P^M^^^^:::^^ .J .3 3 J ^ MMENTARY ON KAND I ^^^m^'T^ tl: iliiliilpiliiiM ^^^^^ ^ *.*...,« ^„„. n 'd^o PRINCETON, N. J. 'if. Shelf. Division JL-J'rrJl.r>'.->-^ ' ' Seclioti , Jr\>D\ r^ Number V>.....r!rr'.. f'l *Jt -iV -J/^ ^ AN AMERICAN COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. EDITED BY ALVAH HOVEY, D.D., LL.D. PHILADELPHIA : AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, 1420 Chestnut Stkeet. CS.CaiiSimy,n"S:Delt T:dw<^^Vireilsr Entered, aeeorrling to Act of Congress, in the yeP" 1881, by the AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at V/ashington. ELECTROTYPF.D BT Westcot- Aj thomsojs, PHILADELPHIA. PREFACE. Most unexpectedly, it falls to my lot to send out the earliest volume in this Commentary on the New Testament. I regret that instead of following I am compelled to lead the way, for I have no doubt that some of ray colaborers, with greater learning and experience, are in possession of methods that would make an opening volume better suited to its place. But under the wise leadership of the General Editor each writer, if I may judge from my own experience, is al- lowed a genuine liberty in modes of working, subject only to some excellent general counsels. The method of exposition that appears in this volume is therefore my own, and other writers are in no sense pledged to follow it. If the reader sees faults in it, he need not fear that they Avill be perpetuated in subsequent volumes. As to the method of exposition that I have followed, the Commentary will speak for itself; and yet an introductory word may not be amiss. The reader will find here, I trust, no personal fancies or exegetical refinements. It has been my aim to give the plain, straightforward, practical exposition of reverent common sense. If the method is more homiletical than critical, it is to be remembered that the work is the Avork of a preacher. I have sought to omit what is needless, and so I have usually given the results of labor without the processes by which they were reached. It has not seemed necessary to spend much time in combating views that I did not accept, or in discussing the claims of various interpretations. Not much, therefore, of a controversial kind will be found here. Nor have I usually made reference to authors whose views I accepted. No man can write without indebtedness to others, but in such a work as this it does not seem desirable to be always citing authorities. My largest indebtedness is of course to ]\Ieyer, and my next is, I think, to Dr. Plumptre, who has done admirable work on the synoptical Gospels in Bishop Ellicott's Neiv Testament Commentary for English Readers. I have labored throughout on the principle of faith in the richness of Scripture — in the richness, not of what men may say about Scripture, but of Scripture itself Especially do I believe in the intrinsic richness of the Gospels. If reverent in- terpretation can bring out what is really there, it will be plain that there is no 6 PREFACE. need of human additions or supplements, or even of elaborate development of thought, in order that the true light may be seen. The glory of God shines in the face of Jesus Christ, and the knowledge of Jesus Christ is the means to the vision of that glory. As in his life and death his true Divinity and his true humanity were adequately expressed, so in the records of his life and death the living evidences of his true Divinity and his true humanity are to be found ; or, rather, there is he him- self to be discerned, true man and very God, bringing life and salvation. Hence it is the office of an expositor of the Gospels — and especially of an expositor of this simplest and most vivid of the Gospels, the Gospel of our Lord's visible per- sonality — to exhibit Christ, representing with all possible clearness the portraiture of the living Saviour. For this purpose the expositor should seize upon every means of making the life and its details and the character and its qualities real and living to the reader ; for the true subject of his work is not Mark or the Gospel of Mark, but Christ himself With the desire to show forth his excellence this Commentary has been written. It is one man's humble and willing contribu- tion to the understanding of the holy word and — if God will — to clearness and trueness of thought concerning him whom God hath sent. Many before me have wrought in this divine labor, and many have wrought with so much wider range of knowledge and of power than I that my offering seems but a trifling one ; yet in setting forth the excellence of our Saviour no man's earnest labor is in vain. May this tribute, gratefully laid at his feet, be graciously accepted and made heli> ful to the purposes that he holds dear ! W. N. CLARKE. OCTOBEK 31. 1881. INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK. THE WRITER OF THIS GOSPEL. No one of the Gospels except the Fourth contains any internal evidence that help? directly in identifying the author. We are dependent, therefore, upon traditional sources of information ; that is, upon information that has been preserved outside of the New Testament. The uniform testimony of Christian tradition is that this book is rightly called the Gospel of Mark, and that the Mark (or Marcus) whose name is associated with it is the Mark who appears in the apostolic history and Epistles. There appears to be no reason for calling this testimony in question. Mark is first mentioned at Acts 12 : 12, a passage brief but extremely rich in infor- mation. We learn, first, that he bore the Hebrew name John (Jochanan), and that a Latin surname — not a Greek — was added to it; from which we infer, though vaguely, some connection, by residence or by social ties, with some Latin-speaking place or people. We learn, further, that his mother was named Mary, and (by implication) that she was a widow. The common English version in Col. 4 : 10 juakes her to have been the sister of Barnabas, the companion of Paul ("Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas"); but the word [anepsios) means, more broadly, a cousin — not a nephew — and does not closely define the relation. The connection with Barnabas, however, establishes a con- nection on some side with the tribe of Levi (Acts 4 : 36). Returning to Acts 12 : 12, we learn from it that the house of Mary was the house to which Peter betook himself when miraculously delivered from prison, and that many were gathered there when he arrived, and were praying ; whence we infer that it was a favorite place of resort for the Chris- tians in Jerusalem. It probably contained an " upper room " that was used for worship, possibly the "upper chamber" of Acts 1 : 13, already consecrated by the establishment of the Lord's Supper within its walls. The connection of the family with Barnabas is a fact full of suggostiveness. The house would naturally be his home when lie visited Jerusalem. He was there, apparently, and Saul — not yet called Paul — was witli him (Acts 11 : 29-30 ; 12 : 25), at the time of Peter's deliverance ; and they, as well as Mark, may have been present when Peter came from the prison. All the Christian leaders would be known at the house of the kinsfolk of Barnabas. The expression " Mark my son " used by Peter (1 Pet. 5 : 13) is commonly taken to show that Mark had been converted through the influence of Peter, probably in early life at his mother's home. The infer- ence may be called probable, but cannot be regarded as certain, for the title might be merely a term of endearment and a testimony to the intimate relations that existed between the two men. It is a conjecture adopted by some tliat Mark was himself the young man whom lie mentions, witliout naming him, at eh. 14 : 51,52, who came forth from his bed to join Jesus and his company in tlie garden. After the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem, they returned to Antiooh, and took Mark with them to serve as a companion in Christian labor. When they went out 7. 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. on their first missionary-journey Mark went with them (Acts 13 : 5) as their "attend- ant" [hyperetes). His office must have been to make necessary arrangements for the journey, and doubtless to aid in the spiritual work, perhaps to baptize the converts. He went with them to Cyprus, and thence to Perga in Pamphylia, on the coast of Asia Minor, but there he departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem. His motives in returning are nowhere distinctly stated, but Paul long regarded him as worthy of blame in the matter. It is very certain that Mark "went not with them to the work" — a fact which Paul probably attributed to fickleness or timidity. On setting out upon the second journey Barnabas wished to take Mark again, but Paul was unwilling, for the reason just mentioned ; and the disagreement caused the unhappy separation of the two apostles (Acts 15 : 36-40). Mark became the companion of Barnabas, who returned to Cyprus, his own country (Acts 4 : 36). We see Mark no more until he appears in com- pany with Peter, who is writing his First Epistle from Babylon. Undoubtedly, this is not Rome, as some have imagined, interpreting the name mystically, but the ancient Babylon of the East, where there was a considerable Jewish community, to which Peter may have been making a missionary-visit. Thus was renewed the relation that was begun probably in Mark's own home at Jerusalem. There is no reason to suspect that any alienation had come in between Peter and Mark, or that it was by the alienation between himself and Paul that Mark was driven back to Peter. He returned before long to Paul, and next appears in company with him at Rome during Paul's first impris- onment (Col. 4 : 10; Philem. 24). To the Colossians, Paul spoke of him with approval, as one of the few that Avere "of the circumcision" who had been "a comfort to him." At the same time he spoke of Mark as not unlikely to visit Colossse. Still later, when Paul was in his last imprisonment, Mark seems to have been with Timothy at Ephesus, for Paul wrote (2 Tim. 4 : 11), "Take Mark, and bring him with thee, for he is useful to me for ministering" — i. e. "he is such a companion and helper as I need." This is the latest mention of Mark in the Scriptures. The traditions concerning him are inconsistent and uncertain. It is alleged that he was at Rome with Peter, serving as his secretary, but this may be merely an inference from the mystical interpretation of " Babylon " in 1 Pet. 5 : 13. It is also said that he founded the church in Alexandria, became the Bishop of it, and suffered martyrdom there in A. D. 68, a few years after the martyrdom of the two apostles with whom he had labored. GENUINENESS OF THIS GOSPEL. There has never been any reasonable doubt that we have in the existing book the Gospel that Christian antiquity attributed to Mark. The line of historical evidence is unbroken from very early times. Within the present century it has been questioned whether the orderly book that we possess is truly described by the language of Papias that is relied upon for the identification ; but the question has not disturbed, and need not disturb, the confidence of the church in the genuineness of this Christian treasure. As to the genuineness of the last twelve verses of the book, however, there has long been doubt. The reasons on each side, and the conclusions that the present writer is compelled to adopt, will be given in the note on that passage. PLACE AND TIME OF COMPOSITION. Of the place, nothing definite is known. Tradition mentions Rome, and no important variation from this testimony exists ; but the mention of Rome is so connected with the traditions concerning close superintendence from Peter as scarcely to amount to inde- pendent testimony. The place must be left in uncertainty. As to the time of composition there are conflicting traditions. Ireuaeus distinctly INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. places it after the death of Peter and Paul, but the more general tradition is that the work was done with the knowledge of Peter, and under more or less close supervision from him. It has frequently been noticed that when Paul speaks of Mark to the Colos- sians (Col. 4 : 10), he introduces him as one who has been a comfort to himself, and as a kinsman of Barnabas ; and it has been thought that he would not have confined himself to these particulars if Mark had then had the distinction of a biographer to the Lord Jesus, and especially if his work had represented the remembrances of so highly-hon- ored an apostle as Peter. The argument can scarcely be called conclusive, but it is not without weight. The date of the Epistle to the Colossians, which this argument would make to precede the publication of Mark's Gospel, is, according to Conybcare and How- son, A. D. ()2 — according to Farrar, 63. The Gospel was certainly published before the destruction of Jerusalem, A. D. 70. Internal evidence is favorable to the belief in a comparatively early date. The Gos- pel of Mark contains the record of our Saviour's ministry in the simplest form. While we give no credence whatever to the theory of the gradual growth of the existing Gos- pels by accretion round a very small nucleus of genuine history — a growth to which reverence and imagination contributed more, perhaps, than memory — still, it appears natural that the simplest and briefest of the Gospels should be the product of the ear- liest gathering of facts. That each Gospel is independent of the others is certain. But this book reports merely the ministry of Jesus, omitting all that precedes it, and not following the narrative beyond his resurrection. Even within these limits, narrower than those of any other Gospel, it deals mainly with events rather than with teachings. The other GosjjcIs — and most decidedly the latest of them — reveal a purpose in the selection and arrangement of materials — a purpose that corresponds with destination to a certain class of readers. Something of the same is apparent in the Gospel of Mark, but less than in any of the others. Mark betrays less than any other evangelist of any consciousness beyond that of a reporter of the facts. It is impossible to tell precisely at what date any Gospel of the four was sent forth among the Christians, or was written out ; but we have little hesitation in speaking of Mark's as the earliest Gospel. Whether or not it is in its present form the earliest-written of the Gospels, it is inwardly the earliest, representing the earliest collation of facts about the life of Jesus. THE LANGUAGE AND THE READERS. There is no reason to doubt that the book was originally written in Greek. Sugges- tions of a Latin original have been made, mainly by Roman Catholic writers, but the idea is probably nothing more than a conjectural inference from the supposed connec- tion of Mark with Rome, which is itself largely dependent for historic sui)port upon the supposed relations of Peter with Rome. In view of the relations of the Latin lan- guage to the early churches, it is scarcely possible that an original Gospel in that tongue should have perished and left no trace of its existence. That ]\Lark designed his Gospel for Gentile readers is established beyond the possi- bility of doubt by internal evidence. The differences between this book and the Gospel of Matthew are exactly such as would exist between a book for Gentiles and a book for Jews. Mark omits the genealogy of Jesus, which Matthew traces back as far as to Abraham, the father of Israel. He omits the spiritual interj)retation of the law, which Matthew preserves in the Sermon on the Mount. Mark never uses the word tiomos, " law," or, nomiZ-os, " lawyer.' Never, except in his opening sentence, does he refer in his own person to the Old Testament. The entire structure of the First Gospel reveals a purpose that is wholly wanting in the Second — the purpose to appeal to the Jewish mind in the special conditions of the first Christian age. On the other hand, Mark 10 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. inserts many words of explanation that would never be needed or thought of in writing for Jews. Notice especially the elaborate account of the customs of " the Pharisees and all the Jews " regarding ablutions, which is by itself sufficient to establish the fact that Mark was writing for Gentiles. Notice also "the river Jordan" (1 : 5), which would scarcely be written for Palestinian readers ; the remark that at the time of the Passover "it was not the season of figs" (11 : 13) ; the mention of the fact that the Mount of Olives was "over against the temple" (13 : 3) ; the closer definition of the Prsetorium (15 : 16); and the only clear definition of "the Preparation" (15 : 42). Notice also that while Mark delights to employ the very words, in the Aramaic tongue, that fell from the lips of Jesus, he uniformly translates them — a thing that he would not do for Jewish readers, a thing that Matthew never does, except in the case of the weighty utterance of Jesus on the cross. (See Mark 5 : 41 ; 7 : 11, 34.) The doctrine of the universality of the Gospel, or its destination to all men, is a less striking characteristic feature of Mark's book than of Luke's, but it is more prominent here than in Matthew. Mark, like Luke, had journeyed and labored widely among the Gentiles, and it is plain that for Gentile readers he designed his Gospel. More closely than this it is impossible to define with certainty the readers for whom this book was prepared. Tradition does something toward connecting the name of Mark with the Christian community at Eome, though its testimony is not so definite and independent as to be unquestionable, and it has often been thought that the Latin- isms that Mark uses are confirmatory of the belief that he was writing for Roman Chris- tians. Latinisms are somewhat more frequent in Mark than in the other evangelists, but the inference that he was writing for Romans is too precarious to be trusted. It has already been noticed that the surname of the writer, Marcus, was Latin, and not Greek, and that that fact vaguely suggests some association of his family with some Latin- speaking people or place. Such a connection would account for all Mark's Latinisms. Yet so few are they, and so widely diff"used was the Latin tongue, that they scarcely need to be accounted for. In view of the relations that the Greek-speaking countries sustained to the Roman government, there must have been Latinisms everywhere in the Greek of the people, and in writers who were themselves of the common people they would inevitably be found. As a matter of fact, the Gospel of Mark contains eleven words that are Latin words borrowed into Greek. Of these, four — namely, legeon, kenturid)), spekoulatOr, and praifOrion — are words that came in with the Roman army ; two — denarion and kodrantes — are names of Roman coins; one^phrage/loun — is the verb that denotes a Roman military punishment; and one — kensos — is the name of the tribute paid to the Roman government. Thus eight of the eleven words had come into com- mon speech by the presence of the Roman power. Of the remaining three, two are names of objects of daily use — krabbafos, "bed," and xesfes, "cup" — and the third, poiesai to hikanon, is a Greek equivalent for the Latin verb safis/acere. Of these eleven, moreover, only four are peculiar to Mark — namely, kenturiun, spekoiilafdr, .vesfes, and poiesai to hikanon. The other seven are found in the other Gospels. In the other Gospels these seven Latin words occur twenty-seven times ; in Mark, they occur thirteen times. In such an array of Latinisms there is certainly nothing unusual : Mark merely uses a little more of the everywhere-present foreign phraseology than the others ; and no infer^ ences can be drawn from the fact. It may be true that he wrote for the Roman Chris- tians, but it is not proved by his Latinisms. THE RELATION OF PETER TO THIS GOSPEL. Christian tradition attributes this book to Mark, and in the comparative obscurity of his name in the apostolic history there is a strong confirmation of its testimony. INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 11 To a man who had played so subordinate a part in the history, and a part not entirely creditable, the composition of a Gospel would not be attributed without reason. But Christian tradition is equally uniform in asserting that the book was composed under some influence, less or greater, from the apostle Peter. This belief can be traced back to very early times. Eusebius, of the fourth century {Hisi. EccL, 3, 39), quotes from Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, who wrote probably before the middle of the second century. He quotes, in turn, from a certain John, whom he calls " the presby- ter," whom he cites as having been a discii)le of the Lord, and whom he apparently intends to distinguish from John the apostle. Much discussion has arisen about this man, some doubting whether he is to be regarded as any other than the apostle himself. (See the various opinions in McClintock and Strong's Ci/clojxpdia, article "John the Pres- byter.") The following is the passage from Papias, as translated by Westcott {Introduc- tion to the Study of the Gospels, pp. 191, 192, American edition) : " This also, then, was the statement of the elder " — i. e. of the presbyter : " Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he (Peter) mentioned, though he did not [record] in order that which was either said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him ; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter, who used to frame his teachings to meet the wants [of his hearers], but not as making a continued narrative of the Lord's discourses. So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars as he narrated them ; for he took heed to one thing, to omit nothing of things he heard, and to make no false statement in [his account of] them." Other early witnesses to the connection of Peter Avith this Gospel are Clement of Alexandria, Irenteus, Origen, and Tertullian. Justin Martyr is thought also to allude to this tradition. In Clement the story takes a different form from that which it bears in Papias. When Peter had preached the word in Rome, many hearers of his words requested Mark, as one who had long been with him and remembered what he said, to record what he had stated. Mark did so, and delivered the book to those who had asked for it, Peter neither hindering nor encouraging him in the work. Origen says that " Mark made his Gospel as Peter guided him ;" and Tertullian, that " the Gospel of Mark is maintained to be Peter's, whose interpreter he was, .... for it is possible that that which scholars publish should be regarded as their master's work." The tra- dition naturally grew more definite as time passed, and Jerome said that the Gospel was composed, " Peter narrating and Mark writing." Irenjcus, an early authority, hav- ing written late in the second century, departs from the general course of the tradition in representing that the book was written after the death of Peter and Paul. Thus the ancient tradition is not constant or consistent in its representation of details, but it is quite constant in asserting the relation of Peter with this Gospel. The meaning of the word translated, "interpreter," in the passage from Papias, has been much discussed, but the means of obtaining a close definition of it are wanting. It seems most likely that Papias meant to say that Mark became by this writing the inter- preter of Peter to the church, the reproducer of Peter's version of the Master's life and deeds. As for the growing definiteness of the tradition, and the gradual extension of the influence attributed to Peter, that would be the natural result of the desire to find apostolic authority for the sacred writings. On the whole, the testimony of Christian antiquity is sufficiently strong and clear to prepare us to find in the book itself the evidences of influence from Peter. When we come to the internal evidence, we do not find the tradition confirmed in its later and more definite form. There is no sufficient evidence of dictation, or of any- thing that is virtually equivalent to direct authorship, on the part of Peter. It has been expected that the references to Peter in this Gospel would furnish evidence that his personal feeling had to do with the insertion or omission of matters that related to 12 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. himself. But while some passages are found that seem favorable to this view, as the notes will show, still it cannot be claimed that in the references to Peter, considered as a whole, there is anything decisively peculiar or characteristic. The real evidence in support of the ancient tradition is found in the fact that the Gospel of Mark manifestly preserves the remembrances of an eye-witness, and of an eye-witness whose relations to Jesus were like those of Peter. The evidence that this Gospel was enriched by the remembrances of an eye-witness will be presented in detail in the notes, and will be mentioned in general below in the paragraph on the characteristics of this Gospel. It consists in the many graphic details that could scarcely have been brought into the narrative at second-hand. These are often touches of description, especially of the acts, looks, and motions of our Lord himself. Again, they are citations of names and other details that others omit, and of the very words in the Aramaic tongue to which our Lord gave utterance. All these are signs that some one had given to Mark, who was not personally a follower of Jesus, the results of his own keen observation. The evidence of the presence of an eye-witness is found in the whole style of the book and on almost every page. It is almost equally plain that this eye-witness was some one whose relations with Jesus resembled those of Peter. He was a close companion of Jesus whose opportu- nities of observation were constant. One of the passages in which the characteristic style of an eye-witness is most apparent is the one that contains the description of the Transfiguration, at which there were present with Jesus only Peter, James, and John. Another is the narrative of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, where no disciples were present except the same three. Moreover, it is a very striking fsict that the peculiarly graphic touches of description that are so abundant in the greater part of the Gospel are almost entirely wanting after the record of Peter's denial of his Master. That record stands at the end of the fourteenth chapter. The favorite word ew/Aeos does not occur after ch. 15 : 1. The materials of the story of the Passion, from that point, are much more Exclusively than before the same that are used by IMatthew, and the charac- teristic peculiarities, whether of substance or of style, are far less frequent than else- where. The proof of this statement may be found in the reading of the narrative in the Greek. Advancing to that part of the book from the preceding part, and reading it in comparison with the other Gospels, one can scarcely fail to be impressed that the keen eye-witness is no longer at his side — an impression that accords perfectly with the belief that the eye-witness was Peter, who was at that time separated in grief and shame from his IMaster. Thus, although there is no demonstrative proof of the connection of Peter with the Gospel of Mark, there is a strong probable argument for it. The tradition of the church and the traits of the GosjdcI fit each other like the j^arts of a tally. EELATION TO THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW AND LUKE. It has been maintained that the Gospel of I\Iark was the original source from which Matthew and Luke obtained much of the material for the compilation of their Gospels, and, on the other hand, that the Gospel of Mark is merely an epitome, made by con- densation and recasting, of what they had written. But the facts do not correspond to either theory. Each Gospel contains abundant proofs of independence, Mark's not less than the others. It is beyond question, however — indeed, to say so is to utter a truism — that all the evangelists drew upon previously existing materials in compiling their narratives. These materials, ready to their hand, were the substance of the apostolic preaching. In the Gospels — i. e. in the Synoptical Gospels — we have " the story " as the Christian preachers were accustomed to tell it. It may already have been written INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. 