; \ ,\:r- . - • 1 '■yf \ ' . \ / .' Ex Libris C. K. OGDEN THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES THE CENTURY BIBLE ST. MARK THE CENTURY BIBLE GENESIS, by the Rev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D. EXODUS, by the Kev. Prof. W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D. LEVITICUS AND NUMBERS, by the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy, M.A., D.D. DEUTERONOMY and JOSHUA, by the Rev. Prof. H. Wheeler Robinson, M.A. JUDGES AND RUTH, by the Rev. Principal G. W. Thatcher, M.A., B.D. I AND II SAMUEL, by the Rev. Prof. A. R. S. Kennedy, M.A., D.D. I AND II KINGS, by the Rev. Principal Skinner, D.D. i AND II CHRONICLES, by the Rev. W. Harvev-Jellie, M.A., B.D. EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER, by the Rev. Prof. T. Witton Davies, B.A., Ph.D., D.D. JOB, by the Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. PSALMS (Vol. I) I TO LXXII, by the Rev. Prof. Davison, M.A., D.D. PSALMS (Vol. II) LXXIII TO END, by the Rev. Prof T. Witton Davies, l!.A., Ph.D., D.D. PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, and SONG OF SOLOMON, by the Rev. G. Clkrie Martin, M.A., B.D. ISAIAH I-XXXIX, by the Rev. Prof Owen C. Whitehouse, M.A., D.D. ISAIAH XL-LXVI, by the Rev. Prof. Owen C. Whitehou.se, M.A., D.D. JEREMIAH (Vol. I), by the Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. JEREMIAH (Vol. II), and LAMENTATIONS, by the Rev. Prof. A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. EZEKIEL, by the Rev. Prof W. F. Lofthouse, M.A. DANIEL, by the Rev. Prof. R. H. Charles, D.D. MINOR PROPHETS: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, by the Kev. R. F. Hokton, M.A., D.D. MINOR PROPni';TS: Nahum, Habakkuk, Zei'haniah, Hacgai, Zechariah, Malachi, by the Rev. Canon Driver, Litt.D., D.D. MATTHEW, Revised Edition by the Rev. Prof G. H. Box, M.A., D.D. M.ARK, Revised Edition by the Rev. Prof J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D. LUKE, Revised Edition by the Rev. Principal W. F. Adenev, M.A., D.D. JOHN, Revised Edition by the Right Kev. J. A. McClvmont, C.B.E., D.D. ACTS, by the Rev. Prof J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D. ROMANS, by the Rev. Principal A. E. Garvie, M.A., D.D. 1 AND II CORINTHIANS, by the Rev. Prof J. Massie, M.A., D.D. EPHESIANS, COLOSSIANS, PHILEMON, PHILIPPIANS, by the Rev. G. CuRRiE Martin, M.A., B.D. I AND II THESSALONIANS, GALATIANS, by the Rev. Principal \V. F. AuENEV, M.A., D.D. THIC PASTORAL EPISTLES, by the Rev. R. F. Horton, M.A., D.D. HEBREWS, by the Rev. Prof A. S. Peake, M.A., D.D. THE GENERAL EPISTLES, by the Rev. Prof W. H. Bennett, Litt.D., D.D. REVELATION, by the Rev. Prof C. Anderson Scott, M.A., B.D. X r 3:u^i) General Editor: Prof. W. F. Adeney, M.A., D.D. ^t (TUftrft INTRODUCTION REVISED VERSION WITH NOTES INDEX AND MAP edited by J. VERNON BARTLET, M.A., D.D. TROFESSOR IN MANSFIELD COLLF,GE, OXFORD ON THE BASIS OF THE EARLIER EDITION BY S. D. F, SALMON D, D.D. /^ElV AND ENLARGED EDIIION EDINBURGH : T. C. & E. C. JACK, LTD. 1922 PRrNTED IN CKtAT BRITAIN AT THE IRESS or THK ITBUSHEKS. c<^ PREFATORY NOTE A WORD of explanation seems called for as to the larger scale upon which the notes on St. Mark are written as compared with the companion Gospels in this series. The fact is that the literary relations be- tween the first three Gospels in virtue of which they are called ' synoptic ', and which constitute what is called ' The Synoptic Problem ', appeared to demand that somewhere in these Commentaries those relations and certain topics bound up with them should be dealt with somewhat systematically and fully. But if so, the Commentary on St. Mark \Yas the most con- venient place. For St. Mark is the fundamental extant document for the })roblem in question, con- taining as it does most of the Synopsis or general ^■iew of Jesus' earthly ministry, particularly that in Galilee, common to the first three Gospels : and further the very fact that it is the shortest of the three allowed more easily of this extra matter, as well as of some extended discussion of other topics of historical interest (mostly dealt with in Added Notes), being included in this volume, without its running to excessive '"'*• 1104797 The Revised VERSioisr is printed by pervii<:von of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge CONTENTS PAGE Editor's Introduction ....... i Text of the Revised Version with Annotations . 73 I'-^DEX 455 MAP Palestine Facinsr title THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK INTRODUCTION 6 THE GOSPEL OF ST. MARK INTRODUCTION ' A SUCCESSION of pictures in which a painter repre- sents a complete history or rather his interpretation of a unique person and his mission on earth.' This description of the first three Gospels fairly expresses what they are. And of the three 'the Cartoons of St, Mark,' as Dr. Horton has happily phrased it, with their Giotto-like simplicity and vividness, present us with the most primitive and elemental of the extant interpretations of the Gospel in terms of the Person in whom it came from God to men. Further, that Mark's Gospel is the ground-sketch of the evangelical narratives generally, and that it forms a controlling factor in their affinities as to incidents, order of narration, and even verbal style, is the opinion now generally entertained by scholars. This means that it is looked at now from a new point of view and assumes a fresh importance, especially for the historian and all who prize most chiefly the original impression left by the sheer historic facts upon the actual witnesses of Him who wrought With human hands the creed of creeds, In loveliness of perfect deeds More strong than all poetic thought. The change of sentiment which has taken place on the subject of the Second Gospel is indeed one of the most notable facts in the history of New Testament studies in our day. In ancient times little was made of this Gospel in comparison with its longer and fuller companions. Its genius was not sufficiently understood. Its special value was not adequately recognized. Thus Augustine could speak of Mark as only the ' follower and abbreviator of 4 ST. MARK Matthew,' and while many minds occupied themselves with continuous exposition of its fellows, few seem to have done the like for this shortest of the Gospels. Now, however, all this is changed. It is seen to have quite a distinct character, and to stand in a remarkable relation to the other Gospels. Yet this Gospel alone admits of examination apart from any other, although we can see much more in it and behind it by comparison with the others also. It is, therefore, the proper beginning of any study of the Jesus of history, as well as the Christ of the Church's faith. Much, then, depends upon the esti- mate we form of it and the way in which we use it. Unless we begin with this Gospel according to Mark and study well its pregnant words, we shall not be in the best position for looking into the very face of Him who is the central figure in all the Gospels. I. Mark's Gospel in the Ancient Church. A chain of witnesses connects this Gospel with the earliest times, and speaks for the position which it had in the ancient Church. There is historical testimony that it was in circulation before the close of the first century, and that by the year A.D. 150 it had an established place. It appears in the most ancient versions of the NewTesta- ment— Old Latin, Syriac, and Egyptian — and in the early lists of canonical books which come down to us from both branches of the Church, Eastern and Western. There is little evidence of its existence, it is true, in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. But this is not strange, consider- ing the nature of those writings and the fact that so much of the Evangelic matter, both history and teaching, is com- mon to two or more of our first three Gospels, thence called ' Synoptic *, as containing the same general picture {synopsis). All that can here be said is that apart from the explicit reference to Mark's Gospel (see § 3) in Papias of Hierapolis {c. A.D. 115-130), who lived on a main road INTRODUCTION 5 between Syria ana Ephesus, and near to Colossae, it is probably used in the Shepherd of Hennas (about A.D. 140) and the writings of Justin Martyr (a. D. 140-160). Justin speaks of James and John as ' Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder,' and of Christ as 'the carpenter,' as only Mark does (iii. 17, vi. 3), and he seems even to know Mark xvi. 20 (Apol. i. 45) — its later ending (see p. 43). When, however, we come to Irenteus (125-200), Bishop of Lyons, we have witness both copious and unambiguous. He has much to say both of the writer and of the book. He gives a number of passages in exact terms, and quotes the opening verse as Mark's. We have similar testimonies, more or less definite, in the Muratorian Canon, TertuUian, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Eusebius the Church Historian, &c., extending from the latter part of the second century to the early pare of the fourth. Hippolytus's reference to Mark's Gospel is particu- larly interesting and instructive, suggesting as it does that its special nature as contrasted with Matthew and Luke was something of a hindrance to its full recognition, such a hindrance indeed as only the strongest external evidence to its quasi-apostolic authority, as based on Peter's recol- lections, could have overcome so completely. Arguing against Marcion [Against Heresies, vii. 30), Hippolytus urges that 'neither Paul the Apostle nor Mark the curt- fingered related such doctrines,' where the epithet given to the Evangelist (as the context demands, see Journal 0/ Theological Studies, vi. I23f.) is best taken metaphori- cally as referring to the nature of his Gospel itself. It suffered, that is, from appearing ' curtailed,' as compared with its completer fellows, especially at its extremities— the beginning and ending of its story. From various sources we gather also that the Second Gospel was known to the Gnostic and other early heretical schools (e.g. to the author of The Gospel of Peter, early in the second century). Further, this Gospel has always a place in the list of the four Gospels, when such are 6 ST. MARK mentioned. The description of the Gospel as ' the four- fold Gospel' takes us back to Irenaeus, and in all proba- bility to a still earlier period ; for the idea of harmonizing the four narratives, and the formation of harmonies of the Gospels, come into clear view at least by the time of Tatian the Assyrian (a contemporary of Justin). In all these connexions Mark's Gospel makes one of the four. Nor is there any reason to suppose that, when it is referred to or used, any other writing is intended than the one that has come down to us. Some indeed have imagined that our Mark is not the original Mark, but a second form, on the basis of a still more primitive record. But there is no mention of any such primary edition in ancient literature ; nor do the facts presented by the Gospel require us to regard it as a secondary version of a simpler narrative. 2. Authorship. This Gospel is really anonymous. Though our earliest MSS. have a title assigning it to ' Mark,' its own text says nothing of its origin. It gives little or no indication, even indirectly, of the hand that composed it. In determining its authorship we have to depend mainly on tradition, and that connects it with Mark, the disciple and friend of Peter. Not a few of the testimonies which speak of the circula- tion of this writing speak also of its author as Mark. Who then is this Mark? The disciple who appears under that name in the New Testament, and whose primary or Jewish name was John, as we learn from Acts xii. 12. In the New Testament, too, he appears in relation both to Peter and to Paul, at different stages in his career. Further, in the New Testament his connexion is mostly with Paul, and his relation to Peter is subsidiary ; while in tradition he is associated chiefly with Peter, and his relation to Paul passes into the background. But it is the general view that the various references, however different in terms, are to one and the same person, the kinsman of Barnabas. INTRODUCTION 7 On this supposition we know something, though not verymuchjof the reputed author of this Gospel. He is the person sometimes called simply Mark or Marcus (Acts xv. 39 ; Col. iv. 10 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; Philem. 24; i Pet. v. 13), sometimes John (Acts xiii. 5, 13), sometimes 'John whose surname was Mark' (Acts xii. 25) or 'John, who was called Mark' (Acts xv. 37). In the Gospel itself there is, indeed, no explicit reference to him : but it is natural to identify him with the young man who followed Jesus on the night of the betrayal, ' having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body' (ch. xiv. 51, 52). The episode is chronicled only in this Gospel ; and if it has not the meaning just suggested, as a hint that the author was himself present at the crisis in question, it is not easy to see why it should have been brought in. Be that as it may, however, we get some clear informa- tion from the Book of Acts and the Epistles. In Acts Mark comes before us first in connexion with the story of Peter's deliverance (ch. xii. 12). We see him as the son of a certain Mary, a lady of some means and station, who had a house in Jerusalem in which Christians gathered for prayer and to which the Apostle at once turned. From Col. iv. 10, ' Mark, the cousin of Barnabas,' we learn that this Mary was aunt to the latter, either by blood or marriage. Mark is next mentioned as having been taken by Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, after their visit to Jerusalem with the relief sent by the disciples to the distressed brethren in Judaea (ch. xii. 25). Then we see him accompanying Barnabas and Paul as 'their attendant' on their first missionary journey, but breaking off at Perga in Pamphylia and returning to Jerusalem, while they went on to the Pisidian Antioch (ch. xiii. 3, 13, 14)- ^^e are not told why he took this step. Probably it was connected in some way with a change in the programme of the journey as originally contemplated, due most likely to Paul and his bolder ideas as to the Gospel among the Gentiles. In any c.ise it so shook Paul's confidence in 8 ST. MARK him that, though Barnabas wished to take Mark with them again, when it was proposed to revisit the churches, he refused. This estrangement, however, was afterwards healed, and Mark reappears in the story of Paul's later career. He is with Paul at the time of his Roman imprisonment (Col. iv. lo ; Philem. 24) ; and somewhat later the Apostle, left alone but for Luke, asks Timothy to bring Mark with him as one ' useful to him for ministering ' (2 Tim. iv. 11). Like Barnabas, he was a Jew by birth ; and he stood in a peculiarly close relation to Peter, the latter speaking of him as his * son,' probably in the sense of a spiritual junior with whom he had personal ties of affection (i Pet. v. 13). This account of the author of the Second Gospel receives enlargement outside the New Testament. There he is described as Peter's companion (in Rome); as an evangelist; as the founder of the Alexandrian Church and its first bishop ; and in the later forms of this legend he is repre- sented as suffering martyrdom at Alexandria. The place where he was supposed to be buried became a favourite shrine, visited by pilgrims for centuries. Early in the ninth century his reputed remains were removed by some merchants to Venice. There the great cathedral church was built in his honour. He became the patron saint of Venice, and the emblem of the lion, which had been mistakenly assigned to him by Christian art, was taken as the armorial ensign of the Venetian Senate. 3. Relation of the Writer to Peter. The main point in ancient tradition, however, which speaks of Mark as author, is the fact that it also asso- ciates him with Peter in the matter of the Gospel. The tradition is very old, and in the main remarkably consis- tent. It goes back to Papias, and is continued by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Ter- tuliian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, &c. It appears in INTRODUCTION 9 difTerent forms, at first simple, and then more definite and more complex. Papias (as cited in Eusebius, Church History, iii. 39) summarizes the effect of what the Presbyter John ' used to say ' about Mark's Gospel as follows : — ' Mark, having been Peter's interpreter {hermeneuies), wrote accurately, yet not in order, all that he called to mind — the things either said or done by the Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord nor was he His personal follower, but later on that of Peter, as I said ; and he used to shape his in- structions to the occasion, but not as if making an ordered collection of the Lord's sayings. So that Mark was in no way at fault in writing certain {lit. some) things just as he recalled them. For of one thing he made a careful point, not to omit anything of what he had heard or to falsify any feature thereof.' Here the term 'interpreter' is of uncertain meaning, but is best taken in the sense of dragoman. This is borne out by Papias's use of the verbal form of the word 'interpret' in another extract which Eusebius proceeds to give. ' Matthew, then, compiled {lit. "wrote together") the Oracles in Hebrew speech : but each interpreted them according to his ability.' Similarly Mark's function would be that of rendering the Apostle Peter's vernacular Aramaic into Greek, for Greek converts. The facts presented by the Gospel correspond very fairly with this. It has been argued, indeed, that the writing as we now have it does not answer to Papias's description of the writing as ' not in order.' But all depends on what sort of ' order ' Papias had in mind. What is his standard of comparison in the matter } Some think the Gospel according to Matthew. But this does not, as Dr. Menzies shews {The Earliest Gospel, pp. 47 f.), suit the extract as a whole, which on the other hand is satisfied in all respects by the theory that Papias had in mind the tradition current in the name of John (though not yet, when the Presbyter was speaking, in a written Gospel), lo ST. MARK who was the great Apostolic authority in the region of Ephesus, not far from which Papias lived and wrote. And our Mark deviates most strikingly from the order and contents of that Gospel. Papias's evidence is very early, since it virtually em- bodies the facts as to our Mark's origin as known to John the Presbyter, a personal disciple of Jesus, who survived to the close of the first century. Justin Martyr, writing about A. D. 150, confirms it in so far as he refers to this Gospel as in substance Peter's ' recollections,' without naming an author {Dial. 106). Irenasus {c. 1 80) also says of Mark that he ' committed to writing the things preached by Peter,' adding that he did so after the death of Peter and Paul. Tradition at Alexandria, as known to Clement {c. 200), enlarges this, stating that when Peter had preached in Rome many urged Mark to write down what had been thus spoken, and that Peter ' neither for- bad nor encouraged it.' Eusebius, who reports this tradition in his History of the Church (vi. 14), quotes Clement in another passage (ii. 15) as speaking of the Apostle as ''authorizing the writing for reading among the churches.' Finally, the Muratorian Fragment^ of the age of Clement, if not even earlier, has half a mutilated sentence seemingly tracing Mark's Gospel to its author's hearing of certain (not all) of Peter's addresses. The tradi- tion, therefore, varies, and in course of time becomes more developed and reflective. But the general view which it gives of the Gospel is that of a composition written by Mark on the basis of Peter's discourses, and giving a faithful report of the Apostle's recollections of the words and deeds of the Lord. Our Mark quite fits in with the view given of it by tradition. The general character of its narrative, so life- like and circumstantial for the most part, in the case even of small things, points to an eye-witness as directly or indi- rectly its author. There are many touches in it that indicate first-hand knowledge, and such first-hand know- INTRODUCTION ii ledge as Peter would have. It alone tells us that ' Simon and they that were with him followed after' Jesus when he withdrew to a solitary place at the beginning of his ministry (ch. i. 36) ; that it was he also, with his brother and the sons of Zebedee, who asked him on the Mount of Olives about the destruction of the temple (ch. xiii. 3). Other things too which it records— though the other Synoptics have them also, probably borrowing from it— are things immediately concerning Peter, and such as would be per- sonally known to him (e. g. i. 29 ff.). Things in which Peter played a leading part, often not to his credit, enter largely into the narrative (esp. viii. 32 f., ix. 5 f., x. 28, xiv. 29-31, 66-72). Narratives like those of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, the Transfiguration, and the Agony, have details and peculiarities, as given by Mark, which suggest immediate knowledge of the circumstances, and such a knowledge as Peter, an actor in all these scenes, would have had. There are certain resemblances also between the style of this Gospel and that of Peter, as seen in his discourses in the Acts and in his Epistle. These things may, indeed, come short of proving the Gospel to have the origin suggested. But they suit very well the account of it which has been transmitted to us from early in the second century. If it is urged, as it is by certain recent writers (e.g. B. W. Bacon, The Begmnings of the Gospel Story, Introduction, passim), that there are other features in this Gospel which point to the hand of a re- dactor who had no personal touch with Peter, but belonged rather to the next generation of the Church's life, the phenomena alleged as proof of this are often capable of a simpler reading and explanation than that so given them, and are in the main such as may well be due to Mark himself. 4. 'The Gospel' and the Gospels. We have now to ask, What was the original notion of a Gospel ? How came it to be so named 1 To begin with, 12 ST. MARK our writing, like its fellows, bore originally no title other than one referring to its authorship, 'According to Mark.' But its opening words give the key to the origin of its later description. It is ' a Gospel' because it embodies 'the Gospel {Evangel) of Jesus Christ,' that is, the ' Good news ' brought by Jesus as God's Anointed One {Messiah in Hebrew, Christ in Greek). And it was 'according to Mark,' because it contained that form of the glad story which had shaped itself, thus and not otherwise, in the mind of Mark. We have seen who Mark was. \Ve have now to ask how he had goi ' the Gospel' as he here writes it dou-n. To answer this question, we must go behind all our written Gospels to the Christian Mission out of which they were born, to ' the Gospel ' as preached, which was the seed of the Church. In its most original sense ' the Gospel,' both as idea and as term, was adopted from Isaiah, ' the Evangelical (" Gospel ") prophet,' particu- larly from two great passages, lii. 7 f., Ixi. i ft", : ' How beautiful . . . are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings (in Gk. "evangelizeth," the word in the N. T. for "preach the Gospel"), that proclaimeth ("preaches" in N.T. phraseology) peace, that bringeth good tidings of good, that proclaimeth salvation : that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth ! ' (the idea of ' the kingdom of God '). So the coming redemption of God's People, by His more imme- diate presence among them, is described. And this is how God's primary messenger speaks of his' Gospel' ministry. ' The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me : because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tiditigs (" Gospel ") unto the meek : he hath sent me to bind up the broken- hearted (i.e. the contrite or truly penitent), to proclaim liberty to the captives and the opening (of prison) to them that are bound ; to proclaim the year of the Lord's good pleasure, and our God's day of vindication ; to comfort all that mourn in Zion.' In this passage (quoted in Jesus' sermon at Nazareth, which Luke prefixes to his story o£ INTRODUCTION 13 Christ's Gospel ministry, as its fitting programme, cf. Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 22), and in the foregoing one, we have all the essential ideas of Jesus' Gospel-ministry ac- cording to Mark's representation. Witness in particular the opening or introductory section : ' Prelude of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even as it stands written in Isaiah the prophet, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord (God), Make straight his paths, there appeared John the Baptizer in the wilderness, pro- claiming a baptism of repentance unto forgiveness of sins.' Such, in the light of this explicit citation of the Evan- gelic Prophet (Is. xl. 3, following on ' Comfort ye, comfort ye, my people, saith the Lord,' with a message of for- giveness for Jerusalem's sin), seems to be the sense in which Mark conceives ' the Gospel of (proclaimed by) Jesus Christ,' as set forth in his narrative of the Anointed One's Gospel-ministry which follows. Here there is no direct reference to any written form of the Gospel, such as came to be called ' a Gospel,' nor even to the Gospel as preached by others ' in the name of Christ ' — a sense in which it occurs in viii. 35, x. 29, xiv. 9, cf. xiii. 10. Much less is it ' the Gospel ' in the sense characteristic of the Epistle, viz. ' good news ' about Jesus Christ, as himself the substance of the Message he proclaimed and embodied. But the thought that Jesus had embodied in his deeds and whole life the very principles of the message he brought in his Father's name, was in fact integral to Mark's concep- tion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which it was his pur- pose, declared in his opening words, to present in written form to his readers. This idea of ' the strong Son of God ' — strong in liis Passion as in his deeds of divine power and pity — is characteristic of Mark's whole Gospel-story. It is his animating faith and the principle of his interpre- tation of the historical materials which he moulds into a 14 ST. MARK unified and coherent religious record. For him the Gospel was embodied in the person of Jesus the Christ and re- vealed in his ministry ; in his deeds even more impres- sively than in his teaching ; or at least in his words mainly as related to his attitude to men, as the living exhibition of God's own attitude, and therefore in their historic setting of personal intercourse with men and women in varied forms of need. Thus Mark's written Gospel, like its fellows, was based on the oral Gospel, whether preached by the Christian missionary as ' good news ' to his hearers for the first time or expounded more fully and connectedly to those already believers, in order to enable them to form a more adequate image to themselves of its meaning. It was written too in the spirit and manner of a preacher rather than an historian, much less a biographer, although in fact it con- tains priceless data both for the one and the other. Its object was to bring home the saving Gospel of GocCs gracious will and ways \v\\h increased force, fulness, and vividness, to the souls and minds of its readers, assumed to know already something of the matter, and to be receptive to- wards what they might further be told, without need of any formal proof or evidence for the story in whole or in part. Yet the selection of incidents in it, as in the tradi- tion behind it, has (comp. Prof. B. W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel f pp. 66-73, 80-84) a certain apologetic or defensive interest, over against Jewish non-belief and J udaic usages, though less markedly than in the presentation of the Gospel by our First Evangelist, with his concern to set forth the practical Law of the Kingdom, as distinct from the current Law of Moses. Mark is, indeed, more akin to the Third Gospel in the kind of Gospel which it aims at impressing on its readers' hearts and minds. But it does not make the same effort as does Luke, the cul- tured Greek evangelist — his Preface being witness — to set forth the story of Jesus, the Supreme Evangelist of the Kingdom of God, in a complete and carefully ordered. INTRODUCTION 15 and to that extent historically satisfactory fashion, for the fuller assurance of readers who felt the value and need of such a type of narrative. The special standpoint and aim of Mark's Gospel ex- plains also the minor place taken by Jesus' teaching or sayings, save as part of his actions, and as springing im- mediately out of them. Here the absence of the Sermon on the Mount is not accidental. Mark is not concerned with Jesus' teaching in detail (assumed to be known to the readers through the Church's practical instruction in caie- chesis), but with Jesus as preaching ' the Kingdom of God,' both by word and deed, and the way in which he stirred men and women to faith, on the one hand, and unbelief on the other — an object-lesson of pregnant application to their own day for those who first read the story. Faith and non-faith towards Jesus the Christ was the standing experience and problem of Christians then, as when Jesus preached and worked in Palestine. For they too had to be 'witnesses' to the Gospel, as had their Lord himself, and that unto suffering and death (i Pet. v. I, 'a witness to the sufferings of Christ,' in the sense of ii. 19-21, iv. 13 f., 15), if need be, like 'the faithful and true Witness,' ' who became dead and lived,' and called his followers ^ to 'be faithful unto death,' and so like him receive 'the crown of life ' (Rev. iii. 14, ii. 8, 10) through 'the patient endurance and the faith of the saints' (xiii. 10, cf.j. 9, ii. 2 f., ig, iii. 10, xiv. 12). We have constantly to bear in mind the actual envi- ronment and religious experience amid which the first readers of the Gospels, as of all New Testament writings — with their intensely practical aim and spirit — lived and had their being, if we are to see those writings in their ' Hort in his notes on i Pet. i. 1 1, where he cites Heb. iii. 14, * partakers with the Christ.' brings out the thought that 'Christians' by their very idea and vocation share in the Messiahship and Messianic lot of Jesus, as being also God's anointed ones. i6 ST. MARK true perspective, that determined by their original setting in life. This consideration gives an added significance to the contents of Mark's Gospel, so far as they are selected materials. The emphasis thus visible makes it, as J. Weiss has well said, indirectly a supplement to the book of Acts, as witnessing to Christian conditions in the later Apostolic Age. This applies notably to the story of the Passion, as well as to the fulness with which the martyrdom ('witness' unto death) of John the Baptist is given by Mark ; but also to the Parables selected for inclusion in this Gospel, which have relation to the Christian Mission, especially its growth as seed and that amid difficulties. 5. Sources of Mark's Gospel. The personal form given to ' the Gospel ' in Mark among the four Gospels— explaining as it does the vivid, realistic impression of Jesus himself left upon the reader's mind- raises a question of great interest and moment as regards the most primitive fori/i of the Apostolic tradition lying behind all written Gospels. ' The teaching of Jesus,' says Menzies (p. 104), ' was preserved in the earliest period in two forms: firstly in stories leading up to some saying of Christ, and secondly in discourses which were remembered for their own sake, and could be transmitted without stories to carry them. The first form tended to pass into the second.' But it is doubtful how far the second form of teaching, as just described, existed at all in the very earliest period. All analogy derived from traditions touch- ing prophetic religious personalities, such for instance as Francis of Assisi — one of those closest to his Master in the conditions of his activity, as in certain primary elements in his spirit and message — points to the first form of the Christian tradition having been that of personal incidents and conversations. Abstract teaching of principles by means of connected sayings, grouped mainly l:iy affinity of topic, with a minimum of historical setting, and there- INTRODUCTION 17 fore of personal appeal to the imagination and emotions, came only later. When, moreover, we consider the kind of men Jesus' personal disciples were, by whose minds as primary witnesses and ' ministers of the message' — to use Luke's phrase — the Gospel tradition was shaped, this conclusion seems well-nigh inevitable. Particularly is this the case, if we fix our thouglits upon Peter, who must have contributed most to determine the genius and character, not only of the primitive preaching of Jesus as the Christ and the medium of Messianic Salvation, but also of the tradition passed on to converts by oral instruction com- mitted to memory {caiechesis), in order to furnish fuller knowledge touching the Christ and the ' good news ' brought by him. The impression gained from the con- densed summary, as it doubtless is, of Peter's address to Cornelius and his friends at Csesarea (Acts x. 34-43), en- tirely confirms such a view. All leads, then, to the belief that Mark's type of Gospel tradition was in nature akin to the common Apostolic tradition, going back in basis to early Jerusalem days when the Apostles were together under the lead of Peter (cf. Acts ii. 42), before it separated into more varied streams of witness according as this or that ' apostle ' or ' missionary preacher ' taught his own variety of local tradition, away from the original centre. Certainly it is closer in form to the distinctive part of Luke's Gospel, seen most clearly in the big special section ix. 51-xviii. 14, where are many of the sayings common in substance to it and Matthew, than to the latter, with its elaborately massed discourses. These latter probably represent a secondary and supplemental form of the Christian tradition, when, owing to the growing demand for instruction about certain practical points bearing on Christian conduct in the apostolic churches, the topical grouping of sayings, ab- stracted from their historical occasion and context, had been going on for many years. Accordingly it is to be doubted whether any Apostle was responsible for such C i8 ST. MARK unhistorical and artificial grouping of the sayings of his Master as is involved in their arrangement by seeming topical or logical affinities, the full outcome of which is seen in the Sermon on the Mount of our Matthew, and in varying degrees in its Commission of the Twelve, its group of Seven Parables in ch. xiii, its Seven Woes on the Pharisees in ch. xxiii, and the three Eschatological Para- bles of ch. XXV. That the Apostle Matthew himself actu- ally wrote, as Papias is generally ^ understood to assert, any such abstract 'collection of the Lord's Oracles', and that it was the basis of the Gospel which bears his name — and even, as many scholars have held, of the body of say- ings common to it and Luke's Gospel — seems really most improbable.^ And this improbability is increased when we observe that a certain proportion of the didactic matter massed together in the First Gospel is more or less coloured, to say the least, by the special conditions of the apostolic age. Sayings of this kind would be attracted, gradually and unconsciously, to their present position by affinity of subject, and the more easily that some of Jesus' own authentic sayings had in course of time lost their proper historic settmgs in concrete incidents and conversa- tions, such as are the staple of Mark's narrative. These considerations have a bearing on the question of ^ Probably, however, a body of O. T. proof-texts is meant. 2 Not only is it almost inconceivable that a Gospel writing of direct apostolic authorship should have been suffered to fall into disuse, even after being used in other writings which could not claim such high authority ; but also the wording of the Preface to Luke's Gospel — with its reference to current attempts by predecessors to draw up a Gospel ' narrative ' on the basis of apostolic witness — seems almost to exclude Luke's knowledge of any Gospel writing clothed with the full authority of one of ' the eye-witnesses and ministers of the word '. Such an apostolic writing, even though not of the narrative type which Luke has in view, could hardly have been ignored in this con- nexion, especially if it included the amount of narrative setting which it is rightly' argued that the second common source of Luke and Matthew must have contained, if it is to account for their special parallelisms in such matters. INTRODUCTION 19 the hypothetical written Source {Quelle, in German, whence the symbol O), often credited to the Apostle Matthew, which upholders of the ' Two document ' theory of the mutual relations of our Synoptic Gospels think it needful to assume, in order to account for the common element in Matthew and Luke, in addition to what each owes to Mark. Most aspects of this problem belong more properly to Introductions to those Gospels than to the present one. See Archdeacon Allen's commentary on Mark (below, § 17), pp. 7-9, for the very various views as to the relation of the dubious document Q to the several Synoptic Gospels. Refer- ence may be made to Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problent, in particular to Canon Streeter's essay on 'The Literary Evolution of the Gospels ', for details. But no theory of a written Q meets all the facts enough to convince the present writer that a body of traditional sayings of Jesus in a connected form, with some indeterminate historical element of introductory setting, ever existed in a single written form, rather than as a common body of oral apostolic tradition, with local variations of compass and detail. A seemingly crucial proof that Q was not a document, but a variable oral tradition, is the difference in the section on the Centurion's servant in the parallel forms in Matt. viii. sff., Luke vii. i ff., to which may be added John iv. 46 ff. See further ' The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel ' in the above volume, esp. pp. 315 f., 3263"., 361 f There the common apostolic tradition is styled Q, and the form in which it was known to Luke, QL — as distinct from QM, used by our First Gospel, and QM'', used \>y our Mark. In the present commentary X is used instead of Q, in order to avoid con- fusion of terms, as the scope of the tradition represented by Q in common usage differs from that assigned to it in the above essay, the latter viewing it as largely akin to our Mark without its special Petrine element, or to the great special section of Luke (ix. 51 — xviii. 14). As Professor B. W. Bacon observes : ' Whatever of Q has passed into either Mattliew or Luke through the medium of Mark will fail to appear. And it is precisely the narrative element or elements . . . which would 20 ST. MARK suffer this fate. It becomes, therefore, largely a petiiio principii to argue from the paucity of narrative of Q thus recotistruded (i.e. after the elimination of the Mark element in Matthew and Luke) that it was not, like our Gospels, a story of the " sayings and doings," but merely a manual of the "teachings" of Jesus ' {American Journal of Theology, xii. 653"). All that here falls to be said is, that there is really no need of any such document to explain the phenomena of Mark in relation to the other Synoptics. The didactic element common to it and them, whether singly or together (so far as it is not integral to Marcan incidents), is quite inconsiderable ; and the Marcan sayings ^ in general are largely distinctive in form or conception. This element, in its several forms, points back simply to the common apostolic tradition. In it, as it spread abroad, local variations gradually arose, not only in the wording of certain sayings, but also as regards the amount of didactic matter, current without proper historic setting, which became attached in difterent Christian circles to the same historic nucleus of teaching arising out of a concrete incident. We have constant traces of this com- mon apostolic tradition in all our Synoptics, where two or more are parallel to each other, but with certain features peculiar to one or another (see the edition of Luke, Introduction, iv, pp. 31-5, and p. 28 note). We may for convenience style it X (as of unknown, because variable, compass), as distinct from the Q of current usage. From this latter our X differentiates itself {a) as not being written, but only oral, prior to its embodiment (as current in various localities) in our various Synoptics ; and {b) as not being primarily a collection of Sayings (with some slight historical introductory matter in certain cases). According to this conception of the matter, our Mark 1 Compare a paper by Dr. T. Stephenson in the Jount. of Thcol. Studies, on ' Our Lord's teaching in St. Mark's Gospel,' where it is shewn that ' the discourse-material of Mark consti- tutes more than a third of the Gospel,' and stands in organic con- nexion with the narrative as the embodied Gospel of the Cross. INTRODUCTION 21 is based fundamentally on the co7>wion apostolic type of tradition (X) in the form best known to Mark himself,' in the main that used by Peter, with whom he had worked probably more than once before the latter's martyrdom, A. D. 64. To this Mark may have added some matter from his own knowledge of Jesus' last week in Jerusalem, which, along with Peter's personal recollections through- out, expanded and enriched the common apostolic basis, known in other local forms (perhaps modified respectively by Matthew and another Apostle, say John, as the Marcan form was by Peter) to the two other Synoptists,- ^ Archdeacon W. C. Allen, in his Commentar}' noted above, argues that it was known to Mark in a written Aramaic form. The evidence for this seems insufficient, although there are traces of an oral Aramaic stage of tradition l^'ing behind the Greek- form found in our Mark, and used by its author in instructing Gentiles before it was embodied in his Gospel. "^ And, one may add, perhaps also to the author of the Gospel according to the Hebrews, who seems to have knowledge of the apostolic tradition apart even from our Gospels. The above account is consonant with the observations upon the nature and scope of Q. and on the relation of Mark and Q, in Canon Streeter's statement of ' The Synoptic Problem ' in Peake^s Commentary on the Bible (pp. 677 f.), save that there Q is con- ceived as a document prior to Mark. But when he concludes by asking (i 1 ' Did Matt, and Luke . . . use Q ... in two differently expanded forms, which included the greater part of the material peculiar to their respective Gospels ? ' and (2) ' Where Mk. and Q overlap, does each represent an independent tradition of the actual words spoken ?' i and one might ask the same touch- ing their historical setting too), he seems to reach a position hardly distinguishable in effect from the alternative expounded above. [Since this was written, he has gone yet further in the same direction as regards Luke's second source at least ; see Hibbert fournal, Oct. 1921.] The latter can also claim best to satisfy the case as seen by Wellhausen, according to Dr. Peake's editorial note on p. 678. For he 'has argued that Mk. was earlier than Q' (i. e. Mk. embodies an earlier type of apostolic tradition), and 'that not merely Mt. and Lk. but Q also were indebted to Mk.' Peake justly sets the la'.ter suggestion aside, in the form in which it is stated : but the grounds on which it rests may be claimed in favour of Mark's form of X being older than that of Mt. or Lk. 2 2 ST. MARK of whom Luke possessed the more historically valuable version. But beyond this Petrine form of the common Christian tradition (X^*^-), Mark seems to have used a secondary one, derived not from Peter at all, but from at least one other stratum of iraditioti (X-), possibly that current in the locality where he wrote his Gospel. This secondary or non-Petrine element is seen chiefly in viii. 1-26, including the Second Feeding of a Multitude. Further, we have to account, in one way or another, for certain sayings only loosely attached to, not growing organically out of, the historic setting in which they are found in Mark. When these distinctions are recognized in the materials at Mark's disposal, there no longer seems any need to assume a second and later hand as having contributed to any appreciable extent (apart from isolated explanatory verses or glosses) to his Gospel as we have it, still less to the form in which it lay before the authors of the two other Synoptics. Hypotheses of one or more later 'redactors,' which are highly subjective and pre- carious in their reasoning, raise more literary and psycho- logical difficulties than they purport to solve, and are superfluous once due allowance is made for the probabihty of some such variety in Mark's sources as is outlined above.^ ^ The present writer doubts the need of assuming, with Eduard Meyer (in his Uisprung und Anfdiige des Cliristeniunis, Bd. i, 192 1, ch. v), at least two Aramaic written sources, dealing respectively with ' the Twelve ' and 'the Disciples' (in two parallel forms for the journcyings in Mk. vi. 30 — viii. 26X On the other hand he is happy to find that both in general estimate of the large degree to which variations between the Synoptic Gospels are due to * oral tradition' moulding the Evangelical material before it took written form, and in the bearing of this familiar law of religious tradition upon the sub- stantial historicity of that material — both as to deeds and words — his own results, though independently reached and differing a good deal in form of statement (e.g. as regards the Q element'), coincide very largely with those of Dr. James Denney in his Jesus and the Gospel, especiallv pp. 179 f., 193-198 and note. INTRODUCTION 43 6. Compass and Contents, This Gospel keeps within the limits of apostolic preach- ing as given by Peter in his discourse before Cornelius (Acts X. 37-41). It begins with the Baptist's mission and ends with the Resurrection of Jesus. It has a brief pre- liminary section, dealing with John's ministry and with the preparation of Jesus for his official work by his Baptism and his Temptation (ch. i. 1-13) ; a central section of nar- rative, forming the body of our Gospel (chs. i. 14— xv. 47) ; and a sequel dealing with the Resurrection (ch. xvi) — originally also the commission of the risen Christ to those who were to continue His Gospel (cf. Lk. xxiv. fiit.y Acts i. 1-3). For we must remember that our Mark is not complete. The central section itself falls into two great blocks, one given to the Galilean ministry (chs. i. 14— ix. 50), the other to the last week in Jerusalem (chs. xi. I — xv). The story of the intermediate events, covering the journey through Persea and Judaea, is more briefly told (ch. x). But the Galilean period itself falls into certain more or less clearly defined sections. There is, first, the ministry in the parts to the west of the Lake of Galilee or about its shores on several sides (chs. i. 14— vii. 23) ; then a brief retirement beyond Galilee altogether, to the NNW., with a return to its north-easterly parts and to its lake (chs. vii. 24 — ix. 50). The story of these two stages in and about Galilee itself falls, again, into several phases. Of these, the first is occupied with the announcement of the Kingdom, the call of the first Disciples, and the beginnings of opposition (chs. i. 14- iii. 16); the second, with the call of the Twelve, and the events following that decisive act, on to the rejection at Nazareth (chs. iii. 7 — vi. 6) ; and the third, with the mission of the Twelve, and the subsequent events, on to the retirement to the borders of Tyre and Sidon (chs. vi. 6— vii. 23). That episode is told very briefly (vii. 24-31), and shades off into a renewed ministry of a less ordered kind, told in two sections — one embracing all that happened up to Christ's 24 ST. MARK withdrawal in the direction of Csesarea Philippi (chs. vii. 24 — viii. 26), and the other all that occurred from Peter's confession on to the words on self-denial (chs. viii. 27 — ix. 50). A section transitional between Galilee and Jerusalem follows (ch. x) ; and then the events of Passion Week (chs. xi — xv) are related with particular fulness and continuity, almost in the style of a diary, day by day, if not hour by hour. 7. Plan and Method. We can discover, therefore, in Mark's Gospel a certain plan, but a simple one. It does not attempt much literary form, neither does it give events by any means in their strict chronological succession. Nor, again, does it follow to any large extent the method of grouping which we see so clearly in Matthew. There are some instances of this (possibly due to the tradition), especially in the second and third chapters, but not many. There is, however, a certain order implicit in the facts as recorded. As presented, they shew us how in his teaching Jesus followed a certain method ; how he began with the call to repentance, the Gospel of the Kingdom, and the defence of certain features of his practice against current objections, all in a simple way and as occasion offered ; and proceeded in due time — specially in dealing with his Disciples — to the deeper things of the new spiritual order, the mysteries of his own Person, his Rejection, Death, and Resurrection. There are two great turning-points in Jesus' method of teaching, implying corresponding changes in Jesus' own outlook on the immediate prospects of his Gospel-ministry, which are implicit in the whole story : the resort to parabolic teaching in public (ch. iv. 2, 33 f.), and the change of theme after Cassarea Philippi (ch. viii. 27 ff.). He delivered his message at first generally in direct terms, and afterwards in the form of ' parables ' ; he took too for the scene of his first preaching the towns in the vicinity of the Sea of Galilee, using the synagogues INTRODUCTION 25 to begin with, and then went furtiier afield, addressing his word to hirger audiences out of doors. What our Mark gives is not a complete biography, far less mere history, but outlines of Jesus' Gospel Mission in word and deed. It passes by, therefore, the preliminary history, up to the period of immediate preparation for that ministry. It has no long discourses, with the exception of a specimen group of parables and the great declaration on the End. It leaves even the Sermon on the Mount without report. The substance of Jesus' moral teachinj:^ is taken as already known (orally or otherwise) to the readers ; and this gives special significance to the exceptions just named, as having a special bearing on the interests, problems, conditions of those readers when Mark wrote. Both he and others were deeply interested in the way in which the Kingdom of God as Gospel ' seed ' spread in the face of opposition, and met with different receptions — faith and unbelief— in different quarters ; and particularly how its growth, gradual and obscure as were its processes, was assured by God's providential working, seen first in Messiah's own career as its Prime Evangelist. It gives few parables — only four, together with three minor or germ parables. It deals with the acts of Jesus rather than his words. It has many more miracles than parables — about eighteen. These are chiefly miracles of healing, and mostly belong to the period before the Transfigura- tion — which was also much the longer in time. Some further remarks bearing on the Contents and Plan of Mark's Gospel will be found below (§ 14). 8. Relation of Mark to Matthew and Luke." The three Synoptical Gospels have much in common as regards both the things recorded and the order in which they are given. But each has also its own peculiarities. Mucli that is found in Matthew and Luke, or in one or other of them, is absent from Mark : of the former, e.g. chaps. i, ii, v-vii, and of the latter, chs. i, ii, ix. 51— xviii. 14. 26 ST. MARK On the other hand, Mark has passages which the others have not. He has one parable pecuHar to himself, that touching Growth as in God's hands (ch. iv. 26-29), and two miracles, those of the deaf mute (ch. vii. 31-37) and the blind man of Bethsaida (ch. viii. 22-26). He gives also certain things vv^hich are not reported by the others— the dullness of the disciples and their disputings (ch. viii. 17, 18, ix. 33), the incident of the young man (ch. xiv. 51, 52), the smiting of Jesus by the servants (ch. xiv. 65), Pilate's wonder, &c. (ch. xv. 44)- Further, Mark has a certain proportion of matter which appears in Matthew but not in Luke, or in Luke but not in Matthew ; and in narratives which are common to the three, or to Mark and one of the others, he adds in not a few cases considerably to our knowledge by his richer detail. This will appear if one compares his accounts of the paralytic, the demoniac boy, i\\& purgation of the Te?nple, &c., with those of the others. In the matter of arrangement, too, he has a way of his own. In the case of the Galilean ministry, e.g., he differs considerably from Matthew's order up to the story cf Herod (ch. vi. 13), after which there is more agreement. In the later chapters (x-xvi) Mark's order is very much that of the others. The amount of divergence from Luke is as a rule less than from Matthew; but some things are not given in the same connexion by Mark as by Luke. But while there are considerable differences between Mark and the other Synoptical Gospels, there is also large agreement. Nor is this confined to the general selection and arrangement of matter : it extends even to words and phrases. In order to understand the nature and measure of these coincidences, one should carefully compare such passages in Mark as ch. iv. 3-9, vm. 27 ix. 9 with their equivalents in Matt. xiii. 3-9, xvi. 13-28, xvii. l-io; or such passages as Mark i. 40-44 with Luke v. 12-16 ; Mark ii. 12-22 with Luke v. 27-39. The ques- tion therefore arises, How are these facts to be explained ? INTRODUCTION 27 Is Mark dependent on Matthew and Luke, or is the oppo- site the case? Here ancient tradition has no special authority, being, like our own conclusions to-day, based simply on inference : and modern scholars are almost unanimous in regarding Mark as used by tlie other two. They never agree in order against Mark, though one or other may diverge from it independently. 9. Lanc;uage and Style. The Second Gospel contains some Latin words in Greek form (see iv. 21, v. 9, vi. 27, vii. 4, xii. 14 f., 42, XV. 15, 39, 44). But such ' Latinisms ', as they have been called, are really cases of colloquial Greek, though their number points to a partially Latin environment. More- over, even if the Gospel was meant specially for readers in Rome (but see below), colloquial Greek would still, at that date, have been the most natural language in which to write. Paul's Epistle to the Romans is written, not in Latin, but in Greek. Recently Mark has been taken to have been written originally in Aramaic, the vernacular of the Holy Land at the time. This opinion is based mostly on arguments drawn partly from certain idioms which occur or even prevail in it, and partly from the fact that it preserves for us morewords of Jesus in the vernacular than we have in all the other Gospels. The hst includes Boanerges (iii. 17), Talitha aimi {v.