8, 12), and the Evil One (Matt. 13, 19.) 2'ales up and aicci/, in reference to the pick- ing uj) of grain by birds (see above, on v. 4.) Sown in their hearts, another mixtuie of the sign and the thing signified, as harmless as the other, I'ccause after the equivalents have been determined, they become convertible without confusion. The inlluence here ascribed to Satan must be strictly understood as leally exerted by him in the case of those who hear the word, but only as a persuasive, not a ct)ercivc power, and therefore exercised by turning the attention from the word as soon as uttered, and diverting it to other objects. IG. And tliese are they likewise which arc sown on stony f^round ; who, when they have heard the word, im- mediately receive it with gladness. He now identifies the second class of fi-uitlcss and unprofitable hear- ers, those represented in the parable by the falling of the seed on stony MARK 4, 16. 17. 95 places. Here again he seems to make the seed the emblem of the man himself, and not of the word preached to him, but with as little disad- vantage to the force and clearness of the illustration as before, and in the exercise of that discretionar}' license which distinguishes original and independent thinkers, even among mere men, from the grammari- ans and rhetoricians. Every ordinary reader understands without in- struction that those sown upon the rocky (^places) means those whose character and state are represented by the falling of the seed upon the rock, and not that the seed itself specifically represents the persons. Likewise^ in the same way as before, this portion of the parable, like that preceding it, exhibits a distinct class of hearers, and the influence exerted on them by the doctrine of the kingdom. The diftercnce between the cases is that these go further, and not only hear the word, or passively receive it, but accept it as the word of God, and that not merely with a cold assent or forced submission, but with joy, as some- thing addressed to the affections, no less than the reason and the con- science, and received accordingly, at once, immediately, which, though a favourite of Mark, as we have seen above (on 1, 10. 18, 31. 40. 2, 2. 3, G). is here attested as a genuine expression, not by his report alone, which would have been sufficient for the purpose, but by that of Mat- thew (13, 20.) The obvious gradation in the parable not onl}^ renders it more perfect in a literary point of view, but increases its discrimi- nating power as applied to individual and general experience, so that every class of hearers, even now, and still more in the time of Christ, might see itself as in a mirror. Indeed, nothing shows the wisdom of our Lord's instructions more impressively than the fact, confirmed by all experience for 1800 years, and receiving further confirmation every day, that all varieties of human and religious character may be reduced to some one or more of his simple but divine descriptions. 17. And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time : afterward, when affliction or persecution arisetli for the word's sake, immediately they are oifended. While the first seed was not even buried, but removed while on the surface, the second was not only sown, but came up prematurely and without a root, which same expression our Lord now applies to the class here represented, namely, those who have no root in themselves, i. e. what in our religious phraseology (here founded upon Job 19, 28) is called " the root of the matter," i. e. a principle of true religion, in- cluding or implying faith, repentance, and the love of God, producing an analogous external life. This shows in what sense Luke describes them (8, 13) as believing for a while, i. e. professing or appearing to believe while really without the root of true conviction and conversion. Mark expresses the same thing more concisely in a single word, tem,- porary, made up of the noun and preposition here employed by Luke, and elsewhere rendered temporal (2 Cor. 4, 18, as opposed to eternal)^ or paraphrased, for a season (Ileb. 11, 25.) Then^ afterwards, or after this ostensible conversion. Distress or persecution^ kindred but dis- 96 MARK 4, 17. 18. 19. tinct terms, one originally signifying pressure, and the oihev pursuit^ the former comprehending providential chastisements, the other de- noting more specifically evils inllicted by the hands of human enemies. For (because or on account of) the word, the doctrine of Christ's king- dom, which they had so joyfully embraced, and for a time so openly maintained. Ariseth is in Greek an absolute construction, being, be- ginning to be, coming to j)ass, happening. Tinrnediately agam, both in Mark and Matthew (13, 21), but with a diifeience of form {d^vs and fuSewf), the repetition showing that the real change for the worse is as sudden and as easy as the apparent change for the better. Of- fended^ not in the ordinary modern sense of being dis])lcased or alien- ated in aifection, but in the Latin and old English sense of stumbling or being made to stumble. The nearest root or theme to which it can be traced in classic Greek, denotes a trap or snare, but in the Hellen- istic dialect a stumbling-block or any hindrance in the path, over which one may fall. In like manner the derivative verb means to make one fall or stumble, a natural figure both for sin and error, and often repre^ Benting both as commonly connected in experience. Another expla- nation of the usage, leading to the same result, gives offend its modern sense, but in reference to Grod, to offend whom is to sin, and then takes the verb here in a cau.sative sense, they are made to sin, or betrayed into sinning against God. As the sin here meant is not such as even true believers may commit, but one arising from the absence of a root in the experience, Luke (8, 13) describes it by the stronger term, apostatize (or fall aicay). not from a previous state of grace or true conversion, which would imply the very thing explicitly denied in the preceding clause, to wit, the possession of a root, but from their osten- sible and false profession. 