13 out in part : that question has been warmly discussed — whether the immediate sources of our present Gospels were oral or written. But, in whatever form it may have existed, there was a mass of facts known about the life of Jesus that was common to all the evangelists and to many more. Of these facts, known to them all, forming what has been called a " common tradition," each evangelist evidently made use of such as his purpose required, and added to them such other facts, known perhaps to himself and not to all, as he felt himself justified in adding. It is plain that Mark, aided no doubt by the remembrance of Peter, possessed the facts of the "common tradition" in the most graphic forms, and recorded them more strikingly than the others ; but he added to them less than any other evangelist. There are some indications, indeed, that he was careful not to add largely to them — a fact which, if established, would enhance the historical credit of what he did record. It has been suggested, with much reason, that this relation of Mark to the " common tradition " may have had to do with the abrupt ending of his Gospel, and explains the facts about the last twelve verses. (See note there.) It is worthy of notice that the harmonists of the Gospels usually follow almost entirely the order of Mark, inverting the order of the other evangelists, and making his the basis of their arrangement. Hence in the exposition of this Gospel there is less discussion of questions of order than in treating of the others. CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS GOSPEL. In the wisdom of God we are blessed with four portraitures of our Saviour, each with a character of its own. The Fourth Gospel, it is true, differs largely from the others in purpose and method, and even occupies a place by itself in the records of divine revelation ; and yet perhaps the Second, the Gospel of Mark, is the one that bears its character most unmistakably upon the surface, and most readily impresses its conception of the Saviour on the reader's mind. Scarcely does a more, thoroughly intelligible and self-interpreting piece of literature exist anywhere than the Gospel of Mark. Yet the clearness does not seem to result mainly from high skill in the author. This is not so much a triumph of art as a masterpiece of nature ; that is to say, a genuine and natural utterance, under divine guidance, of what a man of clear sight and jjicturesque language knew about Jesus. It is a picture out of real life, so clear and recognizable because of its reality. As we read we do not need to be told how the writer got his vivid impressions : we know that they are the genuine impressions of actual experience. The Gospel of Matthew portrays our Saviour in his relation to the Old Covenant, and especially to the new kingdom, long promised, that was now coming to take its place. This is the Gospel of the kingdom. The Gospel of Luke represents him in his wide and tender human relations as the blessing of mankind. The Gospel of John reveals him in his divine glory, coming forth to the world, doing battle, by self-revela- tion, with its sin and darkness, and spiritually glorified as the Son of God, though rejected and slain by men. The Gospel of Mark presents him to our sight in the midst of the intense activity of the life to which his divine mission brought him. The order of the four as they stand in our Bible is a happy thought of the church. First stands the Gospel of the Messiah, and of the kingdom that he brought into the world. Then comes the Gospel of the mighty Worker, exhibiting the abundant energy that made his life among men great and beneficent. Next follows the Gospel of the Son of man, overflowing with tenderness and love to the race unto which he came. Then, to crown the whole, comes the Gospel of the Son of God, bringing the revelation of One who la at once the ancient glory of the heavens and the sufficient hope and joy of the earth. 14 INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL. Coming to the Second Gospel, with which we are concerned, we may note the fol- lowing as some of its characteristics : (1) It is the briefest of them all. It is so partly because it is the narrowest in its historical limits. It does not touch upon the birth or early life of Jesus, but meets him at his baptism. It follows him only through his min- istry, and, strictly, only through his Galila^an ministry, passing over, like the other Sy- noptists, the early ministry in Judaea. It breaks off abruptly just after the announce- ment of the resurrection. It confines itself exactly within the limits proposed by Peter in speaking of the choice of a new apostle, and observed by him in instructing the household of Cornelius (Acts 1 : 22; 10 : 36-43). It has to do solely with the period of our Saviour's activity. (2) As between the words and deeds of Jesus, the division of matter is very different from that of the other Gospels. Mark records about as many miracles as Matthew or Luke : they have twenty each, and he, with his smaller space, has nineteen. But, while Matthew records fifteen parables and Luke twenty-three, Mark records only four, one of which has been preserved by him alone. He does not preserve the Sermon on the Mount, and alludes in other connections to but very few of the sayings that it contains. The address at the sending out of the apostles he greatly abbreviates. Of the great circle of parables delivered on the last journey to Jerusalem, recorded by Luke, he has nothing. Only in recounting the prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives does he approach to the others in fulness ; and even here he is the briefest of the three. His book is emphatically a book of deeds, not of words. It is the Gospel of action. It makes us feel that when God was manifested for us men and our salvation there was for him no rest. An appropriate motto for the Gospel has been said to be the saying of Peter to Cornelius : " Jesus of Nazareth, how that God anointed him with the Holy Ghost and with power; who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil ; for God was with him." But in deeper truth his own saying could be taken for the motto of this Gospel : " My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to accomplish his work." (3) Although Mark's record is the briefest, it is given with a fulness and richness of detail that imparts to it a peculiar value. He scarcely mentions any event without adding something to our knowledge of it. These additions are made partly by the particularity of his statements, and partly by the pic- turesqueness and expressiveness of his language. The former fact bespeaks the presence of an eye-witness — the latter, the fact that the eye-witness had a genius for vivid descrip- tion. We owe to Mark, on more than one occasion of intense interest, our knowledge of the very look and expression of our Saviour's face, of the very words that he uttered in the Aramaic tongue, and of the lifelike and instructive details in many a picture. It is impossible to tell which Gospel we could best spare. Many readers would say, perhaps, " The short Gospel of Mark ; that contains so little matter that is not pro- vided to us by the others." Happily, we are not called to choose ; and if we were, we might well be extremely sorry to part with this fresh, living, pictorial Gospel, from which we have derived far more than we are aware of the distinctness of our conception of our Saviour. The bright, enlightening words that reveal our Master to our hearts will be pointed out in the notes as we come to them, and it seems scarcely necessary to enumerate any of them here. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. CHAPTER I. THE beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the" Son of (iod. 2 As it is written in the prophets,' Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 'the Son of Ciod. 2 Even as it is written -in Isaiah the prophet. Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, Who shall prepare thy way ; aHeb. 1 : 1, 2....&Mal. 3: 1.- -1 Some ancient autborities omit the Son of God. ...2 Some ancient authorities read in the prophet). Ch. 1 : 1-8. MINISTRY OF JOHN THE BAPTIST. Parallels, Matt. 3 : 1-12 ; Luke 3 : 1- 18. — The earliest of the four Gospels begms latest in the life of our Lord, and concerns it- self e.Kclusively with his public ministry, the sole preface being a brief account of the woric of his forerunner. This is dite partly, perhaps, to the fact tliat it was the earliest — for the first thought would naturally be to gather up the record of his words and deeds among men — but probably more to the fact that it was com- posed far from the land of the Jews, and for people who would have little interest in the genealogy of Jesus, or in anything bttt the work by which he had become precious to them. So, while John begins from eternity, Matthew from Abraham, and Luke from the events that preceded the birth of the forerun- ner, Mark finds the forertinner already at work, and introduces Jesus at the time of his baptism. It is noticeable, in view of the traditional belief that this Gospel was composed under the influ- ence of Peter, tliat its limitations of time cor- respond witli those mentioned by Peter in Acts 1 : 21, 22, where lie says that the successor of Judas in the apostolate must be one who has been with them all the time, " beginning from the baptism of John." Mark and Peter begin from the same point. 1-4. Introductiox. A?.'xouxcemext of the Gospel. — The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The word "gospel " is probably not yet used of the writ- ten record, as " the Gospel of Mark." Rather is it here the good news of the kingdom, regarded as proclaimed ; and " the beginning of the gos- pel" means, in its connection here, "Thus be- gan the glad tidings of Jesus Clirist to be pro- claimed, as the prophets foretold : John came baptizing in the wilderne,«s." The gospel of Jesus Christ is the gospel, or good news, con- cerning him, the gospel of whicli he is the sub- stance. Jesus (" saviour ") is the personal name, and Christ (" anointed ") is the official title ; but the two form in Scripture virtually a double name, which is not exactly represented by " Jesus the Christ." It is a very significant fact that his religion has taken its name, "(,'hris- tian," from his official title, and not from his personal name. In whatever way the name may first have been given, it has been recog- nized as true to the facts ; and the Founder of the faith has thtis been accepted as not only the Son of Mary, but the Messenger of God, and his relation to the eternal purpose has been exalted even above his personality. If the words " the Son of God," which are omitted in some manuscripts, are genuine, they obtain a special significance and interest from the confession of Peter, " Thou art the Clirist, the Son of tlie liv- ing God " (Matt. 16 : 16). As it is written, etc., is not to be connected grammatically witli veree 4 ("As it is written, John did baptize, etc."), but rather with verse 1. It is an expansion of the idea of the beginning, or a statement of the way in which the begin- ning had been announced. Instead of in the prophets, the best text reads "in the prophet Isaiah." There are two quotations from the prophets placed in one paragraph, of which only the second is from Isaiah, the first being from Malachi (Mai. 3: landisa. 40:3). The quota- tion from Isaiah was ])erhaps the more prom- inent in the writer's mind, and in rapid style the one name is used instead of two. Possibly when he wrote the name he may have intend- ed to make only one quotation, but the other may then have flashed into liis mind as a suit- able introduction to tlie one of which he was thinking. — Malachi had declared that before the sudden coming of Jehovah to his temple he would send a messenger who should ])repare his way before liim. In the conception of the evan- gelist the j)re(licti(>n is addressed to the Me.'^siah himself Before thy face, who shall pre- pare thy Avay. " Before thee" sliould {irobably be omitted. The authority for applying this pre- diction to John tlie Baptist is Jesus himself, in Matt. 11 : 10; Luke 7 : 27. The other passage that is cited here was quoted by the Bajitist himself as descriptive of his office (John i : -ix), and is definitely applied to him bv the other 15 16 MARK. [Ch. I. 3 The" voice of one crying in the wilderness, Pre- pare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4 John' did baptize iu the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission": of sins. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight ; 4 John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission a Isa. 40 : 3 b Matt. 3:1; Luke 3:3; John i:2i c Acts 22 : 16. three evangelists, Luke quoting it at greater length than the others. In its original connec- tion it was not as definite an historical predic- tion as the one from Malachi, but beyond doubt the Divine Spirit in the prophet was looking forward to the advent of the Messiah and the preparation for it. As an Oriental king sent his herald before him, calling on all to make ready the way for his royal progress and to build or put in order the roads through the country that he must pass, so the coming of the Messiah should be prepared by the summons to spiritual readiness. The grouping of these two passages makes a fine paragraph for the writer's puri^ose. He thus opens his book by connecting the glad tidings with the ancient Scriptures ; but the destination of his book to Gentile readers is plainly seen in the fact that these are the only quotations from the Old Testament that the evangelist himself makes in the whole book, chap. 15 : 28 being omitted from the best text. He records citations by our Lord, but he makes none of his own. Now comes the announcement of the " be- ginning" itself. John did baptize in the wilderness. Westcott and Ilort's text reads " John the baptizer came {egeneto) in the wil- derness ;" the definite article being inserted be- fore the participle, making it virtually a proper name, and almost equivalent to the " Baptist." Mark omits all preliminary account of John, as he does of Jesus, and introduces him thus ab- ruptly as a well-known personage. His silence is compensated by the remarkable fulness of Luke's narrative concerning the birth of John and of Jesus. There is no reason to suppose that Mark was ignorant of the facts that he omitted. Throughout his book he Is the evangelist of action, and the omission of all preliminaries is entirely characteristic. — John was. the near kinsman of Jesus, six months his senior, whose office it was (Lukei:i7) "to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." This preliminary work he was to accomplish by announcing the approach of the Messiah, calling the people to repentance, and pledging them through baptism to a new and holy life. Josephus speaks of liim under the name of John the Baptist (Ant. 18. 5. 2), saying of him, " He was a righteous man, and called the Jews to be baptized and to practise virtue, exercising justice to men and piety to God." Ablutions for the purpose of purification were well known to the Jews, and the washing with water had long had among them its natural symbolic sig- nificance as a sign of spiritual cleansing. But it had been used by divine authority only in certain cases of ceremdnial purification, as in the consecration of priests (ex. 29 : 4) and the purification of lepers (Lev. i4:8). It has been claimed that such ablution, or immersion, was in use before John apjaeared, as an initiatory act for proselytes, but the historical evidence does not prove that the custom was established so early. The baptism of John attached itself to the idea of purification by ablution, and was popularly understood by the help of that idea ; but it was peculiar in being detached from all other ritual forms, removed from all special oc- casions in the life, and enjoined upon all the people. To all comers it was proposed as an act of confession corresponding to an inward change of mind and purpose respecting sin. It is here described, as to its meaning, by two ex- pressions: (1) It was a baptism of repentance — i e. it solemnly pledged him who received it to repentance. Repentance is a deep change of mind and purpose respecting sin — a change that includes forsaking as well as regret, a change that will have, if genuine, its appropriate " fruits." John not only called the people to repentance, but gave them this outward act in which to profess it and pledge themselves to the corresponding life. (2) It was for the remis- sion of sins — i. e. the obtaining of forgive- ness for a sinful life was the end to which the submission to baptism was one of the means. Not that pardon was j^romised or expected upon submission to baptism, in itself regarded ; but this act, in which repentance was confessed and reformation of life was promised, was evidently a suitable act for one who wished to forsake his sins and be forgiven. If a man honestly sought full remission, it was only right that he should perform this act : so Peter said on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2 : 38) ; and so it could fitly be called a baptism for, or with reference to, the remission of sins. Of the form of the act nothing is hei-e said, except by the use of the word baptize {haptizo). In Grimm's New Testament Lexicon, after the general definition of the word (which is, 1. To immerse repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge; 2. To wash by immersing or submerging ; 3. Ch. L] MARK. 17 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judrea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing" their sins. 6 And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins ; and he did eat lo- custs' and wild honey. 5 of sins. And there went out unto him all the country of Judiea, and all they of Jerusalem ; and they were baptized of him in the river. Ionian, coufes.>iug their 6 sins. And John was clothed with caniel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat Lev. 26 : 40-4'2 ; Ps. 32:5; Prov. 28 : 13 ; 1 John 1 : 8 b Lev. II : 22. To overwhelm) the following statement of the New-Testament use is given : " In the New Testament it is vised principally of the .solemn rite of .sacred washinii; first instituted by John the Baptist, afterward received at the command ol" Clirist by the Christians and adapted to the subject-matter and character of their religion — i. e. immersion performed in water, in order that it might be a sign of vices and sins re- moved (ahMcmorum), received by those who, led by the desire of salvation, wished to be admitted to the benefits of the Messianic kingdom." It formerly seemed necessary to prove that John's baptism was immersion ; but now no writer touches the stibject without assuming that fact, and one may be jiardoned for passing lightly over the evidence. The time has fully come when the form of John's baptism should no longer need to be discussed. In the wilderness. Matthew, "in the wil- derness of Judtea." No place is more closely specified as the chief seat of John's labors. He doubtless baptized in several places, Init prob- ably the only one that would be found in " the wilderness of Judtea" was at the lower ford of the Jordan, or near it, not far from Jericho. That " wilderness " included the wild country on the west of the Jordan and north of the Dead Sea. This would be a convenient place for the multitudes from JudiPa and Jerusalem who Hocked to him. On the place where Jesus was baptized, see notes on verse 9. 5. Effect of Joiix's Wop.k. — The preaching of John was the beginning of the gospel as Mark proposed to tell of it, and the result was a great popular movement. — There went ont to him all tlie land of Judaea, and tliey of Jerusalem. Hyperbolical language, meaning tliat men of all classes, in great num- bers, went out to him.— Were baptized— im- perfect tense, " were being ba^itized." The verb does not assert, as it would in the aorist, that all who went out received baptism. — Bap- tized of him. He was the only adminis- trator. He was alone in his office, and there is no evidence that he ever divided his work with any. After his death others may have taken up his preaching of repentance, not knowing or not accepting Jesus, and may have baptized under his name (Acts 19; a). Of his 2 manner in immersing, probably. Western prac- tice would give us very little correct conception. In Oriental hands such a rite would be less for- mal and deliberate than with us. — Baptized in the river of Jordan. A definite statement corresponding exactly with the meaning of the word "baptize" — immersed in the river. Per- haps we have in the word "river" one of the explanations that Mark added for the benefit of Gentile readers not familiar with the local- ities of which lie wrote.— Confessing their sins. A somewhat emphatic expression in the Greek, which ayjparently refers to some- thing more than an indeterminate " Peccavi" — " / have sinned." John was thoroughly prac- tical, and probably he drew out from those who came to him a practical confession. Yet not all who came confessed and were baptized : some refused, and some were refused. Not all who were baptized were truly penitent ; but the approved disciples of John, as a class, were truly penitent men before they left him to fol- low the greater Master. The effect of his teach- ing is seen in the readiness with which some of his disciples turned from him to Jesus. (See John 1 : 35-51, but not Matt. 4 : 18-22. See notes below.) When baptism was first pro- claimed, there was no one to question that it must be an intelligent and deliberate act. To propose the baptism of unconscious human be- ings, or of one person in view of another's re- pentance, would have been too plain a contra- diction of the whole spirit and aim of John's mission. Yet surely his mission was not more distinctly spiritual than that of his Master. 6. Description of John's ^Iaxner of Life. —Clothed AVith camel's hair, of which a coarse, rough cloth was made. The garment was probably the burnouse, or mantle, which the Bedouins still wear ; and the leathern gir- dle was such as the poor use to this day. His figure reminds one of the prophet in whose "spirit and power" John had come, and they are probalily right who suj^ijose that John in- tentionally assumed the appearance and habits of Elijah (2 Kings 1 : 8), in which some of the later prophets also had resembled him — at least, as to the texture of garments (Zech. i3 : <).- His food was locusts and wild honey. Locusts, which are verv abundant in that land, were 18 MARK. [Ch. I. 7 And preached, saving, There" coiueth one mightier than I after nie, the hitchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. 7 locusts and wild honey. And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than 1, the latehet of whose shoes I am not 'worthy to stoop Matt. 3 : n ; John 1 : 27 ; Acts 13 : 25.- -1 Gr. svfficient. " clean " according to tlie law of Moses (i.ev. 11 :22), and formed, as they still do form, a part of the food of the poor, although it is said that at ))resent they are somewhat despised, as the food of the very poorest. Some travellers have affirmed that they found them palatable when cooked as the people cook them — oftenest by boiling. Wild honey was also abundant, de- posited sometimes in trees, as at 1 Sam. 14 : 25, and sometimes in crevices of the rocks (Deut. 32:13; ps. 81 : 16). Tlicsc fcw details, givcii ill al- most identical words by Matthew and Mark, make np almost the whole of our picture of the personal life of John ; yet our picture is very distinct and lifelike. It includes the main points in tlie living of an ascetic — a home in the wilderness ; no need of helps or appliances, or provision from beyond his immediate local- ity ; no dependence on men ; rough clothing, such as the sternest of the pi'ophets had worn, and such as men have often worn for the sake of doing penance ; and such food as nature offered to a hermit. This was no new way of life to John when his ministry began. His aged parents probably died while he was still young, and he " was in the deserts " (Luke i : bo), most likely in some such life as this, from his youth to his ministry. Many of his hearers mav have brought their luxuries, or at least their comforts, with them to his preaching; but John was still the ascetic. 