^i), Corban (vii. 11), Epliphatha (vii. 34), Bartlmmis (x. 46), Abba (xiv. 36), Golgotha (xv. 22), Eloi/ Eloi I lama sabachthatiif (xv. 34). But the facts prove no more than that our Mark rests directly on Aramaic tradition, and was written by one familiar with Aramaic. He has a marked preference for 'the his- toric present' tense, which conduces much to vividness of narrative; and the like applies to his favourite particle ' straightway ' or ' forthwith ', especially in the phrase ' and forthwith ' (see further Allen's Introduction to his Commentary on Mark, pp. 12-26). Dr. J. H. 28 ST. MARK Moulton writes [Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 491) : ' There can be no question that the catechetical lessons, on which the written Gospel was ultimately based, were given first in Aramaic : and they may well have become so fixed in that form that when their author transferred them to Greek they retained ubiquitous marks of too literal translation. It is of great critical importance to observe how these Aramaisms of translation were pro- gressively smoothed away. . . . There is plenty of revision of Mark's Aramaism to be seen in Matthew and Luke. . . . Mark's " Semitisms "... are hardly ever really bar- barous Greek, though his extremely vernacular language often makes us think so, until we read the less educated papyri. Generally we recognize them by thdr over-use of a possible though uncommon idiom which happens to agree with Aramaic' The theory that our Mark was written in Aramaic also fails to do justice to those qualities of the Gospel, as we now have it, which make it difficult to regard it as a translation or a secondary composition. Hence it is the general opinion that Mark's Gospel was written originally in the language in which it has come down to us, namely, Greek.' With this the references to the Gospel in early Christian tradition entirely agree. With this, too, the style best agrees. It is not the style of a translator. It is simple and direct, and at the same time free, unconstrained, forcible, and full of life. Mark has throughout a certain unity of grammatical and stylistic colouring. Its manner in all respects is popular and effective. The sentences have usually no elaborated literary form, being connected by the simplest terms, in particular 'and' — quite in Aramaic or Hebrew fashion ; also they are generally terse and pointed. Yet, when it is necessary, our Evangelist can use a more copious style. ^ See, e.g., Lagrange, I^vangile selon S. Marc, p. xcvii, quoted by Allen, pp. viii-ix. INTRODUCTION 29 10. Characteristics of Mark's Gospel. Here again we must bear in mind the distinction between wliat was characteristic of Mark's sources of information and what represents his own point of view and emphasis, though his fidelity to his materials allows the former to shine through his narrative and give it its main features. No careful reader can fail to be conscious of large differ- ence between our Mark and the other Gospels. This Gospel has qualities which give the book a genius which is quite its own, and make it full of a simple charm. Among the most noticeable is the plain, direct character of its narra- tive. There is little of the writer's own notions imported into it, comparatively little even of the imprint of his own mind, save in the selection of what he includes in its brief compass. In this respect it differs most from the Fourth Gospel, in which the narrative bears so much the stamp of the author's own ways of thought and forms of speech. What Mark gives us in the main is a simple, objective report of things as they had come to him in tradition. It is not the product of art, nor is it a work of much reflec- tion. It is a record of facts as they had impressed the Apostles generally and Peter in particular, and as they had taken shape in tradition at an early stage. But while all is thus simple, the Gospel has a natural vividness, a sharpness and colour in its description, which might challenge comparison with the best achievements of the art that conceals art. The peculiarly graphic, life- like quality of its narrative at once arrests attention ; and is probably due to the early nature of the traditions used. It makes us see things as if they were beneath our own eye. Thus it often uses the direct form of speech, as ' Come ye yourselves apart' (vi. 31). Thus, too, in many cases a single word or phrase contains a picture in itself, and makes a scene real to us. Look, for example, at the descriptions of the Baptist ' stooping down ', like a slave, 30 ST. MARK to unloose the shoe-latchet of a Greater (1.7); of the people seated * in ranks ' or ' row upon row ' on ' the green grass ' (vi. 39 f.) ; of the * mooring' of the boat to the Gennesaret shore (vi. 53) ; of the maid coming on Peter warming himself (xiv. 66). So in the story of the Paralytic we see the crowd about the door, the sick man ' borne of four ', the breaking up of the roof, the sufferer arising straight- way, taking up his bed, and 'going forth in sight of all ' cured (ii. 1-12). Take again the description of the storm on the lake— the winds roaring, the waves dashing upon the small vessel and beginning to fill it, the Master on the pillow in the deep sleep of weariness, the terror of the disciples, the waking of the Lord, the authoritative word, the instant peace (iv. 35-41), The same is the case with the story of the feeding of the five thousand ; the healing of the blind man (viii. 22-26) ; the description of the dumb spirit * convulsing ' the child in the act of coming out of him (ix. 26). Nor should we omit Mark's version of the story of the Transfiguration (see notes, ad loc). This Gospel is remarkable, then, for a certain quality which, for lack of a better term, may be called its realism (cf. A. B. Bruce, With Open Face, ch. ii). It is as if the eye of the writer were upon the objects and his pen fol- lowed his eye. His narrative has a circumstantial character which shews itself not merely in its large effects, but in a multitude of minute touches. It means reproduc- tion rather than representation. This Gospel is rich in particulars of persons, times, numbers, positions, and the like. It speaks of Simon of Cyrene as ' fcXther of Alexander and Rufus' (xv. 21); of Joseph of Arimatha^a (xv. 43); of Peter as going out ' into the porch * immediately before the cock crew (xiv. 6"], 68). It shews us the swine rushing * down the steep into the sea,' and tells us they were * about two thousand' (v. 13). It notices how the disciples were sent forth 'two and two' (vi. 7) ; how the centurion * stood by, over against Jesus ' (xv. 39) ; how the people were made to sit down ' in ranks, by hundreds, and by INTRODUCTION 31 fifties ' (vi. 40) ; how Jesus went to pray, rising up * a great while before day' (i. 35). It tells us how he 'sat in the sea' (iv. i) ; how he 'sat down over against the treasury' (xii. 41) ; how he ' sat on the mount of Olives, over against the temple ' (xiii. 3). Nor is it only the incidents themselves that Mark's Gospel reproduces in this distinct and circumstantial way; it does the same with the impressions left upon the spec- tators and hearers. It depicts the wonder and awe with which Christ's words were listened to and his mighty deeds witnessed. It shews us the fear, the astonishment, the sore amazement of the disciples (iv, 41, vi. 51, x. 24, 26). It shews us, too, the eagerness, the impetuosity, the un- restrained insistence of the people as they thronged and pressed him, till they left him and those with him scarce room to stand, or sit down, or even to eat (ii. 2, iii. 10, 20, 32, iv. I, v. 21, 31, vi. 31, 33, viii. i). A special aspect of the Marcan realism is what Professor Burkitt calls its ' un- ecclesiastical unconventionality ' (see The Gospel History, 59 f.), e.g. the candour shewn in dealing with the short- comings and failures of the Apostles, in spite of the high reverence for them felt during the apostolic age, and especially towards its close. This comes out more clearly by comparison with the other Synoptics, both generally and where they are parallel to Mark (see iv. 13, 40, vi. 52, viii. 17, 33, i.x. 6, 10, 32, 34, x. 24, 35, 45, xiv. 40, 50). Its narrative has also the qualities of movement and activity. Its chief concern is with what Jesus did and what he experienced. This Gospel might be called ' the Acts of Jesus ' ; and in reporting these acts it proceeds from one to another in a rapid and direct fashion, and its favourite connecting word is ' straightway '. It makes little attempt to shew the connexions of things, or to link one part of its narrative to another by any device of the literary craftsman's art. It plunges in medias res with the minimum of explanatory preface, taking up at once its proper subject— the public ministry of Christ. It takes us -32 ST. MARK from one thing to another by transitions which seem at times abrupt. The Gospel also gives a special view of the central Figure himself. Each of the four Gospels here makes its charac- teristic contribution, and has its own way of setting forth Jesus' personality and his life. Mark's is the simplest and the most objective. He does not dwell, as Matthew does, on the Messianic relations of Jesus and the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy in his life and ministry. Neither does he make it a primary object, as Luke does, to bring before his readers those aspects of the life of Jesus, and his intercourse with different types of humanity, which shew him to be a Redeemer suited to all kinds of sinners, a Friend meant for men of all ranks, nationalities, and characters. Far less does he exhibit the eternal antece- dents of his life and the higher mysteries of his person, as John does. Some of these things are in his Gospel, but they are not there in the proportions which they have in the others. He is content to set Jesus before others just as he had himself learned to see him moving about in Galilee and Judaea, a man among men, mixing freely with the different classes of Jewish people to be found in these parts, doing good continually, performing mighty deeds, and speaking words of grace which impressed many with the sense that he was a prophet, if not more than a pro- phet, and some few with the growing hope and faith that he was none other than God's Anointed or Messiah. In this connexion the Second Gospel has certain features which are less prominent in the others. It notes, for example, Jesus' retirement, for one cause or another, at important points in his public ministry. It tells us— followed sometimes by Matt, or Luke — how he withdrew to *a solitary place ' after the first deeds of healing (i. 35, cf. 45) and after the murder of the Baptist (vi. 30-32) ; to 'the borders of Tyre,' after the opposition of the party of the Pharisees (vii. 24) ; to the neighbourhood of Ctesarea Philippi (viii. 27) ; to the range of Harmon, after the first INTRODUCTION 33 announcement of his coming Passion (ix. 2). Further, it notices how Jesus acted, looked, and comported himself. On not a few occasions it records his attitudes, gestures, and movements. It brings him before us as he ' looked round about with anger' in the synagogue (iii. 5) ; as he 'turned him about in the crowd' (v. ^o) ', as he 'turned about, and on seeing his discipJes ' rebuked Peter (viii. 33) ; as he ' was going before them,' alone and with a mien which awed his followers, on his way to what awaited him in Jerusalem (x. 32) ; and yet again as he 'looked round about upon all things' in the profaned temple (xi. li). It tells us, too, how he 'sat down, and called the Twelve ' (ix. 35) ; how he ' looked up to heaven ' when he took the loaves and the fishes on the occasion of the feeding of the five thousand (vi. 41), and when (in Mark only) he healed the deaf man who had the impediment in his speech (vii. 34). When it relates the incident of the rich young ruler, it tells us how Jesus ' looking upon him loved him,' and ' looked round about ' when he spoke to his disciples (x. 21, 23). And when he 'took a little child' and set him before the disputing disciples, it adds ' taking him in his arms' (ix. 36, cf. x. 16). This Gospel, therefore, more even than its fellows, pre- sents Jesus in the reality of his proper and complete hiunanity. This is particularly the case as regards his emotions, whether of anger (i. 43, ill. 5, x. 14), disappoint- ment (viii. 12), sympathy (i. 41, vii. 34), wonder (vi. 6), distress (xiv. y^,, cf, 36). There is also reference to limi- tation of ability (vi. 5) and of knowledge (xiii. 32, cf. xi. 13). But it also presents him as wielding superhuman poiver. It gives a large place to his deeds of might, not only by way of healing, including exorcism, but also of power over inanimate Nature on several special occasions. It dwells also on the impression produced by both upon the people and upon his disciples (i. 27, ii. 12, vi. 51, vii. 37) ; and records how the multitudes even thought it enough if D 34 ST. MARK they could but touch his garments (i. 32, iii. 10, v. 28, vi. 56). Yet withal Jesus is not in Mark's Gospel taken out of the category of humanity and the conditions of dependence on God for everything proper to manhood, according to Peter's description of him in Acts (ii. 22) as a ' man of God marked out by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him.' See further what is said on the conception of Jesus as 'Son of God' towards the end of § 14. II. Readers, Destination, and Aim. Internal evidence points to Gentile readers as more immediately in view in Mark's Gospel. It is in the habit, for example, of interpreting the Aramaic terms and phrases which it occasionally introduces. So, too, it is accustomed to explain Jewish customs, seasons, and the like— though some of these may be glosses by a later hand (see notes on vii. 2-4, xii. 42, xiv. 12, xv. 42). The way in which the Old Testament is treated has also its significance. It has a much smaller place in Mark than it has in the other Evangelists, especially in the form of explicit quotations : and most of these follow the text of the Greek Septuagint Version. They also belong almost entirely to the reports of sayings occurring in the narrative, and not to the Evangelist himself. The solitary case of the kind is probably ch. i. 3. In like manner the Jewish Law is not named as such. This Gospel speaks, indeed, of the 'Commandments' of God (vii. 8, x. 19, &c.), but not of the * Law.' A good deal of the more specific evidence, such as it is, suggests that Mark's Gospel was addressed to readers largely of Roman culture. Its ' Latinisms ' (see § 9) do not indeed prove much as to the exact locality, e.g. Rome ; for more or less Romanized circles existed in the East. But the marked prevalence of ' Latinisms,' even though INTRODUCTION . 35 of the kind already in general colloquial use in the East, and particularly certain explanatioHs of Greek luords by Roman ^«^j— like xii. 42, where a Greek coin (the lepton) is explained by reference to a Roman one {quadratis), and xv. 16, 'within the court, which is the Proeiorium' — distinctly suggests a Church some at least of whose members knew Latin.' Still there is nothing really decisive for Rome being that Church, either on internal or external evidence. Clement of Alexandria is the first who explicitly gives the tradition of this Gospel's origin in terms of Rome, though it is possible that the idea really started with Papias. But beyond Papias it is impossible to carry it back in tradition,^ e.g. to the Elder whom Papias cites for the fact that Mark owed his qualifications for writing a Gospel to his former connexion with Peter as ' interpreter.' And as regards Papias him- self, he probably reached the notion of Mark's having written his Gospel in Rome (if he really had it) as an inference from the Evangelist's presence in Rome with Peter during the latter's last days, as implied in i Peter V. 13. Nor can he have laid stress on the point ; for Irenaeus (ill. i. 1) quite ignores it.^ The Elder, on the other hand, makes no allusion at all to Peter's having been in Rome, or to the stage in his life at which Mark was his ' interpreter.' There is really as much to be said for the view that ' It is to be noted, moreover, that if there is good reason for suspecting that the words ' which is the Praetorium ' (xv. 16) are, as Blass says, a mistranslation of the Greek {aul^), which really means the 'courtj^ard ' of the Governor's palace, then the clause is a later gloss and not Mark's own ; and in the light of this it would be natural to treat the similarly phrased equivalent 'which make a qtiadratis' (xii. 42) as also a gloss. ^ See B. W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? (191a), pp. 14-19. 3 Clement's story of the genesis of Mark's Gospel in Rome, with Peter's sanction after the event, perhaps depends on a lost Acta Petri. 36 ST. MARK Mark wrote his Gospel at Antioch, on returning to the East after Peter's martyrdom. P'or (i) This best suits the channel of Papias's knowledge of this Gospel's origin being (John) the Presbyter, who worked in the East, possibly in Antioch for a while, before going on to Asia. (2) Peter was connected with the Antiochene Church and remained in high honour there. (3) The reference to Alexander and Rufus as sons of Simon of Cyrene (surely no early gloss) fits (a) the fact that ' men of Cyrene ' were among the first planters of Antiochene Christianity (Acts xi. 20, cf. xiii. l), {/>) the possibility that Simon's sons were well known there as Christian leaders — as one of them may have been at Rome also, to judge from Paul's salutation of ' Rufus the elect in the Lord, and his mother and mine,' in Rom. xvi. 13. The reference to the mother strongly suggests that Paul knew her and her son personally ; if so, then at Antioch (Paul had not at the time visited Rome), whence the first missionaries of the Gospel in Rome may well have anigrated (cf. Andronicus and Junia(s), Rom. xvi. 7). (4) The occasional quotation of words of Jesus in their original Aramaic form would be more natural in Syria, where Aramaic was known by some Greeks and Romans, than in Rome where this would not be (he case. Similarly the Semitic order ' night and day' (v. 5, cf.iv. 27) points the same way, (5) Antioch was a great centre of Roman culture, being the seat of the Governor of Syria, and the place where ' Christians ' first received that name on the model of Roman political factions. (6) Origin in Antioch rather than Rome would best explain the phenomena of the very early use of Mark's Gospel by the other two Synoptics, which either belong both to this region, or one to it and the other (Luke) perhaps to the province of Asia, which was in close touch with N. Syria. This argument would be further fortified, INTRODUCTION 37 if the view (suggested in the notes) were accepted, that the original ending of St. Mark was removed at least directly after our Matthew was composed by its aid, as also before it was used by Luke. Otherwise some traces of the true ending could hardly fail to have survived in one region or another (especially Rome), where Mark's quasi- Petrine Gospel had already become known and revered. (7) The number and unexplained character of the geographical names belonging to Galilee and Judaea, which Mark lets fall from his pen, suits the adjacent Antioch far better than the remote Rome. So also the warning in xiii. 14, ' Then let them that are in Jttdcea flee unto the mountains' ; while the allusive reference to 'the Mountain' or hill-region in iii. 13, implies knowledge of the topography of the N.W. side of the Lake of Galilee. (S) Finally, had Rome really been its place of origin, it is hard to explain how no local tradition to that effect can be traced in that Church, which yet so highly valued its own connexion with Peter and all that tended to emphasize him as the prime authority for its tradition. On the con- trary, the Roman Hippolytus's rather depreciatory allusion {Refutatio, vii. 30) to this Gospel as ' Mark the curtailed' (lit. * stumpy-fingered ') points the other way. The most recent thorough discussion of the provenance of Mark's Gospel is Professor B. W. Bacon's Is Mark a Roman Gospel? While he sums up in the affirmative, he recognizes that Antioch would do almost equally well. His arguments against the latter view are quite inconclusive, while he does not notice several of those given above. He rightly urges that the early prestige of Mark's Gospel, in spite of its non- apostolic authorship, and its incomplete nature as compared with the full tradition of Jesus' sayings as well as his deeds (which later led to a period of relative obscurity), was probably due in part to the Church from the bosom of which it emerged (p. 38). But in the sixties Antioch, not Rome, was almost certainly the largest and most influential, as it was also the Mother-Church, of Greek-speaking and Gentile Christianity. 38 ST. MARK It was, too, a city in which Peter was personally known and highly regarded as the chief of Jesus' original apostles ; and here, too, Mark had doubtless acted as his dragoman. It would be far more natural for Mark to cite Jesus' words occasionally in their original Aramaic form in Antioch, the capital of Syria, where Aramaic would be understood even by some Greeks and Romans, than in Rome, where it would be quite out of place, and indeed at a discount as a ' barbarous ' Eastern dialect. On the other hand, the ' Latinisms' he uses would be familiar to many at Antioch. He may, too, have written specially for a Roman friend (cf. Luke's * Theophilus') or circle there. As to its author's aim in writing, we may agree with Menzies, when he says (p. 36) : ' Mark wrote his Gospel, . . . not with a view to Church use, but for the information of the brethren on a subject which was very important for them, and had not yet been put in a connected form. He had reminiscences which he desired to put in writing before they were lost to the world [their prime witness, Peter, having just passed off the scene], and he workedthese up into a complete statement, along with the better known traditions,' touching the Gospel as presented in the ministry of its Founder. The work was, no doubt, meant primarily for Christian edification. But it would serve also to supply Christians with valuable data for explanation and justification to any who might, as Peter had recently put it in his Epistle (iii. 15), 'ask an account touching the faith ' that was in them. Indeed it may well be that alike in aim and occasion Mark's Gospel was largely continuous with the Epistle of Peter, which was written, probably about 63, to Churches in Asia Minor, at a time when persecution was becoming more severe and menacing. The martyrdom of Peter and many others at Rome in 64 would create a fresh need for all possible means of assur- ance. Such unexpected sufferings, instead of an immediate share in Messiah's glory, were not really out of keeping with the promises of the Gospel, and so with its truth. INTRODUCTION 39 The best answer here was the example of their Lord and Saviour himself, on the lines already laid down in Peter's own epistle. There the image of Jesus as the pattern of meek yet heroic suffering, in reliance on God and His righteous judgement in the end, is set forth most impressively, largely as the fulfilment of Is. liii. A similar lesson seems to be intended by the special selection of materials discernible in our Mark, the author of which had been Peter's companion when he wrote i Peter (see V. 12). What more natural, then, than that after Peter's own martyrdom at Rome, in the footsteps of his Lord, Mark should, in some part of the tried Church of Christ with which he had old ties,^ and to which he would naturally repair on his leader's death, write a contribution of his own to the pressing problems of the hour ? These would centre in the question, ' Why, if Jesus be really God's Messiah, was he rejected by the Jewish people and their religious leaders, and his "Gospel" judged by these not to be of God ? ' So viewed, Mark's Gospel has that practical and apologetic purpose, that vital touch with the Hfe of the Church, which all analogy leads us to look for in any early Christian writing. And his contribution equally naturally took the form of a Gospel, and a Gospel full of Petrine touches of memory, seeing that he had been the interpreter of Peter, and his instructor of converts in the Petrine traditions of Christ's ministry and teaching. All this helps to explain the emphasis on the Cross in Mark ; for this Gospel has been described as ' a history of the Passion expanded backwards,' so large a proportion of the Gospel deals with that great climax of the ministry. It also helps to explain the length with which the martyrdom of the Forerunner is described in Mark, as distinct from ^ Such as Aiitioch, where, as in N. Syria generally — to which the Ascension of Isaiah, with its reference to the death of Peter at the hands of Nero (iv. 3), may safely be assigned — Peter's martyrdom would produce a specially painful im- pression. 40 ST. MARK the other Synoptics. It has, too, a suggestive bearing on the question of date, dealt with in the next section. Mark's aim had thus a good deal in common with that set forth by Luke in the preface to his Gospel. But it was more directly and simply religious, in a practical sense, and less reflective and historical, than that animating the work of his more cultured successor, who felt that Mark's pioneer ' attempt ' left something to be desired, from the special point of view from which his own Gospel was written. Unlike the First Gospel, ' Mark does not use the argument from prophecy to shew that Jesus was Messiah,' in spite of all difficulties which this belief involved for Pharisaic Judaism. That is rather the work of a theo- logian, 'a. character our author rarely assumes. His proof is different : it is that from the impression Jesus made in his life, both by his preaching and in his acts and his encounters with opponents. This proof, culminating in the word of the centurion at the Cross (xv. 39), " Certainly this man was the [or a] Son of God "... was a simple and effective one, which would appeal to Gentiles more readily than that from prophecy' (Menzies, p. 37). Finally, as to the peculiar ' Pauline ' features, or ever character, alleged of this Gospel, they are not sustained b] any sufficient body of facts. The theory is founded 01. precarious inferences, drawn not only from certain typically Pauline ideas thought to mingle with the narrative and the words of Jesus, but also from such things as the promi- nence given in Mark to certain shortcomings on the part of the original disciples, their dullness in spiritual discern- ment, their lack of power on certain occasions, and things of that kind, frankly recorded (cf. ch. ix. 10-12, 18, 19, 32, 38, Sec). But for the most part the exegesis upon which the argument rests is very dubious, or the facts have really another meaning than that thus assigned to them. The most that can fairly be asserted in the way of ' Paulinisms,' e.g. as regards the 'hardening of heart' in those who did not accept Jesus and his Gospel, is what seems true also INTRODUCTION 41 of the Apocalyptic Eschatology in Mark, viz. a certain enhancement of ideas present already in Jesus' own teach- ing, but carried further in the experience and thought of the Apostolic age. 12. Date. The question of date is left rather indeterminate by the Gospel itself; nor does ancient historical testimony speak with precision on the subject. Apart from extreme views, such as c. 44-49 (connected with the theory of an Aramaic original), and a date after A.D. 70, the bulk of recent scholars lean to the years during or just before the Jewish war of 66-70. J. Weiss's suggestion, 64-66, is as good as any ; and it is confirmed by the special aim and occasion of Mark's Gospel as suggested above. Those who suppose that this Gospel, as we have it, is not the original I\Iark, but that a more primitive version of the Evangelist's narrative once existed, naturally argue for a somewhat later date. But the theory of an ' original Mark' {Ur-Markiis) is itself very precarious, and is in- creasingly so regarded, in spite of a few scholars (e.g. Wendling, whose views are discussed in Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, ch. xiii), who still hold it in ever new forms. How does the case stand, then, in the matter of ancient historical testimony ? Apart from Eusebius, who in his Chronicle connects Mark's Gospel with the third year of the Emperor Claudius (a.d. 43), but has no real historical basis for this, only one witness need here be reckoned with. Irenceus, in the third book of his treatise Against Heresies, having said that ' Peter and Paul preached, and founded the Church, in Rome,' adds that, 'after the departure of these,' Mark 'delivered to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter.' As the words ' after the departure of these ' are usually understood, the composition of the Gospel did not take 42 ST. MARK place till after the decease of Peter and Paul. The death of Peter took place, in all probability, in the Neronian persecution of A. D. 64, and Irenaeus's testimony therefore points to the period shortly afterwards as the date of the Gospel. But it is very doubtful whether Irenaeus had any definite knowledge on the point (see B. W. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel?, esp. pp. 20 f., for Papias as the fountain-head of later views and inferences). Whether we can be more precise depends on the interpretation we put on a few things in the writing itself. Of these the most important are the declarations made on the things of the End in ch. xiii (the very fulness of which shews how living was the subject dealt with), especially those in verses 14, 24, 30. There is nothing in this Gospel that points to the destruction of Jerusalem as a thing in the past ; and it is difficult to imagine that an event of such moment as the overthrow of the Jewish state and its religious centre, if it had recently occurred, could have left no trace in a narrative like this. Further, the Return of Jesus as the Son of Man from heaven, which was to follow the Fall of the Temple, seems to be included in * all these things ' which in xiii. 30 are stated to be due within ' this generation,' i. e. that of Jesus' own hearers. On the whole, then, the date of our Gospel may be placed, with some confidence, about A. D. 65 or within a year or two of that time (see Note on the Apocalyptic Discourse). 13. Integrity of the Text. We have ample reason for accepting this Gospel, in the form in which we have it, as in all essential points the original text. The documentary evidence makes this clear. There are a good many passages in which our authorities — manuscripts, versions, and quotations in early Christian literature — shew variations of reading. But none of these are of serious moment, though some INTRODUCTION 43 are of great interest as bearing on the thought of the early Church in reading our Gospel. Some of the more important instances will be found in the following vari- ants and renderings accepted by the R. V. in preference to those of the A. V. : ' in Isaiah the prophet,' instead of * in the prophets ' (i. 2) ; ' This he said, making all meats clean,' instead of * purging all meats ' (vii. 19) ; 'by nothing, save by prayer,' in place of ' by nothing, but by prayer and fasting ' (ix. 39). But it is probable that in all the above cases we have to do with later glosses upon Mark's own text (see notes ad loc). The only question that affects the right of any consider- able section to be received as part of the original text, is in connexion with the closing paragraph (xvi. 9-20). It is raised by the circumstance that the conclusion exists in three different forms. There is the longer form which is represented in our A. V. There is the shorter form, ending with the words * for they were afraid ' (xvi. 8), to which, as shewn in the R. V., the following verses are an appendix. There is also another and briefer supplement, the Greek of which is given in Westcott and Hort's text. In the notes on xvi. 8 and its sequel reasons are given for regarding all forms of what follows on xvi. 8 as secondary additions, meant to supply the missing original ending; the longer one being very early, the shorter being of later origin but still relatively early. As to the exact historical value of the longer ending, some- thing depends on the meaning of a piece of early evidence bearing on its authorship which came to light some twenty-five years ago. Dr. F. C. Conybeare (see Expositor, IV. viii. 241 fif.) found in an old Armenian manuscript a note between xvi. 8 and 9-20 containing the words * Of the presbyter Ariston.' This Ariston maybe the Aristion mentioned by Papias as one of the disciples of the Lord. If so, it is possible that this Ariston was a leading autho- rity in some region where Mark's Gospel was early cur- rent, about the time that the original ending disappeared. 44 ST. MARK and that he composed the section which replaced it. But the idea may have been only a theory based upon the fact that Aristion was, on Papias"s testimony, ' a disciple of the Lord ' and so a fit person to perform such a service. See further the introductory note to Mark xvi. 9 fF. 14. Mark's use of his Sources. Besides the variety in the sources on which Mark draws (see § 5), each of which shews a certain difiference of stand- point as well as of materials, we have to appreciate the special point of view of the Evangelist himself, visible in the handling of his materials in the light of his own reli- gious faith touching the person and work of Jesus, as the true Christ of God. This aspect of the matter has recently been treated afresh, and on the whole justly, by the late Johannes Weiss in his weighty study of 'Primitive Chris- tianity' (Z>«J Urchristentiif/i, 537-549). As he points out, some of those features of the Marcan Gospel which have been felt to be most distinctive of it are really due to the primary materials used, the common Apostolic tradition, enriched by additional Petrine incidents and touches of memory ; while others represent its author's own interpre- tative ideas, which come out chiefly in the selection and ordering of his materials, so as to produce a certain im- pression of Jesus Christ as 'the Son of God.' In addition to minor vivid, realistic touches — obvious transcripts from the historic facts themselves, memories faithful to original everyday details — which belong to the original Apostolic stratum of the traditions followed by Mark, the Marcan narrati\e reflects also the primitive impression of the central figure himself, as it appears in the Petrine preaching in Acts, and especially in the address to the Gentile Cornelius and his friends (Acts x). There the Christ is described as ' Jesus of Nazareth,' whom ' God atioznted with ho/y Spirit and power ; who went about doing good, and healing all that were INTRODUCTION 45 oppressed of the devil: for God was with him.' This is quite on the lines of Isaiah Ixi. i ff., as also of the Magnijicat, the Benedictus, and the Nunc Dimittis, perhaps our best witnesses to the outlook of early Judaso-Christianity in the circles where the common Apostolic tradition (X) was shaped and first handed down. That tradition dwells much on ' salvation ' as sent of God ' to Israel his servant,' as ' re- demption wrought for his People ' in keeping with ' his holy Covenant ' with ' Abraham and his seed for ever,' in and through One who yet was to be ' a light for revelation to the Gentiles,' as well as * the glory of God's people, Israel.' It is relative to this historical perspective, one continuous with Hebrew prophecy (cf. i Pet. i. 10 f, ii. _/?;/.), especially Isa. xl. ff., that the figure of Jesus, at once as ' anointed with holy Spirit and power' and as suffering, appears in the warp and woof of the materials which form the staple of the Marcan Gospel (see further, below, § 15). To this, however, the Evangelist adds a further inter- pretative element due to more developed reflection, both his own and that of the Apostolic circles in which he had moved. He conceives the filial relation between Jesus and his Father in heaven, as not only unique in intimacy, purity and spiritual power — and as the real basis of his Messianic sonship as avocation, on the lines of Old Testa- ment prophecy (especially in Isaiah) and of Peter's con- fession at CiEsarea Philippi (cf. Mark xiv. 61, 'the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ') — but also as implying something more and of rather a different kind. For Mark himself Jesus is ' the Son of God ' in a more mysterious sense, one related to another line of Jewish expectation than has al- ready been referred to, that of the ' Apocalyptic ' tradition in Judaism, which, starting from the Prophetic, prolonged its thought into the heavenly sphere for the full secret of the unique sonship of Messiah. Seizing upon the imagery of Daniel vii. 13, where 'one like unto a son of man ' ap- pears ' with the clouds of heaven,' as the representative of God and clothed with his glory, this mode of thought 46 ST. MARK imagined a pre-existent Son of God — the highest of the order of archangels in whom God's nature was most fully expressed in finite form, as it could not be in the absolute purity of Godhead. This being, in the form of God, was to appear in human form, in order to achieve God's gracious purpose towards and through Israel, of which the Messianic idea in all its forms was the supreme expression. Jewish Apocalyptic, indeed, had not even attempted to imagine such a pre-existent being as really living under the full limits of human nature— undergoing a human birth, developing in body and soul, and, in a word, be- coming an historical person with an earthly history. But what abstract thought had not ventured to essay, that for Mark, as for Paul and the writer of the Epistle to Hebrews, had been actually achieved by the Divine wisdom and power in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of man and Son of God. And so, as Johannes Weiss says (p. 544), ' the Jesus of Mark is the Son of God, who is equipped [after death] with divine power and divine knowledge, yet is also the quondam Jewish teacher and prophet, with human experiences and limited knowledge and power ; in this picture Divinity and humanity win their way through {dtirchdrlngen sick) to an indissoluble unity. Therein Mark has for all time set the tone for the popular conception and for the theological view of the earthly Jesus. For Mark Jesus was the Son of God . . . such as the daemons recognized (v. 7),' with a pre-existent Divine nature which he understood Jesus himself to point to, when, in reply to the high-priest's challenge, he said, ' I am (" the Son of the Blessed ") : and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven ' (alluding to Dan. vii. 13). ' Of a truth he understands the name, very much as did the centurion under the Cross (xv. 39), quite in a popular way, as of a being who is akin in essence to God. Quite in the popular manner also is it that he does not reflect how it INTRODUCTION 47 has come about that his Deity comes forth in human form. . . . This lack of intellectual apprehension is just the distinctive note : the Evangelist has, according to this tendency of his, no hankering after theological knowledge.' Enough for him — as for Peter in his Epistle — that Jesus is the Son of God in the above religious sense : ' from this Christological standpoint the whole Gospel is, in the intention of its author, to be read ' (ib. p. 545). In the light of this dominant thought in its author's mind, touching Jesus the Christ, ' the absence of what we should call the *' biographical " interest ' from Mark's Gospel, full as it is of realistic touches, is both natural and significant. There is no section dealing with Jesus' life prior to his 'Gospel' ministry; nor is there any idea of his psychological development during that ministry. If Mark's narrative contains data which afford hints of such a spiritual history, in the sense proper to a truly human experience (compare Heb, v. 7-9 for recognition of this in certain aspects), this is due to his materials, which he loyally embodies as trustworthy records of the facts according to Divine ordering (even when on the face of them hard to harmonize with his own ruling conception, as in xiii. 32, xiv. 36, xv. 34). Most significant of all, there is no sign that Mark conceived of any development in Jesus' thoughts as to the course of his Gospel-ministry, in point of acceptance or rejection respectively, which yet the broad outlines of the narrative itself, due to the basal Apostolic tradition, and certain 'water-mark' traces run- ning through it, seem clearly to imply (see § 15). Thus, while Mark realizes that the disciples only gradually reached such an insight into their Master's filial relation to Cod as enabled them, in spite of the lack of certain expected features of the office, to confess him as the Messiah or Anointed Deliverer and King of Israel ; as regards Jesus' own foreknowledge of the actual path he was to tread, Mark believes that almost from the first (ii. 20) Jesus foreknew that rejection by God's people was to 48 ST. MARK be his lot, even to the point of violent death. Nor does he allow anything in this connexion for Jesus' surprise at the unreadiness of the people for his Message. There is a certain truth, too, in J. Weiss's observation that ' the thought that Jesus had had temptations to uni- versal human sins is as remote from Mark as that other, namely, to set Jesus forth as an ethical model for his dis- ciples : the Son of God can be no model for men' (p. 547 f.) — as regards the development of moral character, as distinct from the call to cross-bearing. Jesus' allusion to ' temptations ' in which the companionship of his disciples had been precious to hinj (xxii. 28), the Third Evangelist owes not to Mark but to his own ' special source '. Again, while those seem right who see in the sharpness of Jesus' rebuke to Peter's well-meant deprecation of the thought of rejection and suffering as ingredients of his Master's cup (Mark viii. 32 f.) the token of a moral conflict, not yet over for Jesus even at the late stage represented by the episode near Cssarea Philippi, Mark himself shews no consciousness of this, however much his materials may, under more searching analysis than was natural to him, reveal it to us to-day. Accordingly, A. B. Bruce hardly stated the real meaning of the phenomena accurately when he described Mark [IViih Open Face, p. 35) as ' unem- barrassed by reverence,' compared with his fellow Evange- lists, in that they softened down or shunned taking over certain elements in the * realism ' which characterizes the Marcan picture of Jesus, particularly his strong emotions both of anger and pity. The fact is that the frank descrip- tions of the humanity of Jesus found in Mark's Gospel were not due to Mark, save in the sense that he did not feel called on or free to suppress what came to him through good tradition. Such touches belong rather to the basal Apostolic tradition in its earliest known form. On the whole, we may sum up the nature of Mark's Gospel in some sentences taken from J. Weiss. ' The significance of the oldest Gospel for the Church's history INTRODUCTION 49 lies before all things in this, that it has fashioned once for all, with vivid touches serving as a model for all who come after, a picture of Jesus on earth which has impressed itself indissolubly on the imagination of the community. In it one can recognize what significance for the Christian Mission the ' historical ' Jesus possessed. Mission preach- ing, as we have seen, could not dispense with a certain amount of information touching the life of Jesus, , . . The Gospel of Mark, then, teaches us that the need of a living, concrete picture was far greater than has generally been supposed. Fresh converts desired a fuller knowledge touching Jesus, of whom they were told that he is the Son of God : the communities needed for worship and indivi- dual piety a living presentation of him who had died for their sakes. Besides there was, no doubt, already arising a certain historical interest : in particular, as the eye- witnesses of Jesus' life were dying out, the necessity be- came clear of maintaining what they had given as tradi- tion . . , The oldest Gospel (Mark) . . ., therefore, is only to be understood and rightly estimated, if it is read on the one hand as expressing the conceptions and convictions of the Evangelist, and on the other as a collection of older traditions, which in part grew out of quite other concep- tions ' {Das UrcJn-istentiim^ p. 544). When this needful distinction is made, it does but add to the value of certain of our Mark's characteristic fea- tures. Thus ' the less it is the case that the Evangelist (himself) sets out to strengthen the influence of the person of Jesus upon the souls of his readers by the picture of an ethical ideal, the more important is it that the material he furnishes contains manifold features which could not but work immediately upon the feelings of Christians of that age. . . . The grace of Christ, of which Paul speaks, his willingness to forgive the penitent (ii. 5), is presented to the imagination by word and deed in an impressive fashion. . . . Above all is Jesus, who was himself hated and mocked, and who has drained the bitter cup of suffering, a hearten- E 50 ST. MARK ing and ronsoling Leader for those whose lot any day might be trial and martyrdom. In this direction lies the edifying power of the ' Passion-story.' ' Such, in some of its chief traits, is the meaning of the Gospel of Mark, viewed not as an historical source /or us, but as a missionary-writing or lesson-book for the mission- communities.' None the less Mark did in effect turn ' the Gospel ' largely into a Biography. 15. The Historic Jesus in Mark's Gospel. And so we approach the final and most vital question touching our Gospel, its ' historicity.' The question itself is largely a modern one. For the interest behind it, the passion to know how all actually happened—' the historic spirit '— is a comparatively new thing among men. It is one connected with the modern sense of the peculiar worth and even sanctity, especially in the religious sphere, of facts as such — what has been wrought in and into the warp and woof of reality, as a connected and stable order such as science knows and deals with. We want, then, to see the Life and Person of Jesus as far as possible in such a hght, that of historic ' realism,' in order to grasp their full meaning more surely and fruitfully for our life in a world of hard realities, of strenuous conflict with the actual forces at work in human nature, individually and socially. The first Christians, standing as they did in such direct relation with ' the fact of Christ ' through eye-witnesses or those who had caught their message first-hand from such, were content to proclaim the Gospel message touching God and man that had reached them in and through Jesus the Christ, without asking themselves how far the picture of Christ's personality and career lying at the heart of their new experience was ' historical,' i. e. an exact re- flexion of the facts of his life in its real order of develop- ment. They f It secure of the Jesus of history as lying behind what they knew of the Christ of faith and religious INTRODUCTION 51 experience ; but their very assurance of the essential reality of Jesus' ministry of grace and power, as it had impressed the Apostolic witnesses, made them indifferent to most of its concrete details, and especially of the historical order and relations in which it had unfolded itself. To us moderns, however, the very religious value of the Gospel story is bound up with its historical character, as something once really enacted in the life and deeds of Jesus the Christ. Did he actually stand, in his own con- sciousness and in that of those who knew him best, in unique relations to God and to men and women about him ? The answer to this question turns largely upon (i) the verisimilitude of the historical setting in which his ministry is described as fulfilled, and of his relations with it ; and (2) the self-consistency and fitness of the development of Jesus' ministry, and of what can be gathered of his inner attitude and thought touching his vocation as the Messiah, through whom the Kingdom of God was to be realized in Israel and among men at large. Positive results on these closely related aspects of the picture of Jesus in the Gospels would go far to verify the historicity of the personality and ministry there reflected ; they would also give a fulness of insight into his intrinsic mind and spirit, and so into the authentic meaning of his Gospel — as distinct from readings of it varying with the reader's own idiosyncrasies — such as could not otherwise be attained. When, however, we turn to our Gospels for answers to these questions, we are confronted by their differences and even discrepancies in certain respects. This is so, not only as between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptics, but also as between these latter individually. In which of them are the requirements of an historical portraiture of Jesus, in and through an intelligibly developing ministry, most fully met ? It is generally agreed to-day, first, that the palm must here be given to Mark's Gospel ; and next, that what of development in Jesus' ministry, in correspondence 52 ST. MARK with its environment, is discernible in the other two Synoptics is due largely to use of this Gospel as the frame- work into which their other material is fitted. Moreover, neither of the other two Evangelists has really appro- priated all that our Mark contains in the way of evidence touching Jesus' own inner history. Indeed some of it has not been fully assimilated (as we saw in § 14) by Mark himself : and this fact surely points back, first, to his great fidelity to the tradition which he follows (Peter's in the main), and then to the historicity of its psychological data, the latent meaning of which has only gradually been coming to light in these latter days. But before dwelling further on this most important aspect of the picture of Jesus in Mark's Gospel, it maybe well to deal with the other and more obvious aspect of historicity, viz. that of backgroimd or setii7ig. This is twofold : first, the more external, whether topographical or circumstantial : and second, the human environment of religious parties and types, their habits and modes of thought, as these existed in the Judaism amid which Jesus moved and exercised his ministry. On the former head there is almost universal agreement as to Mark's fidelity (in its original text) to Palestinian conditions. On the latter, while there is again agreement as to the superiority of Mark to the other Gospels, there is still some tendency, among Jewish scliolars in particular, to question the representation of Jewish matters where those opposed to Jesus were concerned, particularly the Pharisees. But such criticism by modern Jewish scholars, valuable as it often is in details, takes it for granted that the Pharisaism and Rabbinic teaching of Jesus' day were the same, both in actual usages and in the relative value attached to the moral and ritual aspects of religious duty (as rooted in the Mosaic Law), as we find in the Mishnah and the Talmud ; and that where the Gospels give another impression they must be discounted as being biassed witnesses. This is far from true to analogy, which favours the possibility of INTRODUCTION 53 large changes of spirit in the average attitude of any religious tradition ; and it means a setting aside of positive contemporary evidence in favour of inferences from later evidence, before the untrustworthiness of the former for its own day has been estabhshed. That exaggeration of Jesus' own anti-Pharisaic criticism gradually grew up, partly in the transmission of the Christian oral tradition, both before and after it assumed written form in our Gospels, and still more in the later traditional Christian reading (including actual glosses in the text) of what is there written, is fairly proven. But this does not justify suspicion of what seems plainly part of Jesus' argument face to face with the Pharisees of his own day, simply on the score that it implies Pharisaic developments, whether of practice or theory, not witnessed to by a reformed Pharisaism, after the calamities of Judaism in A. D. 70 and 135. Admitting, however, that the conflict between Pharisaic Judaism and the early Church has left its traces on the form in which the tradition of Jesus' ministry appears in our Gospels, it can yet hardly be doubted that there was a radical difference between the religious attitude and spirit of Pharisaism, on the one side, and of Jesus himself, the Prophet of Nazareth, on the other ; and that this was the real issue which worked itself out in history as the Cross of Christ, however much the Sadducaic priesthood at Jerusalem may have been immediately responsible for its actual form. For to the Pharisees outward or cere- monial fidelity to legal precepts was determinative of true religion : to Jesus it was so subordinate to the spirit or inward intention of the Law as a whole, that, on occasion, true obedience to this might involve formal breach of this or that outward rule, not only of the ' tradition of the Elders,' but of the written Law itself. To literalistic Legalism or Rabbinic Pharisaism, whether earlier or later, Christians were, to use the striking language of Paul, the great ex-Pharisee, in principle ' crucified by the body of Christ.' They shared the 'newness' of 54 ST. MARK religious life which he embodied, and which rose again with him, after crucifixion in the outer or external sphere, where the old order of religion so largely moved and had its being. To-day, moreover, the prophetic conception of the Law, which Jesus represented and carried to a fulfil- ment of which the prophets had only dreamt in imagina- tive anticipation, has received fresh justification within modem Judaism itself, in the thought and writings, and in a measure even in the less legal forms of piety, of liberal Jewish scholars and synagogues here and there, especially in English-speaking lands. Such Jewish scholars acknow- ledge their debt to the greatest prophet of their race, as many of them esteem Jesus. And Christian scholars, on their part, owe a deep debt to them for removing from Christian eyes the scales of ignorance and prejudice which have obscured their reading of the New Testament — written, as it was, for the most part by men of Jewish blood and Jewish thought — and notleast of the Gospels which enshrine the historic image of Jesus. For those Christian Jews Jesus was the revelation of the invisible God in a human per- sonality, surely the most adequate form of Divine revelation, as the Prophets taught in their picture of the Messiah who was to visit Israel in due season. It is, then, chiefly in their rejection of the prophetic idea of a Messianic Mediator of God to men, both in words and in acts (particularly the Cross), that liberal Jews to-day dissociate themselves from their Christian brethren of the spiritual seed of Abraham. Otherwise there has been a striking approximation from both sides between liberal Jews and Christians, not only in the realm of scholarship but also in that of spiritual religion, where * that which proceedeth out of the heart ' is the thing which matters before God, and wherein for both types of piety true ' purity ' consists. This said, we return to the picture of Jesus the Christ as it appears in the very texture of the Marcan story taken as a whole, and apart from any touches which can reason- INTRODUCTION 55 ably be traced to the Evangelist's own faith (§ 14) or to changes arising unconsciously in the course of oral tradi- tion (e. g. the exact terms in which demoniacs addressed Jesus as one felt to wield a potent spiritual influence in the name of God), Matthew Arnold well describes the Jesus of the Gospels as frequently speaking above the heads of his reporters. And what is true of the original disciples is true also of the Evangelists themselves. Accordingly, in our quest for ' the mind of the Master ' himself— for the way in which Jesus thought of his own career as it unfolded stage by stage before his soul, while he ' learned obedience ' as a son by the strange experiences through which the Father led him on (cf. Heb. v. 7 f.)— we must sometimes look behind even Mark's conception of the course of Jesus' ministry and his own attitude to it. Nay more, we must be prepared to look at certain points behind even Mark's form of the common apostolic tradition, usually the most primitive of all. For although the Marcan tradition itself affords clear hints of a development in Jesus' ministry, yet it tends, quite naturally, to present this too much in the light of its final outcome, and also to assume that the latter was from the first clearly present to the con- sciousness of the prime actor himself, as if there were no real development in Jesus' own thoughts as to his mission and the manner in which the Kingdom was to come through his agency. But when we try to read between the lines of the earliest Apostolic tradition, by the aid of certain of Jesus' sayings and significant acts viewed in their own light, we begin to discern an inward and gradual change in the perspective a?id forecast of Jesus' ministry, as it presented itself to his human consciousness in the light of experiences of unreadiness on the part both of leaders and people — things clearly not expected by him, but moving him to surprise, disappointment, or indignation. This is particularly the case when we consider all that bears upon what has been called his ' Messianic Secret,' 56 ST. MARK the way in which he inwardly viewed his own vocation in relation to the coming of the Messianic Kingdom of God, which from the first he proclaimed as near at hand. This coming Kingdom was the substance of ' the Gospel 'or gracious Message from God with which he was entrusted, in fulfilment of the prophetic picture in the second part of the Book of Isaiah. From the first, then, he was conscious of his Divine vocation to follow up the Baptist's ministry of 'making ready the way of the Lord,' the God of Israel, who was to come and reign manifestly among a people made 'willing in the day of His power' — the essential meaning of ' the Kingdom ' or Reign ' of God ' ; and for him this vocation was rooted in his special filial relation to God, as before and above all his Father. His sonship ^ to God, we repeat, was the real basis of all else. But the form of ministry through which he expected to bring in the Kingdom among God's people was not one and the same throughout ; it was profoundly coloured, and modified in perspective and in emphasis on the various aspects and elements in the filial life, by the actual course of his experiences in preaching the Kingdom. To begin with, he felt and acted simply as the anointed Prophet of his Father's will for Israel, and of the type of religion, individually and socially, which this involved. But before very long the religious leaders, the Pharisees and their Scribes, proved hostile, and the people at large insensitive, to that religious ideal— the latter because they found it too personal in its demands and in the method by which (rather than by a national revolt from Roman overlordship) its ' redemption ' was to be wrought. Then first, as it seems, did he begin to realize the other aspect of the Isaianic picture of ' the Servant of Jehovah,' viz. ' Whether the actual phrasing of the Voice at his Baptism be strictly historical, or rather the way in which his experience at that crisis came to be reported in tradition (compare the Voice at the Transfiguration, ix. 7), is a secondary matter. INTRODUCTION 57 that only through vicarious sufferi7ig, for the sake of a stiff-necked and blind people, could its salvation be achieved, as applicable to his own ministry. Thus his prophetic ministry took on a deeper and more vicarious meaning : the service of the Servant became a ' minister- ing ' even unto the point of 'giving his life as a means of deliverance (ransom) for many ' (Mark x. 45, on the lines of Isa. liii, esp. 8, 10-12) ; and the Prophet's function expanded so as to include also the Priest's, in the fully personal sense of one who by the sacrifice of himself changes the attitude of the sinful and brings them into moral fellowship with God, In both of these stages, however, the older and Davidic aspect of God's Anointed {Messiah), viz. as King, remains only in the background of Jesus' thought, partly because of its suggestions of power rather than service, partly also because the current conception of Messiahship had too external and nationalist a sense. Accordingly, it was not until the final stage of his conflict with the national religious authorities — now in the persons of the high- priestly custodians of the central worship of the Temple — that Jesus overtly claimed Messianic Kingship, but still on its purely spiritual side, that of authority for religious reformation. This claim he made virtually by entering the Holy City in a manner plainly recalling the type of kingship in Zech. ix. 9 : ' Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion .... Behold, thy king cometh unto thee : he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, and riding upon an ass. And I will cut off the chariot (and other weapons of war) . . . : and he shall speak peace unto the nations.' He made it more explicitly in act, by cleansing the Temple, and then defending the action, when challenged, by comparing his authority to the purely spiritual prophetic authority of John the Baptist ; and a little later he im- plicitly repeated the claim to be ' the Christ,' but in such a sense as to be David's spiritual Lord. The thread of continuiiy riciwing through nil this S8 ST. MARK development \n outlook and emphasis is to be found, on its inner and essential side, in Jesus' filial consciousness from first to last, and on its more formal side in the chapters of Isaiah dealing with the Servant of the Lord. It was here, as we see from his sermon at Nazareth (Lukeiv), that he recognized the type of his own vocation. ' We may say, perhaps,' writes Dr. Sanday,^ ' that as our Lord's consciousness of Sonship received its seal in the vision which accompanied His Baptism ' — and conditioned his taking up the role of the Anointed Servant described in Isa. Ixi. i ff. — ' so also His consciousness of a call to assume the character of the Suffering Servant was con- firmed by another vision, the vision that is known as the Transfiguration, when Moses and Elijah "appeared in glory and spake of his decease which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem." ' Possibly the wording of this description in Luke ix. 31 — which gives us a true hint, enabling us to see more into Jesus' own mind on this occasion than does the tradition as known to Mark— is so far coloured by the after-event that it makes the issue of Jesus' going up to Jerusalem more certain to his mind than may then have been the case, if we may judge by certain actions and words of his when even nearer the supreme crisis. Yet the probability of the issue being death was no doubt faced by Jesus at this stage. And the like applies to the wording of all the references to the Passion put into his lips by the Synoptics during the journey towards the capital. But that by this time he was thinking of his ministry essentially in terms of the suffering Servant, there is every reason to believe. What this means may be set forth in some further words of Dr. Sanday {op. cit. 87 fF.) touching 'that wonderful group of prophecies relating to the Servant of Jehovah.' ^ ' The Meaning of the Atonement,' in Divine Overruling, p. 86, INTRODUCTION 59 ' Some difficulty has been caused by the apparent changes in the subject of the picture that is drawn for us. At one moment it is clearly and expressly Israel as a nation (Isa. xli. 8 f. ; xliv. I f., 21 ; xlv. 4 ; xlviii. 