18. And tliose are they which are sown among thorns ; such as liear tlie word, 19. And the cares of this workl, and the deceitfidness of riches, and the hists of other tilings entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitfuL And others (or another class of fruitless hearers represented in this parable) are those sown among the thorns, i. e. those whose case is symbolized or emblematically set forth by the falling of a portion of the seed among thorns. The form of expression is the same as in vs. 15. 16, and is uniform in all the gospels, a sufiicient proof that it is not an inadvertence or mistake of the historian, but at least in sub- stance a deliberate expression of our Lord himself Common to this with the other classes here described is the hearing of the word, be- cause the very purpose of the parable is to exhibit different ways in which it may be heard with the effect upon the hearer. Some suppose the climax or gradation to be here continued, and this third cla.ss of hearers to be represented as going further than the second. But it Beems more natural to make the two co-ordinate as different divisiop«^ MARK 4, 19. 20. 97 of the same class, i. e. of temporary converts or believers, the differ- ence between them being not that one continues longer than the other, but that one is scandalized by violence, the other by allurement or seduction. While the former yield to distress and persecution, these are rendered fruitless by the cares and pleasures of the world. Cares, undue solicitudes, anxieties, and fears, as to the interests of this life. The corresponding verb (translated in our Bible by the old English phrase to take thought, i. e. to be over anxious) is applied by our Lord elsewhere in the same way (iMatt. G, 25-34. Luke 10, 41.) 0/ this world (or, according to the critics, the world), the same Greek word that was explained above (on 3, 20), as meaning properly dura- tion or continued existence, either definite or indefinite, finite or infi- nite, according to the context. Some suppose it here to mean the old economy or dispensation, to which secular anxieties were more appro- priate, and even necessarily incident, than to the new. But it is more natural to understand it of the present life, with its temporary inter- ests and pleasures, as opposed to the future and eternal state. Besides the cares or anxious fears belonging to this mixed and in a certain sense probationary state, and relating chiefly to the means of subsist- ence, our Lord specifies another danger, the deceit of wealth, including both delusive hope and fanciful enjoyment, and applying therefore both to those who make haste to be rich, as being the true source of happi- ness, and those who reckon themselves actually happy because rich already. To these specifications Mark adds a comprehensive clause including all other worldly distractions, the desires about (relating to) the other (or remaining things), i. e. whatever else, belonging only to the present life, can be an object of such overweening covetous desire as to interfere with the legitimate effect of the instruction which has been received in reference to higher and more enduring interests. The comprehensive or residuary character of this clause is adverse to the distinction which might otherwise be recognized between the ca?'es (or anxious fears) and the desires (or carnal hopes) of this life, as the rest (or other things) implies diversity of objects rather than of feelings towards them. Entering in, i. e. after the reception of the truth, or as intrusive strangers who have no right to admission, but ought to have been shut out. Choice the xi^ord, as in the parable itself (v. 7) the thorns choked the seed, another mixture of the sign and the thing signified, but still less confusing than in vs. 14. 15. 17, because even in the parable to choke is a strong figure as applied to plants, requiring little modification to adapt it to spiritual subjects. The same thing substantially is true of the remaining clause, and it becomes unfruitful, i. e. the word or truth considered as a seed, because intended to produce beneficial efiects upon the life and character of those who hear it, in default of which the same thing may be said of it as was before said of the seed which represents it, that it yielded not fruit (see above, on 7.) 20. And these are they which are sown on good ground ; such as hear the word, and receive (it), and bring 98 MARK 4, 20. 21. forth fruit, some thirty fold, some sixty, and some an hundred. Having thus applied the three ideal cases of unfruitful sowing to three well-known forms of human experience, our Lord concludes his exposition of the parable, by doing the same thing with respect to the one favourable case which it presented, but which really includes a vast variety, at least in the measure or degree of fruitfulness, denoted by the ratio or proportion of the fruit or ripe grain to the seed or sown grain, lliese are those sown, &c., as in v. 18, i. e. those whose case is represented by the sowing upon good ground. These, like all the others, hear the word, receive instruction in the doctrine of the kingdom, and like two of the preceding classes, actively accept it, with assent and approbation, but unlike them all, escaping or resisting the occasions of unfruLtfulness before described, retain it (Luke 8, 15) and hear fruit, not merely for a time, but in continuance, with perseverance and yet with great diversity of actual attainment, corresponding to the different proportions which the crop bears to the literal seed sown, which Luke omits, but Mark and Matthew here repeat, though not in the same order (Matt. 13, 23, a hundred, sixty, thirty.) Even the most unreflecting reader cannot need to be reminded that the numbers thus selected are intended to convey the general idea of pro- portional diversity, and not to limit that diversity to three specific rates. Hence our Lord, in expounding this part of the parable, simply repeats what he had said in the parable itself, without attaching a specific import to the several amounts, a lesson and example to inferior expounders, not only here but in all analogous cases. The same thing may be said in substance of the three cases of unfruitfulnoss, except that there is reason to believe that they are not given merely as selected samples, but as comprehensive heads to which all particular occasions of unfruitfulnoss in spiritual husbandry may be reduced. (See above, on v. 10.) 