7, 8. John's Preaching. — Mark's report is only a fragment, but a fragment that is per- fectly characteristic of him and of his Gospel. This is the Gospel of action. The messenger before the Messiah has come, and now he is portrayed solely in the act of announcing the One who is to come after him. The call to re- pentance is omitted, as already implied, and only the proclamation is given. There cometh one mightier than I after me, or" behind me" — not merely "one," but the one "mightier than I," for the definite article j)oints out a definite individual. It is the ^ superior sjnritual power of the Messiah that is hero joy- fully announced l)y the fore- runner. John may have felt with pain his own inability to change the heart, and even so to read the heart as to avoid being deceived by men • and so he may have loved to think of the Messiah as the mightier One by whom the things impossible to him should be done. — Before one so much mightier John takes the humblest position. The latehet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. The latehet was the thong or strap by which the sandal was bound upon the foot ; and, as it was the office of a servant to bear the shoes (Mattliew), so it was perhaps a still humbler duty of his to loosen them from the Master's feet. I am not worthy, says John— " I am not hikanos — suitable, a fit person— to do for him even this most menial .service." This is not to be taken as a bold figure of speech on John's part, going perhaps beyond his feeling. It was an honest utterance of humility, from one of the most humble men that ever lived. This was his sincere opinion of the difference between liimself and the Messiah whom he had not seen. Verse 8 illustrates that surpa.ssing spiritual power of the Messiah before which John stands in reverence. The means of illustrating it John finds in his own baptism.^I have baptized Ch. I.] MARK. 19 8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize" you with the Holy iihost. y And it came to i)a.ss in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Cialilee, and was baptized' of john in Jordan. 8 down and unloose. I baptized you 'in water; but he shall baptize you Mn the Holy Spirit. 9 And it came to pass in those days, that.lesus came from Nazareth of tialilee, and was baptized of John a JoPl 2: 28; Acts 1 : 5; 2 : 4 ; 10 : 45; U : 15, 16; 1 Cur. 12 : 13 b Matt. 3 : 1» ; Luke:): 21. you with water. Advist, not perfect. Mat- thew and Luke, "I baptize you," present tense. Mark conceives of Jolin as addressing those whom lie lias already baptized. — But he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. As bap- tism, ailniinistered by John, is an overwhelm- ing in water, so shall that which the Messiah imparts be an overwhelming in holy, spiritual intltiences. He shall merge and whelm men as John has done, and that, too, in a cleansing element ; but not in water. Mightier is he, and mightier cleansing infltiences attend him. He shall do by the Holy Spirit that actual work of renewal and pitritication of which the bap- tism of John has been only the symbol. " His work shall stirpass mine," says John, " as far as the Holy Spirit suri)asses water in actual power to purify." This is to predict for the Messiah a real work, an actual whelming of men in the life-giving, holy influences of the Divine Spirit. The fulfilment of this prediction is not to be found in any gift or gifts peculiar to the apos- tles : the language of the passage forbids that, as well as the sense of the prediction. The ob- ject of the verb in both clauses is the indefinite " yoti " — " I baptized you, he will baptize you " — and the natural reference is to all who re- ceive his influences. This is a general descrip- tion of the s{)iritual work of Christ. Tlie bap- tizing in the Holy Spirit is not any single act or event in the history of Christ's kingdom ; the figure is a noble characterization of the qttality and power of his work. It was illitstrated on the day of Pentecost, and in the miraculous gifts of the apostolic age (Acts 11 : 16, where Peter recognized an illustration of it), and in the graces that were better than miractilous gifts (i Cor. 13). It is illtistrated still whenever Christ through the Holy Spirit makes new creatitres of men and sanctifies his people. Christ is still, as "John the baptizer" called him (John 1 : .33), " the baptizer in the Holy Spirit" {ho hnptizbn en pn. hag.). Lukc(3:i6) omits ea before hudati and reads, " I bap- tize you with water," instead of " in water," the dative being the instrumental dative. On this dilference Winer remarks (Grammar of the N. T., Thayer's edition, p. 412) : " Some- times we find in parallel passages a preposition now inserted and now omitted. This difference of phraseology does not affect the sense, but each form of expression rose from a different conception. Baptizon en hudati signifies, ' bap- tize in water' (immersing); baptizein hudati, ' baptize with water.' Here the identity of the two expressions in sense is manifest; j'et we must not consider one as put for the other." Observe, however, that, witli jmeumnti, en is always used : it is always " baptize in the Holy Spirit," never " with." Mark omits the bap- tism in fire by which in Matthew and Luke the Baptist completes the representation of the superior might of the jVIessiah. 9-11. THE BAPTISM OF JESLTS. PnraUels, Matt. 3 : 13-17 ; Luke 3 : 21, 22.— :\Iatthew alone tells of the hesitation of the Baptist; otherwise, the three reports differ but very slightly. 9. In those days. The time is indefinite, nor is it plainly identified in the other records. The place of the baptism is indicated by John 1 : 28, which saj'^s John was at that time bap- tizing at "Bethabara" — or by the best text Bethania, " beyond Jordan." The Palestine Exploration Fund identifies this as one of the upper fords of the Jordan, still known as 'Ab- arah, within a day's journey of the early home of Jestts. It is thought that Bethania is meant for Batanea, a name given to the district on the east of the river. — Jesus came. Thus informal- ly does Mark introdttce to his story the One but for whom it wotild never have been written. He writes for those who already know him ; but so do those who prepare more elaljorately for his entrance to their story. Mark is pressing for- ward to the story of action. — From Nazareth of Galilee. His qtiiet home for nearly thirty years. The impression made by the record is that he came alone, not in a caravan of comers, and directly from his own abode. The moment of his withdrawal from the long retirement was determined in his own heart, which was guided, no dotibt, partly by what he heard of the work of the Baptist. In the great movement of god- ly reformation, when the i)eoplc were awakened somewhat to holy things, he was drawn to go out and cast in his lot and life with the work, and so to take his apj>ointed jilace. There is no wrong in thus recognizing the influence of the movement in calling him out. But why was he baptized? Not with the baptism of re- pentance for tlie remission of sins, but with the baptism of consecration to the work that lay before him. He was a man and was living under the limitations, of humanity, and he 20 MARK. [Ch. I. 10 And straightway coming up out of the water, j 10 Mn the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit," like a dove, the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the descending upon him : | a Isa. 42 : 1 ; John 1 : 32. 1 Gr. into. would not fail to "fulfil all righteousness" — i. e. to do all that a man ought who was going forth to a great work for God and his kingdom. He was " made like unto his brethren " (Heb. 2 : n), and tlie step that was suitable to a man was suit- able to him — not arbitrarily, but because what had a meaning to a man had a meaning to him. As men could consecrate themselves to a holy life and work in baptism, so could he ; and so he did, pledging liimself to the higher activity of that Messianic life on which he was only then entering. Moreover, as men may seek strength for work that is before them by "ful- filling all righteousness" — /. e. by obediently submitting to the ordinances of God — so could he; and so he did, taking this as one step in the way by which he was to be " made perfect " as the "Captain of salvation." The difficulties that have been suggested by the fact that he submitted to baptism are due, in great measure, to the instinctive but erroneous and unscrip- tural impression that the Son of God must have been separated in some way from the common lot of humanity. On the contrary, he was perfectly identified with the common lot of humanity ; and that fact, when we learn to understand it, will tend to make his life at once far more intelligible and far more adorable — more truly liuman and more gloriously divine. — Jesus came, and was baptized of John in Jordan. Literally, not "in," as in verse 5, but "into" (eis) — a phrase that is as suitable as the other to the meaning of baptizo. It is the very act of immersion into the river that is represented. 10. The Visible Sign of Acceptance. — Here first we meet with Mark's characteristic word, euthits, which, with its cognate euthcos, he uses a little more than forty times, the wonls being variously translated "immediately," "forth- with," "straightway," in the English version. Coming up out of the water, after the bap- tism. The best text has ck, " (jut of," instead of apo, "from." — He saw — i.e. Jesus. John also saw the vision (John 1 :32-.'!4), but there is every reason to believe that no others saw it. — The heavens opened, or, rather, "rent open." The same word as in Matt. 27 : 51 : " The rocks were rent." It is a present participle here, in- dicating tliat he saw the very process of open- ing. Matthew and Luke use the common word for " ojtened," and so the strong, graphic word is peculiar to Mark. Luke says that he was praying. Exactly what is meant by " the heavens rent asunder" who can tell? We are reminded of Stephen's vision (acist :55, .%) and of the longing of the prophet (isa. 6+:i): "Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come dtists, omits all reference to the first visit to Galilee and the early Juda;an ministry, and resumes the story at the time of the imprison- ment of the Baptist. The events here passed over are narrated in John 1 : 19-4 : 42. They may be summarized thus : After the temptation Jesus returns to John, who publicly bears wit- ness to him as the Lamb of God ; several di.sci- ples of John attach themselves to Jesus, who, accompanied by them, goes to Galilee, attends the wedding at Cana, where the first miracle is wrought, and spends a few days at Caper- naum ; at the time of the passover he returns to Jerusalem, purifies the temple, performs miracles, and is visited by Nicodemus ; he leaves Jerusalem for some other part of Juda*a, where he baptizes, by the hands of his disci- ples, many who believe on him ; John, who is still baptizing, again bears testimony to him as the One at whose coming he is glad to re- tire ; now John is thrown into prison (an event that is nowhere recorded in its own order, but comes in only by allusion, men- tioned by Luke in anticipation, and by Mat- thew and Mark as a reminiscence), and Jesus, his fame still spreading, leaves Juda?a and re- turns to Galilee, as recorded in verse 14 ; on the way he passes through Samaria, meets the Samaritan woman at the well, and spends two days among her neighbors ; after which he comes "in the power of the Spirit into Gal- ilee" (Luke) and preaches, as Mark proceeds to tell. John, who reports so fully the preceding period, including the Juda^an ministry and the northward journey, is brief in his account of this ministry in Galilee, telling only of the welcome that Jesus received, of his visit to Cana, and of the healing of the nobleman's son. This naiTative is i)eculiar to John ; pecu- liar to Luke is the report of our Lord's visit to Nazareth and preaching in the synagogue there, only to be rejected ; then follows a group of events in Galilee, recorded by all the synop- tists, the record extending in iSIark from chaii. 1 : 14 to 2 : 22. From the synoptists we sliould never suspeirt that there had been an early Judjean ministry ; while from John we should never have learned tlie extent of this niinistrj'' in Galilee. 14. For the imprisonment of John see chap. 6 : 17 and notes there. The word here is not properly put in prison, but " delivered up" — the same word that is constantly applied to the deed of Judas and translated " betrayed." Hav- Ch. I.] MARK. 23 came into Galilee, preaching the gospel" of the king- dom of (lod. lo And saying, The time'' is fulfilled, and the king- dom of Ciod is at hand: repent"' ye, and believe"' the gospel. 16 Now"' as he walked by the sea of (Jalilee, he saw Jimon, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea, ifor they were (ishers.) 15 into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and say- ing. The lime is fultilled, and the kingdom of (j«xl is at hand: rejient ye, and believe in the gospel. 16 And passing along by the sea of dalilee, he .saw Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon castinj' a a Luke 8: 1....6 Dan. 2 : 44;9 : -.15 ; Gal. 1:1; Eph. 1 : 10 c Acts 2 : 38....d Rom. 16 : 26 e Matt. 4 : 18, etc.; Luke 5 : 4, etc. ing heard of the event (^latthew), Jesus re- turned to Galilee. — Of the kingdom should proljuhly be omitted, and we sliould read " preueiiing tlie gospel of God," tlie glad tid- ings wliirh God was now sending by the Mes- siali. There is no evidence that Jesus pro- claimed tlie glad tidings in Galilee during his brief visit there soon after his baptism. This is not his tirst i)reaching, however, as a reader of ^lark might svippose, for lie had been some months laboring in Judtca. 15. The time is fulfilled. Literally, "has been fiillilled." The " fulne.-iritual life, does the call to repentance become intelligible as a word of grace. — And believe the gospel. Literally, " believe in the gospel " — a peculiar form of expression found here alone: "Put your trust, repose your confidence, in the good news of God." The preaching thus briefly reportetl was done quite widely through Galilee, and was widely accepted with joy : so Luke informs us. John attributes the welcome that Jesus received to the knowledge of his miracles which the Gal- ilaeans had oljtained at the passover. Doubtless the warmth of the welcome was increased by " the gracious words that proceeded out of his mouth " and the mighty works that soon ap- peared. 10-20. The Re-Calling of Four Disciples. Parallel, Matt. 4 : 18-22.— Luke 5:1-11 appears to be parallel as a narrative of the calling of these disciples, but there are considerable diffi- culties in the harmony, and no one who looks for a rigid correspondence in the narratives can think for a moment that Luke was recounting the same event. There are difficulties in either view, but it seems most jirobable that the three evangelists had the same event in mind. 16. Jesus had returned to Nazareth, liut after his rejection there he had made Capernaum his home (i.uke4:3i). SimoH and Andrew. By a common oversight, this is often spoken of as the first call of the two brothers, and their readiness to follow Jesus is attributed to the in- fluence of the Ba}>tist in preparing them for him. IJut they had been among his very ear- liest followers, had witnessed his first miracle, had been with him at the passuver, liad been his eonipanicms in labor in Jud«a, even bap- tizing disciples for him, and had come with him through Samaria into Galilee. (See note above.) To Simon, Jesus had long ago given the name " Cephas," the equivalent of " Peter " (John 1:42). After coiuing up through Samaria to Galilee his followers seem to have scattereil to their homes — a proceeazareth'.' art thou come to destroy a Matt. 7 : 'iA 6 Luke 4 : 33, etc. forth oast together, the call liaviny; taken ])iace outside the town. — Straishtway on the Sab- bath-day — ('. e. at tlic first oi)i)nrtiiiiity, on tlie first Saliliath that eaine. The straightway or " iiniiieiliately " exjiresses Mark's sense of the proniiitness of his action — losing no time, ha.s- teniiiu' to liis work.— He entered into the synagogue, and taught. Literally, in the best text, "lie taught into the synagogue" — /. e. having entered tiie synagogue, he taught. It was the best way of reaching the people in their religious hours. There was no exclusive otiice of teaching in the synagogues. In Xaz- areth he indicated his de.sire to speak, and it was granted (i.uke4:ifi); and at Antiooh in Pi- sidia, Paul and Barnabius were iusked if they had any word of exhortation (acis m : 15). j 22. They were astonished at his doc- i trine. An unfortunate translation which has [ licl|icd to render distant, vague, and unreal j the popular conceptions of our Lord's life a:ul influence. It was his "teaching," not his doc- trine, that amazetl them. The remark is iden- tical with the one that Matthew places at the end of the Serm(jn on the Mount. No wonder tiiat such amazement more than once arose. — For he taught them, or "was teaching tiiein" — en (lidn.iknn, almost identical witli the imperfect, but containing somewhat more of tlie (lcscrii)tive element. — As one that had authority, and not as the scribes. A broad contra.st, most accurately drawn by these few words. It was by the freshness and inde- l)endeiice of his teat'hing that they were so i)ro- foundly impressed. He spoke as one who knew that he jiail a right to speak. The scribes were mere copyists and interpreters ; everything came at second-liand ; they neither had nor claimed any independent authority. In the midst of their small and narrow questionings and their stale utterances of second-hand opinion the strong and positive preaching of .Jesus came in like a i)reath of morning air. " We speak that we do know," he said of himself (john 3 : 11). His " I say unto you" was such a word as they had never bt'fore heard. No wonder that they drew the contra.>;t with the .scribes ; and yet the scribes held the multitude in a bondage that he did not break. "Ye receive not our witness," he said, p(;sitive and true though it is. 23-2G. A man with an unclean spirit. Mark's first mention of a demoniac. Tlie ilif- ticulties that beset the whole subject of demo- niacal possession are very great, and perhai>s they will never be entirely removed. The re- corded cases are all essentially alike, and in ex- amining this one, the earliest, it will be well simply to look at the recorded facts and see what is given us a.s the material for a judgment upon the nature of the evil. The word " devil " is never right : it is always "demon." Here tlie man is .said to be en pncumuti akathurtb, "in an un- clean spirit " — i. e. in such a sjMrit as the element in which he lived ; in the power of such a spirit. "Unclean" means iniboly, malign, defiling. Luke calls this "a spirit of an miclean demon." As for the state of the man, it is j^lain tliat in this case he was not so wild Jis to avoid .society or so violent as to be restrained from entering the synagogue. Whether he had friends pres- ent does not ai)pear. The man spoke out, j)er- ceiving and knowing Jesus, without having been addressed ; and so it was by his own act that he came under the notice of Jesas. In his address the authorities are divided as to whether ea, " let ahme,'' should be retained (in Mark ; it is unquestioned in Luke), and 'oefween " I know thee" and " we know thee" (in Luke, " I know thee"). In his excited cry three elements ap- pear — recognition, rejutlsion, dread. The reiml- sion is fii-st exjjressed, then the dread, and then the recognition of character, whit-h is of course the foundation of both. If the reading is ac- cejifed that gives the plural, "we know thee" (as it is by Tischendorf ), the form of six>ech will indicate that this utterance of one is made in liehalf of many, or by one as the representa- tive of a clii.-;s. — What have we to do with thee, Jesus of .Nazareth (or Nazarene)? Literally, " What to us and to thee?" There is no question about the plural here. Here is jxjw- erftd repulsion, the feeling that the two belong to ojiposite kingdoms and have nothing what- ever in common. The language reap])ears ex- actly in another ea.se to which the same charac- ter is :t.>icribed (chap. 5:7). In calling Jesus a 26 MARK. [Ch. I. us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. 25 And Jesus rebuked him, saying, Hold thy peace, and come out of hiiu. 26 And when the unclean spirit had torn him, and cried with a loud voice, he came out of liim 27 And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned amon^ themselves, sayinj;. What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him. us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of 25 God. And Jesus rebuked 'him, saying. Hold thy 26 peace, and come out of him. And the unclean spirit, -tearing him and crying with a loud voice, 27 came out of him. And they were all amazed, inso- much that they questioned among themselves, say- ing. What is this? a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the unclean spirits, and they 1 Or, it 'i Or, convuUing Nazarene it is quite credible that a hostile mind may have been willing to gratify its own bitter- ness by seizing upon any well-known term of reproach. — Art thou come to destroy us? Here is dread of the mission of Jcsiis i-egarded as a powerful enemy, and dread that apparent- ly extends throughout the class to which the speaker conceives of himself as belonging. This instinctive cry, if it is really such, betrays their expectation of great evil from his coming. Tliis language also is reproduced, substantially, in the similar case just mentioned. — I know thee — or "we know thee" — who thou art, the Holy One of God. Tlie ground of the repidsion and dread. All Jews would recognize this as a title of the Messiah ; and the sentence declares that the speaker, or else the class that he represents, has recognized Jesus as the long-expected Deliverer of men, and feels that men are now to be deliv- ered from demoniac power. At the same time, his holiness is the quality that suggests the name that shall express the hatred. — The reply of Jesus is simply Hold thy peace, or "Be silent," and come out of him. Here, as always in such cases, he distinctly assumes that there is a personality that can be addressed apart from that of the man, and is able to leave the man. Whatever demoniacal possession may have been, nothing is more certain than that Jesus did thus address demons as resident in men and command them out. He furtlier refuses to allow the testimony that this personality offers to him as the Messiah ; so, still mf)re distinctly, in other cases, as at verse 34. Apparently he assents, in the spirit of it, to the " What have we to do with thee?" To this word of Jesus there is a re- sponse as of a conscious person — a movement as of rage at being compelled to leave the vic- tim, a final convulsing of the victim's body, a final crj' as of inarticulate rage ; so, still more distinctly, in other cases, as chap. 9 : 2G. But the most evident and significant response is obe- dience to the command to " come out of him," for the victim is quickly left free from the evil power. Concerning these representations it may be said, (1) The conduct of the man, taken by it- self, could be accounted for on the groiand of mere insanity ; it is not questioned that, if there was genuine possession, it produced in- sanity. (2) The conduct of Jesus, taken by it- self, cannot naturally be accounted for on that theory ; he assumes something different from insanity — namely, the presence of an evil spirit. (3) When the conduct of the man is regarded in the light of that of Jesus, all comes into harmony : the man acts as one so possessed might be expected to act, and the intruder is treated as such an intruder would by Christ be treated. (4) Though such possession is unex- plained, it cannot be shown to be impossible. (5) The only alternative belief to that of the reality of possession is that Jesus allowed the popular belief in the reality of possession to pass uncontradicted, and acted as if it were true, because he knew that the people were not prepared for any other way of dealing with the subject. The principle of accommodation in divine teaching is scriptural (Matt. i9 : s), but tliis theory presents it in an extremely difficult form, appearing even to cast doubt on the moral sincerity of our Saviour. It is a modern fashion to scoff at the reality of demoniacal possession, but the difficulties that attend the denial of it in the recorded cases seem to be quite as great as those that are involved in ac- cepting it. (For further illustration, see notes on chap. 5 : 2-13 and 9 : 14-27.) 27, 28. The teaching and the miracle awak- ened astonishment and inquiry. What thin§r is this? etc. The text in verse 27 is to be changed ; but after the true reading has been ascertained there is some question as to the punctuation of the sentence. Some comicct the words with authority with he commandeth the unclean spirits. It seems more natural, especially in view of what is said in verse 22, to connect it with the teaching. Tischendorf's text may be translated thus: "What is this? New teacliing with authority ; and the unclean spirits doth he connnand, and they obey him." The two answers to the question, " AVhat is this?" refer to the two parts of what had just occurred in the synagogue, the teaching and Ch. I.] MARK. 27 28 And immediately his fame spread abroad through- out all the region round about (Jalik-e. 29 And" loilliwilli, wlieu tbi'v were come out of the synagojiue, they enicied into the house of Pinion and Andrew, with .lames iind ,Jowerful hold upon men. No word was lost, and we are still reaping the benelit of utterances of which we have no knowledge whatever. — The fame that went out Wits the fame both of his teaching and of his mighty works, though doubtless the latter ■were the greater with those who heard. The best text adds "everywhere" Iiefore through- out all the region round about (•alilee; and the thought is that his fame spread even beyond Galilee, to the surrounding regions generally. 29-Jl. Healing of Peter's Wife's Moth- er. — From the service in the synagogue directly to the house of the disciples. Mark alone indicates, by one of his quick and un- studied references, tlitit the brothers Simon and Andrew lived together, and that James and John went home with them from the worshij) in the synagogue as friemlly guest.s — a pleasant glimpse of social and family life, with Jesus in the midst. " A man's foes shall be they of his own iKnisehold" (iiatt. io:»6), but by no desire of Jesus. The way in which he con- stitutetl the band of apostles put high honor upon the fitmily. (See notes on cha}). 