2o) ; at another, it is not the nation as a whole, but, as it would seem, the faithful few, the godly kernel of the nation as contrasted with the "blind and deaf" who make up the main body (xlii. i8 f.) ; at a third, we are led to think rather of an individual leader or prophet (so per- haps especially in xlii. 1-3 and liii). Really the Servant is an ideal figure, which is capable of expansion or contraction, ac- cording to the particular object which the writer has specially before his mind. Sometimes he is thinking of an individual whose mission it is to convert or reconvert his own people ; sometimes of a group who act together and suffer together in the same cause ; and sometimes he generalizes yet more boldly and thinks of the whole nation in its ideal aspect as a mis- sionary nation, which stands out as a witness for God among the peoples of the earth, a light to lighten the Gentiles. In this character it attains to the height of its mission especially through its sufferings. . . .' ' The writer certainly has this larger view before his mind. And yet, in a case like this, the concrete precedes the abstract. I have little doubt that the prophet's thought starts from what he had seen on the smaller scale and with his own eyes. This, I think, comes out especially in the first verses of ch. xlii and in ch. liii. The traits of character in these passages are so dis- tinct that they read like the biography of an individual. . . .The Servant will "not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street." '' He was despised and rejected of men ; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," " He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniqui- ties ; the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed." However much we may . . . think of the nation acting as a scapegoat for other nations, that could be only by an effort of thought, starting from more immediate observation and experience. I imagine that the prophet must have seen some one close at hand whose life history could be described in these terms. He ends by sacrificing life itself, and there would seem to have been special circumstances in 6o ST. MARK his death. In some conspicuous way it was clear that he was dying for others, and he died unresisting and uncomplaining. At the same time he was mixed up with common malefactors, and made his grave among them. Yet he did not die in vain. He left some converts behind him, and a prospect of more. " He shall see his seed " — his spiritual children : " he shall prolong his days " — through the spiritual posterity ; " and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand '' — he will feel that he is an instrument for carrying out God's purposes. In that he has his reward : he sees of the travail of his soul, and is satisfied .... I must needs think that in this picture a corner is lifted of the curtain of darkness which hangs over the Babylonian Cap- tivity. . . . The life-story of an individual might well be a kind of epitome of the history of nations.' One can hardly read this sympathetic summary of the general effect of the most arresting portion of Old Testa- ment prophecy without feeling morally sure that this was at least the light in which it presented itself to the soul of Jesus, particularly as the parallel between it and his own experiences as God's servant, 'ministering' the Gospel to Israel, became closer and closer. To judge from the prevalent accent of gladness and hope, in his proclamation of the Evangel of the coming Kingdom, which marks the opening of the Galilean ministry, his thoughts rested for a while only on the brighter side of the picture. He might naturally assume that in theyfwa/ fulfilment of its message, as distinct from its original but partial one — ere the excep- tionally Divine conditions of the 'Messianic' age were present— the darker traits would, as a matter of course, be lacking. For the Messianic era was to differ from all previous ones in the very fact that Israel should no longer be ' blind and deaf to God's call, but 'willing in the day of His power.' But when it was forced on Jesus by bitter experience, of which the parable of the Sower is the first clear hint in the Gospel of Mark, that God's people was still much as the prophets had found it ; that only a minority, a 'remnant,' was spiritually prepared for the INTRODUCTION 6i true Reign of God among them ; it must have come home to him that for this ' httle flock,' and for its anointed Head, the darker side of the picture still held good. Only so could he and ' the remnant ' — ' the leaven ' or ' the salt ' of Israel, as he phrased it— fulfil their appointed part as the saving Servant of the Lord in the bringing in of His Kingdom. In them also the words italicized in the above quotation were destined to be fulfilled. Such a genesis of Jesus' outlook on his Mission, until it resolved itself into the way of the Cross, is completely in keeping with the analogy of the part played by the Old Testament in the moulding of his thoughts ; and as such is most probable. Particularly is this so, if we accept Dr. Sanday's exposition of the relation of the individual and the collective aspects of the title and fortunes of ' the Servant of Jehovah.' But in any case Jesus might well come in this way to realize the full spirit of the original situation. Thus he would perceive that it was essentially true to the Messiah's vocation, as he viewed the office, to take the lead as the representative Israelite in this path also, as one through which alone redemption and forgive- ness of sins could be achieved for Israel at large. And not only for Israel, but also through Israel for all men everj'where (see Isa. xlix. 6 fif), in keeping with the con- ception in Zech. ix. Qf of the 'lowly' King of Zion, who should also ' speak peace unto the nations.' In such an individualizing or summing up of Israel's national vocation as Servant of the Lord, in the personal Messiah, we have a close parallel to Jesus' conception and use of another idea most characteristic of his thought, viz. the Son of man. This too, in its original context in Dan. vii. 13, had been a symbol for the true Israel, but one which had in current Jewish thought already acquired an individual reference to the coming Messiah, as conceived by the ' Apocalyptic ' mode of thought, which succeeded to the Prophetic and continued its traditions under another form, as purely symbolic in its imagery and more specula- 62 ST. MARK tive in its theology. How far Jesus himself was familiar with Apocalyptic, beyond the degree to which it had entered into general popular religion in Galilee, is a doubt- ful question. But at least it is most consonant both with his habit of modifying all he adopted from current usage and with his actual use of ' the Son of Man ' in our Gospels, to regard Jesus as having applied the phrase to himself in a sense diverging a good deal from the Apocalyptic one, in the direction of the other and more usual sense which it has in the Old Testament, notably in Ps. viii. 4 AT. (of. Heb. ii. 5 ff.). There it denotes ' man ' generically, as distinct from God, on the one hand, but equally from all the sub-human creation on the other. It is as man in this sense, that of the Divine ideal in the creation of man, that Jesus thinks of himself as the representative ' Son of Man,' the typical embodiment of the idea lying behind the choice in Daniel of the phrase for the symbol of Israel, as itself representing humanity after God's purpose more faithfully than any of ' the nations.' This double line of association attaching to the phrase * the Son of Man ' — which coalesced in Jesus' mind ever more and more closely in idea with ' the Servant of Jehovah ' — best ex- plains how Jesus used it throughout his ministry as a whole. At first he uses it to describe his Messianic func- tion in the aspect of solida?-ity linth mankind, as its repre- sentative alike in his creaturely lot and in his spiritual dignity (Ps. viii. 4 f. ; so Mark ii. 10, with Matt. ix. 8 ; ii. 27 f. ; X. 45), as clothed, though in finite, dependent form (cf. Luke ix. 58, xxii. 48), with Divine authority on earth. Then, later on, after the disciples' confession near Caesarea Philippi that he, 'the Son of man' (see Matt. xvi. 13 and 15), for all his humble estate, was yet the Lord's Anointed, the Messiah, he begins to add to it the further sense of oixe who shall yet manifestly, in outward estate as well as inwardly and spiritually (cf. x. 45), be invested with the quasi-Divine prerogatives of Messianic authority (Mark viii. 38, xiv. 62). The transition comes half-way through INTRODUCTION 63 the Gospel (ch. viii), and first appears formally in viii. 38, ix. 9, 12, in the latter of which passages the Isaianic ele- ment in the fresh usage is most clear, and is present per- haps even in Jesus' thought as to ' the rising from the dead' (ix. gi., with Is. liii. 10 ff.). Thereafter we have a series of fresh allusions to the future of ' the Son of man ' in terms of the circle of ideas in Is. liii. (ix. 31, x. 33, xiv. 21,41), supplemented in xiv. 62 (cf xiii. 26) by the imagery of Dan. vii. 13. To sum up in a word, Jesus' own con- ceptio7i of his vocation took shape in a peculiar and utterly original fusion of the more spiritual aspects of the ideas of 'the Servant of the Lord' in Is. xlii and 'the Son of man ' in Dan, vii. 13, read in the spirit of Ps. viii. 4 f. From all this it appears that the Jesus of the funda- mental Marcan narrative conceived his ministry through- out in terms of the Isaianic Messianic Kingdom, in the spiritual sense of God's perfect Reign in Israel, and through Israel over mankind at large ; and that he preached the advent of this as ' the Gospel ' of God. As such, the Kingdom — and so his own Messiahship — was both present and future : present in germ in himself and in those who accepted the principles of the Kingdom of God's righteous Fatherliness ; future as regards its ' coming ' in realized power and actual control of all human life. Israel itself was called to become ' the Servant of the Lord,' as de- picted in certain sections of Isaiah xl. fif., through genuine repentance or ' turning ' wholeheartedly to God as revealed in and through Jesus himself, God's Messiah, His personal Son, and the representative embodiment of the Divine will for man and in man, ' the Son of man,' who was the Lord's ' Servant ' in the more special or individual sense of Acts iii. 26, iv. 27. Had the nation as a whole re- sponded to this 'Gospel' as Jesus at first anticipated, both it and he, ' the Son of man,' would have realized their Divine vocations at first intention. The Kingdom would have come without the need of vicarious suffering to overcome man's sinful reluctance, and so achieve salvation 64 ST. MARK by ' redemptive ' Love, that is, Grace not only as Divine gift, but as costly sacrifice on the part of God and His own : the way of the Cross would have been spared both Jesus and his true followers — 'the holy remnant,' at once the nucleus of the Messianic Israel and the body of Mes- siah, as its personal Head. At some moment, then, in Jesus' ministry which we cannot date exactly, though it doubtless lay a good way further back than the point when it came out practically in a new policy, alike in his public ministry and in his teaching of his disciple circle, Jesus began definitely to face the prospect of partial failure, and to readjust his out- look on his Mission. F7om Caasarea Pliilippi the chajige is inani/est in the common tradition underlying all our Synoptic Gospels ; and it is made specially plain in Mark, the most purely historical of the three, in form as in sub- stance. But not even in its author's mind was there a consciousness of this development,^ or indeed of any development, in the way in which Jesus had viewed the ministry lying before him, and in his reading of Isaiah xl. ff. For Mark, that is, as probably for all his fellow disciples, Jesus had from the beginning of his ministry foreseen the Cross that was its actual earthly end, though he only began to speak of it to his inner circle at Cassarea Philippi, towards its close. From that time forward, both in his own thoughts and in his teaching — and so in the Synoptic narrative based on Apostolic witness — the Kingdom's coming and ike centre of gravity in his own Messianic \'ocation shifted ^ The fact that the original apostolic stratum of facts and sayings, reflecting Jesus' own conception of liis ministry, was in this respect more in keeping with human psychological con- ditions, and to that extent more historical and less ideal (in an fl /)r»bn sense) than the conception touching it and him enter- tained by even the earliest of our Evangelists, tells stronglv against the whole mode of thought known as ' the Christ Mytli,' used to evaporate the historicity of Jesus of Nazaretli as the real source of ' the Christ of Fait'i ' INTRODUCTION 65 more decidedly into the future, a future indeterminate in- deed, but not remote. The first act in this future was to be the imminent crisis of conflict with the religious au- thorities of Judaism, particularly those in Jerusalem, the centre of Israel's religious life and worship, which he saw to be inevitable in the fulfilment of his mission, and the issue of which promised to be his death and the seeming defeat of his cause. Then would come a brief interval, symbolized by the 'third day' of Hos. vi. 2, ere God should manifestly intervene to ' revive ' and ' raise up ' His own cause in His people Israel (cf. Acts iii. 19 f.), and send again His Christ in power and glory to restore all things according to the message of prophecy (ib. 21, cf. I Pet. i, 10-12), particularly Isa. xl. ff. Thus he, Jesus, would become openly and in the eyes of all ' the Christ,' and that in a sense which made him David's ' Lord ' (Mark xii. 35-37, cf. Acts ii. 32-36), in virtue of that unique Sonship to God which was his all through his ministry as the humble ' Servant of the Lord,' but was finally to be made patent in full Messianic power (cf. Rom. i. 4). Then would the Kingdom have ' come in power' (Mark ix. 1). In foreshadowing such an issue, sure in principle and effect, but vague in time and method (Mark xiii. 32) even to his own mind, Jesus makes in the last stage of his ministry a free, prophetic or symbolic, use of the poetic imagery of Dan. vii. This centres in the figure of 'one like unto a son of man,' already individualized by Apoca- lyptic usage (at first in certain circles, but now more or less famihar to Palestinian Judaism) as ' the Son of man ', to whom God entrusts the function of judicial separation between the righteous and all others, with which the King- dom should be fully established. Thus Jesus could throw out his final challenge to those who, as his judges, felt they had him at their mercy, in apocalyptic words which were also a supreme expression of victorious faith in his cause as having the Father behind it, come what might ; ' I am (the Christ) : andj,? shall see the Son of man sitting F 66 ST. MARK at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven' (Mark xiv. 62). The ' Eschatological ' in Jesus' thought is but the continuation in poetic form of the essen- tially spiritual and religious idea of the Kingdom of God, as constituted by filial relation to God, a relation which, original in himself, became derivatively the experience of all his followers- the nucleus of the true Israel of God. It has been needful to dwell on this cardinal feature of the Marcan picture of Jesus, the naturalness of the psycho- logical development of his thought touching his own vocation and ministry, because this is so central to the whole question of the historicity of Mark's Gospel. One might add a good deal bearing on other aspects of this subject, were it needful : but most of it has already been excellently put by Professor F. C. Burkitt in his Gospel History cuui its Transinissiott, in the chapter on the historical value of St. Mark. There he shews that it does ' approve itself as an adequately historical outline of the main events ' of the story of Jesus : and his general finding is that it does 'not lend itself easily to attempts which seek to explain the Gospel as a work designed to set forth particular doctrines or theories about Jesus and the Church' (p. 66). Indeed, it is a general experience that the more closely one studies our Mark, especially in the light of those of its references to Jesus' human characteristics and experiences which the other Synoptics pass over lightly or in silence, the more one comes to prize it as afifording essential data for an historical picture of Jesus in the modern sense, or even hints towards a biography of him within the period of his public ministry. It is true that neither of these things does the Evangelist himself set out to give his readers, but rather the Gospcl-inessai^c of Jesus the Christ, as presented by and in him to men in deed and word. 1 1 is true also that both the other Synoptics present invalu- able supplementary materials towards an adequate account INTRODUCTION 67 of Jesus' Gospel and personality, as expressed in teaching and in intercourse with individual men and women — the latter a feature which Luke brings out in several striking episodes (compare also that of the Sinful Woman, now preserved, out of place, in John viii). But not only does the degree to which they are able to present that material in an historically ordered form depend upon their use of Mark : it is also in his presentation of the course of Jesus' ministry that there is still to be found in purest form the essential outline of Jesus' public career and of his character as expressed in it, along with some most representative specimens of his teaching.^ These are partly peculiar to Mark and partly exist there in a more historically original form or setting than in the other Synoptics. In all respects, therefore, the Marcan Gospel must lie at the basis of modern historical reconstruction of the figure of Jesus, the Prophet of Nazareth and the Christ, whether as regards ground-plan of his ministry, its atmo- sphere and original perspective, its concrete setting, or the use which can be made, with something like assurance, of the additional data which exist in the other Gospels. For while these latter make each its own positive contribution to certain aspects of the person and ministry of their Central Figure, without which our conception of Jesus and his Gospel would be indefinitely less many-sided and rich ; still much of this very material gains half its full and con- vincing historical meaning from the juster perspective in which we are able to see it by aid of the stury in Mark, with its more distinctly indicated stages, alike in the out- ^ To what has been said above (p. 23") may here be added the words of another, there cited. ' The Marcan Gospel would represent the earliest exposition of the main facts of our Lord's ministry and passion and resurrection, together with such a selection of His teachings and works as would establish the central doctrine and the Cross, and free the Gospel from all ex- clusive Jewish interpretations. ... It is the doctrine of the Cross that is central in Mk., rather than any apocalyptic train of teaching.' 68 ST. MARK ward and inward experience of Jesus as the Christ. Apart, then, from Mark's Gospel the biographical data embedded in the other Gospels would remain for us largely potential : with it their full value can become realized ; and thereby even their religious worth for the quickening and guidance of spiritual life in our own day can be greatly enhanced. Progress in the mastery of the Synoptic problem, which has recently been rapid and has now gone far towards its goal, may ere long yield the means of writing the ' Life of Christ ' with a new exactitude in the historical use of the Evangelical material, particularly as regards relative order and context. If so, this will be rendered possible by a just appreciation of the fundamental historical value of the Marcan narrative, both in itself and in its relation to its sister Gospels.^ 17. Literature. In addition to the well-known works on New Testament Introduction, Articles in the Bible Dictionaries (including The Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels), &c., the follow- ing may be recommended as useful. Those entirely in English are marked with an asterisk. Older Commentaries. Alford, Greek Tcstanictit, vol. i. * Lindsay, The Gospel according to St. Mark. (T. & T. Clark, Handbooks for Bible Classes.) Meyer, Critical and Excgetical Handbook to the Gospels of Mark and Luke. ( T. & T. Clark's translation.) * MoRisoN, A Practical Cotmneniaty on the Gospel according to St. Mark. * Plumptre, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, St. Ma>k, and St. Luke. (Ellicott's New Tesiamctit for English Readers, vol. i.) ♦Riddle, The Gospel of Mark. {Schaff^s Popular Conntientary on the New Testatnent.) ' The value of Luke in particular, in virtue of the indepen- dent historical value of its ' special source,' has recently been put strongly, but not too strongly, by Canon Streeter in The Hihhert Journal of Oct. , 1 92 1 . INTRODUCTION 69 More Recent, The Expositor'' s Greek Testament. Vol. i, The Synoptic Gospels, by Professor Bruce : 1897. The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Editions on the English and Greek text respectively. Gould, A Critical and Exegetical Comtneniary on the Gospel according to St. Mark. (International Critiral Com mentary). 1896. SwETE, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1898. Allan Menzies, The Eailiest Gospel, 1901. LoiSY, Les Evangiles synoptiqnes 1907-8. \^y.i-t.KAV%^ti, Das Evangeliiint Marci, 2nd ed.. 1909. *Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, vol. i, 1909 (where references to foreign commentaries maj- be lound). * Bacon, The Biginnings of Gospel Story, 1909. Lagrange (Pere), Evangilc selon S. Marc. Paris, 1911. * Allen, The Gospel according to St. Mark. (Oxford Church Comm.). 1915. ♦Young, The College St. Mark (The Christian Lit. Soc. for India). 1916. * Wood, in Peakc\^ Commentary on the Bible, 1919. Books for Reference. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its Transmission, 3rd ed., 191 1. ,. ,, Earliest Sotirccs/or tlie Ei/e o/Jesiis, 2nd ed., 1921. O.xford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, 1911. DENNEY,yip5?<5 and the Gospel, 1913 J. Weiss. Das UrcIinstentHiu, 19 J 7. Bacon, Is Mark a Roman Gospel? 19 19. E. Meyer, Urspnmgu. Anjdnge des Christentums, 1921. CONTENTS AND ANALYSIS i. 1-13. Introduction: the Preparation for Jesus' Ministry. A. The Galilean Ministry and after : i. 14-x. Summary of Jesus' Gospel-ministry in Galilee : 14 f. 1. 16-iii. 6. (i) The First Stage : beginnings and main issues. (rt) Call of the First Disciples (i. 16-20) : a memorable day in Jesus' ministry (21-34). (b) Widening mission in Galilee : a preaching tour of adjacent villages (35-39) : the cure of a leper (40-44) leads against Jesus' will to a mass movement (45). (c) Typical incidents : healing and forgiveness of sins — the latter criticized by Scribes (ii. 1-12) : call of Levi, leading to criticism by ' Scribes of the Pharisees ' of his relations with ' publicans and sinners,' and Jesus' defence (13-17^: a kindred episode illustrative of the 'old' and 'new' as in conflict (18-22) : two further cases of controvers}', i.e. as to the Sabbath (23-iii. 5): extremes unite against Jesus (iii. 6). iii. 7-vii. 23. (ii) Second Stage : growing popularity and extending scope of Jesus' mission. (i) First phase : iii. 7-vi. 6a. (rt) Retirement to the seaside, where crowds from afar collect : many cures and exorcisms (iii. 7-12 \ (6) Appointment of the Twelve (iii. 13-iq) : criticism developes, his power being traced to Beelzebub (20-30^ : Jesus' kindred in God (31-35). (c) Mass-teaching again by the sea, now by Parables (e.g. the Sower) ; its reason, two types of hearers (iv. 1-12, 33 f.) ; the fundamental parable, bearing on this, interpreted to the disciples (13-20) ; certain related principles (21-25), with two further parables of the Kingdom of God as growing like seed (26 34^ (f/) On the East side of the Lake : stilling of the storm ; Gerasene demoniac cured, and the sequel (iv. 35-v. 20). {e) On the West side again : healing drawn from him by a woman, and raising of Jairus' daughter (v. ar-43) : at Nazareth, where he is met by special unbelief (vi. 3-63). (2) Second phase : Jesus' pn/>iiinritv at its height, but with oininons Mtetiare of cmijliit -with the authorities in Stale and Church: vi 6b-vii. 23. CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL 71 (rt) A second and wider tour in Western Galilee, with the help of the Twelve, sent out two by two (vi. 6 b-13). His fame reaches Herod, who had recently slain John the Baptist (14-29). (i) Feeding of the Five Thousand (30-44) ; Jesus appears to his disciples, walking on the Lake (45-52). (c) Popular enthusiasm throughout Gennesaret for the Healer (53-56) ; but Pharisaic criticism on the score of ' the traditions of the Elders ' brings on a decisive conflict (vii. 1-23: cfviii. 11-21). vii. 24-x. 52. (iii) Third Stage: the turning from Galilee and facing towards a new venture in Jerusalem. (i) First phase of this transition : vii. 24-viii. 26. («) Retirement beyond Galilee northwards : the Syro- Phoenician woman (vii. 24-30). (6) Return to East side of Lake (Decapolis) : cure of a deaf mute (31-37). (c) Second feeding of a multitude (viii. i-io), followed bj' a discussion with Pharisees (11-13^, which leads to a warning against their ' leaven ' and that of Herod, which the disciples misunderstood (14-21) : gradual healing of blind man in Bethsaida (22-26). (2) Second phase of transition to a nezv policy : viii. 27-ix. 50. (a) The confession at Caesarea Philippi : suffering to be Messiah's lot and that of his disciples (viii. 27-ix. 1). (6) The Transfiguration and related teaching as to ' Elijah ' the forerunner (ix. 2-13). (c) The demoniac boy and the secret of power (14-29). (d) Private return through Galilee : he teaches his disciples (at Capernaum) on humility, discipleship, offending 'little ones,' and self-mastery (30-50). (3) Third phase : Jesus' back turned on Galilee, his face to- wards Jerusalem and its issues : ch. x. (a) Pharisees question him about Divorce (x-12) : little children blessed as heirs of the Kingdom (13-16) : heritage of the Kingdom and riches (17-27) ; the compensations of 'leaving all' (28-31^. (b) On the road to Jerusalem a third warning of the disciples as to the Passion ( 32-34) ; the ambition of James and John in view of the object of the journey, and teaching evoked thereby (35-45). (c) Bartimaeus' faith in Jesus' Messiahship rewarded (46-52). B. The Last Days in and near Jerusalem : xi. i-xv. 47. («") The Messianic Entry (xi. i-ii). (6) Incidents of the next da}'. The Barren Fig-tree (12-14, cf. 20 ff.) : the Purging of the Temple (15-19^. 72 CONTENTS OF THE GOSPEL (c) Later incidents (xi. 20-xiii). Lessonsof the Withered Fig- tree (20-25) : the challenge of the Jewish authorities met (27-33), find followed up bj' the parable of the Vineyard (xii. i-ii): the conflict developes, as seen in a pair of test questions put by those united against Jesus (12-27) '■ a typical conversation with a scribe on the essence of religion (28-34): Jesus' own Messianic challenge (35-37), his counter-criticism of scribism (38-40) ; the religion of the widow's mite (41-44"). The Temple, a private conversation as to its coming fate and the future duty of Messiah's disciples (xiii). (ei) Wednesdayin Passion Week. Crisis impending (xiv. 1-2); the last meal at Bethany, and its effect on Judas (3-1 1\ (e) Thursday. The Paschal Supper arranged in Jerusalem (12-16), and celebrated with special features added in view of Jesus' coming death (17-25): his desertion foretold, Gethsemane, the betrayal and arrest (26-52\ (/) Friday. Midnight examinations and condemnation bj' the High Priest and his assessors (53-65); Peter's denial (66-72^. Early morning confirmation of the earlier informal finding, and trial by Pilate (xv. i ff.) : episode of Barabbas and popular demand for Jesus' crucifixion (6-15). The mocking and crucifixion, with certain episodes (16-41) : the burial (42-47). (g) Easter Sunday. The Women and the Empty Tomb ; their flight in fear, and silence (xvi. 1-8). [Later Endings : (a) xvi. 9 20 ; and (i)]. Abbreviations (see Introduction, pp. 19 ff.). Mk. Mark's own additional matter. P. Distinctively * Petrine matter. Q. 'Teaching' matter common to our Matthew and Luke in particular, but at times shared also by Mark. X. The original Common Apostolic Tradition at the basis of all narrative traditions, but known to us only in special lines of transmission, viz. X'^''', X'-'', X"^", implied in our Mark, Luke, Matthew. X"''. Mark's primary Apostolic tradition (Petrine). X"^^. Mark's secondary tradition. LXX = Tiic Srfitumrint or Seventy, i. c the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, so styled from the legend that it was the work of seventy translators. ' Not alwaj'S exclusively so : P. and X^"' often blend. THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARI V REVISED VERSION WITH ANNOTATIONS THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARI \. [Mk] * The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, 1 '-^ [the Son of Godl. ^ Some ancient authorities omit the Son of God. * The S3'mbols (see Abbreviations on p. 72) placed in square brackets indicate the probable source of the matter in question. They apply to al) that follows, until the point where the next symbol occurs. r 1 denotes words open to doubt as to their being either part of Mark's original text, or actual words of Jesus. Title. The title in ancient manuscripts appears in different forms. In the oldest of our Greek MSS. it is simply 'According to Mark' ; later it is 'The Gospel according to Mark' ; later still it is 'The Ho]3' Gospel according to Mark '. Exactly when any such title, in its simplest form, was first added we cannot say ; probably very soon after it passed into currency. Neither do we know when the records of Christ's life first came to have the dis- tinctive name of ' Gospels.' But they were already- so styled in Justin Martyrs Apology (i. 66\ written soon after a.d. 150. The title here means not merely that the book contains the Gospel story as Mark was wont to tell it, but that Mark wrote it Introduction : the Preparation for Jesus' Ministry i. 1-13 (cf. Matt. iii. 1-12 ; Luke iii. 1-18). *A brief introductory' section shewing how the work of John the Baptist, and the baptism and temptation of Jesus, led up to the ministry in Galilee' (H. G. Wood, in Peake s Commentary on the Bible) — i.e. were 'The beginning of Jesus Christ's Gospel.' The meaning and purpose of Mark's opening paragraph maj' best be seen by comparison with the kindred opening to Peter's missionary address to the Gentile Cornelius and his friends at Caesarea. in Acts x. 36 if. 'The message which God sent unto the Children of Israel, preaching a Gosf-el of Peace (Isa. Iii. 7) by Jesus Christ. ... ye j'ourselves know the tidings which spread through all Judaea, beginning from Galilee after the bn/tism wliir/t 76 ST. MARK 1. i. Mk John preached —exen Jesus of Nazareth, lioiv God aiioinied hint ivith holy Spirit and poiver.'' Here we have essentially the same idea, that of a Gospel or Glad Message, such as Isaiah contemplated in Hi. 7, Ixi. I, sent from God and proclaimed by Jesus His ' Christ ' or Anointed One, beginning from Galilee, after John had played his part as Forerunner. Both passages are entirely on the lines of prophecy, especially that in Isaiah xl. ff., as ' fulfilled' in a higher form in Jesus and His message of God's imminent self-manifesta- tion in new graciousness and power. It was a Gospel of God's real reign among His People, summed up in the phrase ' The Kingdom of God' — again on the lines of Isa. Hi. 7, ' saying unto Zion, Thy God reigneth.' That such is the conception (cf. Intj oduction, § 4) lying behind this opening, is borne out by verses 14 f. (following on the 'beginning,' or inauguration, cf. Luke iii. 23), especially 'The season is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is near ; repent and believe the Glad Message.' It is further illustrated by Jesus' actual preaching of that Gospel at Nazareth, in terms of Isa. Ixi. i, as recorded in Luke iv. 16 ff. This conception of Jesus' Mission is truly Petrine, as we see not only from Acts x. 36 ff. and his earlier speeches in Acts —particularly his reference to Jesus as Isaiah's ' Servant of the Lord ' (iii. 13, 26, iv. 30) — but also from the whole idea of Jesus as the fulfilment of prophecy underlying the Epistle of Peter (e.g. i. 10 f., ii. 6f,, 22-2 1\ The introduction is not confined to a description of the mission of John the Baptist, as preparatory to the higher mission of Jesus as Messianic Proclaimer of the Gospel of the Kingdom (1-8), but includes (cf. Acts x. 38) the letter's solemn vocation as the Christ and his spiritual proba- tion (9-13). Thus, in this opening section we have Jesus Christ, as the preacher of Good News, brought on the scene. Then his actual Gospel Ministry opens in 14 ff. 1. (The) Beginning- of tixe Gospel of Jesus Christ. This = * Inauguration of the Glad Message belonging to Jesus Christ.' Mark's abrupt, challenging, opening sentence goes with characteristic directness to the heart of his subject. In form (cf. Hosea i. 2 in LXX, * Beginning of the Word of the Lord in (the ministry of) Hosea') it may be compared with the corresponding one in Matthew, ' Book of origin (Birth-roll, Moffatt) of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham'— a sentence as typical of the standpoint of that Evangelist as this is of Mark. Only it is probable tliat Mark felt no need, for the purpose in hand, of any further addition to the descriptive name 'Jesus Christ,' the Great 'Evangelist' in Isaiah's sense, into whose labours in the Gospel others were to enter as his disciples and followers (comp. Acts i. i ; Heb. ii. 3 f.). Indeed, it is likely enough tliat it was the influence of the parallel opening of Matthew which suggested (as elsewhere in our text of Mark) the supplemental description, ' God's Son,' ST. MARK 1. I. Mk 77 added by some early copyist or editor (perhaps along with v. a), who took ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ ' in a new sense, viz. touching Jesus Christ — so making him its object (the later or Apostolic usage, as in Paul") rather than its medium. In its original form and meaning this opening represents a very primitive point of view ; and we must observe that Jesus' procla- mation of the Gospel is here conceived as by deed as much as by word, as the sequel shews, in keeping with the whole prophetic picture of Messiah : compare Luke xxiv. 19, ' Jesus of Nazareth ... a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the People.' The verse as a whole probably refers, not, as some think, to the whole book, but to what immediately follows, viz., the preliminary section (vv. 2-13). This deals both with the Forerunner, John the Baptist, whose ministry and message are here treated as an integral part of the prelude to ' The Gospel of the Kingdom of God' (so he is regarded as 'far more than a jirophet'), and with his work of preparing for Jehovah's coming Kingdom by his ' baptism of Repentance' culminating in the in- auguration thereby of Jesus as the Christ, the great Evangelist of 'God's Gospel' of the Kingdom (i. 14 f., cf. Luke iii. 23, 'And Jesus himself, when he began '—inaugurated his ministry — 'was about thirty years of age'). Such is Jesus' own witness to him later on (Luke vii. 26 ; Matt. xi. 9.), quoting Mai. iii. i in support of his words, and adding (on another occasion, according to Luke xvi. 16), ' the Law and the Prophets lasted till John : since then the Gospel of the Kingdom of God is preached.' Yet John entered not himself into the experience of the Kingdom he proclaimed as at hand (Luke vii. 28; Matt. xi. 11). Here already we have a striking illustration of the broad distinction between ' the King- dom ' as at first present only as a ' Gospel ' or Glad Message of what was 'near'— on the point of being manifested — and as a realized order or realm of Divine spiritual power, fully set up or planted on earth. Between these senses is an intermediate and transitional one, seen in Luke xvii. 21, according to which, the sphere of the Kingdom being the invisible world of the soul (even the individual soul), it became alread3' present in some during Jesus' ministry, before it was manifest in history as a social order or Church. Gospel. This familiar word, with all its gracious associations, comes to us from the Anglo-Saxon ' Godspell,' which means ' God- story,' originally perhaps good story, like the Greek word. This, preserved in our ' Evangel,' signified originally a presenter reward given for good news, and later good news itself. In the Greek translation of the O.T. it is applied generally to any kind of ' good news,' and in its verbal form specifically to the prophetic announce- ment of the coming of the Messianic kingdom (e.g. Isa. Ixi. i). In the N T. it is closely related to the great idea of the Kingdom 78 ST. MARK l.i. Mk of God, as ' the good news of the Kingdom ' (Matt. iv. 23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14, &c. ). The word is used by Paul more frequently and with greater variety of application than by any other N. T. writer. It occurs once in Peter (iv. 17), once in the Apocalypse (xiv. 6), twice in Acts (xv. 7, xx. 24), four times in Matt., seven times in Mark (also in xvi. 15), never in Luke's Gospel, John's Gospel and Epistles, Hebrews or James, but some sixty times in the Epistles ascribed to Paul. The present passage is the only one in the evangelic narratives in which the particular phrase ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ ' is found. Elsewhere it is simply ' the Gospel,' ' the Gospel of God ' (Mark i. 14), or ' of the Kingdom.' In the Gospels themselves the phrase 'The Gospel' denotes the good news proclaimed or brought by Christ : only in the Epistles does it mean the good news about Christ. Accordingly 'the Gospel of Jesus Christ' (as argued in the last note) probably has here its usual meaning in the Gospels, viz., the Glad Message belonging to Jesus Christ, the sense sug- gested also by comparison with vv. 14 f., which take up anew the theme of verse i. of Jesus Christ. The person whose ministry of Gospel proclamation is to be the subject of Mark's narrative is so designated at the outset, with more fulness than in the narrative proper. He has first the personal name ' Jesus ' (cf. Matt. i. 21, 25)^ — a name common enough among the Jews, identical with the O. T. Jehoshua (Num.), Joshua (,Exod. xxiv. 13, &c.), or Jeshua, which means 'Jehovah-salvation.' To this is added the q^c/rt/ name ' Christ,' the Greek equivalent of Messiah,'' the Hebrew word for ' Anointed One.' Certain who held office in Israel were anointed to it. e.g. priests (^Lev. iv. 3; Ps. cv. 15V But in the O. T. the King is specially spoken of as God's anointed (i Sam. xxiv. 7, 11 ; Ps ii 3 ; Isa. xliv. i, &c. ) ; and in Daniel (ix. 25) Messiah is described as ' prince.' So the term ' Messiah ' or 'Christ' became a theo- cratic name, expressing the idea that he who was to come to restore Israel, was to come in the character of a king, one of David's line. In later non-canonical literature of Judaism it is used of the Messianic king (cf. Psalms of Solomon, xvii. 36, xviii. 8, 'Christ (the) Lord,' as in Lk. ii. 11, or 'the Lord's Christ,' as Lk. ii. 26). This official sense, however, gradually fell away in Christian usage, and the term 'Christ' became more and more a personal or proper name like Jesus, As such it is used for the most part even in Acts and the Epistles. But in the body of the Gospels (as distinct from Matt. i. i ; Jolin i. 17 ; and here) it still retains its technical sense and is best rendered ' the Christ.' rson of God"'. This is absent from N Syr'"""' (O.S. lacking) Iren'/j Or* Bas. ; and as it is easier to explain its addition than its omission, accidental or otherwise, it cannot safely be treated as part of the original text : comp. the probable addition also in v. a. ST. MARK 1. 2. XMk 79 [^X^k] 1 Even as it is written ^ in Isaiah the prophet, * Some ancient authorities read in the prophets. 2-3. How are these verses to be connected with each other and with the opening one ? The punctuation in the R. V. inipHes, probably rightly, that v. i , like Matt. i. i, stands by itself as title, either to what follows at once or to the whole book. 'Ihe narrative then begins abruptly with verse 2, and runs continuously to verse 4, as follows: 'In pursuance of the Divine counsel made known in prophecy, that one should arise as [forerunner of Jesus the Christ and] herald of preparation for Jehovah's Kingdom, came John the Baptizer, with his proclamation.' This is better than to take verse 2 as explanatory of i and following loosely thereon, while with verse 4 would begin the narrative proper of the opening section (1-13). In that case it is best to take the first three verses together, as they stand in the A. V., only with a comma instead of a full stop between verses 2 and 3. Then verses 1-3 would serve as introduction to the first stage of ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ,' viz., the Baptist's message and ministry, which ends with its bringing on the scene, equipped for his task, Jesus as the Christ or Anointed of God, ready to enter on his own ministry of the Gospel ( 14 f.). But the sense suggested by the R. V. is preferable, viz., that the whole first section (1-13) is itself the introduction or prelude to 'the Gospel (ministry) of Jesus Christ.' Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet. Unlike Matthew, Mark seldom cites prophecy. Here he does so with the view of shewing that the events in which he recognizes 'the beginning of the Gospel ' formed part of the Divine plan. The true reading here is not 'in the prophets,' as the A. V., but 'in Isaiah the Prophet,' as the R. V. The secondary reading is an attempt to remove the difficulty that what follows immediately in the text of nearly all surviving authorities comes not from Isaiah but from Mai. iii. i. But the awkwardness of this, as it still stands in our MSS., is probably due to the quotation from Mai. iii. i having been added to Mark's original text, either from the later episode in the other Synoptic Gospels where Jesus witnesses 10 John in these words (Luke vii. 27 ; Matt. xi. lo"), or from current usage (its form is shorter than that in Matt, and Luke). Neither Matt, nor Luke, which had Mark before them at a far earlier stage than that represented by even our oldest MSS., shews traces of Mai. iii. I here. Yet it would have suited their purpose admirably, as coming after their Nativity chapters, which had already intro- duced Jesus on the scene as God's Son. But Mark has not yet ' This symbol is partly equivalent to Q"'' of the companion com- mentaries : see Abbreviations on p. 72. 8o ST. MARK 1. 3. XMk [Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, ^\'ho shall prepare thy way ;1 The voice of one crying in the wilderness. done so. Hence the quotation does not really suit what precedes in verse i. in its original text ; whereas the later addition to it of ' God's Son ' was itself perhaps connected with the earlier insertion (originally onl3' as a parallel in the margin) of the kindred quota- tion from Malachi (Basil has neither), before the proper sequel to ' as it is written in Isaiah.' One efTect of such extension of the matter introduced by ' even as it is written ' is somewhat to obscure the probable grammatical (as it is certainly the logical) sequence of verse 4, 'there appeared (lit. "came to be") John the Baptizer in the wilderness (taking up the same phrase in the prophecy), proclaiming' preparation bj' repentance for the Lord's (i. e. God's) coming (in Messianic blessing) : comp. Luke i. 16 f., esp. 'to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.' Behold, I send my messenger before tliy face, Who shall prepare thy way. Omit with the R. V. the words ' before thee ' in the A. V., which follows MSS. in which the assimila- tion to Matt. xi. ID is made complete. This quotation is from Mai. iii. i, but in a form adapted, as it seems, to its present use as addressed to Messiah ('thy face,' 'thy way,' instead of 'my' as in both the Heb. and LXX text), a form in which it was probably current in Christian circles. Thus the ' messenger' who, accord- ing to the prophet, is sent before Jehovah, is said here to be sent before the Messiah. l"he work ascribed to the 'messenger' in the prophecy is a work of preparation for the sudden coming of Jehovah in judgement to His temple (see xi. 15 fif. for a fulfilment of this idea). The work ascribed to the Forerunner in the Gospel is that of religious preparation for the advent of the object of Israel's hope. As officers of state made roads ready for the visits of kings, so the ' messenger ' was to make spiritual preparation for the Lord's coming in the person of His Anointed. 3. The voice of one crying' in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight. The quotation is from Isaiah xi. 3. The passage in Isaiah has the return from Bab3'lon in view. It proclaims ' the glad news ' of that deliverance, and gives the call to have all things ready for Jehovah when He brings his people out of exile, through the desert, to their land. The Kingdom of God in Israel was to have its complete realization in the Messianic kingdom. So the past national deliverance was taken to point forward to the greater Messianic deliverance, and to the Forerunner's summons of the Jews to a spiritual preparation for it. ST. MARK 1. ^, 5. XMk 8i Make ye ready the way of the Lord, Make his paths straight ; John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached 4 the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins. And 5 4. The best reading here is that which is represented neither by the ' John did baptize . . . and preach ' of the A, V., nor by the R. V. as above, but by this — 'There appeared (came to be) John the Baptizer in the wilderness, preaching.' This, the best accredited reading, is most in parallelism ^vith the quotation, especially as regards ' in the wilderness.' ' The Baptizer,' lit. ' the baptizing one,' is Mark's own term (so vi. 14, not (,24), 25, viii. 28). Jolin. The Hebre%v Johanan. According to Luke i John was kinsman to Jesus and older by some six months, and since boyhood had lived 'in the desert' ^i. 80) as a religious solitary. At last he comes forth, ' the time of his showing unto Israel ' having arrived ; and his emergence marks a great stage in the history of the kingdom of God. in the wilderness. Thus simply, in terms of Isaiah's prophecy, is the scene of John's ministry' described. In Matthew it is the wilderness of Judaea (iii. i). What is meant is ' the low country by the Jordan, called the Araba (desert or steppe) in the O. T.' l^Montefiore). It was a tract of country not utterly bare and profit- less, but suitable for the nomad, yet generally broken, barren, rugged, treeless, and in parts dreary, savage, and forbidding (cf. v. 13). preached: literally proclaimed like a herald, ' crying aloud,' as in V. 3. the baptism of repentance : rather ' a baptism of Repent- ance,' i.e. a rite symbolizing and sealing repentance, at once as its condition and issue, viz., a state ot contrite amendment of life (' fruits worthy of repentance,' Luke iii. 8), in preparation for the Kingdom of God soon to be inade manifest (cf. notes on Matt. iii. 2. 14 f.). Thus it was something provisional, in anticipation of Messiah's appearance to confer the specific blessings of the Messianic Age, particularly a share in the Spirit (Joel ii.) which should rest on him in pre-eminent degree. But the blessing directly contemplated by such 'repentance,' a radical 'turning ' or change of heart (the true sense of mefaiioia, a Greek word first found in the LXX in Proverbs, and then in Ecclesiasticus and the IVisdom of Solomoti), was forgiveness of sins. The actual situation, as John saw it, corresponded to that described in Isa. i. and Mai. iii ; and these passages, rather than any typical N. T. ones in which the terms occur, should be in our minds as we read Mark's description of the Baptist's preaching. The special defect of religion as described in Malachi was utireality, the performance of religious G 82 ST. MARK 1. 4. XMk duties without the whole heart behind them, and therefore a certain religious insincerity, shown specially on the ethical side of religion as dutifulness towards one's neighbour. Real love to God, and love to man as precious in His sight, these were largely lacking. The note of Isaiah is the call to henrlfelt repentance or 'turning,' and its efficacy as the assured condition of Divine forgiveness and the averting of judgement. Thus Isaiah, i. ]6ff., cries, 'Wash you, make 3'ou clean : put away the evil of j'our doings from before mine eyes : cease to do evil. . . . Come now and let us reason together, saith the Lord : Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. . . . But if 3'e refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword.' 'Repentance' was the great word on John's lips, and that with a view to the approach of the Messianic kingdom and Messiah himself with 'God's Gospel' (i. 14 f., cf. Matt. iii. 7-10). In the belief of the more spiritual Jews, the sin of the people was the cause of the delay of Messiah's advent ; and John's baptism in- volved the sense and confession of sin, and readiness to accept God's full revelation of his will in Messiah. unto remission of sins : i. e. with forgiveness of sins as its end. That a real, though provisional, forgiveness oi past sins (on the lines of Isa. i. 16-18) is here meant, seems probable in the light of the whole context and especially v. 5, ' confessing their sins.' Yet it lacked something of personal assurance that the repentance was sincere and deep enough to be accepted by God, and was in fact met by forgiveness ; and so fell short of its full Messianic foim, connected also with the gift of the Spirit (see Acts ii. 38). Matthew (iii. 1), but not Luke (iii. 3^, omits the phrase, as apt in the circles he has in view to be taken as antici- pating or making superfluous Christian baptism ; whereas in fact Mark has no such thought, as is evident from what follows (vv. 7-8). The forgiveness John proclaimed was strictly provisional, putting its recipients into the position of penitents, expectant and prepared — if only the3' remained true in life to their confession — to welcome Messiah as the final deliverer from sin, through his gift of the Spirit. As, too, John's accent was on worthy repent- ance, and on the testing nature of God's Coming as 'like a refiner's fire ' (Mai. iii. 2, cf. iv. i\ discerning the secrets of each heart, his Message as a whole had a solemnly awakening tone rather than a glad and heartening one, as of ' good news,' such as first came with Jesus Christ himself. Mark deals only with John's mission as a prelude to Jesus' ; and so he dwells on the aspect of similarity and continuity (recognized also in Matt. xi. 18-19) between the two fonns of proclaiming the coming crisis — the breaking forth of God's Kingdom in manifest power — without regarrl to dificrence in the form of their message, save as involved in the difference in the Messengers themselves in ST. MARK 1. 4- XMk 83 point of Divine authority and power (vv. 7-8). Yet the difference of accent and suggestion, even when ' Repentance,' as the con- dition of readiness for the Kingdom, was on tiie lips of both, was very real (witness their attitudes to ' fasting ' in Mark ii. 18 f., and cf. Matt. xi. 18 f.), and most significant of the advance from the Old to the New form of ' the Covenant ' between God and His People. This point is finely caught in Longfellow's hymn : A voice by Jordan's shore, A summons stern and clear : Repent ! be just, and sin no more ! God's Judgement draweth near ! A voice by Galilee, A holier voice I hear : Love God, tliy neighbour love ! for see, God's Mercy draweth near. It is instructive to compare with the whole verse, and the next two, the description of John by Josephus, the Jew, in a passage which shows marks of anti-Christian polemic {Aniiqitiiies, xviii. V. 2). John, he says, was ' a good man who exhorted the Jews to practice virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another and piety towards God, and to come to baptism {baptismos). For the dipping {baptists) in question would be acceptable to God on the understanding that they used it, not by way of apology ('excuse') for such and such sins, but of bodily purification, provided that the soul also had been already cleansed beforehand by righteousness.' People flocked to him in crowds, were stirred by his addresses, and seemed willing to follow him in all things. Hence Herod Antipas, fearing a popular uprising (.i.e. of the Zealot sort, actuated by a patriotic religious motive), seized John, sent him in chains to the fortress of Machaerus, and had him put to death there. All this (see L Abrahams, Studies in Pliarisaism and tlie Gospels, 30 ff., for its genuineness in the text of Josephus) confirms what we learn from Mark and the other Gospels, save that Josephus uses the occasion to tilt against what he takes to be the Christian theory of baptism in his own daj'. It was a boldly prophetic step which John took, when he applied to the Jewish people itself, a people already ' holy ' by covenant with God, a radical ' baptism ' of this sort. For it im- plied their sinful state as a people, a state which, unless repented of and amended, would mean that God's coming to his people would be in ' wrath' (Matt. iii. 7 ; Luke iii. 7') and Condemnation, not Peace and Salvation. Nor was it strange that the Pharisees as a class (in spite of the ' many of the Pharisees and Sadducees ' whom Matt. iii. 7 describes as coming to John's baptism), feeling how it implied their moral uncleanness too, were inclined to reject John's mission and question his authority as a prophet (cf. Mark xi. 29 {.). Thus ' What think ye of John ? ' was, according to Jesus 84 ST. MARK 1. 5. X^k there went out unto him all the country of Judfea, and all they of Jerusalem j and they were baptized of him in himself, a test question for men's attitude towards the coming Kingdom of God, even before there came the 3 et more searching and final test, 'What think ye of the Prophet of Nazareth and his claim to Divine authority for his mission ? ' John's Message was, as a call for moral realiti', of a piece with that of Jesus Christ. Doubtless John saw his warrant for a step involving such need of spiritual renewal in Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27 : ' I will sprinkle pure water upon J'ou, and ye shall be clean. ... A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you . . . and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgements and do them.' How far John thought that Jehovah fulfilled the first part of such words, then and there, for those who accepted his baptism with true penitence of heart— so that it resulted in ' for- giveness of sins' in His sight — is not easy to say: But it is certain that falfilment of the second part of the promise, 'the new spirit ' in a morally renewed heart, was in his eyes reserved as the prerogative of a Greater Medium of the Divine "Will and power than himself (of. vv. 7-8). Such ' forgiveness of sins ' as he could hold out was very provisional, not complete and final in its efficac}'. 5. And there went otit unto him all the country of Judcsa, and all they of Jerusalem. Mark's picture of the man and his work is less complete than Matthew's or Luke's. But it is very graphic, and it has some points of its own. This is due probably not only to Mark's connexion with Peter, but also to the fact that he himself would have his own early memories of John's ministry to draw on. He fixes attention on the effect of that ministry as resulting in a ' mass' movement, embracing all Judaea in the wide sense in which the Romans also used it, and not only the region adjacent to the capital. The verbs in tiie verse imply continued action, what we call a • movement.' The scene of his activity may from time to time liave been at different fords of the Jordan. were baptized. The term in Greek was used in a variet}' of applications. It meant literally to dip in or binder water (the verb is used in the LXX of 2 Kings v. 14 of Naaman), to immerse^ but also to lave, wash, etc. The usual form of baptism in ancient times and in Eastern countries was by immersion. As to its religious significance, it is noteworthy that it was part of the rites by which proselytes from outside Judaism were admitted to the corporate blessings of tlie Covenant People. Here it expressed primarily the idea of purification from the state of ' uncleanness ' which attaclied to all ' Gentiles ' as such, as belonging to an ' un- sanctified' order of social life, i.e. without definite covenant relations to the God of Israel. ST. MARK 1. 6. XMk 85 the river Jordan, confessing their sins. And John was 6 clothed with camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle about his loins, and did eat locusts and wild honey. confessing' their sins. The verb is a strong one, ' openly confessing,' and expresses the publicity of the act. It was not a private confession to John himself. 6. And John was clothed with camel's hair. Everything about John was in keeping with his character, as himself a reli- gious penitent, who had retired into solitude from what he felt to be a ' sinful and perverse generation,' such as Mai. iv. contem- plates. Thus in outward habit he was like to Elijah, as in the seriousness of the call to repentance which he addressed to his people. His coarse tunic, of a rough cloth woven of camel's hair, was the sort of garment worn b}' the prophets of old (Zech. xiii. 4), and by Elijah in particular (2 Kings i. 8). and had a leathern g-irdle ahout his loins. The girdle was needed to keep the loose robe together, for purposes of toil or rapid movement. John's was of skin, like the girdle of rough untanned leather which is still worn by the Bedouin, the poor labourer, and the dei'vish. and did eat locusts and wild honey. His food was onl}- what the desert could provide. Locusts are the creatures well known for their destructive work on all herbage and leafage. The species of locust allowed by the law to be eaten are given in Lev. xi. 22. They are still eaten by the Bedouin Arabs and the poorer classes. The ' honey ' was doubtless wild bee-honey, not the sweet gum that exudes from certain trees, like the palm and the fig, and for this reason also called ' wild honey ' by the ancients (Me/ s/'/ye^/A-^). 'The innumerable fissures and clefts of the limestone rocks which everywhere flank the valleys.' says Dr. Tristram, ' afford in their recesses secure shelter for any number of swarms of wild bees ; and many of the Bedouin, par- ticularly about the wilderness of Judsea, obtain their subsistence by bee-hunting, bringing into Jerusalem jars of that wild honey on which John the Baptist fed in the wilderness ' \ The Land of Israel, p. 88). In the O.T. it is described as found in the hollows of rocks (Deut. xxxii. 13), or in trees, as in the famous case of Jonathan (i Sam. xiv. 25-27). It is interesting, as showing how purely O.T. and prophet-like a tj'pe John really was, to compare him with an ascetic of the newer or less Hebraic sort, who shared the non-Jewish scruple against any animal food (on account of the 'soul' in things animate) of which Essenes were the chief Jewish example. John has sometimes been falselj' classed with the Essenes, though they lived essentially in select communities, for tl.e cultivation of their 86 ST. MARK 1. 7. X^k 7 And he preached, saying, There cometh after me he that is mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I am special ideal of a ' purity ' more exacting even than that of the Pharisees. But the nearest known analogj' to his solitary mode of life is that of Banus, a contemporarj' of John's, with whom Josephus lived for three j^ears as his admiring disciple, when as a youth lie made experiment of the respective merits of the chief Jewish types of piet3' — Pharisaism, Sadducaism, Essenism. This anchorite wore garments made of bark or leaves, and his food was the wild produce of the earth — both features being illustrative of a feeling of the superior ' purity ' of the vegetable world to the animal for human use : moreover he bathed frequently, day and night, by way of purification. That is, his most distinctive ways and the mode of thought underl3'ing them were not shared by John ; while he lacked the latter's sense of a Divine mission to Israel, which ranked iiim with the O.T. prophets. Indeed, neither the Essenes nor Banus had any Messianic hope for their people at large, their attitude to whom was one of pessimistic separation, carried further than by even the strictest Pharisees. It is over against such a background of current reforms in religion that the essentially prophetic Hebraism of John's outlook and mission stands out most impressively, and at the same time its continuity with those of Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth. 7. Aud he preached, saying-, There cometh after me he that is m.ightier than I. It is again the preaching or proclaiming, not the baptizing, that Mark signalizes in John ; and the essence of his proclamation is the approach of Another greater than him- self It is not here said in what the greater might of this One consists ; but the context suggests that it was in the superiority of the baptism with which he was to baptize. The tense of the verb implies, too, that the announcement recorded here was not one that John made on a single occasion, but one that he con- tinued to make as he preached. the latchet of whose shoes X am not worthy (or, sufficient) to stoop down and unloose. ' Latchet ' = ' lace.' The sandal, which covered only the sole, was fastened by a thong or strap. It was the duty of slaves of the lowest rank to carry i Matt. iii. ii), fetch, and remove the master's sandals. To untie the thong was, if possible, a still more servile duty fcf. John xiii. 4). Notice the graphic turn given to Mark's statement by the introduction of the act of ' stooping ' in order to do the untying : so little was the Forerunner, in comparison with the Coming One. He held him- self unfit even to do the most menial service to that greater One. ST. MARK 1. 8. XMk 87 not '^ worthy to stoop down and unloose. I baptized 8 you ^with water- but he shall baptize you ^with the cHoly Ghost. c Gr. sufficient *" Or, in Or, Holy Spirit : and so throug^hout this book. 8. I baptized you with water ; but lie shall baptize you with (the) Holy Ghost. As with the Prophet, so with the religious rite he administered as prophetic symbol. His baptism dealt with water, speaking of the need of repentance and serving as the sign of an inward change ; the Other's with the reality effecting spiritual change (_cf, Ezek. xxxvi. 25-27). ' He shall drench (cf. Joel ii. 28) with (or in) Holy Spirit,' and so reach the inner life and touch the springs of thought and action with purity and power. Speaking I'rom the O.T. standpoint, John could not mean by ' Holy Spirit' all ihat we understand by that great term. In the O.T. 'spirit of God,' ' the spirit of the Lord,' the 'spirit of holiness,' is the power or energy of God that appears as the life- giving principle of the world, the source of all special gifts— of soldier, artificer, king, prophet. In its higher aspects, especially in the poetical and prophetical books, and with a nearer approach to Divine personal action, it is presented as the guide and helper of men, the inspiration of their life, and specifically the endowment of Messiah as God's Anointed (cf. Gen. i. 2 ; Exod. xxxi. 3 ; Judges iii. 10; Job xxvi. 13, xxxiii. 4; Ps. li. 10 f., civ. 30; Isa. xi. 2, xlii. I, Ixi. 21, Ixiii. 10; Mic. iii. 8). Prophecy spoke too of an effusion of the Spirit ' upon all flesh ' as one of the features of the Messianic age (Isa. xliv. 3 ; Ezek. xxxvi. 25; Joel ii. 28). Thus ' He shall baptize you with Holy Spirit ' (without the article = *holy inspiration '"i, refers to an overwhelming spiritual experi- ence, due to God's direct action on the soul, an influence which it is the special prerogative of the Coming One to wield : and in this his superior might chiefly consists. And so we pass naturally to the next episode in ]\Iark's narrative. i. 9-11. The baptism of Jesus the Christ (Matt. iii. 13-17; Luke iii. 21, 22). Before Jesus can fulfil John's prophecy touching the coming spiritual Baptizer of God's people, he must himself first receive a like baptism of the Spirit in a signal manner and degree, and so become God's Spirit-Anointed (Messiah) or Chosen One, His Beloved Son. This is the prime meaning of the incident in Mark (10 f.). It signifies Jesus' definite vocation to his Messianic ministry, his personal inauguration. In the same act, then, the ministry of John had its culmination. It was an event of such 88 ST. MARK 1. 