21. And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed ? and not to be set on a candlestick ? To the exposition of the parable INLark adds a most important and significant appendix, perhaps uttered on the same occasion, although IMatthew gives it elsewhere, as a portion of the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5, 15. 7, 2.) But this is easily explained upon the obvious and probable assumption, that these sentences belonged to those aphoristic formulas which Christ appears to have thrown out on various occasions, and with some diversity of application, by neglecting which interpret- ers have sometimes thrown the history into confusion. If, as is cer- tainly conceivable, these words were uttered more than once. Matthew having given them in one place, would be likely to omit them in the other, while Mark, who docs not give the Sermon on the Mount at all, vvrould be just as likely to insert them here. The charge of incoherence MARK 4, 21. 22. 99 and irrelevance in this connection rests upon the false assumption that these brief proverbial maxims, forming one of the most characteristic features of our Saviour's (di^nxr]) method of instruclion, could be uttered only once or in a single application ; whereas their very use and purpose was to be repeatedly thrown out in various connections. Those before us, therefore, are to be explained, not from Matthew's context, but from Mark's, to which they are perfectly appropriate, whether actually uttered at the same time with the parable or not. lie said to thcm^ might mean upon a different occasion, but according to Mark's usage (see above, on vs. 9, 11, 13), rather on the same. One design is to preclude the notion of an esoteric doctrine, like that of the heathen m)^steries and priesthoods, to be shared only by a chosen few. This heathenish idea might have seemed to be countenanced by the distinction which he made between the multitude and his disciples, and the additional instruction given to the latter as a sort of favoured class. In opposition to this natural but dangerous mistake, he tells them here that the ultimate design of all his teachings was the general diffusion of religious knowledge ; that whatever exceptions or reserves there might be, they were only temporary interruptions of his customary course, and would eventually answer the same purpose. This impor- tant caution is conveyed by the familiar figure of a domestic light, i. e. a candle, lamp, or lantern, which may bt; momentarily concealed, or its light shaded, but cannot without folly and absurdity be perma- nently put beneath a vessel or a couch. The proper place for such a light is the candlestick, or lamp-stand, and it cannot be rationally put in any other, except for some transient accidental reason. The form of the question is the same as in 3, 19, presupposing a negative answer (it is not so, .... is it ?) A light does not come .... does it? Is hrouglit^WievoWy comes, ii personification perfectly familiar in the dialect of common life, and in reference to the very same subject. The size or capacity of the Roman modius (about one peck of our meas- ure) is of no more importance to the meaning of the passage than the dimensions of the couch or bed. It is mentioned not as a specific measure, but as a utensil with which they wxre familiar in their liouses. The same idea might be now conveyed by speaking of a box or basket. The verb is to be tacitly repeated in the last clause. Does it not come (is it not brought, for the very purpose) that it may lye put ujjon the candlestick or lamp-stand? a derivative form of the word meaning light, and to be rendered in accordance wnth it. The nexus between this verse and the one before it is obscured by the omission of the intervening thought, that a domestic light may now and then be thus concealed, but only for a moment and for some necessary purpose. So, too, the light of his instructions, though occasionally veiled in parable or otherwise obstructed, was intended to diffuse itself, and even when confined for the present to a few, was so confined in order to be more effectually shed abroad. 22. For there is nothing liid, which shall not be mani- 100 MARK 4, 22. 23. fested ; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. What he had just expressed by lively figures he now says in literal or plain terms, the connection being indicated by the/ito thy house (so long forsaken by himself but not by others, for he adds) to tliiuc, thy own. those be- longing to thee. This might be understood as being the whole circle of his friends and kindred, if the preceding phrase be rendered go home, as the English version gives it here, though not in 2, 1. 3, 10, where it is the true sense of the indefinite expression, while in this place the specific form (^the house of the) requires a corresponding definiteness of translation. And announce according to the common text, the same verb that occurs above in \. 14, but according to the latest ciitics, a dilfeient compound, all three being rendered by the one verb tell. IIoxo (jreat things, perhaps referring both to bodily and spiritual mercies. The Lord, an ambiguous expression, really describing Christ himself, but which the hearers may have understood moie vaguely, as denoting God. perhaps with special reference to his covenant relations with his j)eople. as expressed by the Hebrew name Jeltocah, for which the con- stant equivalent or rather substitute both in the Septuagint and the New Testament, is (6 KViiio^) the Lord. And had vurcy on thee, a suggestion of his own unworthiness and the frceness of the favour which he had experienced. The (J reek verb is different from that in 1, 41, which properly denotes the feeling of pity or compassion, 20. And he departed, and began to pnhlisli in Decap- olis liow great things Jesus had done for him. And all (men) did marveL The departure in this case from our Lord's u.