3 : 16- 19.) Simon's wife's mother. Of her we know nothing but what is reconled here. "Wife's mother" is the right translation of penthera, which means a " mother-in-law ;" used of a husband's mother in Matt. 10 : 35. It dis- tinctly implies that I'eter was married ; and that his wife was not afterward put away from any feeling in favor of celibacy is evident from 1 Cor. 9 : 5, where it ap]>cars that she accom- panied her husband in his apostolic journej'- ings. The same passage shows that " the other apostles" also had wives at that time who journeyed with them ; but no wife but Peter's is alluded to in the Gospels. — Lay sick of a fever. Ijuke calls it a great fever. — Anon once meant " immediately," which is the right word here. — Tlie i)rocess of healing is varitius- ly described. Luke says. " Standing over her, he rebuked the fever ;" Matthew, " He touched her hand;" Mark, more minutely, and he came, and took her by the hand, and lifted her up. — Tlie cure is (lcscril)ed l)y the same word in all. The fever left her, tiie same as in John 4 : 52. — She ministered unto them. Performed such service as the presence of guests in the house rec^uired. Luke says that she rose and went about the work " immediately," calling attention to the instan- taneousness of the cure. There is no indi- cation as to whether she had iiny special faith : none appears to have been asked for by out Lord. She must have known much about him, and may htive been of it believing heart ; but it cannot be sliown that Jesus always required faitli in liimself as a condition of healing. 28 MARK. [Ch. I. 32 And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto him all that were diseased, and them that were possessed with devils. y:5 And all the city was gathered together at the door. '64 And he healed many tliat were sick of divers dis- eases, and cast out many devils ; and sufiiered not tlie devils to speak, because they knew him. lif) And in the morning, rising up a great wliile before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed. ;56 And Simon, and they that were with him, followed after him. :57 And when they had found him, they said unto him, All men seek for thee. ;^8 And he said unto them. Let us go into the next towns, t hat I may preach there also : for therefore" came 1 forth. 32 And at even, Avhen tlie sun did set, they brought unto him all that were sick, and them that were 33 iposse.ssed with demons. And all the city was gath- 34 ered together at the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many demons ; and he suH'ered not the demons to speak, because they knew him-. 35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert 30 place, and there prayed. And Simon and they that 37 were with him followed after him; and they found 38 him, and say unto him. All are seeking thee. And he saith unto them, Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also; for to a Isa. 61 : 1, '->; John 17 : 8.- -1 Or, demoniact 2Many ancient authorities add to be Christ. See Luke iv. 41. 32-34. The He.\ling of Many at Even- ing. — This grouii of miracles belongs really to the same Sabbath, though strictly the Sab- bath was over before it began. The general movement to bring him the sick and the pos- sessed was suggested by the liealing in the syn- agogue, but was delayed till after sunset, out of reverence for the Sabbath. "Slavk adds, cha- racteristically, that all the city was gath- ered at the door, and characteristically omits Matthew's remark that liere the prophecy was fulfilled, " Himself took our infirmities, and bare our diseases" (i«a. 53 : 4). The coolness and quiet of the evening — how congruous to the work of healing, especially after tlie heat and frenzy of demoniacal possession ! Mark says that they brought all and he healed many ; Matthew, that he healed all ; Luke, that he laid his hand on every one of them and healed them. — He suffered not the devils — de- mons — to speak, because they knew him. Implying that they would have spoken, and doubtless in the strain of verse 24. The reason for the prohibition was protiably the moral incongruity. '' The demons also believe and tremble" (jamcs 2:19); but it was not fitting that their testimony to the Holy One of (Jod should be allowed to go among the people as one of the evidences of his mission. 35-39. JESUS KETHIES TO PRAY, IS FOLLOWED BY HIS DISCIPLES, AND ENTERS UPON A WIDER MINISTRY IN GALILEE. Puralleh, Matt. 4 : 23 ; Luke 4 : 42-44. — The time is apparently the next morn- ing; so, still more distinctly, in Luke. A great while before day. The designation of the hour is peculiar to Mark. " Early, far into the night," is nearly an e.xact translation. It seems probable that the day just spent was the first day of so intense and prolonged miraculous activity in the life of Jesus. — Very naturally might the thoughts suggested by such an ex- perience banish sleep and impel liim to prayer. So, alone, the darkness still unbroken, he went out from the house, leaving his friends to their sleep, and sought a solitary place, some uninhabited, lonely spot where he might pray. An impressive illustration of his love of prayer, and of his desire to be alone for com- munion with his Father. 3G, 37. Simon and they that were with him — i. e. Andrew, James, and John, and per- haps some others. — Followed after him. The word is a strong compound word that tells us that they followed until they found him. Luke does not tell who the pursuers were, but adds their motive in mentioning the entreaty that he would not depart from them. In Mark it is simply, all men seek for thee. The disciples did not go out merely for them- selves, but as the messengers of the towns- people, who had begun to inquire where Jesus was, and who wished him to remain among them. As he had gone away quietly, they feared that he did not intend to return, and so sent tills mes.sage after him. 38. But he had other plans, more in keeping with his mission : he did not intend then to re- ttirn to Caj)ernauin. After let us go should probably be inserted " elsewhere" (nllarlum). — Into the next, or neighboring, towns. Xoiiio- poleis — literally, "village-cities" — is found here alone in the New Testament ; it well corresponds to our word " towns." — That I may preach there also. It is preaching, not the working of miracles, that he proposes as the object in this ministry. In Luke, " In the other cities also must I )>reacli the kingdom of God." In Capernaum he was desired probably for the miracles of healing that he might work, but another kind of labor accorded bettor with his purpose. — For tlu'ielorc cume 1 forth — i. e. not merely to preach, as distingiiishetl from the working of miracles, but more especially to Ch. I.] MARK. 29 39 And he preached in their synagogues throughout 39 this end came I forth. And he went into their all (ialilee, and cast out devils. synagogues throughout all ualilee, preaching and -Iti And" there came a leper to hiui, bcseeeiiing him, casting out demons. 40 And there eometh to him a leper, beseeching hiiu, a Mutt. 8:2; Luke 5 : 1'2. preach elsewhere tlian in Capernaum, to labor in a wider field. — Came I forth — whence? Standin.ij; hy it.self, the language might nat- (irally mean "came forth from the house in ( 'ai)ernaum ;" and yet the impression made l)y the story is that he had gone forth from the house to pray, rather than in order to set out on a new tour of preaching, and that when liis disciples joined him, and told of the popu- lar clamor for him in Capernaum, he determined to go elsewhere instead of returning. Some have supjjosed that he referred to his ministry as a whole, and so to his "coming forth" from his retirement at Nazareth ; but Luke quotes him as saying, " Because for this I was sent" — njjcstnlen, the word from which " apostle " is derived. If the one passage interprets the other, Jesus tolls in Mark for wliat purpose and kind of work he " came forth " from God, using the word cn-lthoii in the same .sense as in John 8 : 42 and IG : 28. This well sets forth the character of liis mission : he did not come to fa.sten him- self to any single place and give himself to the service of any single people; lie must reach outward, ttj other regions. An example of the ntissionary impulse — not only an illustration, hut an example. It is not enough for his gospel to bless any Capernaum ; it must go out into other regions. His mission lias been trans- mitted to his people (John u: i8; -io: .'i), and in tiicir hands it is of the .same kind as in his: it allows no sitting down at home and confining the privileges to the privileged. The word of the Ma.ster is "Go" (Matt. 28: 19) — a word whiih he has illustrated for us by liis own example. 3S). Accordingly, his tour extended to all C.alilec; but the language is popular, not exact. Galilee was a crowded region, and he Cfinnot have visited strictly every part. Within this tour i>r()l)ably falls the ministry in Cho- razin and Bctlisaida, or some part of it (Matt. II; 21). None of the mighty works performed in these cities do we see, except the later miracle of Mark 8 : 22-2G. The length of this tour lias been very variously estimated, but cannot be exactly ascertained; it is safe to say that it mu.st have covered some week.s. The activity of this time was not conlined to preach- ing: he was casting out demons as well. Mat- thew states it still more stronglv : " Healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people." Performing miracles in a fresh ministry, on a new field, was a different thing from continuing to perform them in Capernaum, where they were desiretl as a local honor and advantage. 40-45. WHILE PREACHING IN GAL- ILEE, JESUS HEALS A LEPER. Pamllels, Matt. 8:2-1; Luke 5 : 12-16.— The place and time are unknown ; Litke, " When lie was in one of the cities." This is the first recorded healing of leprosy ; two healings of fever and one of demoniacal possessioit have been re- corded, and one of paralysis immediately fol- lows. Leprosy is minutely described for the l)urposes of the law in Lev. 13, and the office of the priest in connection with the recovery from the disease in Lev. 14. Leprosy was a fre(]uent disease among the Israelites, from the time of the Egyptian bondage. In the Mosaic code it was recognized as a most suggestive type of sin, and was employed, in a manner that is not entirely plain to tis in our ignorance of much that belonged to the disease, as an object- lesson in religious instruction. The jmncipal signs of the disease were the appearance of a white spot or swelling in the Hcsh, with inflam- mation and cracking, and the exuding of a humor from the affected [lart, in connection with which the skin became scaly, hard, and white. While the disea.se was spreading upon his body the leper was totally " unclean," and was obliged to separate himself strictly from other pei-sons and alKiw no one to come near him. The provisions of the Mosaic law on the subject were very peculiar, lus the study of the two chajttei-s named will show, and our know- ledge of the (lisea.se is not such as to enable us to acc.nint for them all. It is not certain that the fear of contagon will explain them ; indeed, there certainly was a religious element in the horror of the disease. Doubtless it was in- tended that leprosy should teach a lesson re- specting moral defilement. 40. There came a leper to him. The ten lepers, in Luke 17 : 12, stood afar otf, accord- ing to the law, but this man ajipears to have violated the law by his approach to Jesus. He came and knelt— so near that a stretching out of the hand would reach him. Luke's language places him among the more severelv afflicted of 30 MARK. [Ch. I. and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, tliou canst make me clean. 41 And Jesus, moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will ; be thou clean. 42 And as soon as he had spoken, immediately the leprosy departed from him, and he was cleansed. 43 And he straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away ; 44 And saith unto him, Pee thou say nothing to any man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and oHer for thy cleansing those things' which Moses com- manded, for a testimony^ unto them. land kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, 41 If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, 1 will ; be thou 42 made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed 4:5 from him, and he was made clean. And he -strictly 44 charged him, and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, .'^eo thou .say nothing to any man: but go, shew thyself to the priest, and offer "for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a aPs. 33 :9; John la : 3. ...I Lev. U : 2, 32. ..cRom. 15 : 1; 1 Cor. 10 : 11. to him :2 Or, sternly Some aDcieut authorities omit and kneeling down lepers, to whom this was forbidden. — His com- ing announces Iiis eagerness to be healed ; his words indicate tliat he had confidence in the power of Jesus to heal him, probaljl y from wliat he had heard or seen ; but his words appear to indicate an inferior faith in liis willingness. If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. Yet the inferiority of his faith in the willing- ness can scarcely have been more than apparent. If he liad not beheved in the willingness of the Healer perhaps more profoundly than he was aware, he would not have been prostrate at his feet. Nevertheless, while he was venturing boldly upon his power, he had not gone be- yond the point where he felt that he must humbly entreat the consent of his will. How many there are still who know the Saviour's heart no better! 41. It is Mark that adds moved with com- passion, put forth his hand and touched him. 80 all three reports. Of course there was no need of touching him in order to per- form the cure ; even the Roman centurion knew that (Matt. 8 : s). To touch him was not ex- actly a violation of the law ; the violation was rather in the permission of it by the leper. But it was a plain declaration of his indifference to ceremonial defilement. It was done in order to illustrate for the man the depth and freeness of liis word, I will. That word, I will, be thou clean, would have been enougli ; l>ut if the man had any doubt of the fulness of his con- sent, no thought of defilement shotild stand in the way for a moment. Doubts of his power might be dispelled by miraculous works ; but doubts of his love must be removed by acts of love. What utterance of consent and willing- ness could be richer and sweeter than the vol- untary touching of the leper? It is interesting that the question and answer and the record of the touch are jirescrved in the selfsame words by all three evangelists: the beauty of the scene and its value in showing the heart of Jesus did not fitil to make a deep impression. 42. The best text omits the words as soon as he had spoken. The cure was instantane- ous, however, and complete. Not in vain had the man ventured upon the power and willing- ness of Jesus. Did Jesus endeavor to remove the ceremonial defilement that resulted from contact with a leper? 43, 44. He straitly charged the man to be silent, as in Matt. 9 : 30 and Mark 5 : 43 ; but here the word is a very strong one, of which " sternly charged " would be a better translation. It implies severity in tone and manner. The word translated sent away is also a strong word, being the common word for " casting out" evil spirits. Jesus urged the man quick- ly away, with a very stern injunction of silence about the miracle.— Verse 44 contains the sub- stance of the strict charge. Jesus would not have the miracle noised abroad, but he would have the man restored to his place in society. The local and temporary reasons for enj(iining silence are of course beyond our reach. Go thy way, shew thyself to the priest. The priest had nothing to do with the healing of leprosy, but he was the officer who must certify to the reality of healing before a man could take his i^lace among his friends. He must examine the man, pronounce liim clean, receive from him and present in his behalf certain offerings, and perform over him a prescribed symbolic ceremony (Lev. i*). The command of Jesus is that the man shall carry his offerings to the priest and get his certificate of health. — For a testimony unto them. Not to the priests, for only " the priest" has been mentioned (alike in the three records), but to the people : " For an evidence to tlie community that your lep- rosy is gone." Other interpretations, such as, " For a testimony that, after all, I reverence the law," and " For a testimony that I am the Mes- siah, proved sitch l^y miraculous works," are arbitrary and foreign to the context. — Offer for thy cleansing. Better, "on account of it," or " in view of it," not with reference to securing it, as a reader of the English text might suppose. Ch. IL] MARK. 31 4o But he went out, and bepan" to publish il much, : 45 testimony unto theiu. But he went out, and began and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city, but was with- out in desert places; and' they came to hear him I'rom every (juarter. to publish it much, and to spread abroad the 'mat- ter, insomuch that -Jesus could no more openly en- ter into % city, but was without in desert places: and they came to him Iroiu every quarter. CHAPTER II. .4 NI> again he entered into Capernaum after simie J\_ days; and it wa.-i noised that he was in the house. 2 And straightway many were gathered together, in- somuch thattfiere was no "room to receive //iftn, no, not 1 so much as about the door: and he preached'' the word I unto them. 1 And when he entered again into Capernaum after some days, il was noised that he was 'in the house. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was uo longer room jur them, no, not even about the door: oPs. 7T : 11,12; Tit. I : 10....6ch. 2 : 13....C Ps. 40 : 9.- -IGr. tpord 2Gr. Ae....3 0r, tAe city iOr, athome 45. The injunctions of secresy were usually ill vain, and so now : the man could not keep it to hini.self. To blaze abroad the mat- ter. Ik'ttcr, "to i)ii!)lish ubroail tiic story." Perhai).-i our Lord's discerninent of a tendency to sucli disobedience in the man was tlie occa- sion of his special sternness. Tiie man had obtained his lieart's desire, but regarded not the desire of his Healer; and too much like liini are many whom the same gracious Lord has blessed. Jesus might iiave said to him, in turn, "If tiiou wilt, thou canst" obey my command- ment. The Effect. — He could no more (consist- ently with his purpo.se and tlic kind of influ- ence he wislied to exert) openly enter {as be- fore) into the city (or, nither, into town — /. c. into any city), but was without, in desert places, and tliey came to him from every quarter (seeking and linding him even in his retirement). Luke seems to mention here a si)ecial time when many sought liim to hear and l)e healed, and he was not to be found, having withdrawn to pray. 1-12. AFTER RETURNING TO CAPER- NAUM. JESUS HEALS A PARALYTIC. IWallch, Matt. 9 : 1-S; Luke 5 : 17-2(5.— There is no better place than this to notice tlie impos- sibility of finding an agreement in the evan- gelists as to the order of events in this part of our Lord's ministry. This healing of a par- alytic is placed by Matthew immediately after the healing of the Gadarene demoniac. But that miracle is not mentioned by Mark until his fifth chapter, where it is followed by the narrative of the raising of Jairus's daughter. Matthew certainly docs not follow the order of time, but gnnips events according to their cha- racter. Luke moves, in this part of the liistory, more nearly along with Mark, yet not perfectly. The only way is to follow Mark's order, which beai-s tiie clearest internal signs of being delib- erately adopted; but minute harmonizing does not seem to have been intended, and we cannot say very positively that we are sure of the true 3 arrangement of events. In this volume, there- fore, not mucli labor is spent in discussing ques- tions of order. 1,2. Luke specifies no place, and Mattliew refers to Capernaum as " his own city " — i. e. the city tiiat he had made his own, as his res- idence, since he left Nazareth. This was his only liome, and probably the house here mentioned — which was most likely tlie house of Peter and Andrew again (as at chap. 1 : 29) — was his only home within Capernaum. It was when he had just left this home, on his last journey to Jeru- salem, that he said, " The Son of man hath not where to lay his head " (Luke 9 : 58). To this home hereturncd after some Aixys {dVlietneriJu, ararQ form of e.\i)ression, l)ut i)lain enough, denoting perfectly indefinite time). Neither here nor in Luke is there any help in measuring the length of the time spent in the circitit througli Galilee. According to Luke, there were "sitting" — i. e. with him within the house — Pharisees and teachers of the law, wiio had come from throughout Galilee and Judtea, and even from Jerusalem. " From every village" is a po^nilar expression not to be pressed closely. The pres- ence of .some from .Jerusalem may perhaps be taken (though not too confidently) as an allu- sion to the ministry in Jerusalem mentioned by John, but i>a.ssed over in silence by the synop- tists. These men may have come up to Galilee to watch tlie ministry that had then alarmed them. But the work of Jesus was not yet very well understood : there is no sign of hostile feel- ing in this story until he announced tlie for- giveness of sins ; and it is quite possible that ; this was a visit of inquiry.with hostile feeling as yet developed only in i)art. — Besides tlie vis- ; itors from abroad, there was a throng of the people of the town ; and it is Mark, as usual, who tells us that the report of his presence brought tlieni together, and that thoy were so many that there was no room to receive them, no, not so much as about the door. He tells us tliat Jesus preached, or w;is s[)eaking, I the word unto them, when the incident that I he relates took place ; and Luke adds the unusual 32 MARK. [Ch. II. 3 And" they come unto him, l)ringing one sick of the palsy, which was borne of four. 4 And when they couid not come nigh unto him for the press, they uncovered the roof where he was : and when they had broken %l up, they let down the bed wherein the sick of the palsy lay. 3 and he spake the word unto them. And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne 4 of four. And when they could not 'come nigh unto him for the crowd, they uncovered the roof where he was : and when they had broken it up, they let down the -bed whereon the sick of the palsy lay. a Matt. 9 : 1, etc. ; I..uke -I .Many Hiicieut authorities read bring him unto hin '■ Or, pallet remark that " tlie power of the Lord was (pres- ent) to Ileal tlieni," or else, as Tischendorf reads, " The power of the Lord was (present) that he shotild heal." In either case the expression is peculiar, hut in either case the allusion is to the free presence of healing energy in Jesus. 3. Not one sick of the palsy, but " a par- alytic." Palsy and paralysis are not the same 4. By reason of the crowd about the door they could not come near to Jesus, and were driven to ingenuity as the means of getting within his reach. A flight of stairs led fr(jm tlie ground to the roof of the house, and they bore the sick man up over the head of Jesus. Then they uncovered — or, literally, "unroof- ed" — the roof, took a i)art of the roof away- Linri.M; down in a bed. disease, though the names have a common ori- gin, and there is no reason for confounding them here.— He was borne of four, as Mark alone tells us — /. e. carried on the mattress or thick quilt that formed his couch by one friend at eacli of the four corners. Cases of local and partial paralysis are of course frequent, but the details of this story seem to show tliiat the pa- tient was thoroughly helpless. In the lack of any description of the house, we cannot jiicture the act to ourselves as clearly as we would. Some think that Jesus was in the " upper room " of the house, and some that he was on the ground-floor ; while some think he may have been in the open yard, just beside the wall, and that what was removed was the rail- ing aroinid the roof But Thomson's tlieory of tlie matter is very simple, and seems to be suf- Ch. II.] MARK. 33 5 When Jesus saw their. faith," he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. 5 And Jesus seeing their faith saith unto the sick of a Acts 14:9; Eph. 2 : 8. Ik'ient (The Land and the Book, 2. G-8). He thinks that the house was one of tliose that are abundantly illustrated by the ruins in that region, as well as by existing houses — a low, one-story house with a flat roof; not a large house built around a court, but a square house with the entrance through a recess or entry under the roof and open to the yard. Whether Jesus stood, as Thomson thinks probable, in this entry between the yard and the interior of the house, or in some room within, the pnjcess would be the same. The roofs of such houses vary in construction, but can all be broken up without dilHculty. Thomson describes a roof of the heavier kind, containing a layer of stiff mortar; and he says the only ditliculty in ojjcn- ing such a roof would be the inconvenience aris- ing from a shower of dust. But he speaks of other roofs, made of boards or stone slabs, which might be still more easily taken up. Perhaps Luke's phrase — "through the tiling;" literally, " through the tiles " — may be a remin- iscence of the actual construction of the roof, and may remove the difficulty by suggesting that nothing was necessary but to lift the tiles with which the building was covered. As for any serious e.xertion or need of appliances in letting the man down, Thomson .says, speaking of sinular houses that are still to be seen, " Ex- amine one of these houses, and you see at once that the thing is natm-al antl easy to be accom- plished. The roof is only a few feet high, and by stooi)ing down and holding the corners of the couch — merely a thick padded quilt, as at ]>resent in this region — they could let down the sick man without any apparatus of ropes or cords to assist them. The whole affair was the extemporaneous device of plain peasants accus- tomed to open their roofs and let down grain, straw, and other articles, as they still do in this coinitry." 