9. X^k 9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of GaUlee, and was baptized of John *in * Gr. inio moment that all the evangelists report it, Matthew at most length. Mark's account is brief, but vivid and circumstantial. 9. And it came to pass in those days, (that) Jestis came : a sentence thoroughly in the manner of the current speech of the Jews, viz, Aramaic, a dialect akin to the then largely disused Hebrew, and the mother tongue of Peter, as of Jesus. in those days: i.e. when John was announcing the advent of the Messiah and by baptism consecrating God's people to the Messianic Kingdom, Luke ( iii. 23) tells us that Jesus 'when he Oegan (his Gospel Ministry, cf. Mk. i. i) was about thirty j-ears of age.' That was the age appointed under the Law for the begin- ning of the ministry of every Levite who ' came to do the work of service' (Num. iv, 43). Nazareth of Galilee. Mark's plan does not require him to go behind Jesus' public ministry to his birth and early life, recorded by Luke in particular. Nazareth, now known among the Arabs as en-Nasim, seems never to have risen to any impor- tance, and it is not mentioned either in the O.T. or in Josephus. It was planted on one of the limestone hills of the Lebanon, some 1,600 feet high, where the range dips down into the Plain of Esdraelon. It occupied a secluded position, hidden in the basin of the hills, only just off tlie main lines of traffic, and at no great distance from Capernaum, Tiberias, and other places of note. It was not so remote as to cut its inhabitants off from the strong, active, varied life of Northern Palestine. Travellers tell us of the superb panorama that opens out to the eye from the heights about it and above it. See G. A. Smith, Hist. Gcogr. 432 ff. baptized in Jordan : ///. " dipped into Jordan,' a phrase pointing to immersion as the mode. The precise locality of the baptism of Jesus is much debated. The traditions of the Latin and Greek churches agree in placing it not far from Jericho, a likely enough region ; but they differ otherwise. The fourth Gospel (i. 28) places it near Bethany bej'ond Jordan. In any case it might be about a day's journey from Nazareth ; and Jesus' route would lie along the plain of Esdraelon as far as Bethshan, and then down the Jordan valley. Here no confession of sins, as in verse 5, is either mentioned or implied. The baptism was on the national or corporate basis characteristic of Hebrew religious thought, like that of ancient religion generally: cf. Isa. vi. 5 'Woe is me! because I am a man of unclean lips, and I (iivell in the midst of a people of nnclcon lips? That the baptism of John was in idea on a corporate basis, ST. MARK 1. 9. XMk 89 that of a people prepared by separation from sin for the Messianic presence of God in judgement, is implied liy Cheyne (Encycl. Biblica, col. 2499), when he sajs it was ' to give ' the baptized, ^ as representatives of a regenerate people, the final participation [by 'an outward symbol '] which attested the reality of their inward change.' It was enough, then, that Jesus \\as a member of the people, to warrant his participation in the baptism prescribed b^- God's prophet for it as a religious unit, without any inference as to his personal consciousness of sin being needful in order to explain his act. His sense of solidarity with God's people is to be measured only by his love or sj'mpathy ; and he who would 'fulfil all righteousness,' i.e. every Divine ordinance lor God's people preparatory to the coming Kingdom, and so take his due part in furthering it, could not hold aloof from the symbolic rite which denoted a dutiful attitude to God's call and a recognition of the Baptist as the Divinely sent Forerunner of the Kingdom. But Christ's submission to John's baptism came in time to be discussed in relation to his sinlessness, though Mark gives no hint that he felt it need do so. How, it was asked, could one who had no personal consciousness of sin seek ' a baptism of repentance ' ? How could one who had no confession of sin to make approach an ordinance usually' marked by open confession of sin, with a view to remission of sins ? It would be difficult to answer that ques- tion if John's baptism related only to confession and forgiveness of sin. But in fact it looked beyond those to the Kingdom of God ; and its ultimate significance lay in preparation for that (see note on Matt. iii. 14-15). That is all that Mark here seems to have in view. Christ came to establish that Kingdom among men ; and this ordinance was the overt way of definite dedication of a prepared and expectant Israel to the coming Kingdom. His baptism was the act by which he separated himself from an Israel unready for God's nearer presence, and ranked himself with the prepared. This, no doubt, meant to him the consecration of him- self to an ever-deepening obedience, an intenser devotion, a pledged setting aside of all that could compete with his Father's will or the interests of His Kingdom. But beyond this no thought, such as that of any contrast between himself and his fellows in this act of obedience to a Divine Call to all Israel, in point of personal worthiness, need have occurred to him. Com- plete absorption in the positive aspect of the Call altogether suits his child-like spirit. This is what is implied by the account in Matt. iii. 15. On the other hand, openly to dissociate himself, for private, self-conscious reasons, from those eagerly welcoming His Father's coming Reign, would have been to him impossible. How easy it was for Christian reflexion to go astray here and miss the essential nature of the holiness of Jesus, in his simple 9© ST. MARK 1. lo. XMk lo the Jordan. And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens rent asunder, and the Spirit preoccupation with the Father's Kingdom, is ilkistrated by the account of the matter in a secondary gospel, that 'According to the Hebrews,' current among certain earlj' Nazaraean or Jewish- Christian circles in Palestine and Syria. 'Behold the Lord's mother and brethren began to say to iiim, 'John the Baptist baptizeth ("or remission of sins : let us go and be baptized by him.' But he said to them, ' Wherein have I sinned that I should go and be baptized by him ? Except perchance this very thing that I have said is ignorance ' (i. e. a sin of ignorance, an unconscious ' error' or 'hidden fault,' of the venial sort referred to in Ps. xix. 12 f.). That is, Jesus went up to John's Baptism only at the suggestion of his family, and then reluctantly, after protest in the interests of his own sinless conscience. How deficient in ps3'choIogical in- sight it all is, and how its artificiality jars on our sense of what Jesus' sinlessness was really like ! 10. And straigrlitway coming' up ont of the water: i.e. 'in the moment of coming up.' His baptism over, Jesus was in the act of ascending out of the stream, when he had the experiences here recorded. For 'straightway ' see v. 18. he saw the heavens rent asunder : or better, ' in the act of rending' or 'being torn asunder.' The expression is a striking one, being used of the rending or tearing of a piece of old cloth (Luke V. 36 , the breaking of a net (John xxi. 11 ), the rending of the veil of the temple (Luke xxiii. 45), and actually of 'the heavens' in Isa. Ixiv. i. Compare the opening of the heavens in the case of Stephen (Acts vii. 56) and in Peter's trance (Acts X. 11). To Jewish thought there were several ' heavens,' one above another, of which our visible ' heaven ' was the lowest, while God was concei\'cd as throned in the highest, 'the heaven of Heavens.' It is vital to Mark's meaning to note that all in 10 f. depends on ' he saw.' That is, all is given as seen and heard by Jesus himself, and so /or /its assurance and preparation for his Messianic vocation, just about to begin in conscious form. This rules out cert;iin readings derived from other sources, where the descent of the Spirit and the Voice are treated as external events, witnessed by John at least (so Luke in effect, and Matt, more clearly, ' This is my beloved Son,' as also the Nazaraean ' Gospel according to the Hebrews'), and so as formally and publicly installing Jesus as Messiah. This is made yet clearer in the other and later Jewish- Christian or 'Ebionite' gospel, 'I this day have begotten thee,' i.e. as Messianic King, in allusion to Ps. ii. 7. The point in the tradition as found in Mark is not this ; it aims at shewing how ST. MARK 1. II. XMk 91 as a dove descending ^ upon him : and a voice came u * unto, or into, in our oldest authorities. Jesus himself attained that clear and assured consciousness of unique filial relation to God which was the real basis of his Messianic consciousness from first to last. From this same stand- point it is impossible to take the true Greek reading eis (after 'descending'), which can mean either 'unto' or 'into,' in the latter sense ; for it would not suit ' he saw.' Nor does this description of the Spirit's descent, as seen through Jesus' eyes favour the reading of its aim as the conferment on him of fresh spiritual qualities, as if in fulfilment of Isa. xi. 2 (an idea developed in the Nazaraean gospel) ; rather it symbolizes the fact that com- munion between heaven and earth was opened up with new immediacy in his case, as chosen first from among God's People for this special Messianic grace (cf John i. 51). The new thing for him, then, which this sensible Anointing with the Spirit con- ferred, was a definite consciousness of his vocation as Messiah, the representative Head of the new Israel, through which it was to receive its full Divine inheritance ; and ivith this iveni, as a natural consequence, a fresh fulness of Divine or supernormal 'power' for the efiecting of his special vocation of bringing in God's Kingdom. Thus, in fact, as Peter puts it in Acts x. 38, 'God anointed him with holy .Spirit and with power,' for doing deeds of beneficence indicative that the evil powers of the old Age or order were in principle annulled; so that thereby 'Jesus of Nazareth ' was ' approved of God ' unto Israel ' by powers and wonders and signs which God did by him' (Acts ii. 22). The overt effect, then, of the Spirit's descent and Unction of Jesus, as Messiah, was that he went forth ' full of holy Spirit ' (Luke iv. i), in a sense relative to the requirements of his new mission, which was to end in his ' baptizing ' others 'with hol^- Spirit' (v. 8), and the Spirit as a dove descending' upon him. We may best understand this picturesque account of what Jesus saw by comparison with his words on a somewhat similar occasion, re- corded in Luke x. 18. There, on the return of the Seventy from successful work for the Kingdom, Jesus exclaims ' I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from Heaven' (i.e. that one of the 'heavens ' in which Satan was conceived to dwell and rule ss 'prince of this world,' so far as it was alienated from God, cf. Matt. iv. 8). Such language cannot there be meant literally : nor should it be here (as distinct from Luke iii. 22). The symbolism is meant to define the character of the Spirit's special relation to Jesus, and so bears on the interpretation of the whole incident. The dove like form, which in this vision symbolized the Spirit, connects itself best with the Dove which returned to Noah with the message of peace and hope for the new order emerging out of 92 ST. MARK 1. II. XMt out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased. the waters that had buried the old, with all its ill-deeds (compare ' descends the Dove of peace ' in the familiar hymn). The dove was a most natural symbol of gentleness (cf. ' harmless as doves,' Matt. X. i6). The Rabbis came to see in the fostering action of the ' Spirit of God,' ' brooding ' at creation over the waste of waters like a bird over its nestlings, a comparison to the gentle dove in particular (I. Abrahams, Sludies, ch. v). The Targum, or Aramaic paraphrase reflecting Rabbinic exposition in the public reading of Scripture, and often going back to Christ's day, sees in the turtle- dove of tlie Song of Songs ii. 8, with its low, cooing voice, a symbol of the ' voice of the Holy Spirit of Salvation' in relation to Israel ; and Philo, the Alexandrine Jew, writing just about Jesus' day, sees in the dove (more strictly the turtle-dove) a tj^pe of Divine Wisdom. Finally this gracious aspect of God, as fitly symbolized by the dove, is aptly illustrated by the saying in the tract Berachoth (fol. 3a in the Babylonian Talmud', 'I heard a Bath-Qol (Divine Voice) moaning as a dove and saying, ' Woe to the Children through whose iniquities I laid waste My Temple.' Here, then, we have the materials for an understanding of this figurate representation of the Divine attitude towards Jesus, in sending His Spirit in special or Messianic form and fulness of power, as to One already perfectly filial, uniquely His Son in personal character, yet needing an authoritative intimation of the Mission to which he was being now called, and for which he must ever count on the empowering support of his heavenly Father. A further illustration of the BatliQol (lit. ' Daughter- voice ' of God), or utterance of God made audible to man, is afforded by the Rabbinic tradition touching Hillel (cf. op. cit. p. 48). 'There came forth a Bath-Qol and said : There is among 3fOU a certain man worthy of the Holy Spirit, but the generation is not worthy thereof.' That any of the experiences just described were shared with Jesus by any one, even John, is not hinted or seemingly contem- plated by Mark (cf. Additional Note in the Edition of Matthew, p. 97). This and certain other ideas often associated in our minds with the baptism are due to other sources, especially tiic other Gospels. But they must not be allowed to enter in unconsciously and change the perspective of Mark's picture of Jesus the Christ and his Ministry ; else we shall lose something of its special character and consistency, as the first and simplest presentation of the broad outlines of ' the Gospel of Jesus Christ' as told among men by his personal companions, and Peter in particular. 11. and a voice came {lit. ' came to be ') out of the heavens, Thou art my 'beloved Son. Here we have the Bath-Qol (see ST. MARK 1. ir. XMk c>3 last note and that on Matt. iii. 17) in terms of Isa. xlii. i (applied to Israel) rather than Ps. ii. 7, which has only 'Thou art my son.' In the version given in Matt. xii. 18, Isa. xlii. i runs as follows : 'Behold, my servant (or 'child'), v^hom I chose, my beloved, in whom my soul is well-pleased : I will put my Spirit upon him.' it puts into articulate words the meaning of that which was already implied in the symbolism of the eye, viz. Divine testimony to the unique or Messianic sonship of Jesus. This suggests that ' Son ' (used in Ps. li. 7) here means the same as ' child' in the LXX of Isa. xlii. I, see Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27. The term 'beloved' (cf. Gen. xxii. 2; Isa, xlii. i), which in the LXX represents the same Hebrew word as is also rendered 'chosen' or ' only begotten ' (see below), is applied in the Gospels (so ix. 7, cf. xii. 6) to JesHS as God's son in a peculiar sense, viz. as in special or unique relations to God as father (cf. ' my Son, my chosen,' Luke ix. 35). It is not found in John's Gospel, but is almost equivalent to ' only- begotten ' (or rather ' sole in kind,' and so uniquely loved), which is the phrase there. It occurs as a title of Messiah (doubtless after Isa. xlii. i) in the non-canonical Jewish books, such as the Testa- ments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Benj. xi), and the Targum on Isa. xlii. I (see note in R. H. Charles' Ascension 0/ Isaiah, i. 4). Here, then, the address 'my beloved Son' — or rather (as in Isa. xlii) ' My son, the Beloved '—designates Jesus as the Messiah, yet not in respect of office so much as of peculiar relation to God. The former is rooted in and springs out of the latter by inherent affinity, according to the true conception of Messiah,' viz., as the Well-beloved and Anointed of Isa. xl, Ixvi, rather than as the Warrior King of other parts of the O. T. This Sonship is like the office, a representative one ; an individual Israelite realizes in his own personality the ideal relation of his whole people, Israel, to its God, viz. that of a son or child, as Isa. xl ff. states it, in keeping with Exod. iv. 22 ; Hosea xi. i. (In the Alexandrine Wisdom of Solomon, of the early first cent. a. d., God's saints collectively are called ' sons of God,' v. 5.) Thus in promise and potency the New or Messianic Age of perfected Covenant relations has already begun in Messiah. It is of this that Jesus is henceforth conscious. in tlies I am well pleased : an O. T. phrase expressing Divine satisfaction, taken also from Isa. xlii. i, comp. Ixii. 4. The Baptist had largely fulfilled his mission : the human Voice, calling for preparedness for God's manifest intervention among His people — His expected Kingdom — had performed its ministry ; and chiefly in this, that through him the most truly representative Israelite of all those awaiting the Divine Presence, in new intimacy and fulness of power, had been led to the symbolic rite which marked the end of the Old Age and the dawning of the New. In the experience of this Chosen One symbol and spiritual reality 94 ST. MARK 1. ir. XMk fully coincided. As Jesus ascended from the stream which had, as it were, engulfed in his person the old past order or world in Israel's life— carried upon his soul, in vicarious sympathy, into the waters of repentance and re-consecration — God himself did there and then intervene with sensible tokens (to him) that the separa- tion between earth and heaven was at length annulled, and com- munion between them established such as was to mark the Messianic Age. For to Jesus' rapt gaze, as his eyes sought the heavens in silent prayer (Luke iii. 21) of adoration and trust in his heavenly Father, those heavens parted asunder and a dove-like form glided down towards himself, the token of Peace and Good-will for men, as it had been to Noah in the former days, when a new earth rose out of the waters that had purged away the old order (cf. i Peter iii. 20 f. foi ilie general idea ). Such was the vision which greeted his fresh self-dedication to his Father's will and its reign " on earth as it is in heaven ' : and following on it, a Voice, also coming, as it seemed, from the heavenly regions, had testified at this moment of spiritual crisis to his own Sonship and the heavenly Father's per- fect complacency in him. Such an experience must needs evoke a very tumult of feelings and thoughts, overwhelming in their strength, and needing time for reflexion in order to yield up their true meaning, according to his Father's purpose. For it meant a new sense of special filial relation, probably also of Messianic Vocation, which he now knew, perhaps for the first time with any assurance, to be involved in it. Note on the Baptism. The above seems a fair interpretation of Mark's narrative as it stands. Yet there is real difficulty in attributing full historical value to its details, as distinct from the broad fact that Jesus accepted John's Baptism of preparedness for the Kingdom in his own person, and that this solemn act of self-dedication led in a soul such as his to a great spiritual crisis. For knowledge of those details could have reached the Apostles only through Jesus him- self. But Origcn, in replying to Cclsus' anti-Christian criticism of * rent heavens ' and a visible apparition of the Divine as a dove, argues (i. 481 not only that such representations arc to be taken as divinely wrought impressions in Jesus' soul (and that of John), not as external facts, but also that for Jesus to relate such a past episode in his autobiography, ere the disciples began to share his experiences, would be alien to the liabit 'ethos) of one who ' on all occasions avoided talking about himself (irfpiavToXoy'ia). The re- mark has great force ; for the seemingly analogous case (in Luke X. 18), 'And ho said unto them, I beheld Satan fallen as lightning from heaven,' affords no real pnrallcl, as it arises out of, and bears directly on, the joint ministry of himself and his disciples at the time in question. A similar difficulty arises in connexion with the details of the period of retirement in the wilderness which follows, ST. MARK 1. 12. XMk g^ And straightway the Spirit driveth him forth into the i; especially as given in Matthew and Luke, though that a season of spiritual trial and conflict did ensue can hardly be doubted. The Tcmpiatton (cf. Matt. i\'. i-ii ; Luke iv. i-is). This incident — thelastcftheBeginningof Jesus' Gospel— is treated with striking brevity in Mark, as compared with the other Synoptic Gospels, Is this due to ignorance of their narrative of fasting and specific temptations (comp. note on Matt. iv. 2) ? We cannot say. In any case Mark's treatment of it is in keeping with his general method, namely the exhibition of Jesus and his Gospel through the medium of deeds rather than of words. It is with Truth as * embodied in a tale ' that he is mainly concerned. The truth here suggested is that Jesus' works of power over the forces of Evil, the < Kingdom ' of Satan (in the language of iii. 24% which Mark is about to narrate, were the issue of Messiah's personal victory over the assaults of the king of that usurping kingdom, as Tempter to disloyalty to the one true King. Having ' bound the Strong one ' in that personal moral struggle, Jesus was able to ' spoil his house' of its contents (ib. v. 27). Thereby the Lord's 'Anointed One' is already in principle King of the realm of Spirits, evil as well as good, and so able to deliver. Thus the Beginning or Prelude of Jesus' Gospel Ministry as Messiah is complete ; and he steps forth into that ministry fully prepared and equipped for all liiat it involves (14 f). For the historicity of the details of the Temptation, see end of note appended to the Baptism. But if Mark's account is brief, it has features of its own, such as the prolonged or continuous nature of the struggle, also the graphic touch about the wild beasts, but especially the forcible way in which he puts the compelling impulse 'driving' Jesus into solitude. This impulse Mark seems to connect closely with the experiences just narrated (cf end of notes on v. ii\ by the use of his favourite phrase 'And straightway' (see v. 18). The other evangelists prefer to speak of Jesus as being ' led' (Luke iv. r) or 'led up ' (Matt. iv. i) by the Spirit. Mark has a stronger word, ' casteth forth,' ' constrains to depart ' (cf. v. 43). What is meant is that Jesus was impelled by a constraining influence which he recognized to be of God, and to which his own will simply yields, to seek solitude in order to see more clearly the will and way of God for him, in fulfilling his high mission to Israel. The use of the historic present, 'driveth.' is very characteristic of Mark: comp. Sir J. C. Hawkins, Horae Synopiicae, pp. 143 ff , 214. ii. 12. And straig^htway the Spirit driveth him forth: lit. 'casteth forth.' The vigorous realism of this description of the overmastering pressure of the mood created by the great hour of vocation is an instance of the manner 'unembarrassed by 96 ST. MARK 1. 13. X^k 13 wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days reverence ' which A. B. Bruce attributed to Mark, but which was perhaps proper rather to the tradition he uses. into the wilderness. The narrative suggests a different part, a remoter and lonelier part, of the same wilderness of Judaea in which John was baptizing. 13. And he was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan. Mark's words imply that he was tempted throughout the time spent in the wilderness : so also Luke (iv. 2). Matthew speaks as if the series of temptations which he records came upon Jesus only at the end of this period, a period spent also in fasting, at the close of which, when worn and exhausted, he was met by three typical forms of temptation. Luke seems to combine the two conceptions, so as to make those special temptations the climax and concentration of the period of more general searching of heart and of doubt as to the principles and methods of fulfilling the Messianic vocation. Further Mark says nothing of ' fasting ' during this period (see 13'=) ; probably this was not part of the original tradition. It is quite likely that Jesus did fast, in the looser use of this word, to the extent of being largely oblivious to the claims of the body and satisfying them only occa- sionally, as hunger and fatigue made themselves felt : but no stress was at first laid on this in the Christian tradition. ' Forty days ' is the traditional length of such periods of retirement in the O. T. for both Moses and Elijah (cf. ix. 4^. As to the nature of the temptation experienced by Jesus Mark gives no hint. It is most natural to suppose, judging from Matthew and Luke, that its special theme was the kind of Messiahship his was to be, as com- pared with current notions —a problem that runs through all Jesus' ministry. While Mattlie w and Luke speak of the ' Tempter ' as * the devil,' a Greek term meaning the accuser (cf. Rev. xii. 10) or slanderer, Mark uses the Hebrew name Satan, the 'adversary' (Job ii. i\ Scripture represents the spiritual Adversary of God and His Kingdom among men, in the whole range of its beneficent sway in healthful life of body and soul, as a being to whose usurping liold on men, through temptation yielded to, bondage of body and mind are traced. It is to the Divine Power wielded by Jesus for the deliverance or ' Salvation' of mankind from such bondage, as contrary to God's creative purpose for man — and the cancelling of which was the essence of the Prophetic picture of the Messianic Kingdom and of Messiah's functions therein — that Mark wishes to direct his readers' special attention in the narrative which follows. There Jesus 'went about doing good, and healing all that were under the tjranny of the devil ' (Acts x. 38) ; and he could do it, because he had already- won the victory in his own person, in ST. MARK 1. 13. XMk gj tempted of Satan ; and he was with the wild beasts ; and the angels ministered unto him. this conflict with temptation to distrust his Father, to whom by right belonged all power. The temptation, we gather, was one springing out of Jesus' new conscious relation to the Kingdom of God, viz. to grasp at its powers by self-seeking methods, so virtu- ally forgetting the essence of his filial relation as 'a Son of Man ' to God as Father. Jesus' mighty ministry' was the fruit of victory here : and its foundation was laid in this final stage of his prepara- tion. Hence it was fitting that Mark should relate that Jesus, as Messiah, the representative Head of God's People before God, him- self underwent temptation at the hands of the Adversary of the Kingdom. Thereby he shared the common lot, and was subject to the common human law that onlj' througli victory over tempta- tion to dislo3'alty to God, in thought even before deed, can man's true filial relation to God be realized : cf. Heb. ii. 17 f., iv. 15, 'one that has been in all points tempted like as we are — without sin,' and V. 8, ' though he was a Son, yet learned he (experimentally) obedience by the things which he suffered.' Much, indeed, of the popular idea of the Tempter, and his sub- ordinate agents, is due not to Scripture but to mediaeval theolog3', coming down largely through Milton's Paradise Lost. Such asso- ciations must be kept in check as one reads the N. T. and he was with the wild beasts. Mark alone mentions this. Travellers speak of the number of wild beasts — cheetahs, boars, jackals, wolves, hyaenas, &c. — still to be met in the deserts of the Holy Land, especially in the neighbourhood of a uadi or ravine (see Tristram, Land 0/ Israel, p. 240). Fanciful meanings have been read into this description. But probably it is merely intended to sharpen the picture of the desolateness of his position. and the angels ministered unto him : probably to his bodilj' wants in such a region, on the analogy of Elijah (i Kings xix. 5 S.). The tense refers to the whole period spent by Jesus in the wilds ; and the statement is in fact the other side of the picture just given of his state far from human society. Matthew records things dif- ferently, viz. that 'angels came and ministered unto him' at the end of the temptation. It is possible that the motive of Mark's words is the assurance of angelic care over the man after God's own heart, as in Ps. xci. ii, regarded as Messianic (and as such cited by the Tempter in the account in Matthew and Luke, though with a somewhat difTerent reference). A. The GALiLiCAN Ministry : i. 14 — ix. 50. i. 14 f. Suntmaiy of Jesus' Gospel-mimsiry in Galilee (comp. Matt. iv. 12-17 '• Luke iv. 14 f.). Mark appears to overleap a space of time, even after the forty H 98 ST. MARK 1. 14, 15. XMk 14 Now after that John was delivered up, Jesus came 15 into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, '^■and saying, * om. and saying N Syr. Sin. c. ; many MSS. omit and days, amounting perhaps to months. Ignoring all that is found in the Fourth Gospel (Jolin i. 29 —iv. 42), he proceeds at once to Jesus' return to Galilee, here treated as marked by his first public preaching. As, however, the relation of the events recorded in the various Gospels at this stage is not certain, we must confine our notice to Mark's story as it stands. In any case it is clear that the imprisonment of the Baptist made a crisis, according to Mark, and formed the occasion for the commencement of Christ's public ministry in Galilee, apparently in contiimation of the Baptist's. 14. Now after that John was delivered up : i. e. to prison by Herod ; see Josephus at end of note on v. 4, and Mark's full story in vi. 17 fT. It is a true artistic instinct which makes him postpone his account of the circumstances, as here likely to divert attention from the career of the Central Figure at a crucial point in the narrative. In this he is followed by Matthew, while Luke, in keeping with his more historical methods, merely summarizes the story at the end of his account of John's preaching (iii. 19, 20), before describing Jesus' baptism. Jesus came into Galilee, preaching*. Mark gives no hint that Jesus began his preaching in any shape or form before John's ceased, or that he preached at all before reaching Galilee. He does not, indeed, exclude some slight proclamation of the Kingdom as at hand (whether side by side with John or otherwise), ere Jesus actually reached Galilee ; but had he known of such an extensive work as the Fourth Gospel describes seemingly prior to this stage, he could hardly have written as he does. Moreover Peter in Acts x. 37 definitely makes Jesus' Gospel throughout ' all Judaea ' begin ' from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached' (i.e. after its cessation). And this is confirmed by Luke (iv. 14), who mentions Jesus' return, ' in the power of the Spirit into Galilee,' immediately after the Temptation, as also by Matt. iv. 12, 17, ' Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee . . . ,' and ' From that time began Jesus to preach and to say. Repent,' &c. Mark, however, does not actually suggest that John's imprisonment afforded a motive for his beginning thenceforth to preach in Galilee : he simply uses the event to indicate the moment when he did so, i.e. the moment when the voice of the earlier Prophet of the Kingdom was silenced. Galilee. In it Jesus had his home, to it most of his early followers belonged by birth or residence. It was the most ST. MARK 1. 15. XMk 99 northerly of the three provinces into which Palestine — Judaea in the wider sense, as the Romans usually spoke of it — west of Jordan, was divided ; and was now under the jurisdiction of Herod Antipas. 'This name . . . means in itself. . . The Ring {Gain ! . . . Like our circle, or circuit, it was applied geographi- cally to any well-defined region, as for example the region east of Jerusalem, which Ezekiel calls the Easferyi Galilee, . . . or to the Galilees of the Philistines.'' So, too, Galilee was originally Galilee of the Gentiles, as it is called in Is. ix. i, quoted in Matt. iv. 15. It was, to begin with, used to describe ' the northern border of Israel, which was pressed and permeated from three sides by foreign tribes. Thence the name gradually spread, till in Isaiah's time it was as far south as the Lake of Gennesaret. By the time of the Maccabees it had reached the Plain of Esdraelon, and covered the whole of the most northerlj' of the three provinees into which, after the Exile, the land west of Jordan was divided. The population remained far more Gentile than before.' But after the victorious Maccabaean reaction against non-Jewish influences and elements in Palestine, ' it was natural to drop out of the name the words of the Gentiles'' (G. A. Smith, hiist. Gcorg. 4r3ff.). Galilee contained a large proportion of Gentiles, mostly Greek- speaking Syrians ; and on that ground, as well as that of its distance from Jerusalem, it was regarded by the Judseans, and especially the religious authorities of the ' holy ' centre of Judaism, as on a lower religious level and of a less pure Jewish type in habits as in speech (cf. Mark xiv. 70; Matt. xxvi. 6g; Luke xiii. i f. ; Acts ii. 7). The Galilaeans were ' provincial ' in their ways ; and it was probably regarded as part of the fitness of things that Scrip- ture spoke of no prophet as to arise out of Galilee (John vii 52). Hence that Jesus was ' the Galilean ' became in itself a bar to his being held a prophet in official religious circles in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the Galilaeans, as less narrowly traditional and conventional in their notions of pietj' than the Jews of Judaea, were more open to new ideas as to the meaning of their religion and of Scripture, such as Jesus had to impart. The area of Galilee was that of an average English shire. It was a land of beautiful and diversified scenery, of meadow and pasture, of orchard and grain field. Josephus dilates in glowing terms on its fertility. When he refers to the populousness of the province he uses language that seems exaggerated. But it is certain that it was peopled more thickly than we can now well imagine. ' It was to Roman Palestine what the manufacturing districts are to England, covered with busy towns and teeming villages and thriving fisheries.' preaching: rather 'heralding,' 'proclaiming,' God's gracious message to His people. Such is the idea in view, not what we should understand by * preacliing the Gospel.' And the gist of the Proclamation is quoted in the words which follow. Jesus now loo ST. MARK 1. IS. XMk The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand : repent ye, and believe in the gospel. t.ikes up the definite vvorK of Evangelic proclamation in the sense contemplated by 'the Evangelic prophet' (Is. xl, Ixi), a sermon from one of whose most characteristic passages is put by Luke in the forefront of his narrative of Jesus' ministry, by way of frontis- piece (iv. i6 ff.). Mark's terse summary of 'God's Good News ' is quite in accord with Luke's specimen of its more detailed exposi- tion : both are on the lines of Isa. xl. 3-11, Ixi. i f. 15. Tand sayingfil The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. This was in fact the substance of the Good News (some old MSS. have not ' and saying,' but only ' that ' =i. e.). Thus Jesus had a great aiinoimcenicnt to deliver, carr3'ing with it an urgent call (15''). The first point was that 'the time,' the defi- nite season of crisis for the entrance of the Messianic kingdom, was now fully come ; so that nothing in the counsel of God stood in the way of that Divine event. Not only had the Baptist come as the Forerunner of the Kingdom as foretold in Mai. iv. 5 (cf. Mark ix. 13) ; Jesus himself had in his own soul the witness at his Baptism that the New Era was already dawning. The idea behind the words ' the season is full come ' is different from and simpler than that in Paul's use of the phrase in Gal. iv. 4 ; Eph. i. 10. the kingdom of God. Here ■we meet one of the characteristic terms of the Gospels — 'the kingdom,' 'the kingdom of heaven' (or ' of the heavens,' as usually in Matthew and as only in him), ' the kingdom of God,' as in Mark and Luke and Paul. The primary idea underlying the phrase is simply that of Jahweh's reign or sovereignty', over and in His own People, perfectly fulfilled or consummated in a way hitherto only fore- shadowed in Israel's history at its best, e. g. in the reign of David. This idea gives rise to the secondary meaning, the order of things resulting from such Divine or heavenly rule, the regime constituted by God's perfect reign : and this in turn leads on to the thought of the Kingdom or rule exercised under God by Israel, as Jahweh's Son or vice-regent, over and among the other nations to whom Jahweh's sovereignty extends by right, though not as yet in fact owing to idolatry and false religion (see Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, 18, 27). Thus 'the Kingdom of God' expresses the perfected Theocracy in Israel, the realization of the prophetic idea of the rule of God on earth among a People become fully devoted or ' holy ' in heart to Him and His Covenant or revealed will. This idea summed up the central hope of Old Testament religion ; but it existed under varying imaginative forms in Jesus' day, all more or less coloured by Daniel vii, the poetic and ST. MARK 1. 15. XMk loi picturesquely symbolic imagery of which had for a century and more been developing and hardening into conventional forms as ' Apocalyptic' 'Apocalyptic' is the name given to the body of conceptions connected with the future Divine or heavenly ' Kingdom,' as the consummation of God's dealing with His People and the World, when 'this Age' {6lam) should give birth — through troubles compared to ' birth- pangs ' (cf. Mark xiii. 8) and ending in a Divine Judgement — to 'the coming Age' (x. 30) or simply 'that Age' (Luke XX. 34 f.). Thus Apocalyptic dealt largely with the Last Tilings (eschata) ; and the preoccupation of mind of those dominated by it was ' Eschatological.' Such was the prevailing attitude in Jesus' day of all the more earnest Jewish circles in Palestine, in which the Messianic Hope of a trul^' regenerate Israel lived with any reality and vigour. Hence, in declaring that God's Kingdom was at hand, Jesus, like John, was saying someiliing that deeply stured the bulk of Ins fellow-countrymen, though in ways var3'ing much with the varying conceptions entertained as to its exact meaning and nature: witness the varying attitudes assumed to him and his conception of the Kingdom. At the very root of the deepening tragedy of Jesus' public career lay the face that, unconsciously or consciously, those who heard his message of the Kingdom were more or less at cross-purposes with his own inmost thought as to its nature and the methods of its coming. He used for the most part the common language, but with far greater emphasis on its inner and spiritual suggestions, and to that extent S3'mbolically rather than in the usual outer and literal sense, with its national and material limitations (see iurther Allen, The Gospel ace. to Si. Mark, 197 f.). repent ye. The second element in the gracious message was the call founded on the annoimcement. Jesus took up John's call when the latter was silenced, and began with the note of repentance, though he had far more to give than had John in the way of positive motive furnished by the very nature of the King- dom, set forth in his proclamation as 'good news' or Gospel. The ' repentance ' in each case was relative to the nature of the Kingdom, and to the preparedness requisite for sharing in its blessings. In John's preaching the accent was on the searching nature of the Judgement which would sift men like wheat and chaff: Jesus dwelt on the hopeful aspect, God's good-will. and believe in the g'ospel: i. e. in the good news of God's Kingdom as nigh. This positive element in the call is recorded onlj' by Mark. The phrase 'believe in the Gospel' is peculiar, being in the Greek close to the Hebrew and Aramaic idiom (cf. LXX of Ps. cv. 12). The 'gospel' is here to be taken in the Isaianic sense (see above, on v. 14). It is to be noted that there is no mention of Jesus as preaching I02 ST. MARK 1. i6. P [P] And passing along by the sea of Galilee, he saw a rite of baptism, as part of his call to Repentance and Faith in the Good News of the Kingdom at hand. This can hardly be accidental, especially in view of the contrast in i. 8 between John's as a ' water' Baptism and Messiah's as baptism with ' holy Spirit,' the cleansing power of which water was but symbol. Thus E. F. Scott seems justified in saying {The Beginning of the Church, p. 169) that Jesus ' regarded the rite as of secondary importance, and did not require it of those who desired to join his fellowship. . . . With a profound spiritual instinct He avoided all confusion of His moral and spiritual demands with mere cere- monial practice.' For the Messianic Age of the Spirit had virtually dawned in his own personal experience as Messiah. Moreover the corporate baptism of Israel, such as John's was in idea, had already done its work of helping to prepare and mark out a people ready for the Kingdom as about to appear ; and Jesus began his preaching on the basis of this, and as supplying the further stage wherein the Kingdom was beginning already to appear, in himself as Messianic Son, the fully Anointed with the Spirit. The First Stage : beginnings and main issues. i. i6-iii. 13. {a) Early days in Capernaum : i. 16-34. Thus far Mark's narrative has been on the lines of the common Apostolic tradition, which took its fundamental shape in the preach- ing of the early Jerusalem days, reflected in the opening chapters of Acts. In its shaping Peter no doubt took the leading jjart ; yet it ■was not his individual creation, but bore the stamp of the common coiporate consciousness of the original circle of Jesus' personal disciples. Later on, as the Apostolic preachers went in different directions on their several missionary tasks, in Palestine and beyond it. minor variations would arise in its form and phrasing. What we have throughout in Mark is mostly the special Pctrine form of the Apostolic tradition, as fixed by preaching and more systematic oral instruction (catcchesis) to converts and other inquirers. In this Petrine tradition there were gradually grafted on to the common Apostolic stock (which we may denote by the symbol X, largely coinciding with the accepted sj'mbol Q : see Introduction) certain of Peter's own memories illustrative of the way in which Jesus had delivered his ' Gospel ' message among men by word and deed, especially the latter. Here, then, we come upon the first and most marked instance of this distinctive Petrine strain in the Gospel tradition familiar to Mark, viz. the story of Peter's own call to special discipleship, and of the earliest events which followed it in his experience. Naturally these would stand out in his memory as typical of the way in which his Master had gone about his mission, and had impressed men. ST. MARK 1. i6. P 103 Simon and Andrew the brother of Simon casting a net As regards the Call of the First Disciples, there is a rather different narrative in Luke v. i-ii. The immediate response given to the Call implies that it can hardly have been the first meeting between Jesus and these men. The Fourth Gospel (chap. i. 35-42) gives an account of a 3'et earlier call of disciples, from which we learn that Andrew and Simon had been followers of the Baptist. But in any case they had probably heard of, if not conversed with, Jesus since he moved to Capernaum (see V. 21), which he may well have done at once, as Matt. iv. 13 suggests, after returning to Galilee, in order to ' begin ' in a more public manner than was possible in Nazareth. i. 16-20. Call of the First Disciples (Matt. iv. 18-22). 16. And passing along' by the sea of Galilee. The scene of the Call was by the beautiful sheet of water on the shores of which so many of Christ's words were spoken, and so many of his deeds done. Its O. T. name is 'the sea of Chinneroth ' or 'Chinnereth* (Num. xxxiv. 11; Joshua xi. a ; i Kings xv. 20). In I Mace. (xi. 67) and in Josephus it is Genne.sar (Jewish War HI, X. 7, &c.). In the N. T. it has more than one name: in Matthew and Mark 'the sea of Galilee'; in Luke usually ' the Lake,' once ' the lake of Gennesaret' (v. i) ; in John the 'sea of Tiberias ' (xxi. i), ' the sea of Galilee, which is the sea of Tiberias' (vi. i). This last name connects it speciallj' with the city called Tiberias, built by Herod Agrippa and called after the Emperor Tiberius. The lake is about twelve and a half miles long and eight miles wide at its broadest. It is in parts 150 feet deep, and lies (according to Sir Charles Warren) some 600 feet below the level of the sea. The river Jordan enters it at the north and passes out of it at the south end. The lake is of rare beauty. Canon Tristram speaks of the first view one gets of it as like that of the Lake of Geneva from the crest of the Jura range. lie sa'w Simon and Andrew. To this pair of brothers, sons of a Jonas (Matt. xvi. 17) or Joanes, our 'John' (John i. 42, xxi. 15-17), and belonging to Bethsaida (John i. 44'^ but having their home then in Capernaum (Mark i. 29), Jesus' call came first. They had perhaps been so far prepared for it by connexion with the Baptist's movement, probably also by some previous inter- course with Jesus. ' Simon ' is the Greek form of the Hebrew name which is also given more exactly as ' Symeon ' (Acts xv. 14 ; 2 Pet. i. I, R. V. margin). In the Synoptic Gospels it is the name usually given to this disciple, up to the time of the choosing of the Apostles, when it is superseded by 'Peter.' 'Andrew' is a Greek name, but one used also by Hebrews. casting (a net) in the sea : for they were fishers. The I04 ST. MARK 1. 17, i8. P 17 in the sea : for they were fishers. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become 18 fishers of men. And straightway they left the nets, and phrase is simply ' casting about ' — a simple and forcible descrip- tion of what they were doing at the time. The hand-net (the name of which is derived from the verb here used) is in view, as distinguished from the * draw-net ' or ' drag-net,' which was used for fish swimming in shoals (Matt. xxii. 47), and was trailed along behind the boat. The -hand-net' was used by throwing it about, generally (to judge by Thomson's description in The Land and the Book, p. 402) in the shallow water near the shore, in which the fisherman stood to make his casts. Thus Andrew and Simon were probably not in a boat but were 'casting,' not ' a net' but each his net, hard by the shore — where they could easily be addressed. 17. And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after m.e. The phrase ' Come hither after me ' expresses a call to become followers in the sense of disciples. and I will make you to become fisliers of men. They were summoned to a kind of work analogous to their present, but of a higher order. 18. And straigfhtway : lit. ' And straight ' {eitlhus). This phrase, both as a whole and in its Aramaic use of* straight' (like •next'), is highly characteristic of this Gospel. It has the sense 'And forthwith,' used to represent immediate sequence, and gives a lively effect of active movement to the narrative, even in the parabolic stories. How characteristic it is comes out clearly by comparison with the companion Gospels, since it occurs (in the best text) in the sixteen chapters of Mark thirty-five times (also once with ' but ' for ' and,' and ' straight ' alone in five other cases) ; in Matt.'s twenty-eightchaptcrs some nine times (threeof them with euthus — ail parallel with Mark — while the other six, as well as nine cases without 'and,' have the more usual Gk. adverbial form euiheos) ; in Luke only twice (once in a parable, once parallel with Mark but in the form etttheos. which is found also five times in dis- course) ; while in Acts it occurs five times (^once with euthus in X. 16, four times with eutheos, which occurs alone in five other cases). ' Straightway' {euthus) occurs also thrice in the Fourth Gospel. The phrase, especially with 'And,' reveals the Aramaic basis of the Gospel tradition as particularly influential in Mark. It corresponds to the Hebraic and Aramaic ' And, lo,' which Matt, and Luke prefer, but which Mark never has, so shewing that his favourite ' And straightway' really takes its place, as sometimes in the LXX (Gen. xv. 4, xxxviii. 29) : see further i. ai. Here its use helps to bring home what is probably a main point ST. MARK 1. 19, 20. P 105 followed him. And going on a little further, he saw 19 James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother, who also were in the boat mending the nets. And straight- 20 way he called them : and they left their father Zebedee in the boat with the hired servants, and went after him. in the story, viz. their prompt and unquestioning response to Jesus' call, as suggestive of the moral power of his word and the personality behind it. The effect of the call was such that they left their nets just as they were, and the interests they stood for, and joined him. This call of regular 'disciples' marks an important epoch of Jesus' ministrj' and its methods. A still further stage in their detachment from other duties, and their special attachment to Jesus' society as learners and companions, was yet to come, by their formal inclusion in the fresh body of the Twelve (iii. 13 ff.). Hence perhaps we may infer that they still plied their fishing from time to time. Such a gradual and informal gathering of disciples is true to life, as we may see from theanalogy of the case of Francis of Assisi and his companions. 19. he saw Ja:nes the son of Zebedee, and John his brother. In the Synoptic Gospels, where these two are named together, James (the Jacob of the O. T. 1 is named first, an order which, particularly when coupled with the explanation that John was ' his brother,' suggests that James was the elder and so the more important person (contrast Acts i. 13, written when conditions had changed). From Luke v. 7. 10 we learn that they were partners of the former pair. who also were in the boat: that is, in their own boat. ' Boat ' is better than the * ship' of the A. V., while ' themselves too ' (like the other pair) would be better than ' who also were.' mending the nets : or rather putting their nets in order (cf. Heb. xi. 3, X. 5, for the same verb\ Not actually fishing, as was the case with the other two, but making the nets all ready for using. 20. and they left their father Zebedee in the boat. In their case the obedience was, if possible, even more striking, especially as judged bj' Oriental standards. From Mark xv. 40 f. compared with Matt, xxvii. 56 we gather that their mother Salome, then or later, also became an active disciple and helper of Jesus. with the hired servants: better ' hired hands,' ' hired men.' This touch is perhaps inserted to meet the feeling that they were acting in an unfilial way. It is precarious to infer, from the men- tion of such ' hands ' in their case, that there was any difference in social position between the two pairs of brothers, especially as io6 ST. MARK 1. 21. P And they go into Capernaum ; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue and taught. they were in partnership. But it implies that neither of them be- longed to the really poor. A memorable day in Jesus^ Ministry. I. 21-34. i. 21-28. Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum (compare Luke iv. 31-37)- We have here Peter's account of the impression made on his hearers by Christ's teaching, and of the sensation caused by his first case of exorcism. 21. And they go. Matthew (iv. 13) tells us that on starting his mission to Galilee, as described above in vv. 14 f., Jesus had left Nazareth and settled in Capernaum. And this entrance into the city after the call of disciples in no way excludes this. into Capernaum. From Mark i. 29 it appears that this was Simon's and Andrew's present place of abode. Capernaum, in its more proper form Capharnaum, is not mentioned in the O. T. It came to be spoken of as Christ's 'own city' (Matt. ix. i), by reason of the close connexion he had with it during his ministry. Yet so far was it from accepting his mission that Jesus warned it, along with Chorazin and Bethsaida, of judgement as impending over it for lack of repentance and true faith (Matt. xi. 21-23 > Luke X. 13-15). Its site remains still uncertain. Some place it at Tell Hum, at the north-west of the lake, some two miles south- west of the point where the Jordan enters. Remains of a city of some importance are found there. Others locate it at Khan Minyeh, some two miles south-west of Tell Hum, near the sea and not far from where the great Damascus road passed (e. g. G. A. Smith, op. at., p. 456). The Httcr is preferable. It would be at the northern extremity of the Plain of Gennesaret, a very fertile strip of 3 miles (i^ deep) between the hills and the Lake (see vi. S3). The disuse of the name Capharnaum was probably due to the fact that, according to the Talmud, 'sinners' {Biitd) were styled 'sons of Cafi/uir Nahum.'' This would explain the change to Khan Minyeh (however we take Minyeh). and straightway on the sabbath day: i.e. on the first sabbath after the call, which was clearly on an ordinary working day. Here and in v. 23 'and straightway ' seems to have merely the same dramatic motive, viz. to stimulate the imagination, as 'And lo !' (see i. i8j. he entered into the synagogiie andtaiight: better ' he was teaching in the synagogue ' (' entered . . and' seems a sccondar}' reading). It was the natural thing for a teacher to do, as it gave ST. MARK 1. 2 2. P 107 And they were astonished at his teaching : for he taught 2a the opportunit}' of speaking to the people in a simple and recog- nized way. The chief purpose of the synagogue was instruction in the Law, and this was not left in the hands of officials only. Freedom of speech, under certain reasonable conditions, was allowed to those competent ; and any one, especially a Rabbi, might be called on by the ' rulers of the synagogue ' to expound. As an institution, the synagogue belonged probably to the period of the Exile. It fulfilled certain objects which were not otherwise provided for by the written Law. It acted too, as a ' counterpoise to the absolute officialism of the sacerdotal service ' (Morrison). Its services were very different from those of the Temple, con- sisting of prayers, the reading of the O. T., and exposition. Mark speaks of ' the synagogue ' probably because it was the only one in Capernaum. So Luke (vii. 5) tells us that the centurion whose servant Jesus was asked to heal had built a synagogue, which the Jews of Capernaum speak of as 'our sj'nagogue.' Much of Jesus' early work took the foim of synagogue-teaching. Mark makes no mention of such teaching after vi. 2, bj'' which time relationship with the religious leaders had become very strained. 22. And they -were astonished. A strong word, expressing an amazement that carried them out of themselves. at liis teaching'. A better rendering than ' doctrine,' the thing in view being the manner rather than the matter of his ex- position. for he taught them as having' authority. What amazed them was not so much the things said as tlie way they were said. Their professional teachers, when they opened up the Law or the Prophets, spoke as those who had no clear fountain of knowledge in themselves, no inward witness to the truth of what they asserted. I'hey spoke with frequent appeal to external authority, to the words of some great Rabbi or to generally accepted tradition. But Christ spoke with the tone of certitude, with the note of an inherent authority, as one who had knowledge in himself and a message direct from God. This was the tone of inspired con- viction. It was a new thing to the Jews of that day, and, indeed, of many a day before John revived the prophetic note in his own preaching. We have little of Jesus' actual synagogue teaching, save the sermon at Nazareth, which really came later in his ministry (since it contains references to Jesus' work in Caper- naum, Luke iv. 23), though Luke puts it at the very opening of his narrative as a clr.ssic example of Jesus' Gospel message. The specimens which Mark gives of Jesus' public teaching — as distinct from the impression of authority which it produced on men— are io8 ST. MARK 1. 23, 24. P 23 them as having authority, and not as the scribes. And straightway there was in their synagogue a man with an 24 unclean spirit ; and he cried out, saying. What have we chiefly of an occasional kind and closely bound up with action ; otherwise it is mostly teaching to disciples. and not as the scribes. The ' scribes,' called also ' law3'ers,' 'doctors of the Law' (Luke v. 17), were the powerful class to whom the Jews looked up as their recognized teachers. With them Jesus soon found himself in conflict. They it was who had built up, and who continued to expound and apply, that system of traditional Law which Jesus said ' made void ' the word of God, as tending to give to the external and ceremonial the place which belonged to the moral and spiritual. No doubt there were dif- ferent tj'pes of scribes. Among them there were men with insight into religion and the Divine law. But as a class they had become in Christ's time pedantic, hair-splitting, dictatorial. 23. And straightway there was in their syna-gogne a man with an unclean spirit. 'Then and there,' as we say (Mark says 'and straight'), a startling thing happened, which remained vividly in Peter's memory as his first experience of a form of his Master's God-given power to meet human need which seemed specially characteristic of his Divine Mission (cf Acts x. 38). For a leading place is given by his associate, Mark — and by the Apostolic tradition generally — to this kind of healing (see further under v. 32 on the subject of ' demonic ' possession generally). Luke describes the man as ' having a spirit of an unclean demon.' Mark speaks of him as being 'in an unclean spirit,' i.e. 'in the power of,' or under the control of, such a spirit : comjiare Luke iv. 14, ' in the power of the Spirit ' of God. But the demon is also spoken of as located in the man, and as ' coming out ' of him. Such words express the completeness of the union between them. It was as if man and demon had become one, each absorbed in the other. In the N. T. 'unclean spirit' and 'demon' are inter- changeable terms, the former being characteristic of Mark. 'Un- clean,' in this connexion, has not a moral reference, or even (as usually in a religious sense, to begin with at least) a ceremonial one, so much as a properly religious one : it denotes the spirit's character as alien to the Holy God, its membership of an opposed realm. and he cried out, saying', What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? By the plurals 'we,' ' us,' it appears that the spirit (as distinct from the man ' possessed ') is represented as speaking, and referring to itself as one of a class. This is borne out by V. 25, where Jesus rebukes the speaker and bids him ' come out of the man. ST. MARK 1. 25. P 109 to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God. And Jesus rebuked ^ him, saying, Hold 25 * Or, a That the man who feels himself ' possessed ^ should speak in the character of the spirit which he and others believe to be in perma- nent possession of him, his true self as it were, is entirely true to what the modern study of abnormal ('alienist') psychology brings clearly to light. And this holds of other phenomena in this narra- tive. Thus those suffering from mental derangement or instability are apt to be more sensitive than others to the emotional pressure of the presence and speech of an exceptionally great and good personality, and to feel an uncontrollable impulse to respond thereto, whether by way of antipathy or sj-mpathy. art thou come to destroy us ? The sense of incompatibility begot a sense of possible hostility and so of fear. X know thee who thou art. The very absence of normal reflective control over their various native powers often gives the mentally afflicted greater vividness of sensibility in the sphere of instinctive intuitions, even of a moral and spiritual order, than that of the mass of mankind. So was it wiih this man. This fact the Evangelist interprets as due to a superhuman knowledge in the * spirit ' possessing him. the Holy One of God. The term ' holy ' here has its original and characteristic meaning of wholly' ' belonging to God.' For the full phrase, compare 2 Kings iv. 9, ' This is an holy man of God' (Elisha) ; Ps. cvi. 16, ' Aaron the Lord's holy one.' Here it seems meant to have a special Messianic reference, as in John vi. 6g. This probably was how Mark understood the story as it had reached him, though the man may have meant only some more general recognition of exceptional ' holiness ' in Jesus, seeing that he would share the popular conception of the expected Messiah ; and this hardly suited the outward conditions and the seeming character of the work of the prophet of Nazareth. 25. rebuked. The word is translated ' threatened ' by WyclifTe, following the Vulgate. In the N. T., both in the Synoptists and elsewhere (2 Tim. v. 2 ; Jude 9, it has the sense of chiding, rating, charging sharply (^cf. viii. 3o\ saying', Hold thy peace, and come out of him. The word rendered ' hold thj' peace ' means literally ' be muzzled ' as in i Cor. ix. 9 ; I Tim. v. 18. It is a strong figure of enforced silence. The rebuke (really addressed to the usurping power or 'spirit' in the man) is directed against two things — the outcry, with its unsought no ST. MARK 1. 26. P 26 thy peace, and come out of him. And the unclean testimony to himself, and • the invasion of the man's spirit by an alien power ' (Swete). As to the first point, Jesus here, and throughout the gospels, silences all forms of testimony' to his person and work which would tend to promote the wrong sort of belief in himself or his mission, an unspiritual belief, based on mere marvels (like a demon's witness) instead of personal insight into his spirit and the moral authority of his message. Of this message his miracles of healing were meant by him to be recognized as visible parables and illustrations, rather than ' proofs,' in keeping with Isa. Ixi. i f., which he applied to himself in the Synagogue of Nazareth (^Luke iv. 18 f.) and virtually also in his answer to John's doubts as to his Messiahship (due to the absence of certain attributes of ' power,' e.g. his passivity in view of John's own hard lot), in Luke vii. 21-23 ! Matt. xi. 4-6. His message was one of human deliverance or salvation from all contrary to God's will, the realization of the Divine idea of manhood as destined for sonship to the Heavenly King and Father. Such deliverance was primarily of the soul, but ultimately of the whole man, including bodily health or whole- ness. This leads directly to the second ground of this rebuke, i. e. the indignant pity which the sight of the bondage of man, God's son by right, alwaj's evoked in Jesus, the Divinely empowered De- liverer or Redeemer of man, who himself is God's proper vice- gerent on earth (Ps. viii. 4-6). It was as sharing manhood in this sense that he called himself by choice ' the Son of Man ' ;cf. ii. 10 f.). Such was his feeling towards any form of human bondage, whether sin or sickness. But most shocking of all to Jesus must have been the bondage of man's higher nature to what looked like the usurping presence of an alien spirit, in place of the Spirit of God, shewing itself in the destruction of the soul's spiiitual unity under the sway of the ' kindly light of Reason,' firm seated on its throne as God's noblest gift, the condi:ion of moral responsibility and true sonship to God. Hence the tone of emotional severity in the command, ' Silence 1 Come out of him.' Appended Note on the Ittnitation of Jesus' Knowledge. The form of these words implies Jesus' acceptance of or acquies- cence in the current belief as to the nature of the cause lying behind certain abnormal mental phenomena (see Matt. xii. 27 ; cf. Mark iii. 23"). The belief not only prevailed among those to whom he owed his mental training, as among the Jews generally, but was also the popular theory in antiquity. Indeed, it is practically the inevitable theory of such cases for mankind in all ages and lands at a certain stage of mental development, viz. prior to the ' scientific' habit of ST. MARK 1. 26. P III observation as now understood and practised in educated circles, owing mainly to the whole development of modern experimental research in the realm of Nature. That Jesus must, in virtue of his exceptional religious consciousness, have needs been super- naturally exempt from mental limitations of everj- kind, even those proper to the contemporary world whose general intellectual equip- ment (as derived from instruction) he shared, and in terms of which he habituallj' spoke, is an assumption we have no warrant for bringing to the Gospel narratives and imposing on them. For it is manifest that, while taking up a highly independent attitude in the interpretation of the moral and spiritual contents of the Old Testament Scriptures — and at times also a critical altitude to the Mosaic Law as regards the adequacy or more than relative authority of parts of its moral teaching (cf. the Great Sermon in Matt, and Luke, and the Law of Divorce in Mark x. 5 ff.) — Jesus yet adopted without question and argued from the current traditional views of the literary and historical aspects of these Scriptures. Some, indeed, would claim this as stamping with Divine authority such traditional views, e. g. the assignment of Psalm ex to David, though that theory almost certainly did not go back to its origin, but was due to the way in which the Scribes, the later custodians and editors of the Sacred Books, interpreted it. But the more probable view is that Jesus never directed his independent thought to any such matters, seeing that they did not come within the scope of his special Messianic vocation as revealcr of the true character of God, as the Heavenly Father, and of His true Covenant or revealed relations with men as His earthly children. Jesus himself never claims any authorilj' for his thought or language in the sphere of knowledge which depends, and for man must depend, on special study, according to methods worked out gradually by experience and deliberate attention. And that his proper religious aulhorit}', such as he does claim, was not com- promised b3^ his knowledge in matters of human science being limited to that of his time and circle, is borne out bj' the similar limitation of knowledge which, according to Mark xiii. 32, he him- self acknowledges, even as ' the Son ' of God on earth, in the matter of the exact time when the Kingdom should fullj* appear. This latter point is one far more closely bound up with Jesus' essential Messianic message than either the human authorship of sacred writings or the exact cause of certain mental derangements. The whole question of the full reality of the human experience of Him in whom the original witnesses, as well as the long spiritual experience of Christendom ever since, came to recognize the Son of God in a unique sense, albeit he shared all human frailties save sin (see Heb. v. 7-9, ii. 17 f.), is one which involves certain difficulties to our understanding on any theory. But the duty of the interpreter of the Gospel narrative is plain, namely, to face .t11 112 ST. MARK 1. 27. P spirit, » tearing him and crying with a loud voice, came out of him. And they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What is this ? a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth even the * Or, convulsing the facts of the case as presented in experience, both then and now. One thing may here be added, as bearing on the ancient phenomena which suggested the theory of demoniac possession to observers generally, viz. that in certain non-Christian lands, e.g. India and China (^see Appended Note on Demonic Possession), cases of mental derangement are far more similar to those described in the Gospels than are those in our midst to-da}', where the whole psychological conditions have been affected by Christian ideas and trainmg, however imperfect. 26. And the unclean spirit, tearing' him and crying' with a loud voice, came out of him. Tlie mental and nervous struggle caused by Jesus' word of authority issued in convulsions, accom- panied with a loud cry, ere the deliverance was effected. The verb rendered ' tearing' has this as its primary sense, but means also to convulse. 27. And they were all amazed. The effect on the people is expressed here by a verb which is used in the N. T. onl}' by Mark, and conveys the idea of astonishment passing into awe : cf. x. 32. questioned among- themselves : better ' debated,' cf. xii. 28. saying, what is this ? a new teaching ! with authority he commandeth. Moffatt, in his new translation, divides the words rather differently : 'It's new teachmg with authority behind it.' A vivid picture of amazement breaking into excited and abrupt question and answer. The unwonted style of this teaching, already alluded to in v. 22, is still in their thoughts, but now as proving its authority by the results effected by Jesus' Vv'ords as commands, put upon even the super-human world of evil spirits and compelling obedience. A fresh kind of teaching indeed. The simple directness of the method by which Jesus asserted his authority and effected his purpose doubtless deepened the sense of his power. Exorcism was practised among the Jews (cf. Matt, xii. 27 ; Acts xix. 13) ; but usually by the magical use of sacred formulas of incantation, not by direct personal command in which the speaker's own personality was a factor of moral power. Here was one who used n i such laboured arts, but simply spoke, and it was done : ' he cast out the demon with a word ' (Matt. vlii. 16.). I ST. MARK 1. 28. P 113 unclean spirits, and they obey him. And the report of 28 him went out straightway everywhere into all the region of Galilee round about. 28. And the report of him, &c. From that hour his fame went abroad everywhere. This suggests that it was the first work of the kind done by Jesus. into all the region of Galilee. The words may mean either 'into all the surrounding region of Galilee ' (Wycliffe, see Luke iv. 37), or ' into all the region bordering on Galilee ' (Tyndale, Meyer, cf. Matt. iv. 24). The former seems preferable (cf. 39), especiall}' as it is only with iii. 8 that we first have explicit trace of the effects of Jesus' fame outside Galilee. Appended Note on Demonic Possession in the Gospels. Dr. A. Menzies {The Earliest Gospel, 1901, pp. 68-70) discusses this subject in a large way. The following are his main points. ' The story just dealt with is one of a number. There are five detailed cases in the Gospels in which Jesus is reported to have dealt with persons labouring under possession . . . The case before us is too deeply embedded in the earliest narrative of the life of Christ to be disposed of as unhistorical . . . And the other cases also are so artless and so lifelike in their details [some being apparently insignificant, but to the modern expert of real value for scientific diagnosis] that the}' must represent real occurrences. 'The persons afiiicted were thought to be possessed by a spirit, or by a number of spirits. These were beings . . . capable of entering the body of a man or an animal and leaving it again to take up their abode in another (see Matt. xii. 43 ; Mark v. 9, 12 f., xvi. 9). What was the nature of these cases in Palestine? ... In no instance do we know all the symptoms or with any fulness the patient's history . . . The facts clearly present are scanty, and are given in popular rather than scientific language. Yet something can be made out. ' (i ) It is not the case that the Jews with whom Jesus had to deal put down all maladies to the action of spirits, so that they had no other way but this to speak of ailments, bodily or mental. That is true of primitive therapeutics, and in the sacred texts of Egypt and of Assj'ria and Babylonia we may. see how this view continued even in higher civilizations. Every malady was thought to be due to a spirit, and was to be treated by exorcism. . . . The Jews of Christ's time were not at this stage of medical science. The Gospels report many cases of sickness which were not ascribed to demoniac action, and we hear of physicians as well as exorcists. . . . ' (2) In some of the cases the symptoms of known ailments appear. The sudden transitions from one mood to another, and I 114 ST. MARK 1. 29. P 29 And straightway, ^when they were come out of the synagogue, they came into the house of Simon and * Some ancient authorities read when he was come out of the synagogue, he came Ifc. the excited screaming ejaculations, suggest hysteria.' [Yet it is doubtful if in any case the symptoms really suggest true epilepsy.] ' Loss of the proper sense of one's true identity is one feature of lunacy (which is associated with 'possession' in Matt. iv. 29, cf. xvii. 15) . . . Where there is obstruction of hearing or of speech, and the demon is characterized accordingly, it may be surmised that a modern physician would have regarded these as mere accidents of the disease, and would have noticed other symptoms not so striking which yet lay nearer to the root of the evil.' [They are, in fact, among the symptoms of certain forms of hysteria.] ' Both in hysteria and in epilepsy the theory of possession is, where medical knowledge is not advanced, very natural. The patient appears to have come under the power of another agent than him- self. . . . And where either of these complaints is accompanied by other infirmities, the latter will also be put down to the action of the spirit, which will thus be described as deaf and dumb, or weak. Mental disorders will also be readily ascribed to the same agenc3^ ' (3) The theory has to be noticed that ' ' possession " is a specific ailment in itself, not to be identified with any other.' It relies in part on modern parallels. ' The phenomena detailed for us in the Gospels have been met with, and are met with to this day, in various parts of the world ;' and for some of them even qualified psychologists are at present without satisfactory explanations. India and China specially afford such instances ; and Dr. Nevius, long a missionary in China, ' argues strongly, and with con- siderable learning, that possession by spirits really exists in China at the present day, as in Galilee in our Lord's time, and in many other regions and ages.' But he wrote before much modern psychological work, on ' dissociation' or dualism of personality in particular, had taken place. Dr. Menzies himself says of it, that 'it is not perhaps necessary to adopt this view. Where the belief in spirits of a lower order is active, it is hard to set limits to the effects it may produce in human thought and action. . . . Thus it is not strange that it should" act with special strength where it is united with morbid physical tendencies, and we can also under- stand how ideas belonging to it may pass quickly from mind to mind in epidemic fashion. When knowledge increases it loses its hold.' i. 29-31. The healing of Peters Mother-in-law (Matt. viii. 14 f, ; Luke iv. 38 f.). ST. MARK 1. 30-32. P 115 Andrew, with James and John. Now Simon's wife's 30 mother lay sick of a fever ; and straightway they tell him of her: and he came and took her by the hand, and 31 raised her up ; and the fever left her, and she ministered unto them. And at even, when the sun did set, they brought unto 32 him all that were sick, and them that were *^ possessed "■ Or, demoniacs 29. tlie house of Simon and Andrew. As Simon was a married man, the house may have been his, while his brother dwelt with him. 30. Simon's wife's motlier. She may have lived with her son-in-law. That Peter's wife was still alive years later, and ac- companied him when on his mission-work, we learn from i Cor. ix. 5. lay sick of a fever. Luke gives a more detailed description, ' holden with a great fever ' (R. V.). Malarial fever, travellers tell us, is rife even at the present day in the plain in which Caper- naum was situated. and straigrhtway they tell him of her. It was natural that they should at once appeal to him who had just wrought so wonderful a cure in the sj'nagogue. 31. and she ministered unto them. So immediate and com- plete was her cure. There was nothing of the lassitude of ordinary convalescence. The patient was able at once to go about her ordinary domestic duties, such as helping to spread the board for the company. '• 32-34. An evening spent in healing (Matt. viii. 16, 17 ; Luke iv. 40, 41). 32. And at even, when the sun did set. The people have been keeping themselves in check till all risk of infringing the Sabbath law is past. With the setting of the sun the Sabbath had ended. Throwing off all restraint, they now crowd to the house with their sick of many kinds. and them that were possessed with devils : rather 'with demons.'' The word ' demon ' represents the Greek daimon, a term with an interesting history. In the Homeric poems it usually means a god. By this time, however, it mostly meant a 'spirit' of an order superior in power to man's, even when disembodied. It was adopted by the Jews with a sinister mean- ing (as synonymous with Satan's angels, cf. Matt. viii. 31). So in the N. T., usually in the diminutive form daimonion, as in V. 34. After the healing of this class of case in the Synagogue, it ii6 ST. MARK 1. 33-36. P 33 with devils. And all the city was gathered together at 34 the door. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many ^ devils ; and he suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew bhim. 35 And in the morning, a great while before day, he rose up and went out, and departed into a desert 36 place, and there prayed. And Simon and they that were * Gr. demons *" Many ancient authorities add to be Christ. See Luke iv. 41. was natural that others should be brought to this wonderful ' exor- cist.' The mention of sickness and possession, side by side, shows that Mark did not trace sickness generally to the latter. 33. And all the city was g'athered together at the door. A picture of 'the flocking up to the door,' 'and of the surging, moving mass before it ' (Swete). Capernaum was probably of no great size, cf. v. 37. 34. And he healed many that were sick with divers diseases, and cast out many devils (demons). Mark simply says that those healed, of both classes of sufferers, were many — no longer mere isolated instances, as already recorded. The evidence of Jesus' Divine mission was thus growing manifest. Matthew (and Luke also in effect) speaks of ' all the sick ' as healed, so enhancing the effect. and he suffered not the devils (demons) to speak, because they knew him. Jesus put the ban upon their utterance, as in the case above, v. 25 (see note there). He would not have his cause influenced by such testimony. (£») Wideiiiitg mission in Galilee : i. 35-45. i. 35-39. After prayer, Jesus begijis his first preaching tour (Luke iv. 40-42 : cf. Matt. iv. 23-25). The experience of the past day's ministry suggested wider possi- bilities, for which Jesus felt the need of the guidance and strength whicli prayer was wont to bring him. 35. And in the morning', a great while before day. So early that it was still night, as the original implies. into a desert place: probably one of those bare, solitary, and barren ravines running up into the hills behind Capernaum. and there prayed : cf. vi. 46. This casts light on the reason of his withdrawal, and no doubt also of his choice of such a place. He required perfect quiet for his soul, opportunity for reflection on ST. MARK 1. 37, 38. P 117 with him followed after him ; and they fomid him, and 37 say unto him, All are seeking thee. And he saith unto 38 them. Let us go elsewhere into the next towns, that I may preach there also ; for to this end came I forth. the principles of his mission in the light of his fresh experiences (see undcrv.38), as preparation for the wider work now opening before him. ' No Christology is true which makes a Christ for whom prayer is unnatural' (H. R. Mackintosh). 36. And Simon and they that were with him followed after him. ' Simon and they that were with him ' seems to reflect the impression on Mark as Peter told the story. They were at a loss when they found him gone. They shewed this by the haste with which they follotved him 7tp. The word is a strong one, implying pursuit. Perhaps, however, they knew enough of his favourite iiaunts for meditation to be able to guess where to seek him. 3"?. and say unto him, All are seeking thee. The result of iiis deeds of power and mercy. The disciples could not understand the Master's failure to seize the opening thus afforded. All Capernaum was now, in their e3'es, in the hollow of his hand. But, to judge from later analogies, Jesus felt that it was not his message but his miracles that filled all minds there (see Matt. xi. 23 f.). His reply to their expostulation suggests that he felt the danger of the light in wliich his mission would be regarded — as that of a mere wonder-worker — if he stayed on longer at Capernaum after the events of yesterday. In any case it had had its chance of responding to the Call of the Kingdom. Other places too had an equal claim to hear his ' Good News.' The moment had come for a less local ministry. 33. into the next towns : lit. ' village-towns,' probably small country towns in the plain of Gennesaret (cf. vi. 54 ff.), inter- mediate between villages and cities. Josephus speaks of the thickly planted towns and the multitude of populous villages in Galilee (Jewish War, III. iii. 2). came I forth. It was with a view to such wider ' preaching ' of his Message — which is what Jesus himself emphasized — that he had ' come forth.' The phrase is the same in Greek as the 'went out' in v. 35, and so seems to refer simply to his having left Capernaum — the matter his hearers were full of. The context, unlike that in the use of the term in John viii. 42, xiii. 3, does not point to his mission generally, still less to mission from the Father, which would here require a more explicit phrase, like ' I was scut forth,' which actually appears in the parallel account in Luke iv. 42 f. ii8 ST. MARK 1. 39, 40. P 39 And he went into their synagogues throughout all Galilee, preaching and casting out « devils. 40 [XMk] And there cometh to him a leper, beseeching * Gr. demons 39. And he went into tlieir synagogfues . . . preaching' : better 'went preaching in' (as Moffatt). Thus did he begin his first circuit of Galilee, making his ministry, thus far, a synagogue ministry in the main. But ' throughout all Galilee' seems hardly justified by what precedes and follows (40-45), and may be Mark's own idea (cf. Luke's 'synagogues of Judaea,' in the wide sense, iv. 44). and casting out devils (demons). Jesus' primary concern was his proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom, which was apt to be hindered, as he had probably now found by experience, by popular preoccupation with the healing of bodily ailments. But he was still ready to deliver from bondage those 'possessed,' since their malady was primarily mental bondage, and disqualified them from heeding the preaching itself. i. 40-45, Healing of a hpei; and its wider results (Lk. v. 12-16, Matt. viii. 2-4). Leprosy appears to have been a common disease among the Jews (Luke iv. 27). It was the subject of minute regu- lations in the Levitical law (Lev. xiii), in which several varieties of the disease are recognized. In the N. T. three cases are reported — this one, the ten lepers at one village (Lukexviii. 12), and Simon the leper (Mark xiv. 3). These, however, are only selected instances ; cf. Mark x. 8, xi. 5 ; Luke vii. 22. What this leprosy exactly was is difficult to determine. Perhaps we should distinguish between the leprosy of which we read in the Bible and the disease commonly known by the same name in ancient and modern times. The latter, which at least in one of its forms may be identified with elephantiasis, is one of the most terrible maladies known in India and in Egypt, which got into England before the times of the Crusades, and lingers still in parts of Europe. The former is supposed to have been a skin-disease, sufficiently loathsome but less terrible than the other; cf. the case of Naaman (2 Kings v). The name ' leprosy ' may have been given, as appears probable, to a whole class of diseases with which ritual iinderuiHess was associated. So its removal is described in the N. T. as a ' cleansing.' The ailment in view, then, in most, if not all, of the Biblical passages, may have been a skin- disease known as psoriasis, which was offensive and distressing, but not equally incurable. 40. And there cometh to him a leper. This case is selected for record because it was the first of its class, or because of the ST. MARK 1. 41-43- XMk 119 him, ■» and kneeling down to him, and saying unto him, If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. And being 41 moved with compassion, he stretched forth his hand, and touched him, and saith unto him, I will ; be thou made clean. And straightway the leprosy departed from 42 him, and he was made clean. And he ^ strictly charged 43 him, and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, * Some ancient authorities omit and kneeling down to him ^ Or, sternly impression made and the change it occasioned in Jesus' method (cf. i. 45). Luke (v. 12-16) brings it in after the call of the first disciples ; Matthew (viii. 2-4I after the Sermon on the Mount. beseeching h.inir, and kneeling down to him"'. The earnest manner of the suppliant is indicative of the reality of his confidence in Jesus' power, if only he could persuade the Prophet to exercise it in his behalf. Hence the wording of his appeal. If thou wilt. He was not sure that it came within the Prophet's purpose or mission to concern himself with the outcast class of lepers. moved with compassion. The touching and confiding appeal invested this case with special features in Jesus' eyes, so that his pity led him to act not only as petitioned but also in a strikingly whole-hearted way. The man had come near, in spite of the Levitical restrictions, near enough to be reached ; and Jesus, dis- regarding possibly the physical loathsomeness, and certainly the ceremonial uncleanness, ' stretched forth his hand, and touched him.' 'The action is adapted to the circumstances' (Swete) : compare i. 31. The touch was here needed to assure the man's faith of Jesus' willingness. Jesus, therefore, first touched him and then spoke the healing word. And the result was instantaneous. 43,44. strictly charged him. The expression is a very strong and picturesque one, used of the snorting of horses, but in the LXX (Dan. xi. 30: cf. Lam. ii. 6) also for strong human emotions, such as anger ; thus it probably denotes a visibly and audibly stern tone in the injunction given. and straightway sent him out, and saith unto him, See thou say nothing to any man. Why this immediate dismissal, with so strong an injunction to silence? Because, if the man lingered and were demonstrative, he might be the occasion of creating a superficial popular enthusiasm among the people, like that which had perhaps already caused Jesus heart-searchings after the day of manifold healings at Capernaum, but in any case before I20 ST. MARK 1. 44, 46. XMk 44 See thou say nothing to any man : but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing the things which Moses commanded, for a testimony unto 45 them. But he went out, and began to pubhsh it much, his preaching tour of i. 39 had closed. On the former occasion his redeeming pity had gone forth without restraint, when first confronted by the appeal of human need on a large scale ; but he had since seen reason to change the method in which his love for the Father's lost children might best work for their true good — preparedness for the Heavenly Kingdom which it was his to pro- claim as 'at hand,' and thereby to bring in. Accordingly he now wished to avoid all that tended directly to emphasize the physical and miraculous aspect of his mission, at the expense of the moral and spiritual. But the leper's exceptional appeal had overruled, so to speak, this new principle of action, and threatened to add to the sort of reputation which he shunned, and so to affect his deeper work harmfully. The incident also furnishes a transition to the subject of the next section, viz. Jesus' attitude towards the Mosaic Law. but g'o thy way, shew thyself to the priest : rather ' but away,' i. e. to distant Jerusalem. The cure was not held perfectly complete till the ceremonial disabilit}' and the social ban were re- moved. This was done by the priest, to whom it belonged to pronounce clean or unclean. See Lev. xiii, xiv, esp. xiii. 49. offer for thy cleansing' the thing's •which Moses com- niauded. The man was not to disregard the Hebrew law, but to seek the ceremonial purification in the way it prescribed (Lev. xiv. 1-30). Jesus had ignored, in the cause of mercy, the Levitical rule of not touching a leper ; but where a higher law did rot hinder, the Mosaic Law was not to be disobeyed. This was his attitude throughout. for a testimony unto them. To whom ? To the priests, as if the work would be a witness to them that a Prophet, perhaps Messiah himself, was among them ? Hardly-. To people generally ? Not if the miracle just wrought is in view. Rather the words follow closely on what Moses prescribed, viz. ' as witness to them,' i. e. to Israel at large, that the leper was really cleansed. They are perhaps Mark's explanatory addition for the sake of his readers (cf. his comment in ii. 15). 45. and began to publish it much. This shews the need of Jesus adopting a stern manner in order to anticipate this very thing. The man could not contain himself, and did what his feelings prompted. The result was that his Healer's work was interfered with; he could no mori , for a time, preach in towns (with their synagogues) for fear of excited crowds eager for ST. MARK 1. 45. XMk 121 and to spread abroad the ** matter, insomuch that ''Jesus could no more openly enter into <^ a city, but was without in desert places : and they came to him from every quarter. * Gr. 7wrd ^ Gr. he " Or, the city marvels, but had to betake himself to ' desert places.' Even there the people kept coming to him. A ' mass ' movement begins. (c) Some typical incidents: ii i — iii. 6. The work of Jesus among the common people ere long attracted the serious attention and criticism of the synagogue authorities, the Scribes and the sect of the Pharisees, to which they mostly belonged. The incidents which now follow are bound together by this link rather than by temporal or local unity. The series in fact tells by typical examples the story of the development of tlie breach between the official Synagogue and Jesus, which probably spread over several months. Yet there is a progress in the degree of his critics' hostility which may point to something like an his- torical order. * At first they merely make silent criticisms (ii. 6 i ; then they question the disciples Ui. 16) ; later, they challenge Jesus Himself (ii. 18, 24) ; and later still, they resolve to get rid of Him (iii. 6). The theme continues into the following section. The arrangement of these incidents is . . . not necessarily chrono- logical ' (H. G. Wood). The incidents probably belonged for the most part to the common Apostolic tradition (the X already re- ferred to under i. 16-20), and not only to Peter's special form of it — a fact which appears in the wording, here and there, of the parallel sections in the other two Synoptic Gospels (e.g. Luke V. 17 follows another form of X, also used by the Evangelist). It is quite possible that Mark's form of X is here at times even further from the historical order than Matthew's. The latter seems to have known most of these incidents (ii. 1-22) as grouped together in one series (Matt. ix. 1-17)— and that at a later point than in Mark, viz. on Jesus' return from a voyage to the East of the Lake — and the two others, bearing on the Sabbath, as a second group (xii. i-i4\ in quite another context (where the immediate sequel, in 15 ff., is like that in Mark iii. 7-12), viz. just before the charge of collusion with Beelzebub ( = Mark iii. 20 ff.). In Mark the controversy is traced continuously through certain typical episodes, until it reaches the acute phase of hostility described in iii. 6, where it passes into actual plans to do away with the un- orthodox and religiously revolutionary Prophet of Nazareth. A later stage of what is essentially the same controversy and struggle, 122 ST. MARK 2. 1-3. XMk 2 [X^k] And vvhen he entered again into Capernaum after some days, it was noised that he was * in the house. 2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, no, not even about the door : and 3 he spake the word unto them. And they come, bringing ^ Or, at home now transferred from provincial Galilee to Jerusalem — the home of the central authorities of Judaism — appears in the closing chapters of the Synoptics ; see Mark xi. 15 ff., especially xii. 12. Criticism from religious leaders begrinning. ii. I -12. The Paralytic at Capernaum (Matt. ix. 1-8 ; Luke v. 17-26). The event recorded in this paragraph has an important position in the narrative. It marks the point at which Jesus began to encounter criticism. So far his deeds and words had won a quick response from the people. His popularity was great, though it did not rest on a true recognition of the nature of his preaching, and so cut across his intended course. From this time, however, he has to face a series of collisions with the people's religious guides. 1. And when he entered again into Capernaum. The words ' after an interval of days ' place this episode some time after his former activity there, possibly a month or two after i. 16-39. Matthew, which has this episode in a later context, there calls Capernaum ' his own citj'.' it was noised that he was in (the) house : lit. in (a'', house, indoors, or at home. ' Men were heard to say " He is indoors" ' (Swete\ naming the place. It is not said where ; but the phrase rather suggests his own home, whither there now gathered in considerable numbers those already attracted to his message. 2. no longer room for them, no, not even about the door. Mark's description of the eagerness of the people, still under the spell of his person and work, is very graphic. He lets us see the excited people hurrying to the house at the news, pressing in with the freedom which is allowed only in the East, filling the room in a trice, then about the house-door (which no doubt opened direct upon the street, cf. xi. 4), and even beyond. spake the word : lit. ' was engaged in speaking the word.' Jesus was m a private room, not in the synagogue, and was speak- ing simply and informally. ST. MARK 2. 4, 6. XMk 123 unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. And 4 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. And Jesus seeing 5 their faith saith unto the sick of the palsy, ^Son, thy * Many ancient authorities read bring him unto him ^ Gr. Child 3. a man sick of the palsy : a paralytic. borne of four : that is, on a light pallet or mattress-bed (as the word implies) carried by two pairs of bearers (cf. vi. 56). The number of bearers is given only by Mark. 4. they uncovered the roof: lit. ' they unroofed the roof,' i. e. removed the tiles. The roof of a house in Palestine was easily reached by an outer staircase, cf. xiii. 15. (Allen does not accept Wellhausen's suggestion that ' uncovered ' is a wrong rendering of an Aramaic word meaning ' brought him up on.') and when they had broken it up, they let down the bed. How is this to be understood ? The phrase ' broken it up ' is a strong one, meaning ' made a hole;' lit. 'dug it out.' The roof of a Jewish house of this kind might consist of beams covered with poles and brushwood, and overlaid with earth and gravel. In Galilee to-day 'the roofs are made with beams so arranged as easily to be turned over when bent by the weight of the reeds and rubble. It would be enough to remove a beam, in order to secure a sufficient aperture' (a modern observer quoted by Lagrange). It was possible, therefore, to break a hole big enough to let the man down through it, as here described. 5. And Jesus seeing their faith. The faith of the paralytic's friends is not here distinguished from the sufferer's own ; both are meant, though the former only was shewn directly in action. saith unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins are for- given. * Son,' ' child,' a familiar, affectionate term, used of a dis- ciple, and here a word of encouragement to the sufferer. Not ' be forgiven,' as in the A.V., but 'are (being) forgiven.' Jesus speaks first of forgiveness. What is the point of this ? Not that he meant by the forgiveness only the cure itself, the relief of the man from the physical consequences of 'some sin affecting the nervous organization ' (Gould). That fails to do justice to the force of the word used here, which expresses the removal of guilt. Was it that Jesus saw in his face more than faith that the Healer could cure his malady — some wistful trace of the sense of past sins in 124 ST. MARK 2. 6. X^k 6 sins are forgiven. But there were certain of the scribes the lieart of the sufferer? In any case Jesus acts in accordance with Jewish ideas of the close connexion between sin and sick- ness (cf. iii. lo, 'plagues'), and so of forgiveness and heahng (cf. James v. 15). 'There is no sick man healed of his sickness,' said the Rabbis, ' until all his sins have been forgiven him ' (Schottgen, cited by Swete). 'The healing,' then, as Montefiore says (setting aside other views that have recently gained some vogue) ' was in- tended from the first to follow rapidly upon the proclamation of forgiveness.' Jesus begins with the spiritual side because this is the one which he has most at heart, but which others tended to overlook in their concern for bodily healing and in the wonder which his working of it aroused. He first directs attention to the chief boon which his Gospel confers, that to the soul. Thus tlie words are continuous with Jesus' attitude in the last episode. G. certain of the scribes sittings there —sitting, as those most worthy of honour. According to the form of the story known 10 I, like, through another line of tradition than the Marcan, the Scribes in question were not only the local ones of the city (who under the circumstances so exactly described by Mark in ii. i f., following on i. 45, are alone likely to have been on the ppot), but included some from all over Galilee, and even from Juda;a and Jerusalem. That is unlikely at this tiMie, for it antedates the stage in Jesus' ministry' thus implied, one of effects even outside Galilee. There is, moreover, nothing inMark's narrative(seeunderv.i2) — nor in Matt. ix. i ff., which seems based in part on another form of X (where the incident came later) — to suggest that the scribes in question were there for purposes of criticism rather than curio- sity or perplexed inquiry touching a seeming prophet, ' whose aim would ' at first ' appear to them to be the same as their own : he too was seeking to get the people ready for the Kingdom of God ' (Menzies). Had Jesus already aroused general suspicion among the scribes of Galilee, he would hardly have been able to preach in the synagogues at large (as stated in i. 39) ; for this could only be with the permission of the rulers of synagogues, who would be largely influenced by the attitude of the scribes or professional teachers of the Law. ' But Jesus differed too radi- cally from the scribes in spirit and method to allow ' any such state of things 'to continue long. He was not bound by their rules, and he was guided by convictions which they did not share.' It was here and now that the latent incompatibility of their ideals first came to expression in a marked manner ; and the incident was remembered by Peter, and spoken of by him in his teaching, largely for that very reason. It marked an epoch in his Master's ministry of the Gospel, when mere doubt and vigilance on the ST. MARK 2. 7-9. XMk 125 sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth 7 this man thus speak? he blasphemeth : who can forgive sins but one, even God ? And straightway Jesus^ per- 8 ceiving in his spirit that they so reasoned within them- selves, saith unto them. Why reason ye these things in your hearts ? Whether is easier, to say to the sick of the 9 part of the religious authorities passed over into definite suspicion and criticism. reasoning' in their hearts. They said nothing, but sat in shocked surprise, inwardly commenting on this daring declaration of the popular Prophet. *7. he blasphemeth. He had simply said, 'Thy sins are for- given thee.' But they treated that declaration as blasphemy, that is to say, a kind of speech hurtful to the honour of God. In so taking his words, they showed a certain captious readiness to see in them an extravagant personal claim, going beyond that of dele- gated or prophetic 'authority' to speak in God's name the Divine forgiveness of the man's sins. This was a function proper enough in the Messiah. 8. perceivingf in (or by) his spirit. The word ' perceiving ' here denotes full knowledge (cf, i Cor. xiii. 12). His spirit read their minds ' like a book.' 9. Whether is easier, to say ... or to say. He places two utterances over against each other, as authoritative words in God's name, and asks them which is easier to utter — for one who can utter either. The key to his meaning is given by the way he continues in the next verse. ' But,' be the answer what it may, 'that ye may know, &c.' (see below). Jesus really means that he who can say the one (effectively) can say the other also, as far as concerns authority or right to do so. The utterances are in them- selves practically on a level, then, from the point of view of the justice of the criticism passing through the thoughts of these scribes, which was in fact a challenge of Jesus' virtual claim to be, not God or God's equal, but God's Prophet, with authority as such to speak in His name. For each involves Divine mission and sanction : but only the words of bodily healing admit of verification by them and others, as sovereign effects in the visible sphere. This is the general sense of the argument, which Jesus proceeds to act upon, so giving the doubters objective means o^ judging for themselves, and so ' knowing' whether he had also Divine authority behind his words when assuring the paralytic that his deeper, spiritual malady was then and there met by the Divine forgiveness of sins. 126 ST. MARK 2. lo, ii. X^k palsy, Thy sins are forgiven ; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk ? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath '•■power on earth to forgive sins (he 1 saith to the sick of the palsy), I say unto thee, Arise, * Or, authority There still remains, however, the question whether Jesus had in mind from the first to heal the paralytic's bodily malady, as well as his spiritual one, or was led on to do this mainly in order to prove the validity of his confident assurance of forgiveness, already given to the tacit appeal of faith in the sufferer and his friends. The former alternative seems preferable, as we can hardly imagine Jesus originally intending to withhold the physical boon (lower though it was in value) for which the faith to which he responded had actually looked. This being so, we may further infer from Jesus' putting the two utterances in question as alternatives, that he had not intended at first to add the latter to the former and more essential one, dealing with the soul, but to leave the sick man to discover for himself that the greater boon had brought with it also the lesser. As for the specific charge of ' blasphemy' latent in his critics' thoughts, Jesus ignores it, presumably as being simply an extreme way of putting their fundamental objec- tion to his virtual claim to speak for God with authority — such an authority as might even in their eyes well belong to a true Prophet, if God so willed it. 10. But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins. ' Power ' here means authority ; and ' on earth ' (in contrast with the authority of God in heaven) defines it as an authority committed to 'the Son of Man,' as God's human representative on earth (comp. the comment by the crowds in Matt. ix. 8, who ' glorified God who had given such authority to men '). The question was about forgiveness, a moral act imply- ing authority. They challenged his right to forgive sins. He brings the matter at once to a test which they could apply, by asserting his possession of another form of authority and Divine power. If open, unmistakable results prove him to have that power, they could the less doubt his authority in a region where claims could not be attested by visible effects. Here we have the first occurrence of the title 'the Son of Man' in Mark's Gospel. From this point we meet it often. As to its import, see Appended Note on ' the Son of Man,' below. 11. I say unto thee, Arise: 'Rise, I tell you' (Moffatt), brings out the emphasis better. The Evangelist's sudden change in the person addressed is grammatically awkward, but vivid and effective. I ST. MARK 2. i2. X.^ 127 take up thy bed, and go unto thy house. And he arose, : and straightway took up the bed, and went forth before them all ; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion. 12. they were all amazed. The man went forth ' before all,' and ' all ' were profoundly impressed {lit. ' were beside them- selves with wonder'), confessing the hand of God in the event. ' All ' seems by implication to include even the scribes. If so, Mark cannot mean to suggest in v. 6 an) fixed hostility. Appended note on ' the Son of Man.' The N.T. says nothing of the origin of this title, nor does it explain its meaning. Ihere is much diversity of opinion therefore on the subject, and it cannot be said, even after all the patient inquiry expended on it, that things are quite clear. With respect to the use of the term, there is marked difference on the whole between the O. T. and the N. T., yet our safest approach to what appears a characteristic usage of Jesus himself is through the O. T., in the first instance at least. In the O. T. the phrase ' son of man' is often simply a synonj'm for man — a member of the human family — and as a rule with special reference to the frailty and dependence of man (Num. xxiii. 19 ; Job xxv. 6, XXXV. 8 ; Ps. cxliv. 3 ; Isa. li. 12, &c.). Yet this is far from being a full account of the matter. In Ezekiel it is used over ninety times as the name by which the Prophet is addressed : but this does not help us much to its definition, though it suggests the notion of man as related to God, even while contrasted with Him, More to the point is the evidence of Ps. viii. While dwelling on the insignificance of 'the son of man,' in the sense of 'man' or humanity (as we should say) as a part of visible nature, it sets in the boldest contrast to this his marvellous difference also, according to the Divine ideal of manhood, from all else on earth, by way of capacity to rule over the other earthly ' works of God's hands.' So much so, that his true kinship is rather with the Divine nature itself {Elohhn) ; for he is by God's appointment 'but little lower ' in spiritual quality than his Maker, and is thereby in destiny ' crowned with glorj^ and honour ' (v. 4 ff.). Here this Psalm points back to the idea of manhood involved in Gen. i-ii, where we have a forecast of man's future victory over the evil power working against the realization of his high heritage of Divine Sonship, in the person of ' the seed of the woman ' — which is practically the same in idea as ' the son of man.' Then in the Book of Daniel appears the description of 'one like unto a son of man' who receives 'dominion and glory, and a kingdom, that all 128 ST. MARK 2. 12. XM^ the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him ' (vii. 13, I4\ Here is meant God's own People of Israel as ' the saints of the Most High,' sharing His prerogative of reigning on earth, in virtue of His reign within them as the immediate sphere of His will and power. His realm or Kingdom is symbolized by the human form, as distinct from that of various animals, as though God's People only realized the true idea of humanity in its spiritual aspect. ' The Son of Man,' then, on O. T. lines would naturally be one who embodied representatively in himself the full ideal destiny of God's people. Seeing that Jesus did this as the ' Servant of the Lord ' of Isa. liii., so might he also as ' the Son of Man.' In the N. T. it is Jesus' own chosen designation of himself. With the exceptions of one occurrence in Acts (vii. 56), the quota- tion in Heb. ii. 6 — clearly applying Ps. viii. 4 f. to Jesus as Christ — and virtually two passages in the Apocalypse (Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14), it is found only in the Gospels ; and, with the exception of Stephen's case in the passage in Acts, and the virtual occurrences in the visions of John, it is never used directly of Jesus but bj' himself. It occurs some eighty times in the Gospels, representing about half as many distinct occasions (but see end of the note). Its application also is varied. Sometimes it is used with reference to Christ's life or ministry on earth, particularly his humble human estate or his sufferings ; at other times with special regard to his exaltation, his glory, his return. Sometimes it is used in connexion with prerogatives exercised when on earth — such as the forgiveness of sins, or lordship over the Sabbath; at other times, in connexion with the prerogative of judgement in the future. As to its origin, it appears sufficiently clear that the title goes back to the figure of the 'one like unto a son of man' seen in the Danielic vision, who is to wield an authority second only to God's, as the sovereign of an everlasting and universal dominion. This figure, which originally represented the people of Israel in their ideal character and victorious destiny, came to be understood of tiie Messiah. Thus in the non-canonical Jewish writings, especi- ally in that section of the Book of Enoch which is known as the ' Parables ' or ' Similitudes,' ' the Son of Man ' is a designation of the Messiah, and of the Messiah in the character of a superhuman being with no human history, seated on the throne beside God 'the Head of Days,' and acting as judge of men. Jesus' own use, liowever, is deeply rooted in the representation of ' the Son of Man' in Ps. viii; and in his later use of it (from Markix. 12 onwards) it owed much also to Isaiah's picture of the suffering 'servant of the Lord.' As regards its meaning, one of the questions specially discussed is whether it is a Messianic title in the proper sense, distinctly and ST. MARK 2. 12. XMk 129 definitely so used by Jesus himself and so understood by others. The way in which the term is used in Matt. xvi. 13; the fact that Jesus disclosed his Messiahship only very gradually ; and the further circumstance that the title occurs here and in ii. 28 before Peter and the Apostles reached the daring conviction at Caesarea Philippi that Jesus was actually the Christ ; all these things point to the conclusion that it was not a generally current and well- understood Messianic name, at least not among the people at large, and that it was used by Jesus during his Galilaean ministry to veil rather than to reveal his Messianic claims, at any rate on current or traditional lines. It is the chosen name by which he expresses the uniqueness and representative character of his personality in respect of his peculiar relation to men. On the one hand it identifies him with men, setting him before us as the true man. On the other hand it marks him off as different from us, not 'a son of man' simply, but ^the Son of Man,' beside whom there was no second — one in whom manhood is seen after God's purpose, the representative man. As such, he is like us and one with us in all normal human qualities; but also above us and apart, in the typical nature of his humanity, and so in the prerogative and authority belonging to unique relation to God as well as to us. To sum up. On Jesus' lips, according to all the authentic instances— which probably means nearly all the fourteen in Mark — the term is employed to describe him as the One who is Man in a special sense, man after God's purposes in creating men. Thus he is the Representative Man, in whom the calling and destiny of the People of God (as symbolized buth in Dan. vii. and in Isa. liii.) is anticipated and foreshadowed. 'The Son of Man' expressed for Jesus his representative human relations, both to man and God ; while 'the Son of God,' a recognized Messianic title (see Matt, xvi. 16; of. Ps. ii. 7 and its use in the secondary text of Luke iii. 22), expressed to his consciousness that experience of filial rela- tion to God which his baptism brought to a climax. It was natural, however, that in some cases ' the Son of Man ' should slip un- consciously into the Church's tradition of her Lord's sayings, in the sense of Stephen's use of it in Acts vii. 56, i.e. in the more Apocalyptic or eschatological aspect (cl. the words of James the Lord's brother quoted in Euseb. ii. 23). This may even increase the number of the cases in which Jesus seems to use it in that sense as compared with the other — his own original usage. This view is, however, not shared by most scholars (see R. H. Charles, in his edition of The Book oj Enoch — but on the other hand Stanton. The Jewish and Christian Messiah ; also Menzies and Montefiore in their Commentaries on Mark), on account mainly of certain eschatological contexts where there is close affinity between Jesus' use and that of Jewish Apocalyptic writings, K 130 ST. MARK 2. 13, 14. XMk 13 And he went forth again by the sea side; and all the 14 multitude resorted unto him, and he taught them. And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphseus sitting notably the Book of Enoch (see Box's ed. of St. Matthew, pp. 27-28). But (i) the affinity is confined to such cases, while in others — including various references in terms of Is. liii. — Jesus' use is different and quite distinctive, having no eschatological suggestions (cf. note on ii. 28) : (2) the clear cases of affinity (xiv. 61, cf. xiii. 26, viii. 38) are confined to the close of Jesus' ministry, after the con- versation at Caesarea Philippi, when his death is plainly anticipated, so that the ' eschatological ' aspects of his own use of the term (for which the above view provides) would then naturally come into the foreground. That is, the emphasis of his usage is less eschato- logical in the earlier than in the later stages of the ministry ; and the earlier emphasis is the more characteristic of his own thought. The present editor has developed his view of the subject more fully in Christianity in History, pp. 20-6. ii. 13-14. The Call of Levi (Matt. ix. 9-13 ; Luke v. 27-32). Another typical episode bearing on the nature of Jesus' mission and its contrast with current religious ideas. Its temporal rela- tions are vague, ' again ' referring back to the remote occasion in i. 16. 13. And lie went fortli . . . Here Jesus is seen leaving the city proper and betaking himself again to the sea-side. The wide popular interest in him, referred to in i. 25, is seemingly the occasion of his so doing. The imperfect tenses, ' kept coming to him, and he kept teaching them,' suggest movement from time to time on his part as is implied in this episode which follows, ' as he passed along' the water's side. This setting is Petrine only. 14. Levi the son of Alphseus. Who is this Levi? Matt. ix. g seems to identify him with the future apostle Matthew. But Mark gives no hint of such a thing in his list of the Apostles (in. i8j, when naming Matthew. Moreover the apocryphal Gospel of Peter refers to ' Levi whom the Lord [called],' as companion of Peter and Andrew in an interview with the risen Jesus. Hence it is natural to take him to be a different person from Matthew. Yet it is most unlikely that there should have been two men solemnly called in the same way and in the same place by Jesus, one becoming an apostle and the other remaining relatively unknown. Either, then, Levi and Matthew are names of one and the same person, or Matt. ix. 9 is in error. Matthnv, the name that occurs in the list of the Apostles, means 'gift of God,' and on the former theory would most likely be a surname he took after his great experience of God's grace to him. The mention of Alphseits ST. MARK 2. 16. XMk 131 at the place of toll, and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him. And it came to pass, 15 has led some to regard Levi as the brother of 'James the (son) of Alphaeus' ; and D 13,69, much Old hat., andTatian''s Diatessaron, as cited by Ephrem Syrus, have actuall3' ' He chose James the toll-gatherer.' But in no apostolic list is Matthew coupled with that James, as Peter is witli Andrew, and John with his James. On the other hand, the same MSS. have in Mark iii. 18 ' James the (son) of Alphaeus and Lebbaeus ' (not Thaddaeus), where some MSS. known to Origen seem to have read Leues = Levi, instead of Lebbaeus. This points to an early view that James and Levi were the two sons of Alphaeus, both becoming Apostles. This would exclude the identification with Matthew assumed in Matt. ix. 9 ; of. X. 3 : yet the reading in question is secondary and can- not be trusted. On the whole (a) one may regard Matthew as the surname taken by Levi the ex-tax-collector, in order to express his changed life. In that case we must assume that it came gradually to supersede the earlier one in circles where his apostolic ministry was familiar, and that the First Gospel reflects this usage, simply substituting in the story of his call the surname Matthew for Levi, i. e. the one which he came later to bear. But if so, it is hard to explain Mark's silence (and therefore ignorance?) of this in his list of Apostles. Or (6) the two names must be permanently distinguished, Mark's account being preferred to that of the editor of our Matthew. sitting at the place of toll. The Romans farmed out the taxes to rich men, who emploj'ed agents to do the work of collec- tion. So also did native princes like the Herods. Levi was one of Herod Antipas' subordinates, provincial custom-house officers, who were usually natives. Their task lent itself readily to rapacity and oppression, ' A passage in Lucian classes them with adulterers and sycophants' (Wood). Moreover their duties brought them into constant contact with Gentiles, and otherwise made it im- possible for them to be strict Jews ritually. Capernaum, by its position, would naturally have a custom-house. followed Mm. For a man in Levi's place it meant more to answer Jesus' call than it did to Simon and his comrades. They had an occupation which the}' could easily resume ; he had not. ii. 15-17. Jesus eats with outcasts (Matt. ix. 10 13 ; Luke v. 29-32). Luke describes it as 'a great feast,' a reception, to which Levi had invited many members of his own class, Jesus being the most honoured guest. 15. And it came to pass, that he was sitting' at meat. The better reading (N B L) is ' And it comes to pass,' which does not suggest, like the R. V., that the incident followed the same day. k 132 ST. MARK 2. i6. XMk that he was sitting at meat in his house, and many '^pubHcans and sinners sat down with Jesus and his disciples : for there were many, and they followed him. 1 6 And the scribes '^of the Pharisees, when they saw that ^ See margfinal note on Matt. v. 46. '' Some ancient authorities read and the Pharisees The two are related in nature, not in time, as is clearly the case also with what follows in 18 IT. Luke seems to overlook this aspect of the matter. in his house. Whose house ? Levi's surely. Some say the house of Jesus (as Matt.) ; but this is unlikely, especially in view of the scale of the entertainment, emphasized by Luke, but implied even in Mark's use of many ' twice over. and many publicans and sinners sat down with Jesus. Probably it was a feast given by Levi specially to his old pro- fessional colleagues and others of his circle, possibly a sort of farewell feast on relinquishing his old career. 'Publicans' is a bad rendering of toll- or customs-collectors. For not only is ' publican ' a misleading English equivalent for the hatin pudlicaiitts, a tax-farmer (see above, v. 13) ; but also Levi and his friends were not publicans at all, but their agents. 'Sinners' here means other kinds of religious outcasts, on strict or Pharisaic standards of what was inconsistent with a man's ranking as 'a good Jew.' for there were many. These words are parenthetical, and probably refer to the unlikely types just alluded to as present. and they followed him : better 'they were in attendance on him ' (imperfect tense), i. e. regularly. These words seem part of the parenthetic explanation about the ' publicans and sinners,' adding that they constantly kept near the person of their new Friend. Our two oldest MSS. (N B, with L and two others), however, take the Greek of these words with what follows, thus : 'There were in attendance on him also the scribes of the Pharisees ; and seeing, &c. ' ; and Swete follows their view. But this is not so good. Probably it is due to missing the point about the social outcasts being ' in attendance ' on Jesus, in the sense suggested in the last note — as distinct from permanent adherence like that of his 'disciples' proper. 