5. Wlien Jesus saw their faith. The faith of them all, the sulfcrer and those who were bringing him. He saw it in their works. The eagerness and persistency were manifest to all beholders, but he saw in it their faith. He can discern faith through all its expressions. In them all it was faith in his power to heal ; in the paralytic himself there was something more that qualified him to receive something more than liealing. — Son, teknon ,- here alone iLsed by Jesus in address. — Thy sins be— are —forgiven. Said only liere and at Luke 7 : 3 47, 48. But why did he begin thus? This was not what wa.s expected of him, either by the spectators or by tho.se who had come in faith. Even to the man this would be a sur- prise. But first, in the answer to the question "Why?" is the fact that this was a case in which the man's sins could be forgiven. We must not think that this utterance was a prep- aration for something that was to follow, and was made in order to draw out the thoughts of the hearers. First of all, this was a true and honest declaration of real pardon. Hence it gives us a true glimp.se into the man's soul ; for it assures us that he was a penitent and a humljle man. This is a great word, too, in the testimony it l)ears to our Lord himself. Unless this was all fraud and false show, he did so read the heart of the man as to know that he was a fit person to receive the pardon of his sins. Unless he was deceiving all who heard him, he knew the man's standing in the sight of Gaid any attention. This is one of the cases in which the choice lies between admitting the presence and action of divine attributes and making his words blasphemy toward God and insult to man. But further reason there must have been for his lieginning with ])ardon instead of healing, and the sjKKiial reason was found in what he saw in the man's heart. There he saw not only that ])ardon could be given to him, but that it was the fit- ting gift to be offered first. When a soul is truly ready to be forgiven, nothing will come between that soul and forgiving grace: the Lord is "ready to forgive." Sickness, perhaps, had touched the man's heart, and perhaps con- science told him that to sin the sickjuess was directly due. 34 MARK. [Ch. II. 6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can forgive sins" hut God only ? 8 And immediately, when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts ? 9 Whether is it easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk ? 10 Kut that ye may know that the Son of man hath power'' on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 6 the palsy, iSon, thy sins are forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and rea- Tsoning in their hearts. Why doth this man thus speak? he blasphemeth : who can forgive sins but 8one, e«en God ? And straightway Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within them- selves, saith unto them. Why reason ye these things 9 in your hearts? Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins are forgi\-en : or to say, 10 Arise, and take'up thy ^bed, and walk? Kut that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (he saith to the sick of tlie o Isa. 43 : 25; Dan. 9:9 6 Acts 5 : 31. 1 Gr. Child 2 OT,pattet 6, 7. The complaint and challenge is, ac- cording to the best text, " Why doth this man speak thus ? He blasphemeth : who can for- give sins but God alone?" It came from cer- tain of the scribes who were sitting there. Doubtless they were narrow-minded and un- sympatlietic, but can we blame them for this amazement and horror? Tliey understood him to claim the divine prerogative, the incom- municable authority, and how could they fail to be scandalized? Indeed, until they knew by what right he made the claim it was proper for them to be scandalized. Perhaps by this time they ought to have known : at any rate, after this they ouglit; but until they knew they could not have felt otherwise. The com- plaint does not seem to have been addressed to Jesus, yet it appears not to have been entirely unspoken. It was passed around among them- selves, in their own circle, perhaps in whispers, and was certainly expressed on their dark faces. The solemnity of Jesus' manner, and perhaps his manifest joyfulness, may well have kept the charge of blasphemy from direct and open utterance. 8, 9. Mark plainly intends to represent that Jesus had direct knowledge of their thoughts. As he had seen the spiritual state of the sick man, so lie saw the hearts of these objectors. He perceived in his spirit that they were reasoning thus. The word immediately re- minds us whose record we are reading ; it is a characteristic word. — The introductory ques- tion. Why reason ye these things in your hearts ? seems to indicate that tliere was something in the circumstances that might have kept them, from their point of view, from wondering and complaining at his words. What was it? It seems to be found in the fact that tlicy expected of him the word " Arise and walk," or some similar word of power. They were looking for a word of healing that would be eitlier proved to be a word of real power or exposed as a vain assumption by what followed it. But now he reasoned with them. — Whether is it easier, to say to the sick of the palsy — the paralytic — Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and Avalk? — i. e. " Looking with your eyes of unbelief, you ought not to wonder, for I have spoken a word which, as a word, is easier to speak than the one that you were expecting. It is easier to announce present pardon of sins than to announce present heal- ing of sickness, because there is no one who can convict me of falsehood if I sjieak false- hood ; whereas every beholder could convict me of falsehood if the man did not arise when I bade him." Observe that he did not bring into comparison the two works themselves, healing and pardon, and ask which is the easier work, but only the announcement of the two, asking wliich is the easier announce- ment. From his point of view, and with his knowledge of the meaning of his words, it would be infinitely harder to say what he had said, if he had not the right to say it; but from their point of view, and with their half doubt of his sincerity, they need not have wondered that he had spoken the easier word. 10, 11. But in reality it was not a question of saying, but of doing — not what words he could speak, but what power he had. They said he had blasphemed. Had he? Was he trifling with God and men when he said, Thy sins be forgiven? "I wish you to know," he said, " that I have power to do the deed of par- don as well as to announce it. It is a diviner deed than tlie act of healing, but it cannot be attested to tlie senses as healing can ; therefore I will take the act of healing for the test. Let the visible deed of divine power be the proof of mj'^ authority to exercise the divine prerog- ative in the invisible realm of the spirit, in order that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins." The word "authority," however, is better than power. The claim is that authority has been given to, or resides in, the Son of man, the Messiah, to forgive, and that this authority is now present in his person on earth, there to be exercised at his will and pleasure, and the Ch. II.] MARK. 35 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and 11 palsy), I say unto thee. Arise, take up thy 'bed, and go thy way into thiue house. 12 go unto thy house. And he arose, and straightway 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and took up the 'bed, and went forth before llieni all: Went forth before them all; insomuch that they were i insomuch that they were all amazed, and gloriiied all amazed, and glorified Uod, saying. We" never saw j God, saying. We never saw it on this fashion. it on this fashion. 1 John 7 : 31 ; 9 : 32.- -1 Or, paUet results to be made known, if he so wills it, at once to the men who are forgiven. It was conceded that sins might be forgiven, but only by God, as all agreed, and by him only in heaven, his dwelling-place, from which there w;us no way to make the act clearly known to the siinier. But Jesus claimed that the author- ity wiis on earth in himself— a tremendous claim. The language is closely similar to that of John 5 : 27, where the claim of " authority to execute judgment" is made in tlie same manner, in connection with the assertion of power to raise the dead and to quicken the spiritually lifeless. It is not improbable that this utterance at Capernaum was intended to recall the earlier discourse at Jerusalem to the menn)ry of some now present who liad heard it, or heard of it, there — a discourse either un- utterably rich or horribly profane in claims of divine prerogative. Here it is tlie Messiah on the human side, the Son of man, who claims the authority ; there he had claimed divine prerogative both as Son of man and as Son of God. So, if there was an implied reference to the previous discourse, it may have brought back the remembrance of still bolder assump- tions. — And now, " in order that ye may know that authority to forgive sins is actually present, to be exercised not merely in the unseen heaven, but on the earth, by me, the Son of man, the Christ of God in humanity," — after this tre- mendous prelude comes the act. He saith to the iiaralytic, I say unto thee, Arise, take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12. If the effect of the first mightj' word was invisible, not so was the effect of this. " His Word was with power." Mark's description contains little that is peculiar, yet it is perhaps the most graphic of them all. And imme- diately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all. The pop- ular effect is emphatically re]iresented in all the reports, and there is no mention in any of them of any indignation or horror. Apparently it wa.s as at Acts 4 : 14, where the presence of the living proof silenced the cavils. Later in our Lord's ministry', when the opposition was more develojied, that would not have kept them back : and even now, undoubtedlv, there was smouldering indignation, at least in many of those who were spiritually prepared to see no good in him. But the man himself " went to his house glorifying God " (Luke), .satisfied with his mercy in adoul)Ie degree, blessed with health of body and with the deeper healing of the soul. After his other utterance of the pardoning word, Jesus added (Luke 7 : so), literally, " Go imto peace" — let the lot and life to which thou goest be peace ; and unto peace we may well think that this man \vent. The question arises. Did the miracle thoroughly and legitimately prove the power to forgive? The answer is, (1) to the beholders, yes. It was an armimentum ad hominem of the most unanswerable kind. It was a direct exertion of superhuman power, expressly offered as proof of the divine au- thority in question. No one doubted the reality of the healing, or its quality as a work of benef- icence, or the claim that it was divine power that wrought it. Hence no one who saw it was in a situation to deny the claim in support of which the miracle was performed. After it the beholders ought to have felt that the earth was now blessed and consecrated by the presence of divinity. (2) To us who read of it, also yes. If it could be proved that Je.^us was a deceiver, a dislionest man, it would not be so ; but if it can be shown that Jesus was no deceiver, but a truly honest man. then it is so. This was either a fraud or an honest transaction. If Jesus was merely acting honestly as a man, leaving aside all questions of his divinity, the miracle proved that in sujiport of a superhuman claim he could invoke the action of superhu- man power. It was therefore a confirmation of his claim. But we most joyfully confess that to us who know his character such a miracle adds nothing to our confidence in his word. We believe him that he is in the Father and the Father in him. because in seeing him we have "seen the Father;" and so we are not shut up to believing him " for the very works' sake" (John u:n). He is the great miracle, and to those who know him he is self-evidencing. Of the three narratives of this event it may be noted that they well illustrate the relation of the three evangelists to one another. The three narratives tell the same storv without the 36 MARK. [Ch. IL 13 And he went forth again by the sea-side ; and all the multitude resorted unto hiiu, and he taught them. 14 And" as he passed by, he saw Levi the sun of Al- Eheus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto im, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. 13 And he went forth again by the sea side ; and all the multitude resorted uuto him, and he taught 14 them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alpha;us sitting at the place of toll, and he saith a Matt. 9:9; Luke 5 : 27. slightest essential variation ; and yet whoever compares them in a Greek harmony, or even in an English harmony, will see that in a multi- ttide of points, as to manner of telling the story, they differ. The ditferences are not such as to make the slightest difficulty, but they are so real and living as to illustrate, as nothing but differences could, the independence of the writers. Each evangelist has his own word for "bed," Mark's word being krabbatos, which is one of his Latinisms. The word is simply the Latin word grahatus in Greek form — a word that is said to have been condemned (as a Greek word) by the grammarians, who regarded it as a low word or a word used only by the ignorant. It has been taken — and j^robably not without reason — as one of the evidences of the low social and intellectual grade of many of the Gentile Christians, for whom Mark wrote his Gospel. 13-17. THE CALL OF LEVI, AND HIS FEAST. Parallels, Matt. 9 : 9-13 ; Luke 5 : 27-32. •^This narrative immediately follows, in all the Gospels. 13, 14, By the sea-side. In front of the town, or near it. There the crowd again gath- ered about him, and we have again to wish for a record that was never made of the " gra- cious words that proceeded out of his mouth." Matthew and Mark both note that it was as he passed by that he saw this man who became his disciple. — Levi. So called here and in Luke; in the first Gospel, Matthew; and so always in the lists of apostles. But tlie pecu- liar way of approaching the man's name in Matt. 9 : 9, together with the use of the word legmmmon, " called," seems to indicate a change of name. "Matthew" means "gift of God." The name may have been given him by Jesus, as the sitr- name" Peter" was given to Simon; and pos- sibly the odiousness of the old occupation is silently commemorated in the fact that the name that belonged to the publican period of his life was wholly drojiped, and he appeared afterward simply as ^Matthew, not as LeAi- Matthew. (Compare Simon-Peter.) By Mark alone is he called the son of Alphseus. There is no reason to suppose that this was any other Alphajus than the one who is referred to in all the lists of the apostles where we have " James the son of Alphasus." In three of the lists he stands next after Matthew and Thomas. Matthew and James are thus presumably broth- ers ; and if, as is almost certain, Thomas was the twin-brother of Matthew, Alphteus was the father of three of the twelve. If the word " brother " is rightly supplied before " of James " in Luke 6 : 16 ("Judas the brother of James"), he may have been the father of four. — At the receipt of custom — i. e. at the custom-house of the town, which is thus said to have been located by the shore of the lake, a natural place for it, since the trade of the town was so largely in fish. " Sitting at the receipt of custom," at his desk or table, actually in his place of busi- ness as a publican. The real publica7ius, in Ro- man usage, was the man of the Roman knights who undertook to pay a certain sum into the public treasury (in ^;tt&?/ciim,) as an equivalent for the taxes of a province. Sometimes he rep- resented himself alone, and sometimes a joint- stock company formed for the purpose. This man usually resided in Rome, but in his prov- ince he had chief assistants (of whom Zac- chfeus may have been one), and lower repre- sentatives in everj' town, to collect directly from the people. These collectors were usually na- tives of the province, because these would best have access to the people ; and these are the publicans (telonai) of the New Testament. The system was a wretched one, giving abundant opportunities for extortion. The chief puhli- canus had only one object — to collect as much as possible ; and there was no redress for his extortions, the government having been already satisfied for the taxes and claiming nothing to do with the collection of them. The local pub- licans were the more odious to the Jews, because their presence was a continual reminder of the national humiliation and a seeming proof that Jehovah had given over his land to the oppressor. Moreover, they were often no better than they were expected to l)e, and deserved much of the opprobrium that was heaped upon them. In the case of this man we have no traces of any previous acquaintance between him and Jesus. But (1) he may have heard the discourse of verse 13 ; (2) one or more of his brothers may already have become attached to Jesus, and Levi may himself have begun to incline toward him ; (3) he may have been among the publicans who were baptized by John (Luke 3: 12, is; t: 29), and, Ch. II.] MARK. 37 15 Ando it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans'' and sinners sat also to- gctlier with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. 16 And when the scribes and rharisces saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disci- {)les, 1-Iow is it that he eateth and driuketh with pub- icans and sinners? 17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They<^ that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick : I came not to call the righteous, but sin- ners'' to rei>entance. 15 unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. And it came to pass, that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many 'publicans and sin- ners sat down with Jesus and his disciples: for 16 there were many, and they followed him. And the scribes -of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with the sinners and publicans, said unto his disciples, Hia eateth irit of the Pharisees excluded mercy. Probably among these were the scribes who had witnessed the healing of the paralytic, and who ever since may have been meditating with less and less pleasure on what Jesus was doing. Scribes would not enter the house of Levi, and we can imagine their scorn as they stood outside and saw the Rabl>i within at the same table with publicans and sinners. Their criticism was ad- dressed to the disciples who were nearest them. The complaint is the same as the one to which we are indebted for the group of parables in the fifteenth chapter of lAike — a group so rich as almost to reconcile us to the existence of the cavil. 17. The answer here is briefer, but not less characteristic and decisive. It may be thus ren- dered : " No need have the strong of a physician, but they that are sick. I came not to call right- eous persons, but sinners." To repentance is an addition that has scarcely any manu.^cript authority here, and no sufficient authority in Mattliew. The words stand unquestioned in Luke, whence copyists have introduced them in Matthew and Mark. In this reply our Lord first describes his own work figuratively — as a work of healing — and the most natural of all statements is made — namely, that such service is only for the sick ; tlie strong have no need of it, an allusion, perliaps, to the recent work of healing; in any ca.^e, a characterizing of his own mission in a very different tone from all that they would expect — a distinct assertion that his conduct was determined by reference to the purpose of a Healer of souls, and, plain- 38 MARK. [Ch. IL 18 And the disciples of John and of the Pharisees vised to fast: and they come and say unto him, Why do the disciples of Jolm and of the Pharisees fast, but thy Tiisciples fast not ? 18 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fast- ing : and they come and say unto him, Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees ly, of individual souls. It is simply and un- j qualifiedly as a physician that he announces himself. How could he more deeply surprise the men of national asi^irations in his time? But next he describes his own work more lit- erally — as a work of calling. Here the same feeling appears as in the tigurative descriiJtion : mercy and lielj)fulness are still the great con- siderations ; the needy are lii'st to be remem- bered : " I came not to call righteous persons, but sinners." It is not the righteous, by which form of speech the Pharisees may con- ceivably have been free to suppose that they were alluded to under an honorable name. The contrast is not at all between designated individuals, but between characters— righteous men and sinful men. Not less than before would he now surprise the men of Israel. To call sinners, and not the righteous? How could any one so speak who had any sympathy with the God of Israel, who was righteous and loved righteousness ? Such would be the first thought ; but the deeper and truer thought, more full of divinity, is that the righteous God so loves righteousness as to wish to put sin away. Hence, in the mission of his great Messenger, the call is to sinners ; it is the lost sheep that is sought. The religionists of that day recognized God's love for righteousness (as many men do) far enough to feel that God must love the right- eous; but they did not recognize his love for righteousness as a love that would seek to pro- duce righteousness where it is not. It was God as loving and saving the lost that Jesus had come to reveal ; but the thought was so con- trary to the pride of self-righteous men that they were sure one who would eat with publi- cans and sinners could not be a messenger of God. Observe how simple and consistent was the devotion of Jestis to his principle. Sinners were to be lielped ; therefore they must be rec- ognized. Instead of being despised, they nutst be treated like men and accepted as companions. He who would save them must not shrink from them, and must make them know what love he had for tliem ; hence Jesus set at naught all cere- monial objections to associating with men de- filed, and all social objections to being found in company with the despised. He followed his saving love to its legitimate practical conclu- sions. Few of his friends have love enough to follow in his footsteps here. The failure is often attributed to want of courage, but it is really due to the want of love. Love makes courage. Mat- thew i^reflxes to tliis answer the words of the prophet (ho3. 6 : 6), with a sharp injuncti(m to consider them: "But go and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice." His own mission Jesus declares to be in the spirit of this noble Scripture. 18-22. QUESTION AND ANSWER WITH REGARD TO FASTING. Parallels, Matt. 9 : 14-17 ; Luke 5 : 33-39. — It is commonly assumed that this questioning occurred at Matthew's feast, just as it is commonly assumed that the feast took place on the day of Matthew's call. It ia not certain, however, that the feast was made at once, and it is not certain — though it seems probable — that the conversation about fasting went on around INIatthew's table. Matthew (9 : 18) expressly places it in connection with the coming of Jairus to ask for restoration for his daughter. In any arrangement the harmony is attended with ditticulties. Possibly, as Gardi- ner suggests [Greek Harmony, p. 42), the Lord met the same objections more than once, and more than once answered them in the same way ; in which case the different reports may have come from different occasions. But the interest and value of what he said is not dependent on our ability to refer it exactly to its actual time and place. These utterances are singularly in- dependent of suggesting circumstances. 18. The speakers, in Luke, are indeterminate; in Matthew, expressly the disciples of John ; in Mark, apparently those who have been observ- ing the disciples of John and the Pharisees : various ways of introducing a question sug- gested by the practice from which Jesus de- parted. Used to fast. Translate, "The dis- ciples of John, and the Pharisees, were fasting" — i. e. at the time of the question. It was one of their fast-days. John himself was in prison, but this reference proves that his disciples kept together as a body by themselves during the ministry of Jesus. (See also Luke 7 : 18 ; Matt. 14 : 12.) It proves also that their observances had much in conmion with those of the Phar- isees. John intended that the spirit of all that sprang from his influence should be utterly un- like, that of the Pharisees, and perhaps his dis- ciples were not Pharisaic in heart ; but when his personal influence was removed they re- mained a kind of intermediate body between the old and the new. The Pharisees fasted on the second and fifth days of the week (compare Ch. IL] MARK. 39 19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegrooin" is with tliuuiV As lung as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then' shall they fast in those days. 21 No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse. 19 fast, but thy disciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them. Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast. 20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast 21 in that day. No man seweth a jiiece of undressed cloth on an old garment : else that which should till it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse 1 Matt. 25 : 1 b .\ct3 13 : Z. Luke 18 : 12), and this allusion makes it seem probable that the custom of John's followers was the same. In Luke there is an additional reference to the " making of prayers " as a com- mon trait of the Pharisees and John's disciples. {Comi)are Luke 11 : 1, where it is implied that John had taught to his disciples some forms of prayer.) — But thy disciples fast not. The words might mean "are not fasting" — /. e. to- day, as the questioners are — but naturally they have a wider meaning, and indicate that fasting was not an element in the life of the disciples of Jesus. The words do not prove that he had forbidden fasting, but they do prove that the life of his followers, as observed by others, did n(jt contain this element. 