16. the scribes of the Pharisees. So in Acts xxiii. g we read of ' scribes of the Pharisees' part,' i. c. those belonging to that religious party. the Pharisees. The leading sect of Judaism in Jesus' day, so called from a Hebrew word Perushim, meaning 'separated ones,' ST. MARK 2. i6. XMk 133 he was eating with the sinners and pubHcans, said unto i. e. separated from the mass of their countrj'men by more rigid observance of the ritual rules of the Mosaic Law, especially those for securing 'cleanness' or religious purity. The name was probably given them by others as a nick-name, like the kindred title 'Puritans,' to suggest their claim to be 'unco' holy' in a technical sense. Their positive name for themselves was Chaberint, 'fellows' or ' neighbours' in a special sense, as belonging to an inner society or fellovvship of like-minded persons. They formed, in fact, to their own thinking, the true Israel within Israel, marked off from the mass by their strict regard for 'the tradition of the Elders' or Scribes of olden times, to whom the}' traced the oral law, which developed b}^ discussion and inference the Written Law, especially as to ritual 'cleanness' and ' uncleanness.' It was relative to their modes of thought that the expression 'publicans and sinners' primarily had its scornful meaning; and it was according to the same standard that intercourse with such, especially in the close contact of eating together, w^as regarded as defiling, so as to call for ritual purification by washing, even when such contact was accidental (cf. vii. 2ff. for the place of ' washings ' in their economy of the religious life). The exclusive spirit and methods of the 'Pharisees' certainly made them a sect within Judaism, of which they formed numeri- cally but a small proportion. Nevertheless Pharisaism ' was the legitimate and classic representative of post-exilian Judaism in general. It did but carry out with relentless energy the conse- quences of its principle ' of ritual holiness (Schiirer, Hiiiory of the Jeivish People in the Time of Christ, II. iii. 25), It had enormous influence as the prevailing tendency among the Scribes (or ' La\v3'ers'\ the official expounders of the Torah or Sacred Law of Judaism. It was with the adherents of such an ideal of Judaism that Jesus became more and more involved in controversy as his ministry developed, until finally, in alliance with the ruling Temple hierarchy in Jerusalem, they brought about his death. It seems, to judge by the Gospels (^though Jewish scholars are reluctant to allow this), that the dominant Pharisaic scribes of Jesus' day were trying to extend the strict ideal of ' cleanness,' proper merely to the Priests in the Mosaic Law, not only to their own 'sect' or fellowship of rather professional and technical piety, but also to Jews at large. Later it is clear that this was not attempted by Rabbinic law : but that does not prove that the attempt was not made in Jesus' day. eatiug' with sinners and publicans. Eating with others is almost everyvvhei-e a mark of fellowship. Especially is it so in the East, where it has usually a religious aspect or basis. It is 134 ST. MARK 2. 17. X^k his disciples, '"^He eateth and ^drinketh with publicans 17 and sinners. And when Jesus heard it, he sailh unto them, They that are c whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick : I came not to call the righteous, but sinners. " Or, How is it that he eateth . . . shifters ? ^ and drinketh is absent from the oldest MSS. "^ Gr. strong here that caste feeling comes out most strongly, as in India to-daj' So was it then in Judaism. That Jesus should associate with the classes held outcast by the strict Jews, and should even receive one of these despised men into the circle of his intimate disciples, was itself a cause of offence. 17. not to call the righteoiis, but sinners. The very heart of Jesus' Gospel, and still ' the philosoph}-, in a nutshell, oi all home and foreign missionary operations' ( Morison\ Jesus, in the language of what was probablj' a familiar proverb, came to do a physician's part. If there were any whole, thej' required him not ; if there were .nny reall3- righteous, the3' had no need of his call. ' He did not avoid sinners, but sought them out : this was a new and sublime contribution to the development of religion and morality" (Montefiore, ad. he). But the idea, and still more its practice, was strange and offensive to the then leaders of Judaism : nor have Christians always been true to its spirit. ii. 18-22. The Question of Fasting (Matt ix. 14-17 ; Luke v. 33-39). The fact that Matt, has this episode at another and later point in the narrative suggests that Mark's order is here not historically accurate ; cf. notes on 19 f. Affinity of subject would easily lead to its attachment to the foregoing, possibly first in oral teaching. These two homely and vigorous similes continue, but carry on to a further point of contrast, the general idea of difference be- tween the religion of Pharisaism and Jesus' Gospel, as the true outcome of Hebrc%v religion, as this unfolds gradually in the O. T. For here the contrast amounts to incompatibility, especiall3' as shewn in outward forms of expression, tlic latter point coming out clearly in the simile of the old and new wine-skins for (similar) wine in two stages of development. The underlying idea that there is positive danger to the interests of both t3'pcs of piety, the old and the new (as with the old wine-skin and the new wine), and especially to the old (like the old garment), implies the definite obsolescence of the one and its supersession ere long by the other. But let each exist side by side for the present, with liberty for all to serve God through the methods appropriate to ST. MARK 2. 18. XMk 135 And John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting: 18 either, if only it be in sincerit3' and reality. But let them not be mixed, whether as new (features^ patched on to the old system, or old forms used to contain tlie new spirit. Luke v. 39 adds the thought that a taste acquiri d for the old naturally hinders appre- ciation of the new. This tolerant attitude towards the old order of God's service is characteristic of Jesus, Onlj' ' hypocrisy' ' or make-believe devotion to religion — compounding for infidelity to moral obligations to one's ' neighbours ' (in the largest sense) by zeal for ritual duties to God — was denounced by Jesus, whether in Pharisees them- selves or in their attitude and behaviour to others. That this was a just appreciation of the Pharisaism prevalent in Jesus' own day there is no good reason to doubt, in spite of what modern Jewish scholars have to say by way of criticism, derived mainly from later periods in the history of Judaism, and especially from their own experience of it as a living religion to-day (cf. note on Matt. V. 20 in this Commentary). Jesus' apologia is for spiritual religion as a thing marked by elasticity and flexibility, allowing- of adaptation to the needs of an expansive spirit within, over against rigidity or stiff conservatism, concerned for the letter of a legal code of observances. ' The move- ment Jesus has set on foot is a fresh and growing thing ; it is impossible to set limits to its expansion, irrational to confine it to forms which were not made for it. The lofty consciousness of Jesus here finds expression, that as his Gospel is one of joy [in the Bridegroom and all He stands for], it is also one of freedom. He reverenced the forms of the religious life of his time [so far as to defer to them save where they clashed, as any fixed forms must, with a higher inward principlcl ; but he saw them to be inadequate for the new principle of which he was the herald to the world [the Fatherly reign of God, as a very present and living Spirit of holy love, within the souls of a " willing" People (cf. Ps. ex. 3") — the Kingdom of God]. He set no forms for his followers to observe : they can appeal to him for principles but not for forms. ' If there is any difference between the two parables, the first one suggests that the old faith will suffer if its forms are used for the new movement (not as Paul, who fears that the Gospel will itself be lost, if connected with unsuitable observances. Gal. iv. 9-11) : while in the second the ill-assorted union is shewn to be bad on both sides' (Menzies). 18. John's disciples. The Baptist's strict followers, therefore, remained a distinct party, with their own religious practice (cf. Luke xi. i). were fasting'. Not 'used to fast' (A.V.\ but were so engaged then. Fasting as a mark of and aid to penitence had 136 ST. MARK 2. 19, 20. XMk and they come and say unto him, Why do John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but ^9 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 20 them, they cannot fast. But the days will come, when come to have a great importance, and even religious 'merit' attached to it. In the Lav^r its observance was prescribed on the great Day of Atonement. But the traditional law had added much to the written ; and zealo'us Jews made the second and fifth days of each week days of fasting (cf. Luke xviii. 12). they come. Who 1 Presumably members of one or both of the groups just named. Matthew says 'the disciples of John,' and gives the question in terms including them with the Pharisees. thy disciples fast not. The suggestion is that Jesus was remiss in allowing his disciples to disregard fasting — and himself likewise. 19. Can the sons of the bride-chamber fast ? Better, ' Surely the sons . . . cannot fast, can they ? ' A Jewish wedding was a season of great merry-making, when it would be most out of place for a bridegroom's special friends to be cultivating a mourn- ful spirit. ' Sons of the bride-chamber' is an Aramaic expression for 'friends of the bridegroom' (John iii. 29). cannot fast. It would not be in character for them to do so. In later Judaism, waiting on the bridegroom brought exemption, it is said, even from certain prescriptions of the traditional law — in- cluding the bi-weekly fasts. Possibly it was so by this time. the bridegroom. Here Jesus indirectly applies to himself the great figure by which O. T. prophecy (e. g. Hos. ii. 19 f., Isa. liv. i-io) sets forth Jehovah's covenant relation to Israel. If he really meant so to do -as seems demanded by the argument — his defence would virtually amount to the claim to Messiahship (cf. Rev. xix. 7). But so bold a form of that claim is unlikely at so early a stage in his ministry. It points to the period of the con- fession at Caesarea Philippi — when first Jesus began to refer to his final rejection and death, which is plainly alluded to in the next verse. [But it is possible that 19'' ('while' . .), 20, are a gloss or comment due to tradition ; if so, 18-19'' may come rather earlier.] Hence the section is probably out of its historic context, having been attached, in Christian tradition, for purposes of oral in- struction, to the present context, as illustrating the general con- trast between Pharisaism and the Gospel of Jesus. The same may apply to some of the matter which follows, down to the end of ch. ii ; cf. note on vi. 54-56. 20. B\it (the) days will come . . . shall be taken away. The ST. MARK 2. ar, 22. XMk 137 the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then will they fast in that day. No man seweth a piece of ai undressed cloth on an old garment : else that which should fill it up taketh from it, the new from the old, and a worse rent is made. And no man putteth new 23 wine into old '^wine-skins : else the wine will burst the * That isj skuts used as bottles. last expression is a strong one, expressing violent removal. The whole utterance implies that already the thought of suffering and death was in his mind, and so probably belongs properly to after ch. viii. then will they fast in that day. Times differ, and obser- vances with them. Fasting is not a necessary or constant part of religious duty ; yet there may be occasions on which it will be appropriate and helpful. It is no binding or meritorious duty in itself. 21. No man seweth ... a worse rent is made. A sentence more difficult in form than in sei:se. What is in view is the fact that new undressed cloth shrinks, and, if used to mend old cloth, is apt to 'drag away ' and increase the rent it is meant to cover. How does this apply to the situation in hand ? The patch meant to fill up the hole in the old garment must be the new Gospel way of living, fitted on to the old system of Judaism where defective. This seems to be Jesus' answer to a thought which might occur to some of his hearers. He had just dealt with the suggestion that it would be better if ///'s disciples practised fasting, as part of their piety as ' penitents of the Kingdom of God,' after the analogy of John and his disciples. And then, having justified his own disci- ples for doing otherwise — on the score of the incongruity of fasting with the prevailing spirit of their discipleship — he turns to warn all and sundry that the principle worked both ways. That is, the policj' of patchwork in such a case was altogether a mistaken one. It would be unwise, and harmful to the unity even of the old traditional type of piety, whether as ordinary Pharisaism or as the Baptist's reformed variety (for such it was at bottom, cf. Matt. xi. II — an estimate noteworthy as shewing Jesus' consciousness of the genius of his own message as distinct from John's), for it to try to adopt the new Gospel methods as a mere reform of Judaism, an improvement ' patched on ' to the old system, with which it was not really ' of a piece.' Mixing the methods proper to either t5'pe of piety was unfair and ruinous to each as a consistent whole. 22. wine-skins. A better rendering than the 'bottles' of the A. V, Wine-bottles in those days were skins. But skins in time 138 ST. MARK 2. 23, 24. XMk skins, and the wine perisheth, and the skins : but they put new wine into fresh wine-skins. 23 And it came to pass, that he was going on the sabbath day through the cornfields ; and his disciples * began, as 24 they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees " Gr. began to make their way plucking. get stiff and crack (^cf. Josh. ix. 4, 13) ; and in that condition they are unable to bear the strain put upon them by the inpouring of the 'young wine,' the freshly fermented wine of the new season. These homely comparisons, parables in germ, suggest how mistaken it is to think of mixing up things which largely differ. To patch up the old religious system with the new, or to try to contain the new spirit within the old form, is a thing at once incongruous and injurious. but (they put) new wine into fresh wine-skins : rather an abbreviated proverbial construction ' new wine into fresh wine- skins ' (i. e. one must put, see Luke v. 38). The clause is missing from a group of authorities going back to the second century (D and Old Latin) ; and it may be an early gloss (of. Matt, and Lk.). But they may have failed to perceive how it could be construed. ii. 23-28. Sabbath Episode 0/ the cornfield {}<\7\ii. xii. 1-8; Luke vi. 1-5). Here Mark reports a fourth cause of offence found in Jesus. He has noticed his claim to forgive sin, his companying with publicajis and sinners, his attitude to fasting. Now he instances the fault found with his liberty as regards conventional Sabbath law. ' The storj", placed as it is somewhere near the shore of the Sea of Galilee, implies a date somewhere in April or May' (Burkitt. The Gospel History atid its transmission, p. 80, n. i). It affords, perhaps, the only clear reference to a season of the year in Mark's Gospel, and is therefore of value for the chronology of Jesus' ministry (which seems in Mark not to exceed a year and a quarter). Yet how long Jesus had taught prior to this episode is uncertain. Matthew has it and the next one after the Calling of the Twelve. 23. the cornfields : not necessarily in the neighbourhood of Capernaum at all. began, as they went, to plnck the ears of corn : literally, as in the margin of the R. V., ' began to make their way plucking.' This action ignored no written law touching the Sabbath, but only one of the elaborate rules which Rabbinic zeal had deduced from the broad principle of the Mosaic Law, prohibiting ordinary labour on the day of sacred ' rest to the Lord' (Ex. xxxv. a") — so adding to the legal character of the manner and spirit of its observance. ST. MARK 2. 25, 26. XMk 139 said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them. Did 25 ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him ? How 26 he entered into the house of God f* when Abiathar was " Some ancient authorities read in the days of Abiathar the high priest. 24. on the satobatli day that which is not lawful. The mere plucking of corn in passing was not in itself an offence. In- deed, the Deuteronomic law had some simple prescriptions bearing on such liberty taken with a neighbour's corn (xxiii. 25). But the traditional law had made plucking the corn equivalent to reaping it; and reaping on the sabbath was forbidden ^Exod. xxxiv. 21). The presence of the objectors shews (hat Jesus' society was being frequented also by other hearers than his disciples (in the wider sense), some of whom were of the partj' of strict observance known as Pharisees. 25. Did ye never read ? The sort of appeal to Scripture which Rabbis themselves were wont to make. Jesus does not here question the traditional sabbath rule, although later on (vii. I ff.) he challenges the whole S3stem of such tradition, as tending to override the real intention and, indeed, the very spirit of the Mosaic Law. Here he is content to refute his critics out of their own final authorit3', the Scriptures, shewing by the case of David and his hungry men, as recorded in i Sam. xxi. 1-6, how any such restrictive regulation had to give place to the higher require- ments of necessity and mercj\ The argument is that from analogy ; and such use as is here made of Scripture narrative, with elucidation of its religious meaning by means of imaginative filling out of its suggestions (as by adding 'when he had need and was hungry"), was quite ac- cording to current usage among Rabbis and others (it was called Haggadah, as distinct from Halachah, direct legal discussion). 26. the house of God : i. e. the Tabernacle or tent of meeting, pitched at that period at Nob, a ' city of the priests ' (i Sam. xxii. i9\ probably not far from Jerusalem (Is. x. 32^. when Abiathar was high priest, i. e. when he was actually in office. But according to the narrative in i Sam. xxi. 1-6 Ahimelech was priest at the time. There seems to be some con- fusion in the O. T. text itself (both Heb. and Greek). In i Sam. xxii. 20 Abiathar is ' one of the sons of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub ; ' in 2 Sam. viii. 17 we have 'Ahimelech. the son of Abiathar,' as high-priest in David's reign (compare i Chron. xviii, 16, xxiv. 6\ 140 ST. MARK 2. 27, 28. X*"' high priest,] and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them 27 that were with him ? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath : 28 so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. The confusion was a natural one owing to the close association of Abiathar, at one time or another, with David's career. But in any case, seeing that the whole clause specifying the date is con- fined to Mark and has no equivalent in the parallel narratives of Matt, and Luke, it is probably a mere editorial note due to a later hand (D, much Old Lat. and the Old Syr. omit it). the shewbread: the bread of the setting-forth (cf. LXX of Exod. xxxix. 36), i. e. before God. So also in the O. T. ' the bread of the face ' or ' the presence ' (Exod. xxv. 30 ; 1 Sam. xxi. 4-6). It consisted of twelve new-baked loaves placed every sabbath day on a table in two rows of six, sprinkled with incense, and left for the week. See its law in Lev. xxiv. 5, 9. 27. The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. The refutation of these Pharisees is carried now beyond the witness of the O. T. narrative, to the />;7'««)!>/^ involved (contrast Matt. xii. 5, 7). The sabbath is an ordinance of grace, meant to bring man relief from toil and to be fcr his good. It is his servant, not his taskmaster. Thus it is to be honoured in the spirit rather than the letter. The Rabbis themselves at times allowed this principle. Thus the Mechilta on Exod. xxxi. 13 dwells on the words 'holy unto you,' as follows : ' unto you is the Sabbath given over, and ye are not given over to the Sabbath.' For God's commandments were given ' that man might live by them ' (Lev. xviii. 5) — not die (Abrahams, S/udies in Pliansaisni and the Gospels, pp. 129 f.). Wood cites a suggestive comment by A. Sabatier : ' A saying wonderful alike in its depth and simplicity, which denies not only the Pharisaic idea of the Sabbath, but also the scholastic idea of the Church and the absolutist notion of the State.' In Mark only. 28. so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath. ^ Even of the sabbath.' even of an institution so sacred to the Jew. The sabbath being meant for man, and man not being intended to be its slave, the Representative Man (' mannes sone,' W3'clifFe), he in whom the Divine creative idea of man is embodied, is its lord, not its servant ; and so his disciples, acting as such, were free of blame. Such lordship does not here imply the claim to abolish, but the authority to adapt and fulfil. The real purpose of the Sabbath law had been obscured and ovt r laid by a mass of vexatious 'hedges' or supposed safeguards. But the verse is possibly a Christian reflexion which arose in tradition, or a gloss from Matt. ST. MARK 3. I. XMk 141 I^X^k j ^.Yiifj jjg entered again into the synagogue ; and 3 The fitness of its deduction (cf. 'so that'j from the principle just appealed to by Jesus for warrant in countenancing- his disciples' action, as a justifiable exception to a current application of the Sabbath law, is in itself manifest. Yet it may well be doubted whether Jesus himself drew it, in replying to the Pharisees' challenge of his allowing the exception. His answer, as a defence on principles in theory common to himself and them, was already complete ; and he was not likely gratuitously to add something which advanced a claim raising a quite fresh issue — virtually that of his Messiahship, stated in a most challenging form. For to claim for himself, on his own authority, practically to have control of the Sabbath law — the right to define its limits of appli- cation — would seem to his hearers stupendous arrogance, save possibly for Messiah ; and even he was not expected to claim such authority over the Law. Such a claim, then, would be an ex- ception to Jesus' practice, save at the close of his ministry. Hence, in the absence of any reference to indignation on his critics' part (which O. L. a and the Diatess. supply from iii. 2i\ such as is noted in the parallel case in iii. 6 after a much less aggressive defensive argument, it seems best to regard this inferential conclu- sion as due to Christian reflexion. It probably points the moral for Christian practice as to the Sabbath. If so, it is to be noted that this verse, connecting the title ' the Son of Man ' (in Jesus' own sense) with the notion of ' man ' as such, not only confirms the view taken of it in the note on v. lo, but also shews that some early Christians (cf. p. 128) so understood Jesus' use of it in non- eschatological connexions (see also note on iii. 28 for another possible case in Matt, and Lk.). The omission too of verse 27 by Matthew and Luke (as by D, O, L., here) may well be due to its use in Mark as a proof of Jesus' lordship of the Sabbath qua ' the Son of Man ' in this very sense. They give the lordship of the Sabbath as an ipse dixit — Luke as the only comment added to David's example, whereas that proper to Mark's tradition was v. 27, iii. 1-6. Healing on the Sabbath .'Matt. xii. 9-14; Luke vi. 6-1 1). All three gospels place this incident in immediate con- nexion with that of the plucking of the ears of corn on the sabbath, to which it is logically supplemental. But its actual historical place may have been somewhat later. Here the law of ' need ' or ' mercy ' applied more urgently than in the former case. Action amounted to a duty. Hence Jesus' indignation at the critics. This miracle is a fifth cause of off'ence with Jesus. 1. into the synagog-iie: ourtwooldest MSS. read 'asj'nagogue'; but ' again ' points back to i. 21, to the synagogue in Capernaum, 142 ST. MARK 3. 2-4. X^^ there was a man there which had his hand withered. 2 And they watched him, whether he would heal him on 3 the sabbath day ; that they might accuse him. And he saith unto the man that had his hand withered, * Stand 4 forth. And he saith unto them, Is it lawful on the sabbath day to do good, or to do harm ? to save a life, * Gr. Arise into the midst. which was Peter's home and round which the ntcrnoiabilia of the early chapters of Mark seem mostly to cluster. The time is not indicated (but see v. 6). his hand -withered. A better rendering than the ' having a withered hand ' of the A, V. The phrase suggests that the man was not in this condition by birth, but had become so by injur3- or disease (atrophy). Luke says it was the right hand. The Gospel according to the Hebreivs spoke of the man as a bricklayer, who asked to be cured that he might be able to work for his living. 2. watched hiia. The word implies minute observation, here evidently with hostile intent — for the first time according to Mark's narrative. The traditional law allowed the giving of relief only when life was in danger. In a case like the present there was no immediate danger ; it was a breach of the law, therefore, according to the scribes, to do anything for the cure of the sufferer until the sabbath was over. These jealous watchers rather ex- pected Jesus to act. 3. Stand forth : rather ' Rise and come forward ' (//'/. ' into the midst'). Jesus sets about his healing work in a peculiarly public and deliberate way. He would have all men sec it, as it was to be a test case of his principles in relation to the sabbath, and so of his Gospel. 4. And ho saith nnto them. From this we should infer that Jesus was himself the challenger. But according to Matthew the Pharisees took the initiative. That suggests that its compiler knew and partly followed another form of the story (probably a part of the common Apostolic tradition, X ; see also the extra matter in Matt. xii. ii f., and comp. Luke xiv. 5\ I.uke tells us that Jesus 'knew their thoughts' and questioned them. to do good, or to do harm. The words may mean simply ' to act rightly or to act wrongly' (of. i Pet. ii. 15, 20). They may, however, also mean ' to do a service or to do a wrong' ; and this is the sense here, as appears from the explanatory words, 'to save a life or to kill.' As to the allusion in ' do harm,' it is probably to ST. MARK 3. 5, 6. XMk 143 or to kill ? But they held their peace. And when he 5 had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he stretched it forth : and his hand was restored. And the Pharisees went out, 6 abstinence from doing a possible service as of the nature of evil. To refer it to the will to do harm to Jesus, already forming in his critics' minds, is too subtle and remote from what was on the plain surface of the situation. Matthew introduces here Christ's words about the sheep fallen into a pit, in which he appeals to their own practice. Thus the Law, rishlly understood, did not, themselves being witness, prohibit beneficent work on the sabbath — in what were thought to be cases of necessity. 5. held, their peace. Only Mark notices this : cf. xi. 33. looked round about. An expressive word used some half- dozen times by Mark (iii. 5, 34, v. 32, ix. 8, x. 23, xi. 11), and mostly of 'the quick searching glance round the circle of his friends or enemies, which Peter remembered as characteristic of the Lord ' (Swete). with, anger, being- grieved. Mark, with unembarrassed realism, notes the normal human emotions — wrath and grief — felt and shewn by Jesus : cf. x. 14. Anger, as righteous indignation against wrong, is an essential element in man's moral nature. Plato gave it an integral place in man. Butler held it as necessary' as pity. The N. T. recognizes an anger that is legitimate, although in human nature, as it is, wrath is all too apt to pass beyond the limits of the lawful (cf. Eph. iv. 26). ' Being grieved ' — more exactly 'grieving for (with) them,' as one interested in their wel- fare — implies that Jesus' anger was tempered with love for their souls as precious in God's sight. But this maj' be later comment. at the hardening of their heart. The word denotes the making of a callus, the substance that unites the ends of a fractured bone, and so the process of hardening into insensibilit}' (cf. viii. 17). It is just 'callousness' that is here involved. The 'heart,' to Hebrew ideas, was the seat of the thoughts, as well as of the emotions stirred by them. Stretch forth thy hand. On this occasion Jesus used no outward means. He did not even touch the sufferer. And he stretched it forth. The faith that made the man stand forth in order to stretch out his dead hand, and attempt the apparently impossible, was very real. 6. went out, and straightway : stung with the sense of defeat, Ihey lost no time {eu/hus) in taking steps to scheme his ruin. 144 ST. MARK 3. 6. X^k and straightway with the Herodians took counsel against him, how they might destroy him. with tlie Herodians. ' Herodians ' occurs only in a few cases. They are referred to indirectly in Matt. viii. 15 ; and in xii. 13 they appear, in the same unnatural alliance as I'.ere, at the final stage of the struggle between the leaders in Church and State and the Prophet of Nazareth. We have no statement about them in Josephus or any writer of these times. They may have been partisans of Antipas, originally of Herod the Great — the founder of the semi -foreign (Idumseanj dj^nasty which in Jesus' day ruled as ' native ' princes under Rome. In temper and ideals they were a political rather than a religious party, favouring the Roman over- lordship and following a policy of compromise between strict Judaism and ideas of worldly prosperity at any price. took counsel. The word indicates something of a consulta- tion, though an informal one. It points to something more than had yet been done, though not as yet to the deliberate action of a central, official body of persons. Between Pharisees and Herodians there could be no natural sympathy. Opposition to this Disturber of the existing condition of things brings thein together. how they migrht destroy him. The Evangelist may here mistake the extent to which the plans of his foes went at this stage. No doubt they did take counsel how he miglit be silenced ; and an alliance of Pharisees with Herodians for the purpose would not be too scrupulous as to its methods. Yet the extreme method of ' getting the pseudo-prophet out of the way ' may not as yet have taken shape in their counsels. As to this turning-point in Jesus' outward form of ministr}', Prof. Burkitt says {The Gospel History, p. 80; : 'Here, in Mark iii. 6 . . . we have our Lord's definite breach with official Judaism. He left the Synagogue, never to return again, save once at Nazareth, in his own town.' Even this exception is doubtful, in view of the relatively late date in his ministry implied by the scene in ii. 18-20, where the 'taking away' of the Bridegroom is already in sight. Indeed that episode, along with the teaching about the Old and New (21 f.), may well iiave followed rather than preceded this one. ii. Second Stage : growing popularity and extending scope of Jesus' mission, iii. 7 — vii. 23. A new stage in the work of Jesus. Up to this time Jesus' ministry has been purely Galilsean in its horizon, as well as in its scene. 'Now crowds came from long distances and from all parts' of Palestine and its borders, drawn by the fame of his deeds of power. ST. MARK 3. r. P 145 [P] And Jesus with his disciples withdrew to the sea : 7 ' The attention of the religious authorities ' of Pharisaism ' at Jeru- salem is drawn to Him (cf. 22). The work of Evangelization ' — what Burkitt calls ' the revival ministry ' of the Kingdom of God as at hand — ' is shared with twelve chosen disciples. The teach- ing of Jesus undergoes a twofold change. The seashore and the desert [solitary spots where large crowds might listen to " field preaching" with some chance of attention and effect] replace the synagogue ; and the parables become Christ's customary form of utterance. How long this period of wider activity continues we do not know, nor is it quite clear at what point in his narrative Mark would conclude it " (Wood\ Perhaps it ends with ch. vi. Then ch. vii. 1-22, as containing Jesus' final exposure of current Pharisaism, leads on to his retirement from public work in Galilee as a whole (vii. 24), while he is preparing the Twelve for the further crisis which he already discerns to be inevitable. For before it, he desires to feel more sure of their real faith in himself and the type of Messiahship and Kingdom which he embodied. (i) First phase : iii. 7 — vi. 6a. (a) iii. 7-12. Jesus shuns con/lid with his foes, but is sought out by crowds from far {M.aX.\..yi\\. 1^-21. ; cf. Luke vi. 17-ic;. A general description of the position in which Jesus now finds himself. It is really a significant transitional section, dealing with the next main stage of Jesus' ministry, which opens formally with the Call of the Twelve, and contains representative incidents in an important period of some length, during which his popularity was at its height. This editorial paragraph in Mark (which is fuller than the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, which are prob- ably based in the main on it) ' is made up of popular generali- zations, from which we gather that Jesus had to protect Himself against growing crowds by retiring from the cities to the sea-shore, and by securing a boat as a shelter. His work of healing and exorcism continues, the confessions of the demons becoming more explicit' (cf. 'the Son of God' in iii. 11). Such demands upon Jesus' ministry lead naturally to the setting apart of the Twelve for special training, to act ere long as his delegates or missionaries ('apostles'), and so to increase the range of his ministrj'. Matthew sees fulfilment of prophecy in Jesus' shunning of cheap notoriety. 7. witlidrew : a word suggesting retirement with a view to avoiding needless friction. Matthew indicates that it was when he knew of the counsel taken against him that Jesus retired from Capernaum. We have here a general statement, covering apparently (cf. v. 8) a longish period, and perhaps one extending L 146 ST. MARK 3. 8-10. P and a great multitude from Galilee followed : and from 8 Judaea, and from Jerusalem, and from Idumsea, and beyond Jordan, and about Tyre and Sidon, a great multitude^ hearing * what great things he did, came unto 9 him. And he spake to his disciples, that a little boat should wait on him because of the crowd, lest they 10 should throng him : for he had healed many ; insomuch that as many as had ^ plagues c pressed upon him that * Or, all the things that he did ^ Gr. scourges " Gr. fell further into the sequel in Marii's narrative than is usually recognized. a great multitude . . . followed. Mark brings out not only the largeness of the following, but also (as Matthew does not) the wide extent and variety of the territory represented. People were attracted not only from Galilee, but, in time, from Judaea and Jerusalem and Idumaea in the south, from Peraea in the east, and from the parts about Tyre and Sidon in the north-west. 8. Idumaea: the Edom of the O. T., mentioned also by the name Idumaea in Isa. xxxiv. 5, 6 (A. V. Edom in R. V.) ; cf Ezek. XXXV. 15, xxxvi. 5. This is its only occurrence in the N. T. It denotes the territory occupied by the descendants of Esau, origin- ally Mount Seir, but after the Exile part of Southern Palestine. Since the Maccabaean Wars the people were practically included in the Jewish nation (Herod the Great was an Idumaean), and Idumaea made part of Judaea. from . . . toeyond Jordan : that is, Peraea, the district to the east of the Jordan, lying mostly between the Arnon and the Jabbok. a'bout Tyre and Sidon: that is, the Phoenician sea-coast, to the north-west. hearing : lit. ' hearing from time to time what great things he was doing, came,' i.e., their arrival was the result of rumours extending over a considerable time. 9. a little boat should wait on him. Th*^ boat was to be in habitual attendance, in case of need. Surely a Petrine touch. 10. plagues : //'/. ' scourges,' i. e. torturing maladies. pressed: /;/. 'fell' on him- a picture, in a phrase, of the eager, excited impetuosity of the people, which was like to crush him. They believed that if they but touched him they would experience the healing power, cf. vi. 56. ST. MARK 3. 11-13. P 147 they might touch him. And the unclean spirits, when- 1 1 soever they beheld him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God. And he charged them 12 much that they should not make him known. And he goeth up into the mountain, and calleth unto i.^ him whom he himself would : and they went unto him. 11. nncleaii spirits: 'demons,' that is, speaking through the suflFerers possessed by such : cf. i. 23 S. fell down: rather, 'used to fall down,' that is in homage. The first recorded occasion of this. tlie Son. of God : cf. ' the Holy One of God ' (i. 24) and the title in v. 7. Here probably it has, for the Evangelist at least, the meaning of ' the Messiah ' (cf. Lk. iv. 41). 12. lie charged tliem mucli. Why? Because, as Bengel puts it, ' neither was this the time, nor were these the preachers.' (b) Typical inddents : iii. 13-35. iii. 13-12. Appointment of the Twelve (Luke vi. 12-16; cf. Matt. V. I, X. 1-4). An event that makes a great epoch in the ministry of Jesus. All three Synoptists record it and attach high importance to it, although they do not all introduce it in precisely the same con- nexion. The work of Jesus was growing on his hands, the feeling of the common people was with him, there was much to do for them and among them. He had crowds following him, and a certain number of disciples more particularly attached to him. The time, then, had come when there was need of a fixed body of disciples, whom he could count on at all times, to be with him learning his ways, with a view to assisting in his work. 13. goeth up into the monntain. We read of his going to the sea (ii. 13, iii. 7^ : now he takes to the hills, as Menzies puts it. 'The Mountain' means not a single peak, but the range of hills 13'ing west of Capernaum and the lake-side adjacent thereto. The confident, unexplained nature of this allusion points to the way in which Peter spoke of the region, and taught Mark to do the same. Luke tells us that Jesus went there to pra^', and that he continued in prayer all night. Thus did he prepare for the im- portant act of the coming day. calleth unto liim whom he Mmself would. The selection took place, Luke tells us, at the break of day, as Jesus came fresh from the night of communion with God. 148 ST. MARK 3. m. P 14 And he appointed '' twelve, that they might be with him, =■ Some ancient authorities add whom also he named apostles. See Luke vi. 13. 14. And lie appointed twelve. The selection was a tvvotbld one. First he called to him twelve out of the whole body of his special followers or 'disciples' ; and then he solemnly commis- sioned them, with reference no doubt to the twelve tribes of Israel. The regenerate or Messianic form of God's People was to be thus far continuous with the old (cf. Matt. xix. 28 ; Rev, xxi. 14). In this too we see how significant was the stage now reached. Jesus judged that the time was within view when his work would assiame a really national scale, and he would need the co-opera- tion of a regular staff of preachers to cope with it. Our two oldest MSB. and certain others add ' whom also he called Apostles ' (a word used once in the LXX for a messenger or envoy, i Kings xiv. 6 ; cf. Is. xviii. 2 in Symmachus). But the evidence for omission is very early (e.g. Old Latin and Old Syriac) and much more widespread in character. It is also supported by internal evidence, including the difficulty of explaining omission, while insertion is easily explained by the presence of the clause m Luke. The tendency, moreover, to dwell upon the ' apostohc ' office early became marked ; and the absence of explicit mention of the title from the account of the choice and appointment of those who later were known by it, would be felt to be an oversight which might usefully be rectified (possibly at first in the margin of some early MS.). Further, while Mark has an informing descrip- tion of the aims which Jesus had in mind in appointing the chosen twelve, one being ' that he might send them forth' {lit. " apostle them " or " make them his apostles " or " missionaries"), any such characterization of the meaning of their appointment is lacking both in Luke and in Matthew (which simply states that he gave < his twelve disciples ' authority for exorcism and healing). It looks then as though the more untechnical and descriptive account in Mark, without reference to any title borne by them, reflects the original, historic facts more faithfully, Luke's account being coloured by the later fact as to the title by which these chosen disciples were known. This is confirmed even by Matthew's account, since it says ' Now of the twelve Apostles the names are (not "were") as follows,' and never uses the term 'apostle' of the Twelve in the sequel : Luke, on the other hand, uses it in xvii. 5, xxii. 14, xxiv. 10, in referring to the Twelve. As to Mark, he does indeed use the term once of the Twelve, in vi. 30 : but, as Dr. Hort has pointed out (r/;c Christian Ecclesia, Lect. ii), he does .so only in describing the Twelve as ' missionary ' envoys returned from an actual mission campaign (vi. 7-13), on which they were ST. MARK 3. 15, 16. P Mk 149 and that he might send them forth to preach, and to 15 have authority to cast out ^devils: [Mk] ^and Simon 16 * Gr. demons * The above authorities insert and he appointed twelve. sent with instructions, just on the lines only foreshadowed here. It was for this the}^ were to be trained by Jesus' society, that as occasion arose ' he might send them forth on a mission,' from time to time (the present tense of 'habit' should be noted). Mark's exclusive name for this inner circle^ as such, is ' the Twelve,' a very simple and natural title, which Matthew never uses without ' disciples ' added. Luke has it (save as dependent on Mark) only twice, viii. i, ix. 12 — both passages where he seems to have a special document other than Mark at his disposal. Finally the fact that, between verses 15 and 16, the words ' so he appointed "the Twelve"' are read only by the same group of MSS., seemingly in order to mend the awkward grammar of Mark's text as found in the rest of our MSS., tends to confirm the view that in both cases we have to do with a scholarly ' improve- ment' added at a later period, for purposes perhaps of public reading in church. that they might be with him. The Twelve were chosen for two great purposes. The first was this, that they might be his constant associates. luigrht send them forth: the verb corresponding to apostle, as 'missionary' to the Latin for 'send.' The second purpose was that they should, when further trained, act as his commissioned representatives or 'apostles,' from time to time, as need arose (frequentative present). to preach : this was their primary duty, the proclamation of the good news of the Kingdom. 15. authority to cast out devils ('demons'). Matthew adds the power of healing. But Mark is probably correct in limiting their mission primarily to exorcism, of the higher t3'pe practised by Jesus himself (see note on i. 39, cf 25), as an essential con- dition of preaching to this class. Such authority, then, was connected with the paramount duty of preaching, to further it, if not to help to attest their commission (yet see the warning in Luke X. 20). 16. Simon he surnamed Peter. Four lists of the Apostles are given (Matt, x ; Mark iii ; Luke vi ; Acts i). In each case the list falls into three groups of four names, having Peter, Philip, and James (the son) of Alphaeus respectively at their head. Each list begins with Peter and ends with Judas the traitor. The new name Peter, Hebrew Cephas = Rock, expressed what down- I50 ST. MARK 3. 17, 18. Mk 17 he surnamed Peter; and James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and them he surnamed 18 Boanerges, which is, Sons of thunder : and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphseus, and Thaddseus, and Simon right, rugged staunchness he had already shewn as a disciple (see also Matt. xvi. i8). In John i. 48 the giving of this surname is carried back to the occasion of Simon's first call, as there de- scribed. But that is hardly likely in the face of Mark's narrative here and in describing his call (i. i6fr.\ 1*7. and James the son of Zebedee, and Jolin . . . Here 'he appointed ' must be supplied in thought, so bringing the list as a whole (save its first clause) into apposition to ' And he appointed the Twelve,' in v. 14. Boanerg'es, an Aramaic word, explained as ' Sons of Thunder.' But for what reason the title was given is left untold. It may point to the ardent temper which shewed itself on certain occa- sions rcf. Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 54). There is nothing in the Gospels or elsewhere in the N. T. to shew that this name, though given by Jesus himself, persisted. It was perhaps dropped, as capable of being taken in a bad sense. 18. Andrew : separated from his brother Simon Peter, in order to bring together the three who appear later in Mark as sharing the first place in Jesus' intimacy (v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 32)— an honour shared also by Andrew in xiii. 3. The punctuation of the R. V., viz. a semicolon after James, and colon before Andrew, suggests a greater dissociation of Andrew from the three first names than the Greek warrants. Dashes or marks of parenthesis, for the description of John and James, would be better. Philip : mentioned together with Andrew, as of Bethsaida, in John xii. 22. Philip is not introduced again in the narrative of the first three gospels. Bartholomew : a patronymic, ' son of Tolmai.' He is taken to be the same as Nathanael, since John's gospel mentions Na- thanael twice (in i. 45 as friend of Philip), but never Bartholomew, while the others speak of Bartholomew and not of Nathanael. Matthew : see note on ii. 13. Thomas, meaning 'the twin' (Didymus, John xi. 16). possibly of Matthew, his proper name being perhaps Judas Euseb. Eccl. Hist i. 13, John xiv. 22 in Old Syr.). Of him we see more in the Fourth Gospel (xi. 16, xiv. 5, xx. 24 ff.. xxi. 2). James the son of Alphsens : as distinct from James, son of Zebedee. Not the same as 'James the Little,' brother of Joses (xv. 40), and son of Mary the wife of Cleopas (John xix. 25). ST. MARK 3. 19. Mk 151 the aCananaean, and Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed 19 him. =• Or, Zealot. See Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13. Thaddseus. Some MSS. read Lebbaeus (see note on ii. 13'.. Allen on Matt. x. 3 (Intern. Critical Comm.) suggests that the ^ name Lebbaeus is here due to a mistaken sense given to Thad- daeus, as though connected with the Aramaic for 'breast,' fur which a name formed from the Hebrew for ' heart ' was substituted. the CananEean : not the ' Canaanite ' nor ' the man of Cana,' but an Aramaic word = ' the Zealot' (cf. Luke vi. 15). He may have been of the party known as the Zealots, fanatically patriotic, fiercely opposed to foreign domination. If so, his continued fidelity to Jesus is a tribute to the Master's power. Or the name may indicate simply the disposition of the man. 19. Iscariot: that is, 'the man of Kerioth.' But where this Kerioth was is uncertain. A Kerioth-hezron is mentioned in Joshua XV. 25. If Judas belonged to it, he would be a native of Judffia, and the only one among the Twelve that was a Judffian A Kerioth in Moab is also referred to in Jer. xlviii. 24, 41. If this were the place in view, Judas would belong to the district east of the Dead Sea. Thus, in any case, he would not be a Galilean, being possibly one of the many drawn from afar to see and hear the Prophet of Nazareth (iii. 8). The name of this Judas is usually coupled with a reference to his treachery (Matt. X. 4; Luke vii. 16; John xii. 4, xviii. 2, 5; Acts i. 16). Allen remarks that 'no parallel for such a compound (one of two Hebrew words'^ at this period has been found' ; and suggests that ' it may be a transliteration of the Aramaised Latin word sicarius, an assassin.' This word found its way into Greek as a name for the most violent wing of the Zealots (Acts xxi. 28, and for a later period Josephus, Jewish War, vii. 10. i &c.). On this view we should have a key to Judas' action (in contrast even to the atti- tude of Simon the Zealot) in betraying Jesus to his foes ; see xiv. 10 and note. Mark omits the Great Sermon, which in Luke's X followed the choosing of the Twelve, as a sort of declaration of the principles of the Kingdom of God, but which Mark's plan did not require him to report (it was probably part of the practical instruction familiar in all Christian circles). Thereafter Jesus seems to have returned home without observation, possibly to instruct the Twelve privately for the work of preaching he had in mind for them. But his presence in Capernaum could not long escape notice, and the multitude began once more to collect and demand his attention and healing ministry. 'The place,' however, ' is still agitated by the recent quarrel (iii. 1-6) with the religious world. The Clergy 152 ST. MARK 3. 30-22. P 20 [P] And he comethainto a house. And the multi- tude 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 be- 2 3 side himself. [X^kJ And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and, ^ By the » Or, home ^ Or, lit —for so we may call the Scribes — have now definitely made up their mind that He is a magician, working by the aid of the prince of the devils' (Burkitt, loc. ciL, p. 83\ iii. 20, 31. Ititeyvention of the family of Jesus. A short para- graph given only by Mark, following Peter. There is nothing to indicate the exact time. 20. into a liouse : not home, for in 21 his family ' hear ' of his doings and then ' go out ' to lay hold on him, arriving on the spot only at verse 31 ; probably a large house, see verse 32. In any case at Capernaum (cf ii. i). could not so much as eat bread. A graphic touch, recalling the actual scene— the crowd gathering once more (as in ii. 2\ again eagerly and tumultuously, and taking complete possession of him, so that he had no opportunity even to take food (cf. vi. 31). 21. friends. Probably, as suggested b3' the 'went out,' his relatives, cf 31. His mother and brethren were apparently now living at Capernaum: cf ii. i, 15. lay hold on him : to protect him from his own want of care nnd thought, as they deemed it. beside himself. They took his utter absorption in his work as a sign of religious frenzy. Akin to this — as a misunderstanding of Jesus — was the further suggestion made by his religious op- ponents, as next recorded. iii. 22-30. Charged by scribes with working by Satanic power (Matt. ix. 32-34, xii. 23-32, 43-45 ; Luke xi. 14-26, xii. 10). 22. scribes which came down from Jerusalem: perhaps at the special request of the local Pharisees (iii. 6). Matthew speaks only of ' Pharisees,' and Luke saj's only ' some of them.' Matthew and Luke specify what led to this accusation, viz. the healing of one ' possessed with a demon ' and' dumb ' — which occurred really a good deal later (see vii. 32 ff, esp. 37, viii. 11 ff. and notes). Possibly this section is misplaced in Mark, owing to the like unsympathetic suggestion in v. 2r. Beelzobnb : rather, ' Beelzebul.' It is a by-name for Satan. The former was the name given to the god of Ekron (2 Kings i. 6), ST. MARK 3. 23-25. XMk 153 prince of the ^ devils casteth he out the * devils. And 23 he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan? And if a 24 kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that 25 * Gr. demorts and is thought by some to mean ' the god of flies.' The form Beelzebul is of doubtful origin (cf. note on Matt. xii. 24). Some take it to mean 'the lord of filth' (= idolatry) ; others make it ' the lord of the habitation ', whether as the god of the air (Eph. ii, 2) or the god of the inhabited world (cf. Matt. iv. 8). By (or ' in ') the prince of the devils (' demons '). He exerts power over demons by league with their prince. It is the same theory as the mediaeval one of ' black magic,' collusion with the powers of evil. 23. he called them unto him. Jesus hears of what they are saj'ing to the people behind his back, and meets it in the open by calling them to his side. in parables. The first occurrence of the word in this Gospel. The word ' parable ' means ' a comparison ', especially in figura- tive form, a simile. In the Greek O. T. it represents a term used for proverbs (i Sara. x. 12 ; Prov. i. j, &c.) ; dark, enigmatical utterances ^Ps. Ixxviii. 2 ; Prov. i. 6) ; mystical, prophetic intima- tions (Num. xxiii. 7, 18, &c.) ; and figurative speech with more or less of a narrative in it (Ezek. xvii. i-io). In the Gospels it is applied to any proverbial sayings (Luke iv. 23), illustrative state- ments or comparisons (Mark vii. 7 ; Luke vi. 39) ; but usually to comparisons or similitudes containing something of a story. Here it has the more general sense of an illustrative analogy. The Fourth Gospel has allegories, not parables proper. How can Satan cast out Satan? Only Mark gives this question. Jesus uses the regular Biblical expression ' Satan ' the ' adversary ' (the ordinary Jewish name for the Spirit of evil). In the O. T. the references to Satan are few, the most definite being in Job i. 6, 12 ; Zech. iii. i, 2. Jesus' reply is an effective appeal to common sense, what we call the rediiciio ad absurditm. 24. And if. Here and in v. 25 the 'and' seems due to the Aramaic element in Mark's style. It appends illustrations to the plain saying in 23. 24-^6. The argument conveyed by the opening question in verse 23 is first developed in two of the ' parables ' or similes used. Then their application comes in verse 26 — a divided kingdom is doomed to ruin. If Satan were in collusion with Jesus and lent him his power, he would be his own destroyer. 154 ST. MARK 3. 26-29. X^k 26 house will not be able to stand. And if Satan hath risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot 27 stand, but hath an end. But no one can enter into the house of the strong man, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong matt ; and then he will spoil his 28 house. Verily I say unto you, All their sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and their blasphemies 29 wherewith soever they shall blaspheme : but whosoever 27. the strongr man. Another succinct ' parable ' or similitude ; cf. Isa. xlix. 24, 25. It gives the positive side of the refutation, which amounts to a definite claim to be stronger than the Power behind the Kingdom of evil, in virtue of his real alliance, that with God vcf. i. 9-12). Not only is Jesus not in alliance with Satan, he is Satan's spoiler in virtue of the personal victory won over him at the Temptation ^i. 13, cf. Matt. iv. 14), by which he had bound him. spoil his g'oods : means 'make spoil of his possessions,' here particularly the ' possessed,' whom he had got into his tyrannical power, 28. Verily. In the O. T. it is used, as we use Amen, as a solemn conclusion. In the Gospels it is a grave and emphatic formula introducing something specially weighty. ' Like one of the Old Testament prophets, Jesus repudiates passionately the denial of the purity of His motives. The sin against the Holy Ghost seems to lie in the moral insincerity which prefers to con- found black and white, rather than recognize the coming of God in a new and unexpected quarter' (Wood). But behind this lies the great fundamental religious issue of the Law as conceived by the Scribes and by Jesus as a Prophet, an issue which constantly made them at cross-purposes. All their sins. The point seems to be all khids or classes of sins, with special reference to one kind oi' class which might well seem in themselves worse than any other. nnto the sous of men. In the form in which the saying was familiar to the other Synoptists this appears as ' the Son of Man ' (see end of note on iii. 28), and the sense had been changed to suit. The general principle is turned into the special application to hand. The later Gospels here have also sayings absent from Mark. hlasphemies : in the more general sense of ' reviling ' or malicious evil speech, of which the scribes' attribution of his deeds of mercy to an evil source, with no ground save religious prejudice, was an example. I ST. MARK 3. 29. XMk 155 shall blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath never 29. against the Holy Spirit. There is, however, one excep- tion to the general assurance of forgiveness. What is meant by this blasphemy ' against the Holy Spirit ? ' Some say it is something peculiar to these Pharisaic slanderers of Jesus, with nothing like it under present conditions. Others think it has no essential relation to the case of these Pharisees. The truth lies between these extremes. These scribes had seen an unmistakable instance of the working of a seemingly holy, supernatural power, in the healing deeds of Christ. They so hardened themselves against that witness that they did not hesitate to ascribe those deeds of goodness to Satanic power, rather than the Holy Spirit, in the very teeth of all probability save that due to prejudice against the teaching and personality of the worker. This was to sin against such light as was within their reach, and so against the Holy Spirit, as that in the soul which makes self-evidencing appeal for the truth visible in men and deeds. Thus the sin involved is that of 'calling light darkness,' the 'woe' on which, pronounced in Isa. V. 20 f., is intrinsic and inevitable. To deal thus with the Holy Spirit, shutting the will to manifest light, reveals a mind so self-willed, and so dead to the power that produces conviction, as to lack the first conditions of forgiveness. hath never for^veness: a true rendering, if taken in the Hebrew sense, which, like our popular use of 'never' — as in 'If you do so, I will never forgive you ' — is not an absolute one but relative, differing with the context, though always implying an indefinitely long time. The best translation would be, ' shall not be forgiven for all time,' i. e. such as need be taken into account. The phrase R. V. renders by 'never' is literally 'unto (the duration of) the age,' the equivalent of the Hebrew le ' olam ' ' to (an) age' or 'forage-long time,' as compared with some limited period, such as the whole or part of an individual's span of Hfe : see Exod. xxi. 6, xl. 15. The latter passage is most instructive. There God appoints the Aaronic priesthood 'unto ( = for) the aeon (or duration of human time"), unto (all) their generations ; ' where the parallelism between the two clauses gives the meaning of ' unto ' (eis), in relation to, the aeon in question = ' for all the aeon ' then in being, and not ' unto ' the dawning of another aeon. So here too the expression points neither to a definite end to the long time or aeon in question — as if a contrast were meant between ' this age ' and ' that age ' to follow, i. e. the Messianic age of bliss (the two being separated by God's day of Judgement on all that had been done in the former one) — nor on the other hand to ' the age' being strictly endless. Hebrew thinking and speaking were not couched in such terms at all, and had no notion of ' eternity ' 156 ST. MARK 3. 30. XMk 30 forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin : because they said, He hath an unclean spirit. or 'everlastingness' in relation to any created thing, but only to God— from the very nature of the case. The phrase here, then, means 'never' dunng time, as man reckons time, as distinct from some day during the hmited time of opportunity for moral change and forgiveness which the indi- vidual's hfe on earth affords; in a word, 'never' for practical purposes of such reckoning, never within all the human norizon of time. Beyond that Jesus' words simply do not look, any more than did the thoughts of his hearers, or of Jews generally m such a connexion. It was possibly because Christian thought in certain circles in the second century was not satisfied with the loophole which this phrase seemed to leave for some forgiveness for such 'blasphemies' in the 'age to come '-just as Matt. ix. 32 has 'neither in this age nor in the age to come, introducing the category of the two ' ages' above referred to— that the old Mb. U and most Old Latin MSS. omit the whole phrase, as being a dan- gerous qualification (cf Luke xii. 10, 'it shall not be forgiven ) : compare next note. , •,, , but is ^ilty of an eternal sin. Here 'guilty means literally involved in, subject to, the consequences of something ; the rendering 'an eternal sin' is, in view of the foregoing note on ' unto the age,' not a strict one : it should be ' an age-long sin an act of sin ihamartema, not hamartia) with enduring results 1 his enduring (cBoniayi) quality is due to the very nature of the sin, which, though a single act in time, is yet the final issue of a dis- position or attitude to the Holy Spirit, the inspiring source _oi sincerity of conscience before God, and so means a definitive breach with the God who, above all else, ' desircth truth in the inward parts '. And as this involves a process of gradual spiritual insensitiveness or callousness, a self-induced 'hardening of the heart,' it means a loss of faculty of sight and feeling as to the sinful nature of the act in question, and so of the sense of need lor its forgiveness and a corresponding penitence— the human condi- tions of Divine forgiveness and moral renewal. A sin with sucn enduring efi-ects inevitably carries an enduring punishment with it and in itself, . , , i tu^ This does not settle the further question whether or not the 1 That cBonian, the adjective from cBon as used just above, does not in itself mean ' everlasting,' is clear from the phrase ' before times age-long' ^^onian^ in 2 Tim. 1-9; Tit. i. 2 ; cf. Rom. xvi. 25 0" Josephvfs, Jcn.vish War, vi. 9-4. a certain Jewish leader is said to be put in ward ' with ceonian bonds '). ST. MARK 3. 31-34. XMk 157 And there come his mother and his brethren; and, 31 standing without, they sent unto him, caUing him. And 32 a multitude was sitting about him ; and they say unto him. Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answereth them, and saith, Who is my 33 mother and my brethren ? And looking round on them 34 capacity for repentance and forgiveness can be restored b}' some change in conditions by God's act. That the phrase in Mark's context, however, meant something final and so strictly 'ever- lasting ' is quite likely. For it is to be noted that the whole clause, emphasizing the force of the foregoing one, is peculiar to Mark • and it is very possible (especially in view of v. 30, see note on it) that it is an addition to the tradition of Jesus' words in their most primitive form (prior even to our Mark, see the Old Syriac in Burkitt, Evang. Da-Mepharreshe, ad. loc), parallel to, and having the same significance as, the different forms it assumed in Matt, and Luke (end of last note). 30. because they said, He hath an unclean spirit : an ex- planation added in tradition or by the evangelist himself, shewing how it was the enormity of the accusation made by these scribes that led to this solemn declaration : cf. ii. 28. iii. 31-35. Jesus' Mother and Brethren (Matt. xii. 46-50; Luke viii. 19-21). Here connexion is resumed with the action of his relatives in verse 21. 31. his brethren : named in vi. 3 (Matt. xiii. 55). They are taken by some to have been half-brothers, sons of Joseph by a former marriage (the Epiphanian theory) ; by others, to have been cousins, sons of a sister of the Virgin Mary (the Hieronymian theory, i. e. Jerome's theory' ; but by most modern scholars, to have been younger brothers in the proper sense, sons of Josepli and Mary (the Helvidian theory). The last view is favoured by the natural sense of the word, the inference from the term ' first- born son ' (Matt. i. 25 ; Luke ii. 7), and the mention of the mother, with no hint (in Mark) of any but the ordinary sense of that word, along with the brethren, cf. vi. 3. standing' without : unable to get in by reason of the crowd, they send a message to Jesus, which perhaps was passed from mouth to mouth till it reached those immediately about him. 32. seek for thee : moved probably by anxietj^ about him. 33. answereth them. In the first instance those who conveyed the message, and then all hearers, the mother and the brothers probably being without. 34. looking' round : to indicate those he had in mind in what he was about to say. Perhaps due to Peter's eye-witness, cf. iii. 5. 158 ST. MARK 3. 35—4. I. XMk which sat round about him, he saith, Behold, my mother 35 and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother. 4 And again he began to teach by the sea side. And them whicli sat round about him. : doubtless the disciples, as his words imply. 35. the samie is my brother, and sister, and mother. One of the most characteristic and inspiring of Jesus' sayings, in which he ' enlarges the bounds of the Holy Family to include as His kinsfolk all who do God's will' (Wood). There is no harsh- ness in this declaration ; nothing to suggest that he thought of disowning his own relations, or made little of natural human ties and affections, or bade us do so. But he gives us to understand that there is a higher relationship still, a family of God, bound together by ties even closer than those between the members of an ordinary human family. Kinship to him is not by birth, but of the Spirit, and has its essence in a like obedience, the doing of his Father's will. The reference to sisters in ' and sister ' does not imply the presence of natural sisters even in his home in Capernaum (see rather the note on vi. 3). but is inserted to complete the idea of his spiritual kin as inclusive of women. (c) Teaching by Parables, iv. 1-34, iv. r-9. Parable of the Sower (Matt. xiii. 1-9 ; Luke viii. 4-8). The beginning of parables (see notes on ii. 19 ff., iii. 23ff. ): the pattern-parable, and one of those which have a place in all the Synoptists (though Luke's form of X had it in a rather different connexion"). Mark gives it as one of ' many ' that were spoken (verses 2, 33), and himself reports in the same connexion other two. Matthew gives a cluster of seven, some probably spoken at other times. I. Jesus was again (ii. 13, iii. 7) by the lake, and had resumed his regular teaching. At once a crowd began to gather, and he betook himself for freedom's sake to the boat (cf. iii. g). His teaching now took the form of parable proper. That this was a change, and one that surprised the disciples, appears from their question in Matthew ( -= its X), 'Why speakest thou unto them in parables' (xiii. 10) ? Hitherto he had taught in more direct terms, by words like those of the Sermon on the Mount, or by direct similes which explained themselves (iii. 23fT.\ But he had now reached a point in his ministry at which he had to deal with fresh aspects of the Kingdom as he saw it. These were so strange to most Jews, so unlike all their ideas and expectations, that he had to adopt a method of instruction that suggested rather than explicitly declared, so that each might the better perceive that for ST. MARK 4. 2-8. X^ 159 there is gathered unto him a very great multitude, so that he entered into a boat, and sat in the sea ; and all the multitude were by the sea on the land. And he 2 taught them many things in parables, and said unto them in his teaching, Hearken : Behold, the sower went forth 3 to sow : and it came to pass, as he sowed, some seed fell 4 by the way side, and the birds came and devoured it. And other fell on the rocky groutid, where it had not 5 much earth ; and straightway it sprang up, because it had no deepness of earth : and when the sun was risen, it 6 was scorched ; and because it had no root, it withered away. And other fell among the thorns, and the thorns 7 grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. And 8 others fell into the good ground, and yielded fruit, growing up and increasing ; and brought forth, thirty- which he was spiritually ready, and no more. It only gave glimpses and hints, so as to provoke reflection, and gradual!}' make a way in their minds for new truth. The need of hearers meeting him half-way with their best attention is indicated by the opening ' Hearken ' (cf. 9). 3. the sovrer. The scene on which his eye could rest as he sat there in the boat — the cornfields, with soils in different states — might well suggest this similitude. went forth to sow. The sower's hopes as he ' went forth to sow' are suggested to the mind, and the hearer waits to learn how he fared in the sequel. 4. the way side : the path by the field or passing through it, beaten by the tread of many feet, and too hardened thereby to give the seed a chance. 5. rocky ground: not soil merely mixed with stones, but solid rock (cf. Luke's 'on the rock') thinly covered with soil. The seed might penetrate a little way, but could not sink in far enough ; and so it would germinate quickly after a superficial fashion, but would speedily be scorched. 7. among" the thorns: in Matthew, ^ upon the thorns. ' that is, on thorny ground — an unweeded part of the soil. Thorns, the ndbk of the Arabs, are an abundant crop in Sj'ria. They look like the grain, and grow with it, but only to re\eal at last their true nature, and choke the wheat when it should yield its increase. i6o ST. MARK 4. 9. XMk 9 fold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. And he said, Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. 8. tWrtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. Matthew begins with the highest degree of fruitfulness and goes down the scale. Writers, both ancient and modern, speak of the extra- ordinary fertility of Eastern soil (cf. Gen. xxvi. i2\ and not least of that of Galilee. Of the Plain of Gennesaret Dr. Robinson says, 'its fertility can hardly be exceeded' (^Bib. Researc/ies, ill. 285). The soils, therefore, have respectively the qualities of hardness, thinness, foulness, and goodness. The seed will have fortunes corresponding to the soils. In one case it does not spring at all ; in the second it springs but to wither ; in the third it springs and grows, but yields nothing owing to the choking effect of rival growths ; in the fourth it comes to maturity, and to an increase varying in measure according to the different degrees of the soil's softness, depth and purity. 9. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear : challenging words, reported by all three Synoptists here ; spoken also in connexion with the sayings recorded in Mark iv. 23 ; in Luke xiv. 35, after testing sayings about discipleship ; in Matt. xi. 15, after a saying about John the Baptist as the Elijah of Mai. iv. 5. The words say in elTect : ' This needs thinking about : it bears on what concerns you nearly : don't miss the lesson for want of turning things patiently over in your mind ' — what elsewhere Jesus calls ' seeking,' in order to ' find ' for oneself. The form of the challenge, however, implies that ' hearing' to efTect is not a matter of course, and so the same for all. It depends on the hearer's ears, i. e. his receptivity of soul, over which he has some control ; so he is responsible for opening his mind, by the use of his will, to the truth he feels vaguely to be behind the half-veil of its parabolic guise, but which needs moral effort to think out and face up to. IVhat one really 'hears' in this sense, tlierefore, turns on how one hears : so the more explicit warning added in 23 f. 'See to it what you hear,' appears in Luke ' See to it, then, how ye hear.' Accordingly the result upon his hearers which Jesus here had in view, was to help them to say to them- selves : ' What is the Teacher trying to get at ? There is more in the picture he has put before us so simply and clearly than at once meets the eye. What is it?' When we ask ourselves the same question, the answer is fairly plain in the light of the whole Gospel story. 'Jesus is not so much teaching here as reflecting aloud upon the results of his teaching' (Wellhausen) : or rather the former rests on the latter. This parable, in fact, is a transcript of Jcsus^ oivn experience as a sower of the seed of the Kingdom, a preacher by word and deed ST. MARK 4. 10, II. XMk i6i And when he was alone, they that were about him lo with the twelve asked of him the parables. And he said 1 1 of God's true message touching it and His people's state in relation to it. That experience was in the main one of disappointment with the reception it had so far met with (cf. vi. 6). It had been partly negative, partly superficial, partly ineffectual in its issue, and only in a relatively few cases really fruitful — and that in varying degrees, determined by the measure of prior moral preparedness for such a type of message. We see, then, Jesus at a very important and significant stage of his ministry of ' the Word' of the Kingdom, still hopeful of final success, but realizing, and taking measures to make others realize (if they would), that the task before him and them was a more difficult and testing one than had been provided for in his original method of proclamation that the Kingdom of God was just at hand. It was not going to carry all before it, at once rapidly and thoroughly, by a mass movement of the whole nation. If it was to come at all in its true spiritual sense, it could only be by new methods of appeal entering into its preaching, methods which threw the hearers back upon their own moral state, so as to face up to their unpreparedness as they were, and then, by earnest heart-searching and repentance for insensibility to the Kingdom's real nature, become truly receptive. But all this meant time, as all moral processes do ; j'es, longer time than even Jesus himself had at first contemplated, prior to the experiences of his mission work ; for we read that he wondered at the spiritual slowness and unbelief he met with, and reproached his fellow-countrymen for the same (vi. 6 ; Matt. xi. 16-24). O" ^he whole subject of Jesus' parables, and their place in his ministry and its methods, see further 'Teaching of Jesus' in the Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, vol. ii. iv. 10-12. The purpose of Jesus' Parables (Matt. xiii. 10-15; Luke viii. 9-10). This section (and its sequel in 13-25) is parenthetical (cf. vi. 17-29) — dealing with a private conversation which really came later ; the historical sequence is resumed at 26 ff. 10. they that were about him with the twelve : i. e. the larger circle of habitual disciples, thus described already in iii. 34, along with the inner circle of iii. 13 f. The suggestion of E. Mej'er {pp. cif. 138 f.) that 'along with the Twelve' is an interpolation from a separate source, from which came also 11 f., is really groundless. asked of him the parables: so Luke, ' asked him what this parable might be.' In Matt, rather as to his new style of teaching ; 'Why speakest thou to them in parables?' In Luke the query is M 1 62 ST. MARK 4. 12. XMk unto them, Unto you is given the mystery of the kingdom of God : but unto them that are without, all things are 1 2 done in parables : that seeing they may see, and not limited to the meaning of the parable of the Sower ; and in view of V. 13, ' Know ye not this parable,' it is quite likely that a question of this kind really constituted their inquiry, here described in general terms. The whole idea of such parables was not clear even to the inner circle of Jesus' disciples, far less to others. 11. Unto you is given : rather 'has been given,' as an abiding possession. the mystery. The Biblical sense (cf. LXX of Dan. ii. 286"., 47) of this word is a secret that is told or is destined to be told. In that sense the gospel (Rom. xvi. 25 ; i Cor. ii, i, 7), or some particular part or tnith of it, e. g. the calling of the Gentiles (Eph. iii. 3), is a ' mystery.' The latter meaning, viz. particular aspects of the Gospel of the Kingdom, explains the form which the saying assumes in Matt., ' to know the mysteries' of the Kingdom. Mark's phrasing makes ' the mystery ' the secret of the Kingdom's nature, received in living experience, as a gift to faith. them that are without : rather ' those others (' the rest,' Luke\ who are outside ' the disciple-circle (in the widest sense). 'Those outside,' or 'outsiders,' was a Rabbinical phrase for Gentiles or lax Jews : cf. i Cor. v. 12 ; Col. iv. 5 (and Lightfoot's note) , for a similar application to the distinction between Christians and non-Christians. Mark alone gives this phrase, and it may be an explanatory gloss in his tradition, added to Jesus' reference to the multitude simply as ' those others.' all things are done in parables : rather ' all goes on in parables,' or ' the whole (of what concerns the Kingdom) moves \lit. "takes place'') in the sphere of parables,' the sphere of the senses rather than of spiritual perception — a statement which, by its general form (' all things'), may be meant to cover more than Jesus' teaching, in fact his whole ministry, the meaning of which is not caught apart from its spirit or ' secret ' just referred to. If so, the sentence probably owes some of its phrasing to Christian reflexion, starting from Jesus' own words. In any case, as he meant it, parabolic teaching has a helpful purpose. It arrests attention ; it wins a place for strange or unwelcome truths in the mind ; it illumines and illustrates ; it helps the memory and stimu- lates reflexion ; it guards the life of a truth until it can be received. Thus far, then, the essential thought of the verse, apart from its verbal form, is probably due to Jesus" mind. But in that follows, in the next verse, the transforming eflfect of Christian reflexion is to be marked. 13. that seeing they may see, and not perceive. Jesus is ST. MARK 4. 12. XMk 163 perceive ; and hearing they may hear, and not under- here represented as making use of certain words of the O. T. (Isa. vi. 9, 10) which appear more fully in Matthew, and speak of a blindness coming on the Jewish people as the penalty of the callousness of their minds. He adapts some of these words to the case of those who crowded him and yet were ' without.' He spoke to the dull and unawakened in parables for a reason. What was it? According to Matt. xiii. 13, ' because hearing thej' hear not' what is stated in more directly spiritual terms. Thus his speaking in parables is expressed as a iesiilt of the people's state. But in Mark the words are given in terms of purpose — ' thai seeing they may see, and not perceive.' That is, the words of the O. T. analogy are cited (apparently from the Targum rather than LXX) in their original phrasing, but with its forecast of the result turned into a statement of the Divine intention in the matter (cf. i Pet. ii. 8). Such a view is alien to Jesus' own thought here as elsewhere. The primary intention of his parabolic teaching is, as is said plainly in verses 21-23 and implied in v. 33 ('as they were able to hear' the message), a positive one, viz. to convey to the spiritually dull ' the Word ' of the Kingdom to the best effect (cf. vii. 14) — since ♦ truth embodied in a tale, Shall enter in at lowly doors ' {In Memotiam, xxxvi). But this could come about only by the im- proving of men's hearing through forcing them, by the very form of the teaching, to be and do their best in relation to it (cf. 24 f ). Thus parable, as a pedagogic device, had indeed also a secondary purpose, that of protecting the precious truths it en- shrined. It saved them from being cast, as 'pearls before swine,' to men in a state utterly unappreciative of their nature and worth. But this is not a penal aim, though its effects, as seemingly ex- cluding many from ' understanding,' may have come to be so viewed. In reality Jesus meant even the negative or difiBcult aspect of his parables (as requiring pondering on and gradual divining) for the good of his hearers, i. e. to guard them from misunderstanding, by jumping to the conclusion that the Kingdom he proclaimed was none other in nature than what they were looking for : for this might have led to ruinous practical results in a popular rising. Further, as Menzies suggests, where his thoughts and theirs as to the Kingdom were so different, 'he could scarcely state to them all that bethought about it' explicitly, ' without offending them. In a parable, on the other hand, truth insinuates itself into the mind gently and produces conviction without apparently trj'ing to do so.' But all this still leaves over the question whether Jesus himself cited Isaiah's words at all, in explaining his use of parables. If he did so, it was not in the form of verse 12. but rather in that of Matt, xiii. 12 f. There in verse 1 1 we get the reason why parables 1 64 ST. MARK 4. 12. X^k stand ; lest haply they should turn again, and it should are chosen for the mass of hearers, viz. that they have not the initial knowledge already vouchsafed to the disciples, on the principle of fresh light being given or withheld according as a man does or does not appropriate by use (' have ' in a personal sense) the light already visible to him (cf. Mark iv, 24 f.). It is to meet this law, by so putting his message that spiritually unawakened men shall not think they see when they do not, that Jesus speaks (for their good) as he is doing. 'Therefore speak I to them in parables ; because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.' That is, their state forces him in mercy to adopt this method of arousing their spiritual perceptions by the stimulus of curiosity and puzzlement. That is plainly Jesus' own meaning, as expressed in Matt. xiii. 11-13 and as implied by the warning words in Mark iv. 9, as also in 24 f. As to the quota- tion, the turn given to it in Mark may well be secondary and due to an unconscious change in the tradition as known to the Evangelist. In support of this view, that Jesus did not really allude directly to Isaiah's argument (even if he used some of its phrases, as in viii. 18 — with no such harsh sense), it is to be observed that the form of Jesus' words, so far as common to all our three Synoptics, is not at all close to Isaiah's phrasing. It is 'seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not ' (as in viii. 18) — that and no more. The rest varies in each version of the tradition, whether as to the amount of Isaiah's language used, the degree to which it is formally cited, or the way in which Jesus' motive in employing parables is stated. AH this points to a special factor of variation working in the Christian tradition, viz. a change in the understanding of Jesus' motive in the matter. The change was perhaps due to the pro- gressive severity with which Christians generally viewed the Jews who rejected the Gospel (they were no true Jews at all, but 'a synagogue of Satan,' Rev. ii. 9), not only when it was presented by themselves but also by their Master during his earthly ministry. Paul discusses this mystery, as it was felt to be, in Rom. ix-xi, dwelling on the Isaianic idea of judicial 'hardening' (e.g. xi. 7f., 25), and struggling to reconcile it with his firm faith in the justice of a merciful God. The history of the Christian use of Isaiah's classical passage in this connexion is further visible in Acts xxviii. 25-28 ; John xii. 39 f. — this last and severest statement of the case being clearly the Evangelist's own comment on the fact of Jewish unbelief. Jesus' own attitude was far other. He distinguished broadly between the people generally, as simply 'blind' and so to be pitied, and those who professed to be their religious leaders and pastors, ' blind guides ' of the blind (Matt. xv. 14 ; Luke vi. 39), for whom alone, in their self-satisfied and superior spirit, he reserved ST. MARK 4. 13-15. XMk 165 be forgiven them. And he saith unto them, Know ye 13 not this parable ? and how shall ye know all the parables ? The sower soweth the word. And these are they by the M> i his severity. For the masses, as poor, bewildered ' sheep without shepherd,' he felt and expressed only compassion. From his lips, then, such words as those attributed to him by tradition in the present connexion could never have issued; yet he may well have uttered words which shewed that he ' felt that his mission to Israel was strangely similar to that of Isaiah ' (Wood). In this light it is practically certain that Mark's version of Jesus' words has here undergone alteration (Allen thinks that a mis- understanding of the Aramaic was possible), so as to bringthefull theory of Isaiah's words (originally used by Jesus only in a free way) to bear on the disciples' question touching his reason for now adopting to a further degree the parabolic mode of teaching. In this process, Jesus' real motive — surviving in the wording of Matt. xiii. 13, and implied in what follows even in Mark (verses 21-25, cf. Matt. xiii. 14, and in 33)— was first obscured and then reversed, judgement, and not mercy, becoming his ultimate pur- pose. This result, as regards Mark's account — where otherwise the inconsistency of verse 12 with the thought of verses 21 ff. would have been plainer — was facilitated by the section (13-20) on the interpretation of the parable of the Sower intervening between the two mutually inconsistent passages on the theory of parables as a method of teaching. As it is, the reference in the latter case to this problem at all is thereby obscured. Such a parenthetic episode, rather awkwardly sandwiched into a larger one, finds a parallel in that on John the Baptist's fate in vi. 17-29. iv. 13-20. Interpretation of the Parable of the Sower (Matt. xiii. 18-23; Luke viii. 11-15). 13. Know ye not this parable ? There is a certain contrast between the senses of 'know' (different verbs) in this verse. 'Know ye not (recognize ye not at once) this parable? Then how shall ye get to understand all my parables ? ' This primary parable, dealing with aspects of the Kingdom so patently before their ej'es and so thinly veiled by the parabolic forms, was a test and measure of capacity to read the meaning of all others then spoken or yet to be. The criticism of the disciples here implied is one of Mark's primitive touches which fail to reappear in the other synoptists, who shew more sensitivenessabout what reflects on the Apostles' past : cf. iv. 40, vii. 18, viii. 17. 14. soweth the word. The great subject of the parable is the tvord^ the Divine message which Jesus brought to men, its varied reception and the meaning of this. There is a certain awkwardness i66 ST. MARK 4. 16-20. X^k way side, where the word is sown : and when they have heard, straightway cometh Satan, and taketh away the 16 word which hath been sown in them. And these in like manner are they that are sown upon the rocky places, who, when they have heard the word, straightway receive 1 7 it with joy ; and they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while ; then, when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, straightway they stumble. 18 And others are they that are sown among the thorns ; 19 these are they that have heard the word, and the cares of the * world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it 20 becometh unfruitful. And those are they that were sown upon the good ground ; such as hear the word, and * Or, age in the form which the tradition of Christ's words has assumed in Mark (as compared especially with Luke), due to the mixture of the interpretation, in terms of men, with the agricultural imagery of the parable. IB. the way side: a figure of the spiritually obtuse or callous, owing to the soul having let itself be a sort of thoroughfare for all and sundry thoughts and feelings, with no reverent self-culture. 16. the xoc)iy places. So is it with the impulsive, emotional hearer, who receives the word, but in a way so superficial that he fails at once under trial. 18. among' the thorns. A third type of mind, sympathetic to the message and responding readily, but divided between God and the world, and so becoming ' unfruitful ' — reaching nothing worthy, in life or service. 19. of the world : lit. ' of the (present) age ' or order of life. the lusts of other thing's: rather 'the desires,' a sense 'lust ' once commonly bore. 20. the good ground. The mind that ' takes in ' the word, keeps it, and submits itself to its spiritual action, and so lets it bear, in smaller or larger measure, its proper fruits of character. iv. 21-25. T^^^ Purpose of Jesus' method. Responsibility of Hear- ing (Luke viii. 16-18: see also Matt. v. 15, x. 26, xiii. 12 ; Luke xi. 33, xii. 2). The meaning of these verses depends a good deal on whether they are taken as addressed to the disciples only, as I ST. MARK 4. 21-24. XMk 167 accept it, and bear fruit, thirtyfold^ and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold. And he said unto them. Is the lamp brought to be put ai under the bushel, or under the bed, a?id not to be put on the stand? For there is nothing hid, save that it should 22 be manifested ; neither was anything made secret, but that it should come to light. If any man hath ears to 23 hear, let him hear. And he said unto them, Take heed M what ye hear : with what measure ye mete it shall be the immediate context suggests, or rather to the multitude. This question applies also *to all that follows the explanation of the Sower, down to the end of the whole section at v. 33 f : ' And with many such parables was he speaking the word unto them, as they were able to hear it, and without a parable was he not speaking unto them ; but privately to his own disciples was he expounding all things.' Here * unto them ' plainly means the multitude ; and the two parables which immediately precede must be included in ' with many such parables.' Accordingly the multitude must be conceived as being auditors of these two parables, each introduced simply by ' and he was saying.' Probably, then, in vv. 26 fi. the historical sequence, broken at v. 9 for the purpose of explaining the Sower and its lessons (10-25), is resumed, without explicit notice being given — the several stages of the parenthetic teaching to disciples (alone) being marked by ' and he said to them ' in 13, 21, 24. Neither Matthew's nor Luke's form of X seems to have had at this point the matter which Mark (? his X) places here. In 21-25 Jesus is represented as reverting to the principles of his parabolic teaching, already touched on in 10-12. He now speaks of its final aim, and next of the hearer's part in the result. As to the latter, the principle quoted in Matt. (xiii. 12) in a context parallel to v. 11 above is here (v. 25) laid down in conjunction with a kindred maxim (v. 24), each helping to elucidate the other. 21. the lamp. The kind of lamp that might be seen in any humble Galilean house, where the bushel measure also would be in place ; a simple earthenware saucer, perhaps, with wick and oil. 22. hid: like the truth embodied in parabolic form. 24. Take heed what ye hear. The ' what ' depends on the ' how ' of the hearing (see Luke viii. 18), in keeping with the principle which follows. The ' measure ' of insight vouchsafed to any, in this matter of knowing the secret of the kingdom, will be the same as the measure of honest hearing given to the word. i68 ST. MARK 4. 25. X^k measured unto you : and more shall be given unto you. 25 For he that hath, to him shall be given : and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath. 25. Tor he that hath, to him shall be g^iven. The law of Gain or Loss in spiritual wealth. True knowledge leads to more. Light revealed in the soul is only made one's own, so that one really ' has ' it, by the exercise of moral volition, in the ' obedience of faith.' Then it becomes the basis for yet further light break- ing on the mind. But where there is no such moral appropriation, the man ' hath not ' what he ' seemeth to have ' (Luke) for a season, and in the end the light fades from the soul or ' is taken away.' The context in which the maxim occurs in Matt, xxv. 29, Luke xix. 26, dealing as it does with faithful use of gilts, is perhaps the original one. True use of the gift of light, in loyal conduct, leads to larger insight, while by neglect all is forfeited. iv. 26-29. A Parable of the Kingdom's Divinely determined growth. The second of the three parables here brought into juxta- position, because they shadow forth the things of the Kingdom in terms of seed and harvest and of the sower's work. That the gradual growth of the Kingdom is in God's hands, and may, even if slow, be left to Him without anxiety on the sower's part, such is the lesson of this parable. It is meant to teach patience, and to answer the question which must, as Jesus' ministry of proclaim- ing the Kingdom as ' at hand ' lengthened out, have occurred to many minds : ' When will it actually arrive ? Why does it not come quicker?' (cf. Luke xvii. 20). Nay. we can hardly doubt that Jesus here gives the answer with which he had calmed and consoled his own soul, when progress was slower than he had expected. This parable is peculiar to Mark ; and we may well believe that tlie otlier Synoptics omit it just because it represents Jesus himself as like the sower who waits on the Divine opera- tions of growth in Nature — without himself understanding them. So, the parable seems to imply, was it with Jesus and the Father's laws, governing the times and seasons of the Kingdom's growth (cf. xiii. 32). As regards the attachment of this and the next parable to the foregoing, so forming a triplet of parables on funda- mental aspects of tiie fortunes of the Kingdom in process of realization among men, it is probable that they were known to Mark as a unit in Christian instruction, and so are given here as though two of the 'many' parables (v. 33, cf. 2) spoken on the same occasion as the parable of the Sower. But to judge by internal evidence, which in the second case is supported also by the far later context in which it appears in Luke fxiii. 18 f.), they ST. MARK 4. 26-28. P 169 [P] And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man 26 should cast seed upon the earth ; and should sleep and 27 rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how. The earth ^beareth fruit of 28 * OT,y{eldeth were really uttered later on. They seem to reflect problems touching the Kingdom and its fortunes not likely to be dealt with at this point in Jesus' ministry, when as yet the small scale on which the Kingdom had made itself apparent, and the slowness of its progress, would hardly call for notice and explanation. From its very nature, moreover, it is safe to infer that the former of them was spoken originally to and for disciples, as Jesus' fellow- sowers of the Kingdom. These two parables would be a great practical help to Christians of the Apostolic Agt amid their own problems, such as the unlooked for delay in the Kingdom's 'coming in power' ; and so Mark, though he gives very few parables, included them, along with the fundamental and typical one of the Sower, for the encouragement of his first readers (cf note on vi. 17-29). 26. And he said: i. e. to the multitude, in sequence to v. 9 ; not as in v, 21, with the hearers defined by 'unto them,' namely the disciples (as in the foregoing section), but quite generally — 'and he was saying' (imperfect). The context alone can define alike the occasion and the audience : and this is given by Mark himself, in v. 33, as the multitude of v. i f. ; that is, the thread of Jesus' public discourse is resumed, after the parenthetic account of his private teaching to the disciples occasioned thereby. Such is the idea of the section : but it is probable, as just shown, that it brings together artificially (originally in oral tradition! matter spoken at different times, but logically, or in subject, closely related. a man: primarily Jesus himself ;;cf. 29), a fact which may later have been felt to be a difficulty in view of v. 27 : hence perhaps the omission of the parable in the other gospels, helpful though it might be to Christians tempted to impatience at the seeming delay of the Kingdom as harvest. 27. and rise night and day. The picture is that of a farmer who, having done the work of sowing which belongs to him to do, goes about his ordinary ways of life, patiently and hopefully leaving the seed to the action of the forces at work in the soil. 28. The earth heareth fruit of herself. The heart of the parable is here, in the spontmicous (lit. 'automatic,' or self-moved) action of the soil. While the sower waits, the seed is passing lyo ST. MARK 4. 29-31. PX^k herself; first the blade, then the ear, then the full corn 29 in the ear. But when the fruit ^ is ripe, straightway he t) putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come. 30 [XMk] And he said, How shall we liken the kingdom of 31 God ? or in what parable shall we set it forth ? c It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown upon the earth, though it be less than all the seeds that are upon » Or, alloweth *> Or, sendeth forth " Gr. As unto through changes which are independent of his action, but due to the unaided operation of the forces stored in the earth by God. first tlie blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear. These hidden forces work not only surely and effectively but gradually, carrying the seed through all the orderly development of blade, ear, and full corn. And this means seeming ' delay.' 29. when the fruit is ripe : lit. ' yieldeth (itself) ', or ' alloweth'. Only at the end has the Sower his part again. All through the interval things have gone on in ways unknown to him, by the operation of powers hidden from him and uncontrolled by him. The parable is best described as one of the Kingdom as related to God's ways in Providence. Secrecy is not the immediate point here. It is that the kingdom of God is a thing working quietly and without haste, through the moral forces deposited in human life and society, and moving on to its assured end by laws in the hand of God. This is a word, therefore, of encouragement for the sowers of it, when inclined to feel perplexed and restless at its seemingly slow progress. The Parable of the Sower spoke of failure and disappointment due to the nature of the soil to which the seed is committed. This one speaks of hidden forces beyond human knowledge or control, which secure the growth of the seed, when once it is fitly sown, and make certain the final harvest. iv. 30-32. The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt. xiii. 31, 32 ■, Luke xiii. 18, 19), teaching the Kingdom's boundless capacity of expansion. 30. Note the Hebrew parallelism, or twofold phrasing ot the same idea. . 31. mustard seed. This simile occurs thrice on the lips ol Christ, and always in respect of its smallness, viz. here (with the parallels in Matthew and Luke), in Matt. xvii. 20, and in Luke xv"- 6. No doubt the common mustard-plant is meant, classed below as a garden herb. ST. MARK 4. 32-34. XMk 171 the earth, yet when it is sown, groweth up, and becometh 32 greater than all the herbs, and putteth out great branches ; so that the birds of the heaven can lodge under the shadow thereof. And with many such parables spake he the word unto 33 them, as they were able to hear it : and without a parable 34 less than all the seeds : that is, than all those familiar to the Jews of Galilee. 32. E^reater than all the herbs : that is, than all that had a place in a Palestinian garden. In hot countries the mustard (one of the tiniest of seeds) grew to a great size, eight or more feet high — as tall, we are told, as a horse and his rider. It is relative expan- sion that is in view. birds of the heaven can lodge : not for nesting, but rather for rest and shelter : of. Ezek. Xvii. 22 f. for the idea and its meaning. The point of the parable is in the contrast between the diminu- tive seed and the great increase. It is a word of hope, needed by the disciples in particular. The kingdom of God as they saw it, even later on, was so unlike what they looked for, and so insignifi- cant in its appearance, as to suggest doubts and questions. This parable was spoken to correct that mood of mind and give the assurance of a mighty future, notwithstanding the small and obscure beginning. The kingdom would yet cover the earth and embrace the nations (cf the imagery in Dan. iv. 42 ; Ezek. xxxi. 6, 12). The growth of the kingdom of God had already been set forth in the O. T. under the image of a tree (Ezek. xvii. 22, 24). iv. 33-34. The Method oj Jesus' Teaching at this stage (Matt. xiii. 34, 35) : one of deliberate and careful adaptation. Here Mark sums up in a few general words the rharacteristic nature of Jesus' teaching ministry at the stage now reached, before passing on to other aspects of it, viz. t^'pical deeds and incidents at the same stage (iv. 35-vi. 6). 33. many such parables. It is but a selection, therefore, that is given by Mark by way of samples, but chosen presumably for their practical lessons to his readers also. as they were able to hear it. Jesus taught with a wise adaptation to the capacities of his hearers, in form and doubtless in subjects also. 34. without a parable spake he not unto them : i. e. at this stage of his ministry. Here again we seem to get Hebrew parallelism. 172 ST. MARK 4. 35-38. X^^ spake he not unto them : but privately to his own disciples he expounded all things. 35 And on that day, when even was come, he saith unto 36 them, Let us go over unto the other side. And leaving the multitude, they take him with them, even as he was, 37 in the boat. And other boats were with him. And there ariseth a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the boat, insomuch that the boat was now filling. 38 And he himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion : expounded. The word is one used of the ' resolving ' of difficult matters (cf. Acts xix. 39 ; 2 Pet. i. 21). Having now defined in iv. 1-34 the method of /cac/iiii^r which marked Jesus' ministry at this, as it seems, middle stage, Mark proceeds to fill out his reader's .impression of it and of Jesus him- self by a selection of typical Deeds and other incidents illustrative of his unique or Messianic power. This seems on the whole a section based on Peter's vivid memories, and so one where Matt, and Luke follow Mark closely. (d) Expedition to the East side of the Lake : iv. 35-v. 20. iv. 35-41. T/ie Stilling of the Storm (Matt. viii. 23-27; Luke viii. 22-25). Luke agrees with Mark in introducing this incident after these parables. In all three Synoptists it is followed by the story of the ' Gadarene' demoniac. 35. on that day, when even was come. Mark's note of time is very definite, probably because echoing Peter's memory here. At the close of an exhausting day's work he proposes to cross to the other side, no doubt with a view to be free of the crowd and obtain rest. 36. as he was. He was in the boat, and they start at once. To have stayed to land, and make any further provision for leaving their home base for a while, might have frustrated the whole plan. As it was, some tried to follow in other boats. other boats. This is noticed only by Mark. They set out, probably, in eagerness to follow him. Naturally the}' pass out of the story with the storm, which would scatter the boats. 37. ariseth a gpi^eat storm of wind. It was one of those sudden, fierce squalls that sweep down from the heights upon the deep-set lake, through the ravines that open out on the west shore. 38. he himself: contrasting his tranquil slumber with the tumult raging about him. in the stern, asleep on the cushion. This vivid picture of ST. MARK 4. 39-41. XMk 173 and they awake him, and say unto him, * Master, carest thou not that we perish ? And he awoke, and rebuked 39 the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there w-as a great calm. And he 40 said unto them, Why are ye fearful? have ye not yet faith? And they feared exceedingly, and said one to 41 another, Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him ? * Or, Teacher his position is given by Mark alone — surely from Peter's memory. ' In the stern,' where he could rest, out of the way of those hand- ling the boat. ' Asleep,' because weary and needing rest ; so fast asleep, too, as to be unwakened by the tempest. ' The pillow,' perhaps the leather seat of steersman or rower used as such. Master: properly 'teacher,' 'Rabbi.' carest tliou not ? Fear gives the appeal a touch of reproach in it, which does not reappear in Matthew or in Luke. 39. rebuked the wind. All three Synoptists notice the fact : Mark alone gives the terms of the command addressed to the sea. toe still: lit. 'be muzzled (forthwith),' as if the sea were a raging, roaring beast. ' The sea and the wind are personified : tliis dramatic way of speech is characteristically oriental' (A. F. Hort) : see 41, and cf. xi. 14, 23, for such addresses to impersonal objects. This seems better than to suppose an evil spirit to be addressed, as in i. 25 (when the context makes the meaning plain) : cf. the next note. ceased: lit. 'grew weary,' a picturesque word, expressing cessation from tiring exertion. 'The personification is kept up' (Hort). The lake sank back forthwith, like an exhausted creature, into motionless repose. 40. have ye not yet faith ? i. e. in God, as he had. ' Not yet ' — after all they had seen in these man}' days of association with him. Luke's version softens it : 'Where is j'our faith ? ' 41. feared exceedingly. They are mastered now by a dif- ferent kind of fear, not weak timidity, but religious a^ve. Who then is this? A new question springs to their lips, indicating how profoundly they are moved. A greater impression is made upon them by this incident than by any other thej' have yet witnessed. It came home to themselves, as concerned ^vith those uncontrollable forces of nature which put their dread on fisher-folk like them. To be master of these, through reliance on God, meant more to them than even mastery over demoniacs. 174 ST. MARK 5. 1-4. X^k 5 [X^k] And they came to the other side of the sea, 2 into the country of the Gerasenes. And when he was come out of the boat, <* straightway there met him out of 3 the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who had his dwelling in the tombs : and no man could any more 4 bind him, no, not with a chain ; because that he had "■ Omitted by our oldest authorities. V. 1-20. The Gerasene Demoniac (Matt. viii. 28-32 ; Luke viii. 26-33). 1. the other side of the sea: the eastern side, where there was a far larger non-Jewish population. the country of the Gerasenes. The question of the locality is one of great difficulty, in respect both of topography and of variation in the text. The ancient MSS. differ greatly in all three Synoptic Gospels ; and they differ in such a way as to point to a different designation of the place in the traditions known to Mark and Matthew. 'Gadarenes' is the reading of Matthew; ' Gerasenes ' is that of Mark and Luke. ' Gergesenes ' is an inferior reading in all three, being probably a copyist's mistaken identification (after Origen and Jerome who know a Gergesa near the Lake). What is the place in view? It cannot be the Gerasa in Gilead, now identified with Jerash ; for that is some twenty miles east of the Jordan. Nor can it well be the Gadara which Matthew's reading might suggest, now identified with Um-Keiss ; for that was at least six miles south of the lake, and was separated by a deep gorge from the plain sloping down to the lake. The conditions of the narrative are best fulfilled by a certain Khersa (= Gerasa), the ruins of which remain, occupying a site sufficiently near the sea, shewing traces of tombs, and within about a mile of the point at which the hills descend by a steep, even slope, to within forty feet of the water's edge. The district known as ' the country of the Gadarenes ' may have extended to the lake, and so have included this Khersa. 3. tombs. The man had his dwelling in these (thought to be haunted by the spirits of the dead), and now came from them. Probably they were caves in the rocks, natural or excavated. To touch a dead body or a grave was to become ' unclean ' according to the Jewish Law (Num. xix, ii, 16). no man could any more bind him. To such a pass had it come with him that he was now beyond all restraint. Not even fetters could hold him. It had often been tried, but to no purpose. 4. A vivid description of frenzied strength : he was untamable as a wild beast (cf. James iii. 7). ST. MARK 5. 5-9. XMk 1^5 been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been rent asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces : and no man had strength to tame him. And 5 always, night and day, in the tombs and in the moun- tains, he was crying out, and cutting himself with stones. And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshipped 6 him ; and crying out with a loud voice, he saith, What 7 have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the Most High God? I adjure thee by God, torment me not. For he said unto him. Come forth, thou unclean spirit, 8 out of the man. And he asked him. What is thy name ? 9 5. crying' out, and cutting- himself, Mark's is the fullest and most graphic picture of the terror of the man's condition. Luke's 'for a long time he had worn no clothes' only makes explicit what is implied in Mark's ' sitting clothed,' in v. 15. 6. from afar. A touch peculiar to Mark. ran and worsliipped him. From a distance catching sight of Jesus, he comes bounding on in his madness ; but when he draws near him, his mood changes and he prostrates himself in awe. For the sensitiveness of the ' possessed * to Jesus' personal influence, cf. iii. 11. T. What have I to do with thee ? There is here the same sense of incompatibility -with Jesus as in the previous case in i. 23. Son of the Most High God. In a former case Jesus was addressed as ' the Holy One of God.' Here his extraordinary rpiritual influence is confessed as token of a 'Divine Sonship ' (cf iii. 11) ; and the God to whom he is said to be in that relation is designated by a name which, while common in the O. T. (LXX of Gen. xiv. 18 f. ; Num. xxiv. 16, Balaam's prophecy ; Deut. xxxii. 8 ; Ps. xviii. 13 ; Isa. xiv. 14, and often), is not distinctively Jewish in its associations. It emphasized the supremacy of God, and was shared by pagan religions of the day (cf. Acts xvi. 17). It was natural then for one dwelling in a region of mixed religious faiths to use such language, just as to-day some Christians, especially of the simpler sort, usually refer to ' God Almighty ' or ' the Almighty.' 8. For he said: lit. 'he was saying', in the intervals of the demoniac's utterances to him. 9. What is thy name? The question is put perhaps to clear the man's mind and bring him more to himself, and so under spiritual control. The confusion of consciousness is seen in the mixed, contradictory utterances, now as man and now as demon. 176 ST. MARK 5. 10-12. XMk And he saith unto him, My name is Legion ; for we are 10 many. And he besought him much that he would not 11 send them away out of the country. Now there was there on the mountain side a great herd of swine 12 feeding. And they besought him, saying, Send us into Iiegion : the name of a division of the Roman army, number- ing some 5,000 or 6,000 men. In appb'ing this name to himself the possessed man appealed to Christ's pity. It meant that he felt himself a mere congeries of uncoordinated impulses and evil forces — lacking moral unity of will, and so not one, but an aggregate of many. 10. them : i. e. the many demons, with whom the man felt himself one in interest. It was perhaps this expression which in tradition gave rise to the notion, reflected in Matt.'s account, that there were two demoniacs, not only one. out of the country. This no doubt means out of this Gerasene territory, which he regards as their home-land — a true touch. In Luke's version the request is that Jesus should not command them to 'depart into the abyss,' i. e. the place of tor- ment in the nether world. Here we get, once more, the phenomena of double consciousness. Mark's account voices a request in terms of a human instinct of the man himself, to be left amid his native scenes, which he proffers in the name of his comrades, as he feels the demons to be. Luke makes the ' demons ' control his request, so as to voice their fears. This side of the case comes up in Mark only in v. 12. 11. a great herd of swine : the common property of the village, doubtless. Mark alone gives the number, 'about two thousand.' It is not stated whether the herd was the property t f the Gentiles or of Jews. It is not clear to what extent, if to any, the keeping of swine prevailed among the Jews at this time — at least in semi-Jewish regions ; but through most of tlieir history they seem to have avoided it. The eating of swine's flesh was forbidden by the Law (Lev. xi. 7 ; Deut. xiv. 8). The flesh and blood of swine are regarded by the O. T. as heathen offerings, offerings of ' abomination ' (Isa. Ixv. 4, Ixvi. 3, 17; cf. i Mace. i. 47). 12. This suggestion implies the common popular belief that demons, as incorporeal beings, must have an animal organism of some kind, but not necessarily a human one, if they are to remain contentedly (Luke xi. 24, ' seeking rest') on earth as distinct from some incorporeal sphere, whether above (in ' the air,' cf. ' the prince of the jurisdiction of the air,' Eph. ii. 2) or below ('the abyss' of woe, Rev. ix. i f., xx. 3). It is premature consignment ST. MARK 5. 13-16. XMk 177 the swine, that we may enter into them. And he gave 13 them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered into the swine : and the herd rushed down the steep into the sea, in manber about two thousand ; and they were choked in the sea. And they that fed them 14 fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they came to see what it was that had come to pass. And they come to Jesus, and behold ^him that was 15 possessed with devils sitting, clothed and in his right mind, even him that had the legion : and they were afraid. And they that saw it declared unto them how i6 it befell '*■ him that was possessed with devils, and ^ Or, the demoniac to the latter, ' before the time' (Matt. viii. 29), that these demons are represented by Luke as fearing. The whole stor^' is told in terms of popular beliefs, not necessarily all of them shared by Jesus nor even part of the episode as enacted. 13. gave them leave. It is to be noted that in Mark (and Luke\ as distinct from Matt., Jesus' part in what follows is merely permissive. That is, he said no word enjoining what the man suggested on the demon's behalf. Possibly he meant simply to soothe the man, by formal aquiescence, without sanctioning his belief as to the swine. This bears on what ensued and on the difficulty supposed to be created by the destruction of property. the herd rushed down the steep into the sea. The lie of the land near Khersa suits such an occurrence (see The Rob Roy on the Jordan, p. 411). Whatever the real cause of this stampede of the herd, that Jesus contemplated such a result of the ' per- mission ' just described is not said, nor need it be taken as implied. The case, therefore, is so far different from the one other incident involving destruction which is traced to Jesus' word of power in this Gospel, namely the withering of the fig-tree in ch. xi. 20-23 (yet see notes there). 14. they came to see. These would be the people of the town and countryside, largely heathen. ' The presence of these unclean animals, so abhorrent to the Jews, indicates what we know from other sources, that the region was inhabited by a mixed population, in which Gentiles predominated ' (Gould). 15. sitting", clothed and in his right mind : so complete was the transformation. He was in the attitude of a disciple, seated at Jesus' feet (Luke), N 178 ST. MARK 5. 17-20. X^k 17 concerning the swine. And they began to beseech him 18 to depart from their borders. And as he was entering into the boat, he that had been possessed with ^ devils 19 besought him that he might be with him. And he suffered him not, but saith unto him, Go to thy house unto thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and how he had mercy on 20 thee. And he went his way, and began to publish in Decapolis how great things Jesus had done for him : and all men did marvel. * Gr. demons 17. they began to beseech him to depart. The first im- pression produced upon the people by the sight of the restored demoniac was that of reh'gious awe (verse 15). When the whole story was told them, their sense of awe passed into anxiety to get the Prophet, whose presence had cost their pockets so dear, out of their neighbourhood. In no other case did a miracle wrought by Jesus have an effect like this, one adverse to his reception. 18. that he migrht be with him. The sense of indebtedness and gratitude would naturally make him anxious to cling to Jesus, perhaps also the vague fear of what might happen if he were separated from the author of his deliverance. 19. suffered him. not. Jesus had a mission for him. He was to return to the home which he had exchanged for the tombs, and be a witness there for the God of Israel as his healer. tell them. In the case of the leper (i. 44), and again in that of the witnesses of the raising of Jairus's daughter (v. 43\ Jesus commanded silence. In this instance he enjoins the publication of the miracle. The reason for the difference lay in the different con- ditions. For this was Peraea, and in that remoter district, where also Jesus would be less known, there might be less risk from publicity ; while the man's testimony would give those ready to hear to purpose a chance of knowing enough to lead them to seek him out, if they so desired. He was to be a sort of forerunner for Jesus himself (cf. vii. 31), possibly in non-Jewish circles (cf. 7). the Lord : the O. T. name for God. The works done by Jesus are always treated by him as done by God through him (see Luke xi. 20). Cf. Peter's address. Acts ii. 22, x. 38. 20. in Decapolis. Only Mark mentions the locality by name. The term occurs three times in the N. T.— here, in Mark vii. 31, and Matt. iv. 25. It means the region or confederation of the ST. MARK 5. 21, 2 2. XMk j^g And when Jesus had crossed over again in the boat 21 unto the other side, a great multitude was gathered unto him : and he was by the sea. And there cometh one of 22 'Ten cities.' The district cannot be exactly defined. Probably its limits varied from time to time, as the names of the cities also varied. Pliny gives them as follows : — Scythopolis, Hippos, Gadara, Pella, Philadelphia, Gerasa, Dion, Kanatha, Damascus, Raphana. With the exception of Scythopolis (the ancient Beth- shan, modern Beisan), they seem to have been all east of the Jordan and to the south-east of Galilee, within Gilead and Bashan. After the Roman conquest of these territories in 65 b. c, the cities were rebuilt and had certain privileges bestowed on them. (e) Incidents on return to the West side of the Lake. V. 21-24. 27?^ case of J aims and his daughter (Matt. ix. 18, 19, Luke viii. 40-42). Three instances of the miraculous power of Jesus in raising the dead to life are recorded in the Gospels. But of the three only the case of Jairus is reported by all the Synoptists, while the miracle at Nain is told only by Luke, and that at Bethany only in John. Mark's narrative here is the most vivid and circumstantial. He enables us to follow the event in all its details from beginning to end. There are also certain differences in the connexion of this event, notably in Matt., and in the particulars. 21. the other side: the western side again, and, as we may judge, the neighbourhood of Capernaum. a great multitude was gathered. The time of this is not as definitely fixed in Mark as in Luke's words ' they were all waiting for him,' on his return. The incident that follows is intro- duced by both immediately after that of the Gerasene demoniac. But it is doubtful whether Mark means that it happened the very day of Jesus' return to the western side of the lake. Much de- pends on whether we take the clause 'and he was by the sea' with what precedes or with what follows (see note below). Matt, attaches the story to the interview with the disciples of John who questioned Jesus on the subject of fasting, and speaks of Jairus coming to Jesus, not by the sea, but in the house : ' While he spake these things unto them, behold there came a ruler.' Possibly this order is due to a wish to have an example of raising of the dead before Jesus' words ' dead are raised,' in Matt. xi. 5. and he was by the sea. The punctuation of the R. V. attaches this closely with the multitude's coming to meet him. But that idea would more naturally be expressed without the words ' and he was,' which are accordingly omitted by D, most i8o ST. MARK 5. 23-26. XMk the rulers of the synagogue, JaVrus by name ; and seeing 33 him, he falleth at his feet, and beseecheth him much, saying, My httle daughter is at the point of death : / pray thee, that thou come and lay thy hands on her, 24 that she may be "■ made whole, and live. And he went with him ; and a great multitude followed him, and they thronged him. 25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve 26 years, and had suffered many things of many physicians, * Or, saved Old Latin, and the Old Syriac. As it is, the clause may best be taken, in keeping with the analogy of similar passages in ii. 2 f., 18, iv. i, vi. 7, with the next sentence, beginning with an historic present —'And he was by the seaside. And there cometh one. . . ,' 22. one of the rulers of the synag^ogue. The duties of such a ' ruler,' who was usually one of the elders of the congregation, had to do with the direction of public worship rather than with actually conducting it (cf Acts xiii. 15^ Jairus. A name corresponding to the Jair of the O. T. (Judges X, 3). If this Jairus belonged to Capernaum, he may have been one of those sent by the centurion who there 'built a syna- gogue,' to plead with Jesus on behalf of his sick servant (Luke vii. 3). If so, he might have such previous knowledge of Jesus as would explain the confidence with which he approached him now, 23. My little daughter : a fond diminutive, used only by Mark. Luke (viii. 4a) says she was his only daughter. at the point of death : /;'/. ' is in extremity.' lay thy hands on her. The laying on of hands in cases of healing is mentioned again in vi. 5, vii. 32, viii. 23 [xvi. 18]. So, too, in Acts ix. 17, xxviii. 8. V. 25-34. Incident of the ivoman with the issue of blood (Matt. ix. 20-22 ; Luke viii. 43-48). Here we have a narrative in the heart of a narrative. There is the further peculiarity that the healing work is done without the conscious co-operation of Jesus. Here again Mark's narrative surpasses the others in vivid realism, 25, a woman, which had an issiie of blood twelve years. The length of time points perhaps to the haemorrhage being of a periodical kind. Maladies of this kind were regarded as peculiarly afflictive : ceremonial uncleanncss attached to them ;Lev, xv. 19) : compare verse 27. 26. suffered many things of many physicians. How useless ST. MARK 5. 27-30. XMk 181 and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, having heard the things concerning 27 Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his gar- ment. For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall 28 be a made whole. And straightway the fountain of her 29 blood was dried up ; and she felt in her body that she was healed of her ^plague. And straightway Jesus, 30 perceiving in himself that the y^o^N^x proceeding from him had gone forth, turned him about in the crowd, and ^ Or, saved ^ Gr. scourge and costly were the remedies that used to be prescribed for such cases, we learn from the Jewish books : see Geikie's The Life and Words of Christ, ii. 167, 168, and Lightfoot's Horae Heb. et Taint. on the passage. 