19, 20. The question is answered in all three reports exactly as if asked, as in Matthew, by John's di.sciples. There is no severity in the reply — a fiict that indicates honesty in the in- quirers. The first part of the answer is dis- tinctly an ai-(nimcnUim ad hominem to those who reverenced John and ri'memi)ered his words. Can the children of the bride-chamber — the attendants in the festivities of the wedding — fast \yliilc — as long as — the bridegroom is with them? See John 3:2!), where the Bajjtist called Jesus the bridegroom and spoke of himself as the " friend of the bridegroom," whose ollice it was to arrange the marriage-feast and bring the bridegroom and the bride together. Here is a "cross-reference" between the synop- tists and the fourtli Gospel, ailording one of the interesting examples of undesigned coincidence that have proved so valuable in illustrating and confirming the evangelical record. The synop- tists allude to a remark of the Bai)tist that is recorded only in the Gospel of John. " This is the time," says Jesus to John's disciples, "to which your Master alluded, when the bride- groom should be present among his friends." For his own part, he withdrew, confessing that the union that he had sought to bring to pass was now about to be formed : the bridegroom was now to have the bride, the Christ and his people were coming together. He said that in this very thing liis own joy, as tlie bride- groom's friend, was completed. How, then, should there be fasting — the sign of sorrow — " while the l)ridegroom is among his friends at the marriage"? In this reply there is a sliarp though kindly appeal to those who had learned of John : why had they not learned tins of him? and why sliould they not be, as he would liave them, among tliose who were rejoicing in the bridegroom's presence? Should they be found in sympathy with the Pharisees, rather than with the followers of him whom their teacher had announced? Yet this was not the whole matter. Even for the children of the bride- chamber fasting was not impossible. Neither they nor those who beheld them must suppose that they had to come to the final joy. The bridegroom was with them, but not yet to re- main for ever. — Days will come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them. A tragic outlook, and the earliest re- corded intimation of such sorrow to come. Two or three hints there had been in his early dis- courses at Jerusalem, as John 2 : 19 and 3 : 14, but they were not distinct and likely to be un- derstood at the time. Here, however, was an indication that the presence of Jesus was not to contiime witli his friends, and one that they, if they were thoroughly attentive, might un- derstand and treasure up. It was implied, too, that this removal from the midst of them should be a sad rather than a glorious removal. — Then shall they fast in those days, but "in that day," according to the best te.xt; Luke, "in those days." The sorrow of the disciples at tlie removal of their Lord by death should find suitable expression in fasting, but while he was among them such a sign of sorrow would be as incongruous as fasting amid tlie festivities of the wedding. Observe that in this answer fast- ing is regarded altogether as an expression of sorrow, and not at all in its religious connec- tions its a means of grace or as representative of a type of worship. 21, 22. Here, however, our Lord advances to the other view of fasting, and speaks of it in reference to its religious significance and value. He hits pointed out the circumstances in which 40 MARK. [Ch. IL 22 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; I 22 rent is made. And no man putteth new wine into 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. old 'wine-skins: else the wine will burst the skins and the wine perishelh, and the skins : but Ihey put new wine into fresh wine-skins. a Job 32 : 19 ; Ps. 119 : -1 That is, 6kin8 used as bottles. it will come in of itself among his friends, and has allowed it its due meaning as an expression of sorrow. What other place and meaning has it for his people? This question is answered by two illustrations. The first one Luke calls a parable ; it proceeds upon the essential principle of parabolic teaching in that it is a comparison instituted for the purpose of illustration. It is by no means necessary that a parable should have the form of a narrative. " No one seweth a patch " (not merely a piece ; the word denotes something added or put on — a patch) " of un- fulled cloth " (cloth new, strong, and liable to make a strain upon what it is attached to) "upon an old garment: else" (if this rule of common sense is overlooked, and the un- fuUed patch is put on) " the new patch of the old garment teareth away from it, and a worse rent is made." There is much question both about the text and about the construction in the latter part of this, but there is little diffi- 3ulty as to the thought, and tlie construction here given (which is Meyer's) seems to be the best : " And no one putteth new wine" (as yet unfermented) " into old " (and weak) " skins : else" (if this rule is neglected) "the wine will burst the skins" (when the fermentation has begun), " and the wine perisheth, and the skins." The clause, " but new wine must be put into new skins," is omitted by Tischendorf, the manuscript evidence being divided. The clause is found in Matthew and Luke, Matthew adding, "And both shall be preserved." The "skins," or leathern bottles, were such as were constantly in use, and are still found in the East — hides partly tanned, and so fastened together as to retain to some extent the form of the animal. Both illustrations were taken from things extremely familiar; and if these words were spoken at Matthew's feast, the leathern bottles may possibly have been in sight. The point in the use of the "parables" is that the using of the ill-chosen patch and the unsuitable bottles defeats the purj)ose of him who resorts to it, and the purpose is defeated because of an unwise uniting of the new with the old. The new is the living, exj)anding, divinely-vigorous kingdom of Clirist; the old is that which pertains to the Jewish dispensa- tion, which was decaying and ready to vanish away (Heb. 8 : 13). The true use of a piece of un- fulled cloth is not to be found by putting it as a patch on an old garment, and the value of new wine will be destroyed by storing it in old bottles. So the new life of Christ's kingdom cannot be expressed in forms of the old dis- pensation : the forms are inadequate, and to use them is to defeat the ends of Christ's king- dom. New life must have new forms of utter- ance. There is no system or set of institutions that is able to hold the spirit of the new age : that spirit must make institutions adapted to itself. So the entire Epistle to the Hebrews, where it is affirmed that the new institutions are the fulfilment of the old, in the very sense of Matt. 5 : 17, but not less clearly that they are truly new. The application here is to fast- ing ; and the thouglit of our Lord is that fast- ing belongs, in spirit, to the old dispensation. It is one of the institutions that are inadequate to the uses of the new ; and if the new makes much of it, it will be to the defeating of its own ends. Therefore, it is implied, he will make no attempt to preserve fasting in his kingdom, as if it were a suitable institution for liis purpose. It must rank with other means of religious culture which his kingdom has left behind. Observe that in this passage (1) our Lord as- signs a place to fasting as an expression of per- sonal sorrow. But the place that he thus gives it is only a natural place, not a place appointed : he recognizes fasting as something that will oc- cur, but he does not call for it. (2) He dis- tinctly provides against the Roman Catholic idea — that his church is to be a fasting church. If such had been his intent, he could never have spoken thus. Nor is this statement con- tradicted by the words of verse 21 : " The days come when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast, in that day." Those words teach only that the sorrow over his death should find fit expression in fast- ing, not that fasting should be the continuous habit of the church after his departure. It is not the teaching of Scripture that after his ex- altation the church was to be a widowed church during her earthly career, to whom tears and listings should be the appropriate expressions. (See Matt. 28 : 20 ; 1 Pet. 1 : 8.) (3) He draws a broad distinction between the old dispensation and the new, and affirms that to express the Ch. II.] MARK. 41 23 And" it came to pass, that he went through the corn-fields on the sabbath-day ; and his disciples be- gan, as they went, to pluck'' the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath-day that which is not lawful ? 2") And he said unto them. Have ye never read what David did,'' when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? 2(i How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shew- bread,"* which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him ? 23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sab- bath day through the cornfields ; and his disciples 24 'began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do tliey 25 on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them. Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, 26 and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God -when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to a Mutt. 12 ; 1, etc.; Luke 6 : 1, etc 6 Deut. 23 : 25 c 1 Sam. 21 : 6 d Ex. 29: 32, 33: Lev. 24 : 9. 1 Gr. began tot plucking 2 iSome uucieut authorities read tii the days o/ Abiathar the high priest. ake their way truth and spirit of the new in the terms of the old is not merely diflficult, but impossible. (So Heb. 10: 1.) He must needs "fulfil" before the law could come to use in his kingdom. (4) He gives us reason to believe that in adopting a cheerful style of personal life, in contrast to the manners of John (Matt, u: 19), he was acting with the purpose of illustrating the spirit of his kingdom. 23-28. THE DISCIPLES PLUCK EARS OF GRAIN ON THE SABBATH ; OUR LORD'S ANSWER TO QUESTIONS CONCERNING IT. Parallels, :\Iatt. 12 : 1-8 ; Luke 6 : 1-5. 23. There is no hint of the time in Matthew or Mark, except that it was on the Sabbath ; and the obscure designation in Luke has proved to be one of the hardest points in the Gospels. Gardiner : " Probably it signifies the first Sab- bath after the second day of unleavened broad, from which seven Sabbaths were reckoned to Pentecost." We know, at least, that the time Wiui somewhere between passover and Pentecost, when the grain was ripening, but not yet har- vested. The place is wholly unknown, except thatitwiis in Galilee. He went through the corn — grain — fields on the Sabbath. The word is, literally, "the sown fiekls." He went for some purpose, on his way from one place to another, not idly rambling. The paths in that land are mienclosed and run through the fields, a.s illustrated in the parable of the Sower (Matt. 13 : *) ; so tlie grain might be close on either side as tliey walked. — His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears. The expres- sion preferred by some — " his disciples began to make a way " (or " to make their way ") " pluck- ing the ears" — is not entirely plain, and diffi- culties have been made about it, as if they were said to clear a path through the grain by pluck- ing the ears, while notliing was said of the stalks. But the meaning more probably is simply that as they took their course through the field they began to pluck the ears. It is in Mark tliat we have this peculiar description, j but the other evangelists are not less graphic. , Luke, " They plucked the ears and ate, rubbing them with their hands" to free the grain from the husk. The grain may have been wheat or barley. 24, Whence should the Pharisees be near him in the corn-field? Could he never escape? These may have been of the visitors from Jeru- .salem (Luke 5:17), wlio had already heard much that they disliked. Why do they on the Sabbath that which is not lawful? Mat- thew, "Behold, thy disciples are doing what it is not lawful to do on the Sabbath." Tiiere is no indication that he himself was engaged in plucking the grain. He was called upon to answer for his disciples, just as they (verse is) had been called to answer for him. There was no objection to their act as a violation of the rights of property, the law (oeut. 23:25) express- ly permitting such freedom with tlie standing com of another. In the law itself there was no objection to their doing it on the Sabbatli ; but, according to the absurd exaggeration of the Pharisees, it was a violati(Mi of the day. They regarded the plucking of the ears as a kind of reaping, and the rubbing off of the chaff as a kind of threshing ; and reaping and threshing were, of course, forbidden on the Sabbath. Such wa.s the incredibly contempt- ible loitering with divine requirements with which our Saviour liad to do. 25, 26. The reply, as given by all three evangelists, cites a violation of sanctity on the ground of necessity, and one in which tlie necessity, as now, is that of hunger. The sanctity is not tliat of the Sabbath alone, but also that of the shew-bread in the tabernacle. The reference is to 1 Sam. 21 : 1-G : " In the days of Abiathar, the liigh priest ;" the men- tion of the name is peculiar to Mark, and is not without difficulty. The high priest who is mentioned in the original narrative is not Abiatiiar, but Ahimelech, Ids father. Abiathar succeeded his father in office not long after, and was high priest during David's reign ; so that his name is constantly associated with 42 MARK. [Ch. II. 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for nian," and not' man for the sabbath : 28 Therefore" the ton of man is Lord also of the sabbath. 27 them that were with him? And he said unto them, Tlie sabbath was made for man, and not man for the 28 sabbath : so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. o Neh. 9: 14 ; Isa. 58 : 13 ; Ezek. 20 : 12, 20 b Col. 2 : 16 c John 9 : 14; Eph. 1 : 22; Rev. 1 : 10. that of David in the history. Various attempts have been made to reconcile tlie difference, some supposing that Abiathar was already as- sistant to his father at the time of David's visit and was present when he came, although this can be nothing but conjecture; others, that our Lord or jNIark was content with menticju- ing the name of the chief high priest of David's time, and the one that was chiefly associated with David's name, which is the same as to say that absolute accuracy was not aimed at; others, that the name of Abiathar stands in the text of Mark as the result of a copyist's error. The law of the shew-bread is given at Lev. 24 : 5-9. Our Lord's argument is again, as so often, an argumentum ad hominem — an appeal to the Pharisees on their own ground. The visit of David to the tabernacle was on the Sabbath, for the previous week's shew-bread was just being changed for the fresh, and tliis was done on the Sabbath (i Sam. 21 : 6 with Lev. 24 : 8). So David violated the sanctity of the Sabbath (if the Pharisees were right), and at the same time the law that gave the sacred bread to the priests alone. Here was a double violation on the ground of necessity, and the Scriptures nowhere condemned it; nor would the Pharisees really condemn it. David was no Sabbath-breaker, as tliey all knew ; neither were liis disciples Sabbath-breakers for gather- ing and eating the ears of grain. In Matthew a second illustration is added — of the priests laboring in the temple on the Sabbath without sin ; also a second citation of the Scripture quoted in verse 13 — " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice" — as appropriate to tliis case also. The principle throughout is tliat higher re- quirements subordinate lower ; the application of the principle, that necessity and mercy are of higher rank than any ceremonial or formal duties. Tlie requirement of "mercy" was a rebuke to the spirit of the faultfinders, who were very tender of the Sabbath, but cared nothing fi ir the supplying of the needs of their fellow-iiien. The principle of Paul, "Love worketli no ill to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Rom. 13 : 10), was to them utterly unknown. 27, 28. For confutation of the Pharisees this answer was sufficient : it had been shown that their own law could not be made to suj^port their extreme demands ; but the truth implied in the examples that he had quoted deserved a separate statement, and he seized this occasion for the utterance of one of the most important practical truths that ever fell from his lips. What relation does man bear to the Sabbath, and the Sabbath to man? was the real ques- tion. The Pharisees made man a slave to the daj', as they did to many otlier legal provisions and demands ; so there was need that he should state the true relation, which he now j^roceeded to do. The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the SabL>ath. Compare the original record of the Sabbath (cen. 2:3): God made man with certain powers and needs, and then gave him a day consecrated to special uses to correspond with those powers and needs. The Sabbath was God's special provision for the highest of his creatures. When man had lost the actual enjoyment of it through his sinful- ness, God gave it to him again in the Mosaic law in a form and with sanctions that might prove most favorable to the final recovery of the ideal spiritual Sabbath that sin had spoiled. But from first to last it was for the sake of man that it existed, and it had no use except to bring to him the best blessing. When our Lord came the religionists of his day had the Sabbath, and honored it in a certain way : they held it sacred, and bowed down to it as if they were its slaves. When he said, "The Sabbath was made for man "— /. c. it is man's servant, not he its slave — his words were violently rev- olutionary in their esteem ; but he was only as- serting for the Sabbath the place that God gave it. The Sabbath is perverted when it does not serve man. We might expect liim to say, " Therefore man is lord of tlie Sabbath ;" but wliat lie did say is, Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath, the Son of man, the Mes- siah, viewed in his relation to mankind. Such is its relation to humanity, and such is his rela- tion to humanity, that he is its Lord. Compare Heb. 2 : (1-9, where the thought is that Jesus is exalted to his sovereignty as the representa- tive of man, and in fulfilment of the predic- tions of exaltation that were made respecting man. So here his relation to man is said to give into liis hands and to place under his sov- ereigjity all that belongs to man or serves his Ch. III.] MARK. 43 CHAPTER III. ND" he entered again into the synagogue ; and there L was a man there which had a withered hand. 1 And he entered again into the synagogue: and there was a man there who liad his liaud witliered. a Matt. 12 : 9, etc. ; Luke 6 : 6, etc. interest. All man's servants are his servants. The Sabbath, having been appointed for the service of man, comes, by virtue of that fact, under the lordship of the 8on of man. He is its Masiter, Director, Lawgiver ; in the use of it men are responsible to him. In speaking thus of the Sabbath (1) he claimed it for hmnanity. To humanity it was given in the original insti- tution, but, for an educational purpose, it had been made temporarily a national institution of the Jews ; and by the Jews it had been made still more narrowly a peculiar possession of their own. But now Jesus expressly claimed it for the humanity of which he was Head, and to wliich it was given at first. (2) He claimed that henceforth the Sabbath should obey his will ; his relation to humanity made liim its rightful Lord, and both because it was his right and for the .sake of mankind he in- tended to be its actual Lord. (3) Thus he gave clear indication that there should be a Sablxith in his kingdom — a sabbatic iii-stitution taking its law from him, fulfilling all the promise that was given by the Jewish institution, and actual- ly serving man, as the Creator intended that the original Sabbath should. The Jewish Sabbath had never fulHUed the ideal of the day: the law could no more make a jjcrfect Sabbath than it could make a perfect .sacrifice (Heb. 7 : 19, "The law made nothing perfect"); but when the Son of man, acting a.s Lord of the Sabbath, wrought out a Sabbath by the work- ing of his Spirit, then first the true Sabbath for man wnuld have come. The Christian Sabbath is the true ; the Jewish wa.s only the prepara- tory institution, which wa.s not "changed" into the Cliristian Sal)l)ath, but gave way to it by expiring when its work was done. Observe iiow different his treatment of the Sabbath from his treatment of fasting. He permits his friends to fast when their . hearts are so sad as to demand it ; but fasting, as a religious institution, he expressly classes among the means of religious culture of which the new kingdom cannot make use without de- feating its own ends. The Sabbath as defined by the Pharisees he not only disparages, but indignantly condemns; but the Sabbath itself he takes vinder his own lordship, as an insti- tution that God appointed to serve the human- ity of wl-.ich he is Head and King. There is a verv fruitful thouglit in the there- fore of verse 28. The word teaches that every- thing that was " made for man " is thereby brought under the lordshiii of Christ. M(jney was made for man ; so were marriage and the life of the family ; so were books, amusements, means of pleasure and profit of every kind. If they were made for man, the Son of man is Lord of them, and they must be used only as he wills, under his guidance, according to the spirit of his kingdom. 1-6. ON ANOTHER SABBATH. JESUS HEALS A ]MAN WITH A WITHERED HAND. Pamlleh, Matt. 12 : 9-14 ; Luke (i : G- 11. — All three evangelists connect tliis work on the Sabbath witli the preceding, but only Luke notes the fact that it occurred on another Sab- bath. Matthew, from whom we should infer that the Sabbath was the same, has followed his favorite method of grouping events of kin- dred significance, and has not made his connec- tive word to correspond. Possibly in this case they have all acted on Matthew's jirincijile and placed the two events together from internal reasons, rather than because they occurred at nearly the same time. The narratives of Mark and Luke are closely parallel, but Matthew puts the incjuiry about healing on the S;il)l)ath into the mouths of the adversaries, and introdiu'cs the comparison of the sheep falling into the pit, which Luke places (though with variation of form) at a later time (i.uke u:d). 1. He entered again into the syna- gogue. As his custom was ( Luke <: is) at the beginning of his ministry, and i)robably through the whole of if. He could not fail to j)ut honor upon the religious use of the Sabbath. The services of the synagogue had no direc-t author- ity in the ancient Scriptures, synagogues hav- ing si)rung uj) about the time of the Exile, and the system having been developed mainly after the clo.se of the Old-Testament canon. But the existence of the synagogues wa-s in true accord- ance with the spiritual jnirpose of tiie Sabl)ath ; and, though the practice of public woi-ship was by no means perfect or satisfactory, still our Lord must have looked ajiprovingly on tlie ser- vice of the .synagogue, and have wished to favor it by his example. He did not hold himself aloof because of the faults of the institution, great as they were, yet what must he have felt sometimes as he listened to the instructions that 44 MAEK. [Ch. III. 2 And they -n-atchedo him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath-day ; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4 And he saith unto them. Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath-days, or to do evil ? to save life,' or to kill ? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day ; that they might accuse him. 3 And he saith unto the man that had his hand with- 4 ered, ^Stand forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm ? to save a life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart. I Luke U : 1 b Hos. 6 : 6.- -1 Gr. Arise into the midst. were given in the synagogues ! The place of this synagogue is unknown ; it was somewhere in GaHlee— perhaps in Capernaum. Mark says nothing about tlie company ; Luke mentions tlie scribes and the Pharisees, who may have been the ones who had come from Jerusalem (Luke 5 : n) ; but our knowledge of the time and order is so limited that we cannot affirm it very positively. — A man which had a Avithered hand. Luke, " His right hand." No hint is given of his previous spiritual state. 2. It is plain that, as at chap. 2 : 1-12, they expected Jesus to heal the man. The sight of suffering had often been sufficient to call his power into exercise, and they knew that it would be sufficient now. But they were no longer watching merely to see what he would do : they were watching with intent to accuse him. " The casuistry of the rabbis allowed the practice of the healing art on the Sabbath in cases of life and death, but the withered hand — a permanent infirmity — obviously did not come under that category" {Plumptre). If he healed the man, an accusation before the local court — the "judgment" of Matt. 5 : 21 — would be the consequence. 3, 4. Luke says that he knew their thoughts ; therefore he fully understood the test. Never did he shrink from such a test, and now he boldly took the case into his own hands, call- ing the man out into the midst of the assem- bly. But he really transferred the test from himself to his advei-saries. Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath-days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? Not "on the Sab- bath-days," but "on the Sabbath;" the Greek word is the same as in verse 2 and in chap. 2 : 23. The two contrasted verbs do not mean "to do right" and "to do wrong," but rather "to benefit" and "to injure." In the other pair of verbs, " to save life or to kill," he apparently recognizes the principle that neglect is injury, and that he who does not save life when he has the power destroys it. Yet perhaps the words were chosen with intentional sharpness, the dreadful word "kill" being intended to reveal to them the true nature of their own feeling and the tendency of their practice ; as if he had said, " Would you allow me to save a life on the Sabbath ? or would you insist that the man must die rather than be saved at the expense of the Sabbath-day ? If you say that the man must be left to die, you say that it is lawful, allowable, to kill on the Sal)l)ath ; you make the Sabbath justify you in nnirder. If I may heal to-day, it is lawful to save life on the Sabbath ; if I may not heal, it is lawful to de- stroy it on the Sabbath. Which is the right way? What shall I do?" Thus he put his enemies to the test which they meant for him. They could not forbid him to heal except on grounds that would make the sanctity of the Sabbath a cover for cruelty and murder, and the question was publicly thrust home upon them. — But they would not meet the test like men. They held their peace. Peculiar to Mark, though implied in Luke. They were silent from cowardice or from the meanness that would only stand aloof and leave him to himself As for the appeal of humanity, it never touched them. 5. Luke, " Having looked round aliout upon them all." Mark omits "all," but adds, Avith anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts. The deliberate, searching look, turning from countenance to countenance and seeking in vain for some answering look of manliness and love, impressed itself on the memory of the beholders, and some of them, at least, remembered the anger that was in it, and the grief. The men were evading a simple question of right and wrong, and doing it be- cause they would not place themselves where they would be defeated in a wicked purpose, and he was grieved and angry. Shall we call this human grief and anger and class it with his weariness (John 4: 6) and wonder (Matt. 8:io; Mark 6 : 6) and the limitations of his knowledge (Mark 13 : 32) ? Ycs ; Undoubtedly this was hu- man grief and anger, but it was more. It was identical with that anger and grief of God against similar hard-heartedness of which the prophets are full, and which is not unmen- tioned in the Gospels — a sad anger or a wrath- ful grief which is infinitely real. The ancient figment of the impassibility of God ought to Ch. III.] MARK. 45 hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched il out : and his hand was re- stored whole as tlie other. Ci And the I'harisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the" Herodiaus against him, how they might destroy him. 7 But .lesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea: and a great' multitude from tialilee followed him, and from Judea, he saith unto the man. Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth : and his hand was restored. 6 And the I'harisees went out, and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, liow they might destroy him. 7 And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea : and a great multitude from Galilee followed : and 1 Matt. 22: 16.... 5 Luke 6 : 17. liave no place in Christian thinking. If God has not the quickest and most intense of feel- ings, Christ did not reveal him. (Comi)are, among many Scriptures, Isa. 1 1-20 ; Hos. 11 : 8, 9 ; Jer. 7 : 1-28 ; Ezek. 18 30-32 ; Eph. 4 : 30.) — For the hard-hearted ones he had not now a word, but only that never-to-be-forgot- ten look. The word was for the needy man. Stretch forth thine hand. And is this thy way, Lord — to call upon man for what he can- not do, and then to " put strength in him " when he "takes hold of thy strength " ? The act was impossible to the man; but if he had not had faith in the Healer to attempt it, we liave no reason to think he would have been liualed. His attempting it wtus itself a work of faith, and his success was at once a triumph of faith and a gift of God (jamea 2 : 17, is). Every genuine act of faith is just such a ventur- ing upon divine power and grace. — And he stretched it out, and his hand was re- stored. Whole as the other is to be omitted here, having come in from the parallel passage in Matthew. 6. According to Luke, the Pharisees who were thus confuted were "filled with mad- ness." No wonder; for, although their liope of an occasion against Jesus had been realized, their defeat wa.s of the most thorough and ter- rilile kind. They had e.Khibitcd themselves in their real character, and had drawn out the fact tliat his grace was only the highest hu- manity, after all. Nothing is said of any accu- sation before the local court for this violation of the Sabbath, but there followed straight- way, that very day, the first recorded plotting against the life of Jesus. — The Pharisees . . . with the Herodians. The Herodians ap- pear only here and at ^lark 12 : 13 and Matt. 22 : 10, these two passages referring to the same occasion. The Herods were ])ractically half Jews : tliey were Iduma'ans, of kindred though alien birth with the Jews, and they professed the Jewish faith, but only in a moderate and compromising way. They had sought the es- tablishment of Jewish national life, and had probably intended to make that life ultimately independent of Rome, thor.gh for the time nothing could be done except under the Ro- man protection. Thus they were regarded with interest by tliose who intensely dreaded the domination of Rome as a pagan power, and also by those who were more compromising than rigorous in maintaining the national faitli. Tlie Herodians were thus a middle party, with- out vitality enough to last long or to e.\ert any great influence. They had more in common with the Sadducees ; but we find them on both occasions in conference with the Phar- isees against Jesus. Probably the combination was a union for special purposes, for the sake of which serious disagreements might be over- looked. Mark alone mentions the Herodians here. He and Matthew say that it was a plot to destroy Jesus — an actual counsel of murder. 7-12. JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE SEA- SHORE ; JklANY RESORT TO HIM. Parallel, Matt. 12 : 15, 16. — In the following verses (v-ii) Matthew illustrates tlie work of the period from prophecy, and in his chap. 4 : 24, 25 he tells of the great concourse from many quarters that attended upon the ministry in Galilee, and of tlie great activity in healing. Luke's parallel is at 6 : 17-19. 7, 8. Jesus withdrew himself with his disciples to the sea. Matthew, simply, "Knowing it" (the plotting), "he withdrew thence." This was not a retreating for an hour or a day from the malice of his enemies ; by the shore of the Sea of Galilee he established for a time the seat of his activity. He did not wish to arouse hostility, and the city was be- coming too full of excitement to be the best place for his work. We have no means, of course, of ascertaining the locality that he chose or the length of time that he spent by the sea. — In verse 7 we li.ive an account of the first multitude, so to speak, by which he was surrounded, and in verse 8 we read of the fresh multitude from other regions that was attracted by the fame of what he was doing. First, a great multitude from Galilee . . . and from Judsea, where he had been seen and heard — the multitude that he had personally attracted — followed him to his new scene of working. Then it is added that a great multitude 46 MARK. [Ch. hi. 8 And from Jerusalem, and from Idumea, and fnmi beyond Jordan ; and they about Tyre and 8idon, a great uuiltitude, when they had heard what great things he did, came unto him. 9 And he spake to his disciples, that a small ship should wait on him because of the multitude, lest they should throng him. 10 For he had healed many ;" insomuch that they pressed upon him for to touch him, as many as had plagues. 11 And' unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying. Thou art the Sou of God. 12 And he straitly charged them that they should not make him known." 8 from Judtea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumaea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude, hearing 'what great things he did, 9 came unto him. And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, 10 lest they should throng him: for he had healed many; insomuch that as many as had -plagues ^pressed upon him that they might touch him. 11 And the unclean spirits, whensoever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying. Thou 12 art the .Son of God. And he charged them much that they should not make him known. a Matt. 12 : 15; 14 : H h ch. l-.U; Matt. 14 : 33 ; Luke 4 : 41 ; James 2: 19 c ch. 1 : 25, 34. 1 Or, all the things that he did 2 Gr. scourges 3 Gr. fell. from south, east, and north, hearing what great things he did, came to him. The verb is in tlie imperfect tense (" was doing"), and it was the actual report spread abroad that brouglit these people. Luke says that they came to hear as well as to be healed. They came from Idumaea, or the land of Edom, on the south, mentioned here alone in the New Testament. It was the native land of the Herods, and Are- tas, the ruler of the land at that time, had given his daughter in marriage to Herod Antipas, by whom she had lately been divorced to make room for Herodias. Probably these political relations had brought about an increase of in- tercourse between Idumrea and the land of the Jews. They came from Percea, or the country beyond the Jordan, on the east, a region after- ward visited by our Lord ; they came from the country about Tyre and Sidon on the north, a region in which Jesus afterward met liis own fame in the eager demand of the Syro-Phce- nician woman for the healing of her daughter (chap. 7 : 24-30). It is quite possible that the tid- ings carried home by these visitors to his com- pany awakened the faith that he found in her, or she may even herself have been there. Of such great assemblages Thomson says that they are eminently characteristic of the people of Palestine : " I have seen hundreds of these gatherings in the open air; and, should a prophet now arise with a tithe of the celeb- rity of Jesus of Nazareth, there would quickly be immense assemblies about him, from Gal- ilee, and from Decapolis, and from Judsea, and from beyond Jordan. Tliere is an irresistible bias in Orientals of all religions to run after the mere shadow of a prophet or a miracle-worker " {The Land and the Book, 2. 84). 9. Here first does a boat appear as a help and convenience in our Lord's ministry. Here it is a small ship. Properly, " a boat." Afterward, as in chap. 4 : 1 and Matt. 8 : 23, the Greek is " the boat," though not always so. The mention of the boat here is peculiar to Mark, and it seems as if it were used only to escape the pressure of the throng, not, as in Matt. 13 : 2, as a pulpit. 10-12. But the motive for which they pressed upon him — surely it must have touched his heart so deeply that he would be out of reach as little as possible. The ministrj' by the sea- shore was a ministry of healing, more fully de- tailed as such in Luke, but plainly such in Mark. The still more full account of manifold healing in Matthew (4 : 24, 25) cannot be so definitely as- signed to this occasion. The reason of the thronging upon him was that he had already healed many, and therefore " as many as had plagues pressed" — literally, fell — upon him, for to touch him. " For power went out from him," says Luke, "and healed them all." He bore with them with an admirable patience and kindness, but sometimes he must escape. Prob- ably we have no reason to ima^ne that the going forth of power wearied him, as if it were a kind of effluence that took something from him at every act ; but he would not liave been truly human if he had not been wearied by so constant and severe a demand upon his sym- pathies. He sought rest on the quiet waters of the lake, and perhaps in resorting to the moun- tains beyond for prayer. Indeed, in view of verse 13 (see note there), it is difficult to believe that the boat did not sometimes convey him away from the wearying crowd at nightfall to spend the night in communion with his Father. — It seems to have been the rule in the ministry by the shore that the evil spirits fell down be- fore him and acknowledged him as the Son of God : the verbs in verse 11, all in the imperfect tense, indicate as much. They thus fell down, not when he bade them confess, but when they saAV him. But, as before (chap. 1 125-^4), he did not accept their testimony. The natural con- struction of verse 12 makes the prohibition to be addressed to the demons, though in Matthew (12 : 16) it is addressed to all whom he healed. Ch. III.] MARK. 47 13 And" he gocth up into a mountain, and calleth unlo him whom he'' would : and they came unto him. 14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach. 13 And he poeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto him whom he himself would: and they went 14 unto him. And he appointed twelve,* that they might be with him, and that he might send them o Matt. 10:1 b John 15 : 16.- -1 Some ancieat authorities add tehom aUo A« named apoitlet. See Luke vi. 13. Both may be according to fact, Mark having selected for mention only one class of those to whom the command of silence was given. He rejected the testimony of demons; the appeal that he made to evidence is illustrated in Jolin 5 : 32-37, and his witnesses are the Baptist and his own holy and gracious works, and the Heavenly Father himself. How incongruous in the midst of this would be an appeal to the confession of demons ! and how unsuitable that such reports should go out among the people ! Possibly the charge of collusion with Beelzebul) (verse 22) may have been suggested by this testimony of demons. 13-19. JESUS WITHDRAWS TO THE MOUNTAIN AND SELECTS THE TWELVE APOSTLES. Parallel, Luke 6 : 12-16.— In Matt. 10 : 2-1 the names of the apostles are given, but not in connection with their appointment. A fourth list is given in Acts 1 : 13, made after the twelve had become the eleven. From Luke it is apparent — as it is not from Matthew or Mark — that tlie appointment of the apostles was im- mediately followed by the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew omits the appointment of the apostles, and Mark omits the sermon. 13. He goeth up into a mountain. Prop- erlj', " the mountain." It is the same in Matt. 5 : 1. Tradition has selected for the honor of this occasion a mountain called Hattin, to the west of the lake and at a little distance from it — a hill with two peaks or eminences, and hence known as the " Horns of Hattin." It is the most prominent height on that side of the lake, and commands a wide prospect ; it is easy of access, yet would offer favorable opportu- nities of retirement. Tradition may be wrong, but in this case it seems likely that it is right. According to Luke, Jesus went to the moun- tain at evening, apart from his disciples, though they were near, and spent the night in prayer to God : the more likely, then, that nights in his seashore ministry may have been so spent. A great night was this in the history of his kingdom, a great night in his own history — an example of fervent prayer at a crisis of life. We are not forbidden to imagine him studying the characters of the men whom he had called about him and going through the process of selection. Not at random were the apostles chosen, and not, we may be sure, without care- ful thought on the part of the Master. — In the morning he calleth unto him whom he would: and they came unto him. Pecu- liar to Mark; in Luke, simply, ' He called his disciples." The scene may be thus imagined : Jesus alone upon a higher place of the moun- tain, and his disciples, a considerable company, near him, below ; Jesus has made his selection and calls the chosen ones up to him from the company below, and they come up and take their places at his side. In all the lists the twelve are arranged in groups of four, the per- sons in each group being always the same, though the order varies within the group. Perhaps the simplest explanation of this is that he called the twelve up in groups of four. Thus, having made a genuine selection in his own mind, he made one openly, and did not call the mass of the disciples up till he had the twelve about him. By this time the multi- tude, who had spent the night at Capernaum or elsewhere in the vicinity, had followed him and found him, and were present when he pro- ceeded with that charge to his apostles which we know as the Sermon on the Mount. 14, 15. And he ordained twelve. Lit- erally, he " made," or constituted. The number twelve would remind them of the number of the tribes of Israel, and was undoubtedly in- tended to do so. See the promise in Matt. 19 : 28 that the apostles should sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel — a promise that cannot possibly be taken literally, because of the fall of Judas if for no other reason, but one that points to the true symbolism of the number in the -apostolic body. The church of Christ*is the true Israel, and this body of twelve leaders, coiTesponding to the twelve patriarchs, founders of the tribes, was intended as an in- dication of that fact. As the old Israel had its twelve founders, so should the new one have. The twelve are not here called apostles, as they are in the parallel passage in Luke, though Mark employs the word in chap. 6 : 30. Luke's lan- guage implies that he then gave the name to the twelve. It means " one who is sent," and hence, more specifioally, " an ambassador." The name can hardly have suggested to those who received it any definite ambitions respecting a worldly kingdom, but it would not have been unfavorable to such ambitions if thev were alreadv cherished. 48 MARK. [Ch. III. 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon" he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the .mn of Ze))edee, and John the bro- ther of James; and he surnamed them Hoanerges, which is, Tlie sons of thunder:' 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the so7i of Alpheus, and Thaddeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And J udas Iscariot, which also betrayed him : and they went into a house. 15 forth to preach, and to have authority to cast 16 out demons: 'and Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 and James the son of Zebedee, and John the bro- ther of James ; and them he surnamed Hoanerges, 18 which is, Sons of thunder: and Andrew, and I'hilip, and liartholuniew, and Mattiiew, and Thomas, and James the sati of Alph;cus, and Thaddieus, and Simon 19 the'-C'auana'au,and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. a John 1 : 42. . . .6 Isa. 58 : I ; Jer. 23 : 2».- -1 Some ancient authorities insert and he appointed twelve. . vi. 15; Acts i. 13. .2 Or, Zealot. See Lulie Mark alone gives here any account of tlie apostol- ic office, and he describes it merely as it was dur- ing the ministry of Jesus.— That they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach, and to have power ... to cast out devils. Properly, "demons." Corapanionsliip with him was for their educa- tion witli reference to work for the future. Of his sending them out to preach we have only one example (Matt. lO: l; Marie 6:30; Luke 9: 1,2). Mark's brief account of the apostolic office probably contains the substance of what Jesus then told them : lie did not tell them at once either what suffering or what honor should be a.ssociated with the name of an apostle. They " could not bear it now," and the future must make its own revelations. As soon as their associa- tion with Jesus had ended and he had been glorified, the apostles themselves began to liave a new idea of their own function (Acta 1 : 21, 22). Then they felt that they nulst tell the story of their Master's work from the baptism of John and bear witness to his resurrection. This was Peter's interpretation and unfolding of the Lord's own instruction in Acts 1:8: "Ye shall be witnesses unto me." Accordingly, it was held to be necessary that an apostle should have seen the Lord, and should be an eye-wit- ness to his resurrection. (See Acts 1 : 22 ; 22 : 14, 15; 1 Cor. 9 : 1.) This development of the office was predicted by the Lord in John 15 : 26, 27, and was the fitting development for a relation that first consisted in personal compan- ionship with him. As their relation to liim was peculiar, so was their office. It was an office that belonged to that time, and to no other. That they should have successors was impos- sible, from the nature of the office. 16-19. According to Tischendorf, the words and he ordained twelve should be repeated at the beginning of verse 16. The list follows, differing a little from the parallel lists, but the variations are not such as to make any serious difficulties. Indeed, they are probably of more help than hindrance. Simon, James, John, and Andrew form the first group of four : so in all the lists. (1) Si- mon stands first in all ; Matthew says, " First Si- mon." He was the first chosen; first in the mind of Jesus, he was practically first in many respects among his fellow-apostles, often stand- ing as their representative, speaking for the whole circle — sometimes for evil, but often for good. After the Master's departure he was tlie leader of the apostolic band, and the one to whom it was given to open the kingdom of heaven first to Jews (Acts 2), and afterward to Gentiles (Acts 10). From this day of selection until Paul was raised up to do a wider work than was possible to him he was decidedly the first of the apostles. Mark speaks as if the name Peter ("rock") were now for the first time given to him : so also Luke ; but it ap- l^ears in John 1 : 42 that it was given at the very first interview, at the scene of John's baptism. Yet perhaps the name was merely spoken at first and did not attach itself to the man, and was renewed so emphatically as to become a part of himself at the time of the apostolic appointment. Of his previous life wo know scarcely more than that he was the son of Jonah, of whom nothing more is known ; that he lived first at Bethsaida (john 1 : a), and afterward at Capernaum (Marit 1 : 29) ; and that he was a disciple of John the Baptist. He was a fi.sherman, and already married (waric i:3o). (2) James, a son — apparently the older son — of Zeb- edee, a fisherman of Bethsaida or Capernaum, and his wife Salome. The name of the mother is ascertained by comparing Mark 15 : 40 with Matt. 27 : 56. In John 19 : 25 it is said that " there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cle- ophas " (Clopas), " and Mary Magdalene." The construction of this sentence does not positively determine whether three women or four are meant; whether " his mother's sister" is iden- tical with " Mary the wife of Clopas" or is an- other person, whose name is not given. If the latter is the case, then doubtless " his mother's sister" is Salome, the wife of Zebedee, who cer- tainly was present. The preponderance of mod- Ch. III.] MARK. 49 cm critical opinion is strongly in favor of this view : so Wiesoler, Liickc, Langc, ICwald, Meyer. If tl)is view is correct, James anil John were first-cousins to Jesus. It is not ejisy to be sure that it is correct, but it may be said to be at least probable. The name " James " is the He- brew "Jacob." The form of e.xpression in John 1 : 41 makes if most probable that after the visit of John and Andrew to Jesus eacli set out in search of his own brother, and each found his brother and brougiit him to Jesus, Andrew coming first with his, and .Tohn following with James. If so, James had been with Jesus from the beginning. He and his brother, too, were fishermen, and were partners with Simon and Andrew (i.uke s : lo). James is not mentioned sep- arately in the Gospels, but appears in company with John in an aml)itious request (Mark io:35-.i7) and an unspiritual call for vengeance (Luke 9: 54). He was the tii-st of tlie apostles to suffer mar- tyrdom, and the only one whose death is re- corded in the New Testament (Acts 1-2: 2). (3) John ("gift of God"), the younger son, appar- ently, of Zebedee and Salome ; one of the first to follow Jesus, having been directed to him iiy the Baptist. He is called in his own Fourth Gospel "the discij)le whom Jesus loved," and he was api)arently the one of the twelve in whom Jesus found the most congenial spirit. Yet he was of fiery disposition, and not the gentle, affectionate creatiu-e that ho has often been pictured. He is present, though not prom- inent, in the early ajiostolic history. His field of service was Ephcsus and the surrounding region of Asia Minor, where tradition affirms that lie lived to a great age and composed his Gospel near the end of his life. To him the church is indebted also for three Ejiistles and the Apocalypse. The name Boanerges ("sons of thunder") is an Aramaic compound word: it is mentioned by Mark alone, and only here; and as an Aramaic word it is worthy to rank, as an indication of style, with his " Eph- phatha" and " Talitha-cumi." No liint is given of the occasion for the name; it is usually taken (and jirobably aright) as a mark of the fiery disposition of the two brothers seen in Luke 9:49, 54; Matt. 20:21. The fiery zeal of James may have been the occa.sion of liis martyrdom. It is not necessary to sup- pose that the name was given as a new one at this time, and the fact that the name did not, like " refer," cling to those who received it may indicate that it was not meant as an abid- designation. course, in which he addressed them sometimes according to what he .saw in them ; and this title may have been given as much in (juict re- proof as in i)raise of their tcm])er. As a name that might be an honor or a reproach it was an admirable title for men who were possessed of gifts both dangerous and valuable. These three, Peter, James, and John, were the ecdcsia in ccdesia— the chosen three, the circle nearest to the Master (Mark 5 : 37 ; Malt. 17 : 1 ; 26 : 37). The loVC of Jesus was a real love, and had its choices, a:s all love has, and his purjio.se also led him to selections ; so there were twelve out of many, three out of twelve, and one out of three— "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Note that the "one" seems to have been selected by love rather than loved because of selection. (4) An- drew son of Jonas, brother of Simon called Peter, a fisherman of Bethsaida, a disciiile of the Baptist, John's companion in the first visit to Jesus, the bringer of Peter to liis Master (.lohn 1 :. 15-44). In Matthew and Luke his name stands second on the list, next to his brother's name; in Mark and Acts it follows the first group of three. It is not plain why lie was not always with the nearest three, among whom his broth- er was. Only once does he appear with them (Mark 13 : 3), and twicc bcsidcs does he appear in tlie Gospels (joim 6:8; 12:22), but witli uo sjiccial marks of character. He is not mentioned in the Acts, and nothing is known of his subse- quent labors, even tlie voice of tradition con- cerning him being confused and uncertain. Such is the first group of four. The second group of four con.sists of Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, and Thomas: so in all the lists, Philip always at the head. The order is identical in Mark and Luke; in Matthew, it is Philip, Bartholomew, Thoma.s, Matthew; in the Acts, Philip. Thomas, Bar- tholomew, Matthew, (o) Philip. He was of Bethsaida, was evidently a friend of the first four and a fellow-disciple of the Baptist, and was the first to whom Jesus sai'(T, "Follow me" (John 1: 43. 44). The fact that Ji«ins "found" him on that occasion implies tfiat he .sought him, and lience that he knew him before. Philip appears three times in the Gospel of John (6:5-7; 12:21, 22; 14:8, 9), but UOt elsCwhcre, and early Christian liistory has nothing cer- tain to tell of him. Clement of Alexandria a.ssumes as a recognized fiict that Philip was the disciple who .said, " Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father" (Matt. 8:21); but Quite likely we have here a | ternal evidence seems unfavorable to his as- trace of the personal relations of Jesus with sumption (Smith's Dictionnn/, art. "Philip"), his friends, a reminiscence of private inter- 1 His name, like that of Andrew, is a Greek 60 MARK. [Ch. III. name; and Philip and Andrew appear together at the coming of the "Greeks" to inquire about Jesus (johni2:2i). Possibly the Greek names may liave determined tlie Gentile strangers in the choice of persons to inquire of; but Pliilip and Andrew were Palestinian Jews, and doubt- less they had Hebrew names besides. (6) Bar- tholomew, a name that tells us the man's parentage and nothing more, like Bar-Jesus (Acts 13: 6) and Bar-Jona (Matt. i6:n). It is Bar- Tolmai, " son of Tolmai." In three of the lists he stands ne.xt to Philip, and it is generally be- lieved that he is the same as Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, whom Pliilip introduced to Jesus (John 1 : 45-51). Of the man before his call we know nothing, except from Jesus' testimony to his character: "Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile " — a sincere and earnest man, loyal to God. He does not appear again, except among the seven who were fishing in the lake when Jesus showed himself to them after the resurrection ; that he too was a fisherman is scarcely to be inferred from that. Here, as at first, he appears as Nathanael, which was doubtless his personal name ; but his patrony- mic must also have been a familiar name in his case, as it alone appears in the lists of apos- tles. These six are known to have been dis- ciples of John the Baptist, and to have been identified with Jesus from the time of his re- turn from the wilderness after the temptation. They are probably the "disciples" who were at the wedding-feast in Cana, accompanied Je- sus to Jerusalem at the first passover of his ministry, baptized for him while he remained in Judaea, and returned with him through Sa- maria to Galilee (John 2:2; 3: 22; 4: 2). If therc wcrc more than these six, we have no means of know- ing who they were. As four of them were called a second time in Galilee, so doubtless the others were. (7) Matthew, the "Levi the son of Al- phffius" of chap. 2 : 14. In the li.sts of apostles he ajipears only by what was probably his new name. He is known only as the publican (tax- collector) of Capernaum, who i)rf)mptly follow- ed Jesus and made him a great feast in his own house. He does not appear again in the Gos- pels or the Acts. Uniform Ciiristian tradition lias recognized him as tlie writer of the Gospel that bears his name. In his own list of the apostles, and there alone, he is written as "Matthew tlie publican," the name of reproach being humbly retained, and his name is placed after that of Tliomas. As suggested above (chap. 2: u), it is not unlikely that Matthew was a discii)le of the Baptist who had learned from him the lesson of Luke 3 : 12, 13. (8) Thomas. Not mentioned bj'^ the synoptists, except in the lists, but mentioned on four occasions in John's Gospel, three times with the alternative name of Didymus, or "the twin" (johu ii : i6;u :5; 20: 24; 21 :2). His name always stands next to that of Matthew in the lists — before it in all but Matthew's own ; and that fact, together with the significant name "Didymus," has led many to the opinion that he was Matthew's twin- brother. Though this opinion cannot be prov- ed correct, it may be accepted as highly prob- able. Matthew, mentioned first by all but himself, was probably the more prominent of the two, and his brother was the one to receive the name of " twin." Possibly there is some confirmation in the fact that the alternative name is found in the reminiscences of John, who, writing at a later time, might naturally be the preserver of a name that had become current within the circle of the apostles. The few allusions to Thomas give us a clearer view of his character than so few words ordinarily give, and we know him better than any other apostle except the first three — a faitliful man, thoroughly loyal to his Master, but slow to be convinced and with a tendency to look on the dark side. Such is the second group of four. The third group of four presents more mate- rial for discussion, but the discussion would add little to our definite knowledge. The names are, in Mark, James the son of Al- phcvus, Thaddicus, Simon the Canaanite j (Cananreus, Kanunalos), Judas Iscariot. In i Matthew the same, and in the same (inler, ex- I cept that Thaddicus is called Lebbaius, with I Thaddaius (in some manuscripts; not consid- I ered sufficient by Tischendorf) as a surname; in Luke, James the son of Alphceus, Simon Zelotes, Judas (the brother or son) of James, Judas Iscariot ; in the Acts, the same, with the omission of Judas Iscariot. (9) James the son of Ali)ha'us, the head of this group in all the lists, but he does not appear again in tlie Gos- pels. There is a strong presmnption in favor of the identity of this Alphreus with the father of Matthew ; and if this presumption is correct, then James and Matthew, and prob- ably Thomas, were brothers. But the wife of Alphoeus (Clopas, in John 19 : 25, being the same name in its Aramaic form) is called in Mark 15 : 40 the mother of James the Less, or the Little, and of Joses — a designa- tion that we would scarcely expect if she were the mother of Matthew and Thomas, or even of one of them. Hence some find in the James and Joses here mentioned the "brethren of the Lord " of Mark G : 3 ; but strongly against Ch. III.] MARK. 51 tliis is John 7 : 5 and Acts 1 : 14, in the face of i which it is impossible to find any of his bretli- rcn among the ajiostles. The question has, perliaps, no fully satisfactory solution. To the ])resent writer it seems rather more probable that there was only one Alplueus, and that tiie two — and probably three — apostles were broth- { ere. To the association of James witli ]SIatthew [ it is objected that tlieir names never stand to- gether ; but if Matthew and Thomas were twins, | they would naturally form a pair in the lists, | and the next name after theirs is uniformly ' that of James. (10) Thadda-us, called Leblxeus j in ihitthew, and Judas of James in Luke and Acts. lie appears in the Gospels only as "Ju- das not Iscariot," asking a question, in John 14 : 22, and nothing more is known of him. His name, apparently, was Judas, and Lebl)«us and Thadda'us were surnames or titles con- ferred upon him for reasons that can only be conjectured. "Judas" was so common a name as to call for some additional designation to him who bore it; but the meaning of these titles is so obscure as scarcely to warrant the attemiit at interpretation. Nor is it jiossible to tell what " Judas of James " means. The phrase "brother of James," at the beginning of the Epistle of Jude, has led to a similar filling up of the ellipsis here ; but it is not certain that this Judius was the author of the Epistle, neither is it certain what James is meant. And this filling up of the ellipsis is not tlie usual one, the word "son" being the one that the phra.se ordinarily calls for. In our igno- rance of the connecting facts it is best to leave the fragmentary record as we find it, and say that of this apostle little is to be known. (11) Simon the t'ananite, or Canamran — not Ca- naanite, descendant of the ancient inhabitants of the land. The title is somewhat obscure, but is probably to be interpreted by the paral- lel word in Luke and Acts, Simon the Zealot, Zelotes. It comes from a Hebrew root which sigm"fies " to be hot," and was undoubtedly the Aramaic equivalent for the Greek word Zclotcx, whicii had been in u.se since the time of the Maccabees to designate a sect or section of the Jews who were most intensely devoted to the idea of nationality, and of God as the only sovereign whom it was right for Jews to obey, wlio had no fear of death or trouble in defence of their views, and who toward the end of the Jewish period became reckless and violent even to tlie extent of crime. (See Josephus. Ant.. 18. 1.) About A. D. 6 they followed Judas of Galilee, who led a popular revolt and was re- garded by many as the Messiah. This Simon, of whom we know nothing more, had appar- ently been associated with this party. The accei)tance of Jesus as the Messiali by a man who had been associated with the followers of the fiery Judas is an interesting and significant fact. (12) Judas Iscariot was the son of one Simon who is himself called Iscariot in the best text of John : 71 and 13 : 20. " Iscariot" is " Ish-Kerioth," " man of Kerioth," a village of Judah of uncertain site (jo»h. is : 25) ; at least, this is tlie usual explanation, and jmibably the best. He seems to have been the only apostle who was not a Galihean, unless Simon, whose name stands next to his, may have been a Ju- dttan, like himself. As Peter is first in all the lists, so JufUis is last. It has been suspected that he was placed at the end after his crime had degraded him, but it is more likely that this was originally his position. Certainly, Jesus from the first knew his character; and if this, as we have no rei\son to doubt, wiis a genuine selection, surely Judas must have been the last choice. All the lists mention him as the be- trayer, except the one in the Acts, from which, of course, he is omitted. Such is the third and last group of four. Notice the use that Jesus made of natural re- lationship in constituting the body of apostles. James and John were brothers, and were prob- ably cousins to himself; Peter and Andrew were brothers; jNIatthew and Thomas were probably twin-brothei-s, and perhaps a third member of their family was of the apostolic company. Thus fully half of the twelve were associated with their kindred; and, though "his brethren be- lieved not on him," even Jesus himself was not separated wholly from his kindred. 19-30. INTERFERENCE OF JESUS' FRIENDS. AND CAVIL OF THE SCRIBES; WITH THE ANSWER OF JESUS TO THE LATTER. PamUch, Matt. 12 : 22-32 ; Luke 11 ; 14-23. — From the choice of the apostles our Lord proceeded to address them in the Sermon on the Mount, of which Mark makes no men- tion. According to most harmonists, we are to place here also the healing of the centurion's servant, the raising of the widow's son at Nain, the message of John the Baptist in the prison to Jesus, the anointing I>v a pardoned woman in the lK)use of a Pharisee, and a circuit of Galilee in which Jesus was accompanied not only by the twelve, but by various women whom he had healed. In other words, the whole of Luke's seventh chapter, with the first three verses of his eighth, belongs between the two clauses of this m'neteenth verse — between the appointment of the apostles and tlie "going 52 MARK. [Ch. III. 20 And the multitude conieth together again, so» that they could not so much as eat bread. 21 And when his friends heard ';/' it. they went out to lay hold on him : for they said, He* is beside himself. '22 % And the .scribes which came down from Jerusa- lem said, He"^ hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. 20 And he cometh ^into a house. And the multitude Cometh together again, so that they could not so 21 much as eat bread. And when his friends heard it, they went out to lay hold on him : for they said. He is 22 beside him.self. And the scribes that came down from .Jerusalem said. He hath Peelzebub, and, ^By the priuce of the demons casteth he out the demons. ach. 6: 31 h Hoa. 9:7; John 10 : 20 c Matt. 9 : :U ; 10: 25; 12:24; Luke 11 : 15 ; John 7 : 20 ; 8 : 48, 52.- home" that is mentioned immediately after' it. 19, 20. A new sentence and paragraph should begin here. And they went into a house. Should be, "And they come liome," or, as some of the best manuscripts and Tischen- dorf, "And he conieth home." "Home" is doubtless Capernaum, and the statement j^lain- ly allows for any amount of journeying mean- while. As soon as he had returned the crowd was about him again. — The vivid description is peculiar to Mark. So that they could not so much as eat bread. So at chap. G : 31. The activity on our Lord's own part is left to be in- ferred, but it must have been an intense activ- ity of teaching and healing, continued we know not how long. 21. His friends of verse 21 are " his mother and his brethren" of verse 31. Their coming and calling for him is narrated by Matthew and Luke as well as by Mark, but IVIark alone tells of their setting out in search of him and of their motive. Considerably later his brethren did not believe on him (john7:5), and probably they persuaded his mother on this occasion, playing, perhaps, upon the anxiety of mater- nal love. These " brethren " appear to be the "James and Joses and Juda and Simon" of Mark 6 : 3. The question. What was their re- lation to Jesus? will probably never be settled with unanimous consent. The data being in- sufficient to furnish a positive decision, tem- perament and feeling, as well as theological prepossessions, will always be elements in the formation of opinions on the subject. The theories arc: (1) That they were children of Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus ; (2) That they were children of Joseph hy a former marriage; (3) Tiiat they were cousins, probably orphaned, and in some way adopted into the family. The first is rejected by all Roman Catholic interpreters, by all who share their feeling as to the superior holiness of virginity, and by some besides wlio feel that reverence is best satisfied by regarding the Only-begotten of God as also the only offspring of his mother. Yet the scriptural argument for it is very strong (see it stated at length by Alford, on Matt. 13 : 55), and its adherents claim— probably cor- rectly — that no other view would ever have been tliought of but for unscriptnral ideas of our Lord's mother. If the first theory is re- jected, there is no choice between the second and the third. — His friends heard of it — of the great tiirong that was about him and of the busy life he was living — and went out from their home in Nazareth, where they were all living, mother, brothers, and sisters, a little later, when Jesus visited the place (chap. 6: i-e). The news reached them there, and brought them down to Capernaum, a distance of per- haps twenty miles. They came to lay hold on him — /. e. by force, as one who was not fit to take care of himself. They said. He is be- side himself, insane — a conclusion from the excited life that he seemed to them to be liv- ing ; perhaps the more plausible from the quiet- ness and placidity of the years that he spent with tliem at Nazareth. Strangers misappre- hended him thus (John lO: 20), but SO did his nearest friends. Unbelief will misapprehend, whether its opportunities be small or great. Even the " mother and brethren " cannot know Jesus except they be true " mother and breth- ren." 22. Mark omits the occasion of this con- versation, which is carefully given by Matthew and Luke — namely, the healing of the blind and dumb demoniac (Matt. 12 : 22), which caused many to inquire, "Is not this the Son of David?" — i. e. the Messiah. The scene is still " at home," and most probably in the house of Peter. " Phar- isees" are present (Matthew), and so (Mark) are the scribes which came down from Jeru- salem. Tliis language distinctly indicates an embassy, men who had come on purpose to watch and harm him. It is not to be assumed that they were tlie same as the men mentioned at Luke 5 : 17, for some time had elapsed and meanwhile Jesus had been absent from Caper- naum. But, whether the same or not, these were spies. — Indignant at the suggestion that this was the Christ, they were ready with their explanation of his mighty works, the reality of which they thus explicitly admitted. He hath Beelzebub, or, as the best manuscripts agree, " Beelzebul." The name has been variously in- terjireted. The name from which it came was I Ch. III.] MARK. 53 23 And he called them xinto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? 24 And if a kiut;dom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. 2r) And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. 26 And if Satan rise up against himself, and be di- vided, he cannot stand, but hath au end. 23 And he called them unto him, and said unto them 24 in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom 2!) cannot stand. And if a house be divided against 2G itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, Baal-ze-bub, " lord of flies," the god of the Phil- istines worshipped at Ekron (2 Kings 1 : 2) and con- sulted as an oracle. The god was named, doubt- less, from his supposed control over the swarms of Hies and similar insects that torment the East. After a time the Jews, thinking all heathen de- ities to be evil spirits, adopted this name as a title of the chief of evil s|)irits, but changed it by one letter, making Beelzebub into Beelzebub Some think that in this change they intentionally de- graded and insulted it, even as a word, by turning it into a name which meant " lord of dung" or "of the dunghill." But others, apparently with better reason, make it mean " lord of the man- sion " or "of the dwelling" — i. e. lord of the place in which evil spirits dwell, or, substan- tially, "head of the family of evil spirits," he who rules them as a man rules his household. This sense best corresponds to the form of the word (Mi'iier) and best suits the allusions in the New Testament. So here : " He hatli Bcelze- bul " means " he is possessed by the spirit who is lord of all the rest, and who orders tliem in and out at his y>leasure, as a man commands his servants." — Thus the second clause of their charge is the application of the first. By the prince of the devils casteth he out devils, or demons. In thetireck the use of the recitative hoti (" that ") before each of these clauses seems to indicate that two separate remarks are quoted. One says, "that lie hath Beelzebub" Another, "that l)y the {)rince of the demons casteth he out demons." Luke adds that others, tempting him, asked of him a sign from heaven. 23-26. The whole twenty-third verse is pe- culiar to ]\Iark. He called them — the scribes from Jerusalem — bespeaking their attention and bringing them face to face with himself and their own words. The wonderfid calmness and self-control of this reply cannot be too distinctly noticed in connection with the fearfiU charge that had just been brought against liim. No more terrible accusation than this was possible ; it was the direct charge of a positive and prac- tical league with infernal powers. But he, " when he was reviled, reviled not again : when he Buffered, he threatened not " (1 Pet. 2 : 23). — He said unto them in parables. In illustrative comparisojis. The word does not require a narrative, such as we often a-ssociate with it. The point lies in the fact of a comparison. But here the fact to be confirmed is given in the first question (verse 23) ; it is then confirmed and illustrated by two comparisons, of the kingdom and the household, in verses 24, 25 ; and it is restated directly in verse 26. — How can Satan cast out Satan ? The principle is that no intelligent power works against itself and defeats its own purposes. Observe what is here assumed : it is assumed that the dominion of Satan is an intelligent dominion, with cha- racter and purposes ; that the kingdom of evil is one intelligent kingdom, managed by one mind who knows what he is doing. The in- dividual spirits that torment men are not iden- tified personally with Satan, but they are iden- tified morally with him ; so that their presence is his presence, and when they are oast out he is cast out. Now, it is said that in a kingdom there must be unity of coinisel, illustrated first by the case of a kingdom among men. It is notorious that divided counsels, going into action, are the ruin of a state; divideral afHnities. If it is good, it is not of the devil, for he never delivers men from evil. If such a rising up of Satan against himself as the work of Clirist 64 MARK. [Ch. III. 27 No" man can enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except lie will (irst bind the strong man; and then he will spoil his house. 28 Verily I say unto you, All' sins shall he forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith so- ever they shall blaspheme: 2y But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Shost" hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation : 30 Because they said. He hath an unclean spirit. 27 he cannot stand, hut hath an end. But no one can enter into the hou.se of the strong mitn, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man; and 28 then he will sjioil his house. Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men. and their blasphemies wherewith soever they shall 29 blasi)heme: but whosoever shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never forgiveness, but is guilty 30 of an eternal sin: because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. a Isa. 49; 24, 26; 61 : 1 ; Matt. 12:29 6 Matt. 12 : 31 ; Luke 12: 10 c Heb. 10:29. would be were proved real, there would be more tlian danger to his kingdom. He can- not stand, but hath an end, would be the true word. A kingdom so broken would be no kingdom at all. 27. More than this does Christ's work mean. The verse slunild begin with "but" — But no man can enter, etc. Not only does Clirist's merciful and lioly work prove him to be no ally of Satan, but, if Satan's kingdom is being taken away from liim, the fact proves the pres- ence of Satan's conqueror. No one can plunder the property of a strong " lord of the mansion " until he has bound the " lord of the mansion " liimself ; so, if Jesus is doing a great triumphant work of mercy in setting men free from the in- ferior agents of Satan's kingdom, lie must al- ready be master over Satan himself. The defeat of the Lord precedes the defeat of the servants; if the master were at liberty and had the power, lie would not suffer his goods to be spoiled. — Perhajis there is a special touch of triumph in the closing words. And then he will spoil his house ; as if Jesus were regarding the end as absolutely sure and the work as actually begun. Compare Joliii 12:31: "Now is the judgment of this world ; now shall the prince of this world be cast out." Here speaks, in Jesus, the consciousness that lie is absolutely the conqueror and destroyer of Satan's king- dom. Here, as a transition to the solemn words that Mark adds immediately, Matthew and Luke insert, " He that is not with me is against me; and lie that gathereth not with me scatter- eth abroad." There are only two sides in this conflict, and they are the side of the "strong man armed " and the side of the " stronger than he." Not to be with the conqueror of Satan is to be with Satan. 28-30. But, though he answered the hor- rible charge so patiently, he did not fail to show how fearful a thing it was, or might be, to make it. Li him was no implacable resentment of personal injury; words spoken against liim might l)e forgiven, and all sins and blas- phemies were in general within the reach of pardon. But one sin was beyond the reach of pardon — the blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. — The announcement of pardon for sins in general is much more elaborate and em- phatic in Mark than in Mattliew (Luke omits all reference to blasphemies). The grouping of words in the Greek is such as to throw the strongest po.ssible emphasis on "all "■ — all sins and blasphemies. Mark omits, while Mat- thew mentions, the pardonableness of " speak- ing a word against the Son of man." — The key for the understanding of tlie "unpardonable sin " must be sought in the words, He hath an unclean spirit, or " He hath Beelzebul," as interpreted above. Jesus did not say that these men had committed the sin that hath no for- giveness, but he did say that that sin lay in the direction iu which their sin was leading them. The sin thus suggested is the instinctive attrib- uting of holy divine works to an evil source. It is the denial that good is good. This is the application in the Messianic age of Isaiah's de- nunciation (5:20): "Woe unto them that' call evil good, and good evil ; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness ; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter." The Holy Spirit is the supreme agent of good among men ; and when a man commits the sin against liim of which Jesus speaks, he calls the Holy Spirit's good, evil, doing it out of a heart that has lost all sense of genuine good and is spiritually blind. No man will commit this sin until the sense of right and wrong, of good and evil, lias become utterly perverted and even the holy work of God is without beauty to the soul. When that work appears to a man to be an evil work whose aftinities are with hell rather than with heaven, then this sin becomes pos- sible to him. Hath never forgiveness. Literally, " hath not forgiveness unto the age," elstonniona — i. e. hi xtennun., for ever. So John 4 : 14 ; 11 : 26 ; 1 Cor. 8 : 13, where the phrase eis ton aidna is used with a negative i)article to exjiress the idea of "never" in the strongest manner. So here, "Hath never forgivene-ss" well represents the thought.— But is in danger of eternal damnation. More accurately, "but is guilty Ch. III.] MARK. 55 31 IT There came then his lirethrcii luiil his mother, , 31 And there come liis motlier and his brethren ; and, and, standing without, sent unto liim, calling him. i standing without, they sent unto him, calling him. 32 An