27. came in the crowd behind. She wished to snatch un- awares a share in the Prophet's miraculous power, which she conceived as operating in a magical or physical fashion tsee verse 28). touched his garment. Mark and Luke state that it was ' the border' of his garment. She touched, that is, the edge or corner of the robe, or one of the fringes or tassels fastened to it. The Jew was required by the Law to have tassels on the corners of his square outer robe (cf Matt, xxiii. 5V They were made of twisted threads of white wool attached to the garment by a cord of blue (Num. xv. 38, &c.). 28. she said, If I touch but his gfarments. The Greek suggests that she kept saying it to herself, inaudibly to others. She fancied that the healing power attached not only to the body of Jesus but to his garment (cf vi. 56). 29. felt in her body. From Matthew's account, which may represent another form of this tradition, we should gather that the healing came only with Jesus' word, which in Mark comes later (verse 34). 30. perceiving in himself: the Healer had the consciousness of power gone forth from him. It was only by this, Mark's narrative implies, that he became aware of the touch, and 'turned about' to find out its meaning. It is to us not a difficulty that healing should have resulted from the woman's touch under the conditions described, seeing that she had strong expectant faith in a cure to be had this way : but it is hard to think that Jesus' relation to it was as Mark supposed. i82 ST. MARK 5. 31-34. X™^ 31 said, Who touched my garments? And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, 32 and sayest thou, Who touched me ? And he looked 33 round about to see her that had done this thing. But the woman fearing and trembling, knowing what had been done to her, came and fell down before him, and 34 told him all the truth. And he said unto her. Daughter, thy faith hath » made thee whole ; go in peace, and be whole of thy ^ plague. * Or, saved thee ^ Gr. scourge Who tonclied my garments ? Jesus' purpose was probably to bring the person who had touched him with a view to physical benefit, and in a superstitious spirit, into a more spiritual relation to himself with a view to a fuller and more abiding benefit. 31. sayest thou, Who touched me? The disciples think that only some accidental touch is in question, not one that was a deliberate act (verse 32). 32. And he looked round about to see. Mark's word? do not make it clear whether Jesus did or did not know who had benefited by the power that had gone forth from him. The main point is that his searching glance caused the woman to reveal herself. 34, Daughter : a tender, reassuring mode of address, cf. thai to the paralytic, in ii. 5, ' Son.' She had made a great venture in faith, and it was for her faith's sake that Jesus confirmed thi healing and gave her the word of peace. thy faith hath made thee whole : see x. 52, where the same words are followed by the cure of a blind man, a parallel which so far supports Matthew's rather than Mark's conception of the cause of this woman's healing (cf. verse 29). go in peace : rather ' go and enjoy (Jit. ' into ') peace ' or well being. In the Apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus the woman is called Veronica. Eusebius (Hist. Eccles. vii. i8"i mentions the tradition that she was a native of Caesarea Philippi or Paneas. He adds that her house was shewn there, and that he had seen at its gates, on an elevated stone, a brazen image of the woman in the attitude of a suppliant stretching out her hands to another figure, supposed to represent the Lord. Eusebius here regards her as being a Gentile. It is possible that she had actually been led to seek Jesus' presence from a distance, by hearing of his fame : see verse 27. ST. MARK 5. 35-38. XMk 183 While he yet spake, they come from the ruler of the 35 synagogue's house^ saying, Thy daughter is dead : why troublest thou the ^ Master any further ? But Jesus, 36 ^not heeding the word spoken, saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Fear not, only believe. And he suffered 37 no man to follow with him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. And they come to the 38 house of the ruler of the synagogue ; and he beholdeth ^ Or, Teacher ^ Or, overhearing V. 35-43. Continttatioii of the story of Jdirus and his daughter (Matt. ix. 23-26 ; Luke viii. 49-56). why troublest thou the Master (i. e. the Teacher or Rabbi) any further? They use a strongly colloquial word, which meant originally to flay, and in later Greek to harass or worry. 36. not heeding : the margin of the R. V. gives ' overhearing.' But LXX usage (e. g. Isa. Ixv. 12, cf. Matt, xviii. 17) fully supports the R. V. text. Jesus did hear what was said by the messengers, but he took no notice of it. only believe: i. e. ' only go on believing ' (cf. Luke viii. 50). 37. suffered no man to follow. Up to this critical point he had done nothing to check the crowd. Now he keeps back all, even his disciples, with the exception of Peter and James and John. This is the first of several occasions on which Jesus selects for special privilege this circle of three within the chosen circle of the Twelve : cf. ix. 2, xiv. 33. 38. beholdeth a tumult, and many weeping- and wailing greatly. The verb (theorein) suggests an attentive gaze : ' con- templates ' would best give the meaning: 'wailing' might better be rendered ' howling.' 'He stands gazing at the strange spectacle ' (Swete), the manner and spirit of which must have jarred on his quiet spirit. Matthew mentions also ' the flute-plaj'ers,' which seems rather premature, so soon after the supposed death. The noisy lamentations indulged in at Jewish funerals, the professional mourners, the 'mourning women,' the doleful music of the minstrels, &c., are often referred to in the O. T. (Eccles. xii. 5 ; Jer. ix. 17 ; Amos V. 16 ; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25). Of the unrestrained Oriental ways of shewing grief Van Lennep says : ' As soon as death takes place, the female members of the household and the professional mourning-women announce it to the neighbourhood by setting up their shrill and piercing cry — called the tahlil — which is heard at n great distance and above every other noise, even the din of battle, and is quite characteristic of the East ' {Bible Lands, p. 586). i84 ST. MARK 5. 39-42. XMk 39 a tumult, and many weeping and wailing greatly. And when he was entered in, he saith unto them, Why make ye a tumult, and weep? the child is not dead, but 4° sleepeth. And they laughed him to scorn. But he, having put them all forth, taketh the father of the child and her mother and them that were with him, and goeth 41 in where the child was. And taking the child by the hand, he saith unto her, Talitha cumi ; which is, being 42 interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, Arise. And 39. not dead, but sleepeth. The meaning of these words is determined by Jesus' attitude towards the excessive mourning, as is shewn by the question which precedes. He had not yet seen the child : so by these words he probably did not mean to deny that she might really be dead. On the other and more usual view his language is figurative, as in Ps. xvii. 15, '■ I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness,' Dan. xii. 2, ' many that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,' cf. i Thess. v. 10. But in any case he wants to put a meaning upon her death more worthy of those who believe in a God who is not baffled by bodily death, than that suggested by such unbridled expressions of hopeless grief. Jesus' thought on the matter of death was highly characteristic of his whole religious outlook ; witness his words to the Sadducees in xii. 27, ' He is not the God of the dead, but of the living ; ye do greatly err' — where Luke adds 'for all live unto him.' 40. put them all forth : better ' ejected them all.' The word is the same as is used of the expulsion of the traffickers in the Temple (xi. 15), and suggests stern authoritative command. Whatever he had in mind to do next, Jesus' spirit shrank from having the noisy crowd of mourners about him on such an occasion. It was appro- priate to have only a few sympathetic companions as witnesses of his action. 41. taking- the child lay the hand : the one thing done in the way of perceptible instrumentality (cf. i. 31, ix. 27), in addition to the word of authority. Talitha ciimi : the original Aramaic words used at a most dramatic moment, treasured doubtless in the heart of Peter, one of the hearers, and carefully preserved by Mark his ' interpreter.' Damsel : a word found repeatedly in the Greek version of the O. T., but in the N. T. used only here and in the case of the daughter of Herodias. Arise : i.e., * raise thyself ' the same verb being used of Jesus' own action in i. 31, ix. 27. ST. MARK 5. 43. XMk 185 straightway the damsel rose up, and walked ; for she was twelve years old. And they were amazed straight- way with a great amazement. And he charged them 43 much that no man should know this : and he commanded that sotfiething should be given her to eat. for she was twelve years old : an explanation of her walking. Though a child, she vi^as old enough to be capable of that. 43. charged them mucli. Though the rumour of a marvellous deed of power having been done by him could not but get abroad, yet Jesus was anxious to limit its spread by the actual witnesses furnishing details to the public, at least until he had left the city (cf. vi. I*). This is the same policy as is described in other semi- private cases, e. g. i. 44, in order not to kindle popular excitement and mistaken expectations, so hindering instead of helping his real work. he given her to eat. A true touch, revealing his complete presence of mind and considerate attention to the wants of the child, who had probably been unable to take food for some time and might faint. Dr. Menzies justly remarks that ' This story as Mark tells it is ambiguous : it is impossible to determine whether the case is one of real or only apparent death.' But when he adds that 'Jesus acts throughout as if the child were not dead,' he seems to go too far. It is true that the wording of Jesus' protest against the uproar of the manifestations of grief seems to suggest this, since it runs literally ' the child has not died [lit. ' did not die '), but is sleeping.' But possibly his real meaning was to rebuke the sort of grief betokened by such lamentations, which jarred on him as being so devoid of any suggestions of faith in God's unexhausted purpose for his own as to be misleading in its eficct, both in theory (see xii. 27) and in practice. If so, he simply leaves open the question as to the child's state in relation to the physical moment of death, and goes forward to see how he can yet bring the power of faith in God, as the Lord of Life, to bear upon the situation he may find in the inner chamber. As Menzies observes ' the signs of the occurrence of death were not so well known in N. T. times as they are now' to medical science; 'so that mistakes were more possible.' Jesus, then, may in the sequel have acted upon his own judgement, when he saw the child, that ph3'sical life had not yet left the body ; and his earh'er calm words may have been taken by his disciples as pointing to a purpose all along to raise her from the sleep of death. In a word, Jesus' state of mind may not have been one and the 1 86 ST. MARK 6. i. X^ 6 [X^**^] And he went out from thence ; and he cometh same at all stages of the story, save that it was throughout one of hope based on faith, not one of fear. The differences in Luke's version of the story are here significant. To Mark's * Have no fear, only keep believing ' is added 'and she shall be saved^ (from death) : to ' they laughed him to scorn ' is added ' knowing that she had died ' : and between the command ' Arise ' and the result, ' she rose up,' occur the words ' and her spirit returned,' making clear that death was really complete. Such an interpretation of Jesus' words and behaviour as a whole is the opposite of what Dr. Menzies thinks is the general effect of Mark's narrative, viz. that ' Jesus acts throughout as if the child were not dead.' The truth seems to lie midway between these views. Jesus does not - shut the door to the hope that life is still in the child, who may only have swooned : on the other hand, there is no evidence either that Jesus was sure she was not 'dead,' when he spoke his words of reproof to the excited and demonstrative mourners at the house, or that later he acted in the sick-chamber on the belief that life was already extinct. The parallelism of his action there, as described by Mark, with that in the cases of Simon's mother-in- law and the Demoniac lad (i. 31, ix. 27), is very close ; and in its real nature the case may have been akin to that of Eutychus in Acts XX. 9-12. Probably Mark himself thought that Jesus spoke with supernatural knowledge (and in the obvious sense of the words) in verse 39, when he denied that the child had actually died ; so that the miracle was not strictly one of raising the dead, whatever the opinion of the witnesses may have been, as described in verse 42. The general impression of the whole incident is that Jesus went forward in full faith in his Father's gracious will, to do that which the facts of the case demanded — whether to heal or to bind up the broken-hearted with words of faith and undying hope in God as Father. vi. 1-6*. Visit to Nazareth and rejection there Tcf. Matt. xiii. 53- 58. See also Luke iv. 16-30). The difficulty here is as to the relations in which the three narratives stand to each other. Matthew's narrative is a pretty close parallel to Mark's, but is in another context. There are, however, noticeable differences be- tween Luke's account and the others. Luke places the visit at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry : some therefore take Luke's narrative to refer to an earlier visit ; but as Luke iv. 23 refers to prior ministry at Capernaum, this is unlikely. If so, Luke's account may be used to fill out that in Mark — with its Petrine realism. 1. from thence: from the city or district in which the last incident took place. Probably his wish was to get away from the enthusiasm of the local crowds. ST. MARK 6. 2, 3. XMk 187 into his own country ; and his disciples follow him. And a when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and ^many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things ? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man^ and what mean such ^ mighty works wrought by his hands ? Is 3 not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of * Some ancient authorities insert the ^ Gr. powers his own country : Nazareth and its region. his disciples follow him : that is, he came as a Teacher or Rabbi who already had a definite following of disciples. This fact should have helped to qualify the effect of the principle to which Jesus refers as a difficulty, that it is hardest for fellow- townsmen and kinsmen to recognize a man as a prophet. 2. began to teach : an Hebraic phrase, which does not imply that hitherto he had not done so at all in Nazareth : cf. i. 45 ; iv. I ; V. 20 ; vi. 34 ; viii. 31 f. many. For 'many ' BL 13 &c. Copt, e have 'the many,' which in classical Greek means ' the mass ' or the mob, as distinct from the discerning minority, the elite. But here no such distinction seems present, and the reading, if right, means simply 'the populace.' mighty works : 'powers,' i.e. miraculous powers. The re- port had reached them of his miracles. They are astonished at the change in him, as they thought, indicated by the teaching which they had listened to, and by the works of which they had heard. 3. the carpenter. The word tekton means a builder or work- man, in wood in particular : 'artisan ' would perhaps best suggest to our ears the half-contempt involved. This is the only place in which he is so described explicitly. In Matthew he is ' the car- penter's son.' Every Jew had to learn a trade. Jesus would naturally learn the one followed by Joseph, and would work in his shop at Nazareth. The Apocryphal gospels have much that is extravagant to say in this connexion. Justin Martyr tells us that in his time (the middle of the second century) rakes, harrows, and other articles were preserved which were said to have been made by Jesus. The Gospel of the Infancy represents him as setting Joseph right when he blundered in his work. Thus does legend grow, so as to depart from the very spirit of the history which starts it. son of Mary. There is no reference to Joseph. Hence it has been inferred that Mary was now widowed. Luke's narrative of the visit (iv. 22) has ' Is not this Joseph's son ?' 1 88 ST. MARK 6. 4, 5. XMk James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us ? And they were * offended in 4 him. And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and among 5 his own kin, and in his own house. And he could there do no ^mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon ' Gr. caused to stumble ~ Gr. power brotlier of James. As to the brothers of Jesus see on iii. 31. Their names are given here and in Matt.'s parallel. James : later the head of the Church of Jerusalem, as appears from Acts xii. 17, xv. 13, xx. 18 ; of. Gal. ii. 9, 12 ; called by Paul 'the Lord's brother' (Gal. i. 19). Joses : a Graecized form of 'Joseph ' (Matt xiii. 55). Judas: the reputed author of the Epistle of Jude (verse i). Eusebius {Hist. Eccl. iii. 20), quoting from Hegesippus, a writer of the second century, speaks of the ' grandchildren of Judas, called the brother of the Lord,' as living in the time of the Emperor Domitian (a. d 81-96) and held in high honour in the Palestinian churches Simon. ThemartyrSymeon, thehead of the Jerusalem Church after the death of James, was probably a son of Clopas, Joseph's brother (Eus. iii. u). his sisters here with us. Their names are never given. All that we know of them is that they lived in Nazareth, as the present passage indicates. Probably they were married, and so were dis- tinguished from Mary and Jesus' brothers as still living at Nazareth — ' here with us' — whereas the rest of Jesus' family had gone with him to Capernaum (iii. 21). This (with the parallel in Matt. xiii. 56) is the only mention of them in the Gospels. Nothing is said of the sisters even in Acts i. 14. offended in him. First 'astonished,' and then 'scandalized.' The difference between what he seemed now to be, and what they knew him to have been, was too much for them. 4. A prophet is not without honour. Compare John iv. 44, and what is said of Jeremiah and the men of Anathoth (Jer. xi. 21). The use of this proverb was an indirect claim to the rank of a prophet. and amongr his own kin. Mark alone inserts this reference to Jesus' relations generally, in addition to his own family proper. 5. could ... do no mighty work. Matthew says, * he did not );'rt«V mighty works,' probably in order to guard against misappre- hension as to Jesus' power. But the inability was of a moral ST. MARK 6. 6-s. X^k 189 a few sick folk, and healed them. And he marvelled 6 because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching. And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send 7 them forth by two and two ; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits ; and he diarged them that they 8 nature, not an^' physical lack of his wonted 'povirers.' The moral conditions were wanting. a few sick folk. There were, therefore, exceptions, where the inward preparation for the healing gift existed. 6. marvelled. This human touch also is omitted in Matthew. 'The surprises of life,' says Dr. Swete, ' especially those which belong to its ethical and spiritual side, created genuine astonish- ment in the human mind of Christ.' The faith of the centurion (Matt. viii. lo), and the prejudiced unbelief of the men of Nazareth, were both among these ' surprises of life ' to him. A yet more painful experience of wonder attributed to him in Mark occurs in the garden of Gethsemane (xiv. 33). (2) Second phase: Jesus' popularity at its height, but with ominous menace of conflict with the authorities in State and Church, vi. 6''-vii. 23. (a) A second and wider tour in Western Galilee : vi. 6''-2g. vi. 6''-i3. Mission of the Tivelve (cf. Matt. ix. 35 — x. i, x. 5 — xi. I ; Luke ix. 1-6). This mission is given at much greater length by Matthew than by Mark and Luke. After leaving Naza- reth Jesus begins a general teaching tour in Western Galilee among the villages (cf. i. 38 f.\ The extent of this tour is not distinctly indicated (3'et see Matt. ix. 35 ff.), but its widespread nature is probablj' implied in the fact next mentioned, viz. that he now drew on the assistance of the inner circle of his disciples. His mission was beginning to reach its climax. 6''. lit. 'he was going round the villages in a circuit (or "on tour"\ teaching.' Here X^"^ is parallel to Matt. ix. 35 ff. (X^") 7. began to send them forth. The Twelve had a sort of official position, and were from the first destined for missionary or 'apos- tolic' service. He had been preparing them for that, and now he sends them fortli on their first definite mission. by two and two. Mark alone notices this arrangement. Each would thus help the other, and their testimony ^\•ould be more telling (cf. Latham, Pasfor Pastorunt, p. 297). authority over the unclean spirits. For the emphasis on this see note on i. 39. That the ' authority ' in question was con- I90 ST. MARK 6. 8. X^k should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only ; nected with some reference to Jesus' own name in the formula with which they conducted their exorcizing work, is not only likely in itself — seeing that Jesus was already widely trusted in as God's chosen medium for the exercise of such Divine power — but is also proved by Luke x. 17 in the parallel case the Seventy, or later and wider apostolate, when Jesus was moving towards Jerusalem for the final crisis. ' Lord,' say these on their return, * even the demons are subject to us in thy name ' : cf. the formula of the pseudo-exorcists in Acts xix. 13, ' I adjure you by Jesus whom Paul preacheth.' Possibly the form actually used by them at this time was ' I adjure thee by God, in the name of Jesus of Nazareth.' Matthew and Luke state that the commission of the Twelve embraced also healing, cf. verse 13. 8-12. The charge on this occasion differs much in scope as between Mark (and Luke), on the one hand, and Matthew on the other. The latter's far longer series of injunctions cannot be taken as equally true to this historical situation with Mark's ; for it shews signs of the unconscious influence of the later missionary Work of Apostles in Palestine during the period covered by the Acts of the Apostles. ' The first sending out of the missionaries by the founder is,' as Menzies truly observes, *in every religion where it takes place, a matter of the deepest interest to later believers, who behold in the act the first appearance, if only in germ, of the institutions and modes of action to which they are accustomed. The narrative of the first sending, moreover, is apt to reflect differences of practice which afterwards came in (see Sacred Books of the East, vols, xiii, xvii, and xxj. It is so in the present instance.' But we have every reason, both intrinsic and derived from the analogy of the Gospels elsewhere, to regard Mark's briefer account as more faithful, to the spirit at least of the original instructions on this occasion, than the fuller and more elaborate account in Matthew (see notes below). The very fact that Mark does not mention, but simply takes for granted, owing to the context in which the sending occurs (cf. 12), that the Twelve were sent out to preach and teach, only bears out this view. 8. nothingf . . . save a staff only. They were to be content with the simplest equipment. These men were to go forth promptly and as they were, travelling ' light ' that they might travel fast, and give the impression of urgency for their message. Hence they were to take neither bread, nor wallet, nor money, nor anything beyond the staff which every traveller carried. Matthew says 'nor staff.' and Luke 'neither staff nor wallet.' Mark's ' save a staff only ' is much the same as ' at most a staff' — the symbol of a traveller. The ' wallet ' or ' scrip ' (A. V.) was a leathern bag, swung over the shoulder and containing food, &c. ST. MARK 6. 9-1 1. XMk 191 no bread, no wallet, no " money in their ^ purse ; but to 9 go shod with sandals : and, said he, put not on two coats. And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a jo house, there abide till ye depart thence. And whatsoever i \ place shall not receive you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth thence, shake oif the dust that is under your * Gr. brass ^ Gr. girdle for the journey. The ' purse ' was the loose Oriental girdle, in the folds of which the money (here lit. ' brass ') was placed. 9. shod with sandals : the simplest covering for the feet, and typical of the traveller (cf. Exod. xii. ri). Shoes also were worn by Jews, furnished with upper leather and more costl}-. Both Matthew and Luke say ' No footgear,' just as they had said above ' No stick ' : their sources of knowledge enhanced the ascetic rules for the typical missionary of the Gospel. This was probably the tendency during the Apostolic Age. Both in the zeal with which later disciples tend to work out into greater seeming consistencj' or literalism the principles to which the Master had himself given a suggestive embodiment— one tempered by the requirements of practical efficiencj' and some latitude of freedom — and in the conception of Evangelic poverty as the consort or ' bride ' of the devoted Evangelist, the story of Francis of Assisi and of the ' Rule ' of his ' lowly brethren ' {Fratrcs ntinores) affords the best illustration of the whole matter here in hand. two coats. As Mark puts it, it is the wearing of two coats on this journey that is forbidden ; as Matthew and Luke express it, it is the possession of two coats that is in view. Apostles were to encumber themselves with nothing unsuitable for plain men going about among ordinary folk. The 'coat' or ' tunic ' was the garment worn under the cloak. In the case of the poor it might be the only garment. 10. there abide till ye depart thence. They were not to change from one house to another, not to seek to improve their quarters, but to continue with the family that first received them as long as they remained in the place. The missionar3''s dangers of being beguiled into self-seeking, and so trading upon the cause, are vividly illustrated by certain provisions in the traditional Teaching of the Apostles, meant for Christian ' Apostles ' and ' Pro- phets ' working, a generation or so later, among very much such villages and country towns in Syria as those here in question. 11. skake off the dust: a symbolic act of renunciation and clearing oneself of responsibility (cf Matt. x. 15 ; Luke x. 10-16; also Acts xiii. 51 . It was a ' testimony' to the inhospitable as to 192 ST. MARK 6. 12-14. XMk 12 feet for a testimony unto them. And they went out, 13 and preached that men should repent. And they cast out many ^ devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them. 14 And king Herod heard thereof; for his name had the position they were thus assuming, as unfit for the Kingdom of God. 12. should repent. The burden of their preaching, therefore, was the same as thai of the Baptist, namelj', preparedness of heart for the Messianic Kingdom \. 4), though no doubt with a gladder accent than his, due to the spirit of their Master's own preaching of its nature hy word and deed : cf. i. 15. 13. anointed with oil. This was a specific with Jewish phy- sicians. Only once again in the N.T. is it referred to in connexion with healing, viz. in Jas. v. 14. Though the Twelve used unction, it is not said that Jesus himself employed it in any of his works. He was more sovereign in his use and choice of means, even when dealing with the same class of cases (verse 5), ordinary ailments, as the word in both places used for the ' sick ' suggests {lit. ' lacking strength,' 'ailing') : cf. xvi. 18. Episode of Herod and his view of Jestis. vi. 14-29. vi. 14-16. Herod's opinion of Jesus (cf. Matt. xiv. r, 2 ; Luke ix. 7-9). A section parallel in time with the mission of the Twelve and so inserted here : cf. vii. 24. The report of Jesus and his deeds of power reaches the Tetrarch. He concludes that Jesus must be John risen from the dead. 14. king: here a title of courtesy only, the proper designation being tetrarch, as in Matthew and Luke. A ' tetrarch,' strictly speaking, was the governor of the fourth part of a country or province. Under the Empire it was a title of tributary princes of less than regal rank. In the N. T. it is given to three rulers, the Herod of this passage, Herod Philip ' tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis ' (Luke iii. 1), and Lj'sanias 'tetrarch of Abilene' (Luke iii. iV Herod: that is, Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan ; tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea by his father's will ; married first to a daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia Petraea, and then to Herodias. He is the Herod to whom later Jesus was sent by Pilate i Luke xxiii. 6, &c.). In the Gospels he appears as a sensual, cruel, weak, unscrupulous, superstitious, cunning, despotic prince (Matt. xiv. 9 ; Luke iii. 19, xiii. 31, 33, &c.;. He founded the city of Tiberias in honour of the emperor. Losing the favour of Caligula, he was condemned in A. D. 39 to perpetual banishment at Lyons and died in exile. ST. MARK 6. 15, 16. XMk 193 become known : and * he said, John ^ the Baptist is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him. But others said, It is Ehjah. And others said, 15 It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets. But Herod, \ 6 when he heard thereof, said, John, whom I beheaded he » they ; BD, Old Lat. ^ Gr. the Baptizer heard thereof: that is of Jesus and his work, including the mission carried on in Jesus' name by the Twelve. and he said, John the Baptist is risen from the dead : rather the ' Baptizer' (cf. i. 4). The margin of the R, V. notices the ancient reading 'they (men) said,' by which Mark quotes the popular belief that John had reappeared in Jesus. This is pre- ferable (cf. 16), as following up the statement that Jesus' name was now on many lips, with the view which the majority, as it seems, took of the meaning of his appearance and his powers. therefore do these powers work in him : rather ' the powers (in question) are active in him;' where 'powers' = miracles. John had done no miracle during his lifetime (cf. John x. 41). But if he had indeed risen from the dead, it would not be strange that new powers, supernatural powers, should be active in him. 15. others said, 3Ct is Elijah. Various opinions were current of Jesus. Some thought he must be the promised Eh'jah of Mai. iv; while still others held him to be, not indeed that great figure among the prophets, but at least ' a prophet, like one of the Prophets,' one of the recognized order of prophets (cf. Matt. vi. 14). 16. John, whom I beheaded, he is risen. It was the first of these views that Herod himself accepted. He speaks under the stress of an evil conscience — ' he whom / (the emphasis is on /) beheaded, John, he is risen.' Whether Herod was a Sadducee or not, he was an utter worldling. But his guilty conscience drove him, for the moment at any rate, into belief that of the different explanations given of Jesus the right one was that which identified him with John. vi. 17-29. Parenthetical account of the Baptist's death (cf. Matt, xiv. 3-12 ; also Luke iii. 19, 20'). An episode introduced, after Mark's manner 'cf iv. 20-25), in explanation of Herod's view of Jesus. Mark's account is the fullest, and was probably the main source of the other two. Indeed its fulness seems to demand a special explanation in a Gospel story of such limited compass ; and this may be j^ought in its interest to his readers (cf. note on iv. 26-29), ns themselves liable to martj'rdom for fidelity to God's truth, as well as in its analogy to Jesus' own lot cf. ix. 13). O 194 ST. MARK 6. 17-20. X^t 17 is risen. For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip's wife : for he had married 18 her For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for :9 thee to have thy brother's wife. And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she 20 could not ; for Herod feared John, knowing that he was 17. For Herod himself. Mark represents the seizure of the Baptist as emphatically Herod's own act. Where he arrested him and just when, is not stated. Herod's Galilean capital was Tiberias, which Jesus seems to have avoided. _ in prison. According to Josephus {Anhq. xvui. 5, 2) the prison was the fortress of Machaerus in Peraea the modern Mkaur known as the ' black-tower,' some miles to the east of the Se'rn end of the Dead Sea. It had been fortified anew by Herod the Great. It was in the possession of the King of Aiabia (according to Josephus, Anhq. xviii. 5. i) during part at least of he reign of Herod Antipas. Canon Tristram found two dungeons among the ruins at Mkaur, still shewing in their n?asonry the holes ?n which staples of wood or iron once had been fastened {Landof """^ietLf^baughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great. She was sister of Agrippa I, the Herod who ' ^Uled James w.h^he sword ' and imprisoned Peter Acts xii. 1-3). Her mother was B^nrce or Berenice, daughter of Salome, Herod's sister. Herodias was married first to'her uncle Herod Phihp % the et - / Luke iii. I, cf. Mark viii. 27), one of the sons of Herod the Great, but left him for his half-brother Antipas [Josephns Anhq. xviu 54). Herodias was a sort of Jezebel in her character and '""Ts\rotlier PMlip's wife. This Philip must, if Mark's text is here correct, be distinguished from PhiHp the tetrarch. He may have been'a son of Herod the Great and Manamne da^ught r of Simon, who spent a private, undistinguished life In that case only The fact tha? he was the first spouse of Herodias has kept his "Tl.'not" lawfol. The husband of Herodias was still alive Antipas's wile, the daughter of Arctas, also was alive and fled o her father oni; when she heard of the determination of Antipas to 'To"f"atd%olxn. The Baptist's character made itself felt The voluptuary whom he had boldly rebuked 'stood in awe of him • (Moffatt), and perhaps dreaded, too, what might happen if ST. MARK 6. 21, 22. XMk 195 a righteous man and a holy, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he * was much perplexed ; and he heard him gladly. And when a convenient day was 21 come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords, and the '^'high captains, and the chief men of Galilee ; and when « the daughter of Herodias herself 22 * Many ancient authorities read did many things. ^ Or, military tribunes, Gr. chiliarchs '^ N BDL read his daughter Herodias he made away with one so revered by the people as a prophet Cas Matthew says) : compare Josephus' account of the occasion for his imprisonment, viz. fear lest John's influence with the people might cause a Messianic rising. kept him safe: Herod protected John against the malign designs of Herodias. He even continued to hear him from time to time. It is not said where this took place. It may have been in the fortress-palace occupied by Antipas near the prison at Machaerus ; or it may have been rather in his capital (see v. 27). These things are recorded to shew the impression John had pro- duced on even such a man. Josephus, like Matthew, ascribes to Herod the desire to kill John {Antiq. xviii. 5, 2). 2nuch perplexed : a better reading than the ' did many things ' of the A. V. As a result of his having heard John ' he was greatly exercised ' in mind, feeling in a strait between his sense of the righteousness of John and the monitions of his conscience, on the one hand, and the insistence of Herodias on the other. 21. lords, 'magnates,' the most important civil officers ; hig'li captains, ' military tribunes ' {Chiliarchs) or colonels ; the chief men of Galilee, the provincials of highest rank. 22. the daughter of Herodias herself. Her name was Salome. To gain her fell purpose Herodias, ' the daughter of a king and wife of a tetrarch ' (as Swete well puts it), stooped to send her own child (by her former marriage) to take part in the voluptuous and degrading dances characteristic of such feasts. This would explain the emphatic form of the description ' the daughter of Herodias herself.' The margin of the R. V. follows an old reading which makes the girl a daughter of Antipas himself, bearing her mother's name. But this is probably a mistaken reading, due to the shade of meaning being missed (as also by the MSS. which have simply 'the daughter of Herodias'), once the fact that Salome was the fruit of Herodias' first marriage was forgotten, and it seemed natural tp describe her in terms of her supposed father Antipas, 196 ST. MARK 6. 23-28. XMk came in and danced, ^ she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him ; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and 1 will give it thee. 23 And he sware unto her. Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom. 24 And she went out, and said unto her mother. What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John '^the 25 Baptist. And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me in a charger the head of John '^the Baptist. 26 And the king was exceeding sorry ; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not 27 reject her. And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head : and 28 he went and beheaded him in the prison, and brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel ; and * Or, it " Gr. the Baptizer 23. the half of my kingrdom. So Ahasuerus to Esther (Esther v. 3 ; vii. 2). 25. came in straightway. Thinking no doubt of her own advantage, the girl went out to consult her mother. Herodias was waiting her chance, and kept her not a moment. Her answer was sharp and short — her enemy's head. Before Antipas could think twice of his rash promise the damsel was back with her demand. a charger. A plate or flat dish, large enough to hold a joint of meat an assietfe. Homer uses it of the wooden trencher on whicli meat was placed. 26. his oaths. He had repeated his promise, once and again, in the loud and swaggering terms, we may imagine, of the reveller. Too late he saw how rashly he had bound himself. reject her : rather ' disallow her request ' or ' break faith with her.' 27. a soldier of his guard. The original term is a Latin one, designating a ' scout.' In the times of the Empire it became the name of a member of the Emperor's body-guard. One of the duties of these guards was to carry out special missioiVs. But what follows in V. 28 suggests that John was not at any distance from the palace in question. ST. MARK 6. 29-31. XMk p jgy the damsel gave it to her mother. And when his 29 disciples heard thereof, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb. And the apostles gather themselves together unto 30 Jesus ; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught. [P] And 31 he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many 29. his disciples. Matthew adds that John's disciples, after they had paid their last sad tribute of honour to him, 'went and told Jesus ' (xiv. 12V Some had joined Jesus before. Others, who had kept by John, would have the more reason now to attach themselves to Jesus. Yet others held aloof still, and so remained during the Apostolic age : see Acts xix. 3. {b) Retttrn of the Twelve atid related events : vi. 30-52. ^j- 30-33- Return of the Tivelve and retireniejit for rest (cf. Matt, xiv. 13 ; Luke ix. 10 ; John vi. 1-3). This brief paragraph is one of varied interest. It introduces the narrative of the Five thousand, where all four Gospels coincide for a time. It illustrates Jesus' thoughtful care for the Twelve. 30. the apostles gfather themselves togfether unto Jesus. The place to which the Twelve returned is not stated. Probably' it was Capernaum or its neighbourhood (cf. 31 f.). The Twelve are here styled 'Apostles' or 'Missionaries' — the only occasion in Mark (cf iii. 14). It has a special appropriateness in the report of their return from their first official mission. told him all thing-s. They gave a report both of their doings and their teaching. Nothing is said either of their success or of their Master's estimate of their labours: contrast Luke x. 178"., the return of the Seventy. 31. Come ye yourselves apart. Mark (after Peter) alone records Jesus' concern that they should have the privacy and rest which they needed, after the novel experiences and the exertions of their mission. Matt. xiv. 13 connects this retirement with the news of John's death at Herod's hands. into a desert place. Mark does not identify the place. From Luke, who follows a tradition which had no reference to the use of a boat, we gather it was on the way ' to a city called Bethsaida ' (ix. 10, cf. Mark v. 45), in the direction of a. city so named. There were quiet, unfrequented spots in the neighbourhood of the lake, especially on the eastern side (cf iv. 35), and at the northern end even west of the Jordan's mouth. 198 ST. MARK 6. 32-34. P XMk coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as 32 to eat. [X'*^'^] And they went away in the boat to a 33 desert place apart. And the people saw them going, and many * knew theyn, and they ran there together ^ on foot 34 from all the cities, and outwent them. And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd : and he began to teach them many things. * BD read understood, i. e. their intention. '' Or, by land many comings and g'oing'. Rest was not to be had if they remained at the head-quarters of Jesus' ministry for the time. Streams of visitors, drawn thither by the fame of his works, kept them ever in movement, and broke in even on their meals. These details are given only by Mark. 32. in the boat: this indicates that they were not far from the lake. to a desert place apart. For its locality, i. e. as west rather than east of the point where the Jordan enters the Lake on the north, see note on the next verse. 33. and many knew them: better 'understood' (their inten- tion). Jesus and his party were recognized, the course of the boat was noted, and the eager people made their way by the shore to the expected place of landing. outwent them. They were there before those in the boat themselves. Mark alone mentions this. It was possible enough, but it favours a nearer rather than a more distant spot, and so the west rather than the east of Jordan. The latter would be some five or six miles distant. See further on ver. 45. vi. 35-44- The Miracle of the Feeding of the Five Tlwusaiid (cf. Matt. xiv. 14-21; Luke ix. 12-17; John vi. 4-13). This is the only miracle recorded by all four Gospels. It no doubt stood in the common Apostolic tradition : see note on viii. i ff. 34. Jesus' expectation of quiet was defeated ; but instead of giving way to the sense of disappointment, he thought only of the needs of the people. Luke tells us that he even ' welcomed them ' lix. ii). as sheep not having' a shepherd. The same phrase occurs elsewhere in Matt. ix. 36 (cf Num. xxvii. 17 ; i Kings xxii. 17 ; 2 Chron. xviii. i6\ His compassion was stirred by the spectacle of the eager interest of those crowds, left so unsatisfied in soul by the recognized teachers of the law. ' The hungry sheep look up ST. MARK 6. 35-37. XMk 199 And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came 35 unto him, and said, The place is desert, and the day is now far spent : send them away, that they may go into 36 the country and villages round aboutj and buy themselves somewhat to eat. But he answered and said unto them, 37 Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him. Shall we and are not fed ' was true then, as it has, alas, often been since also. 35. when the day was now far spent. Another interesting note of time, indicating that what follows took place shortly before sunset, which at that season would be about six o'clock. 36. the country: rather 'the fields' or 'farms.' 'While the Master is eager about the Word, and forgets bodily needs (cf. 31), the disciples are practical men, and fee) that the question of pro- visions is becoming more and more urgent ' (Menzies). 37. Give ye them to eat. Once the problem of the people's bodily needs had been raised, Jesus has another solution ot his own, one which will complete his hospitality for the soul with the sj-mbolic or sacramental fellowship of food for the body also. To send this people away hungry would seem a cold and unsocial thing to do after such teaching as he had been giving them, teach- ing about the Gracious Father who cares for His earthly children and would have them care for each other. Let the disciples share their provisions with their hungry and weary brethren ; for having come by boat they had more reserves of food with them than those who came on foot (so Menzies) ; cf. viii. 2. Sir A, F. Hort remarks (relative to the 'twelve basketfuls ' gathered at the end of the meal) that these words, compared with what is said in John xiii. 29 about the notion of some of his fellow disciples that Judas left the Upper Room because of a wish of the Master's ' that he should give something to the poor,' 'suggest that they may have been in the habit of distributing food to the poor ; ' and that even the number of the baskets of ' broken pieces ' collected in the sequel may suggest that each of the Twelve ' habitually carried ' such a basket ' to hold provisions.' The latter conjecture is so far borne out by viii. 14, where we read 'and they forgot to take bread' (when starting on a journey to the other side of the lake) ; and even in a less thoroughgoing form than that stated above (see note on 43), it would give special point to Jesus' con- fident proposal to the Twelve. He will have the people remain and be provided for by the disciples. Shall we g'o and buy ? They think of their resources and of what was required. 200 ST. MARK 6. 38-40. X^k go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give 3S them to eat? And he saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, 39 they say, Five, and two fishes. And he commanded them that all should «■ sit down by companies upon the 40 green grass. And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, * Gr. recline two hundred pennjrwortli of bread. A hasty, indeterminate estimate. Luke omits this, and Matthew passes over the sugges- tion to purchase. ' Penny ' is a misleading rendering of the coin in question, the denarius — all the more so that, as has been noticed, in most of its occurrences in the N. T. it suggests the idea of a liberal sum. It varied in value from about ^\d. to ']\d. It was the stated day's wage for a labouring man (Matt. xx. 2, &c.). ' Shilling ' or/w;/c would be a better rendering than ' penny.' Two hundred denarii might represent something over £'7 of our mone}'. 38. How many loaves have ye ? Only Mark tells us that the disciples were sent to find this out. John introduces Andrew here, as telling that there were five loaves and two fishes in the hand of a lad who was present (vi. 8, 9\ Jesus, says Menzies, ' does not want the disciples to buy bread, but to produce what they have, for the common benefit . . . The loaf of those days was a thick scone about the size of a plate,' hardly enough for a full meal for one hungry man (see Luke xi. 5 f. \ So in the multipli- cation of food for Elisha, recorded in 2 Kings iv. 42 44 a story which seems to have influenced our narrative^, twenty barley loaves are not thought nearly enough for a hundred men. The * fishes ' would be of the dried sort used as a relish to the bread. 39. sit down by companies: lit. 'recline — companies, com- panies,' as at tabic, a Hebraism (So 'in ranks' below.) Jesus proceeds to organize a common meal for the people, a form of fellowship which among the Jews had a markedly religious aspect (cf. 41). The instruction that they should be so arranged was given throuRh the disciples ; so Luke and John. Provision was thus made for an orderly disposition of the crowd. Reclining was the general ancient posture at food. upon the green grass. Onlj' Mark notices its greenness, which suggests sprinp; (cf. John vi. 4) in Palestine. Later it would become scorched and brown. in ranks : ///. 'plots, plots,' like garden beds. The word is used ordinarily of the beds of garden herbs (not of flowers) ; and the idea seems to be simply that of regular rectangular arrange- ST. MARK 6. 41-43- XMk 201 and by fifties. And he took the five loaves and the two 41 fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves ; and he gave to the disciples to set before them ; and the two fishes divided he among them all. And they did all eat, and were filled. And they took 42, 43 ment, in groups of fifties and hundreds. Order wouid thus be preserved, and the matter of distribution, as well as of counting, made easy. 41. he took the five loaves and the two fishes. By this action Jesus took the place of recognized host, and the provisions were brought to him as such. looking' up to heaven : that is, in the attitude of prayer. See in the O. T. Job xxii. 26, and in the Gospels, Mark vii. 34 ; John xi. 41. hlessed : that is ' gave thanks ' : cf. John vi. 1 1, ' having given thanks ' The full phrase would be ' blessed God ' over his gifts. Compare the regular Jewish 'grace,' which may go back in sub- stance to Jesus' da}'. ' Blessed be thou, O Lord our God, King of the world, who bringest forth bread from the earth.' Very similar in spirit are some words in the primitive Jewish Christian prayer of Thanksgiving after a common meal, in the Teaching of the Apostles, which may go back at this point to the original domestic ' breaking of bread ' of the Jerusalem Church, as described in Acts ii. 42. * We give thanks to thee. Holy Father . . . Thou, Master All-sovereign, didst create the universe for thy name's sake, and didst give meat and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thee thanks.' There must have been something specially characteristic of Jesus in the way he 'blessed and brake' bread, to judge from the fact that it was in this act that the two disciples at Emmaus recognized the mj-sterious stranger who had joined them on the way thither (Luke xxiv. 30 f., 35). and brake. This was part of the simple ritual of table- worship at a social meal among God's Covenant People, the Jews : Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxiv. 30 ; cf. Actsxxvii. 35. It gave its name to such 'fellowship' meals among the early Christians, namely ' the breaking of the Bread' or Loaf: cf Acts ii. 42, xx. 7, 11 ; r Cor. ix. 16. Small pieces of the loaf used for this purpose were handed round among all at table, before they began their meal proper : and this looks like what was done in this case. The verb used for the 'breaking' here described is in Mark (and Luke) a strong one, 'broke up' {Kaiiklase), 'broke in pieces,' while Matthew has the oidinary form lor ' brake.' 42. were filled, Tije word is a strong one, usually of ' fodder- 202 ST. MARK 6. 43- X^k up broken pieces, twelve bas ketfuls, and also of the ine' cattle; so 'were satisfied.' John accentuates this by the words ' Ukewise also of the fishes as much as they would (vi 1 1). 43 they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls. Probably mentioned to suggest the great quantity that had been used in the meal itself ; compare the parallel miracle in 2 Kings iv. 43 f , They shall eat and shall leave thereof. So he set it before them and they did eat, and left thereof, according to the word of the Lord. But was it really a miracle of the class described in 2 Kings iv 42-44 that Jesus here wrought; or was it one of another kind altogether, one in the spiritual sphere alone, in which his wonted deeds in revelation of the Divine love, as the sovereign principle of the Coming Kingdom, have hitherto chiefiy lain? It is im- possible not to ask this question. For the miracle of the feeding as related in the Gospels does seem to belong to the non-natural and magical type of 'signs' which Jesus stedfastly refused to ' give to this generation.' when challenged by the Pharisees a little later (viii 11 f.) to shew ' a sign from heaven.' Indeed the manna, to supply supernaturally the People's necessity in the W.lderness, is cited in John vi. 30 f. as such a sign ; and the mode of multipli- cation which the narrative here implies is in essentials of a similar order It is not to the point to reply that this most marvellous demonstration of Jesus' Divine mission had a beneficent purpose, and was also capable of spiritual suggestion when viewed symboli- cally, as in the use made of it in John vi -though not in the Synoptic account. It cuts across the fundawental principle of Jesus' whole method of bringing home to men gradually the con- viction of his Divine commission, his essential Messiahship, for fear of misunderstanding on the part of those possessed by a crude conception of Messianic power, whether in a national or a miraculous sense. All his efforts to stop the noismg abroad of semi-private deeds of extraordinary healing power, exerci-ed m the service of pitying love, and done in his Father s name and as revealing the spirit of his promised Kingdom— all these efforts to prevent misconception on a relatively small scale seem stultified by so stupendous an exception. It is one unsafeguarded, too, by any recorded precaution against its meaning, for Jesus person and mission, being taken in a wrong sense by • the multitude. Nor again is there any reference in the Synoptic story as >s usual, to the impression produced (see even 51 f-^ or to the effect of so overwhelming a fact upon the course of his ministry. The contrast afforded by the later account in John vi in th.s respect (14!., ct. note below on 45% as in several others only serves to bring home the difficulty. Simply as exegetes, then, faithful interpreters ot Mark's narrative in its own light-as a self-consistent record ot a I ST. MARK 6. 43. XMk 203 self-consistent ministry carried through in spite of all ' slowness of heart' in those to whom it was addressed — we cannot but seek to get behind the meaning of this episode, as it lies on the surface of Mark's record (and still more of the later ones), to something more harmonious with the whole context of Jesus' mind, as mani- fest in the broad principles of his speech and action in the Synoptic narrative generallj'. Accordingly we must conclude that a process of unconscious re-interpretation — of which we have many minor instances, both for Jesus' words and deeds — has left its mark upon the tradition of this fundamentally characteristic and authentic story. How this has taken place, and just what were the original facts, we may not be able fully to explain. But that some such modification of the original facts must, in consistency with Mark's own picture of Jesus elsewhere, be assumed, the modern student of the Gospels who approaches them in the light of the demonstrable develop- ments visible elsewhere in one Gospel as compared with the more authentic form of tradition preserved in one or more of the others,^ can have but little doubt. As a sample of how the story may have actually occurred, one may cite Menzies' view of the matter. Starting from the fact that Jesus' words, even as reported, represent him as looking to the disciples to supply the people's needs from their own resources, he suggests that not a few (like the lad referred to in John) had some provision with them. 'It is nowhere said that' the five loaves and two fishes 'were all the food that could be found on the spot ; and a person here and there may have had something with him and acted as the centre ' of supplies for his company. What, then, Jesus actually aimed at and achieved was the turning of this mixed multitude, composed of innumerable personal and family units, each with their own self-regarding interests and impulses, then and there into a single brotherhood, or union of social groups, for the purpose of sharing in common what was to begin with the property of but a few. Thus, those before strangers to most of their fellows, under the spell of Jesus' message of Divine Father- hood and human brotherhood, were one and all brought to feel of one soul, a single family of God. This truth received impressive symbolic expression and consecration in the rite of common bless- ing, breaking, and distribution in very small portions, of the few loaves and fishes which Jesus set apart for the purpose, in keeping with a familiar usage of table-fellowship among the Jews on solemn occasions, like the eve of Sabbath and other sacred feasts. To ^ e. g. the meaning of the ' sign of Jonah ' in Luke xi. 30 (cf. Matt. xvi. 4) and Matt. xii. 40 respectively, and the duplication of the demoniacs and of the asses in Matt. viii. 2S, xxi. 2, as compared with Mark v. 2 and xi. 2. 204 ST. MARK 6. 44. XMk 44 fishes. And they that ate the loaves were five thousand men. achieve all this by personal influence of such short duration was indeed a spiritual miracle, a triumph of the power of Jesus' spoken word worthy of remembrance and record, and an anticipation of the abiding fruit of such influence in the institution of the ' breaking of bread ' in the fellowship of the Christian People, the new Eccksia or Church of God. Such a reading of the original significance of the Feeding of the Five Thousand fits it into its position in Mark's whole narrative, as the story with its present kind of miraculous colouring, suggested by what is not said rather than by what actually is (41 fl".), surely does not. Yet the misapprehension, due perhaps to the silence of tradition as to the sources of the supply for the meal itself— frugal as it would be in these circumstances— is one which would easily arise in the course of time. A similar case of the accidents apt to occur in tradition is probably to be seen in the second or ' doublet ' version of the Feeding in viii. i-io, which was absent from the form of tradition known to Luke (see further ad he). The quantity taken up shewed the scale of the provision. The word for basket {kophtnos) here is the same in all four narratives, and is diff"erent from that in the subsequent narrative of the Four Thousand. It denotes a stout wicker basket, such as the Jewish hawker at Rome had with him for the purpose of carrying his whole stock, including food. It has been suggested that the twelve baskets used on this occasion may have been those in which the Twelve had carried the food which they required on their mis- sionary journey recently finished : but this is contrary to the spirit of Jesus' charge to them when starting. Sir A. F. Hort thinks that ' the number suggests that each disciple habitually carried a cophiniis to hold provisions.' But perhaps it is most natural to suppose that such large baskets — apparently of the long deep sort which one sees on the backs of Swiss peasants— really belonged to the equipment of the boat they had come in, and that each of the Twelve fetched one from it after the meal. 44. five thousand men: ' men' as distinguished from women and children. Matthew says expressly ' beside women and children ' (xiv. 21). From Luke (ix. 10') we gather that the scene of this episode was on the way to ' a city called Bethsaida ' (see note on verse 33). Most see in this Bethsaida Julias, a little way inland from the northern side of the Sea of Galilee, east of the Jordan, in the district of the lower Gaulonitis (not in Galilee proper), near where the river enters the lake. It was raised from the rank of a village ST. MARK 6. 45. XMk 205 And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter 45 into the boat, and to go before him unto the other side to that of a ' city ' by Philip the Tetrarch, who also attached to it the name Julias in honour of Julia, the daughter of Augustus. Its site is supposed by modern travellers to be found at ct-Tell, near where the Jordan enters the green, grassy plain called el-Baieiha, or at Mes'adiych in the same plain, but nearer the Lake and at the river's mouth. vi. 45-52. The Walking on the Sea (cf. Matt. xiv. 22-33 ; John vi. 16-21). We have no longer the fourfold narrative ; for Luke drops out, most likely because it was not in his special source. But we may notice the view taken in John of the narrative, especially in Mark, on which it is chiefly based. 45. And straightway lie constrained his disciples. The explanation of this is found in John's Gospel. It alone refers to the impression produced by the Feeding of the Five Thousand. The people felt Jesus to be ' of a truth the prophet (of whom Moses spoke) that cometh into the world.' Nay more, he divined ' that they were about to come and take him by force, to make him king' (vi. 14, 15). Hence he 'withdrew again into the mountain himself alone' (vi. 15). On the other hand the Johannine narrative implicitly contradicts the Synoptic account of Jesus sending the disciples on before him 'to the other side ' (while he himself dismissed the multitude), fearing the effect of the people's enthusiasm upon his own disciples, as to whose insight into the real nature of his mission he was still in doubt (cf. his questioning of them at Caesarea Philippi, in ch. viii). The disciples no doubt required to be ' constrained.' For it could not but seem strange to them that he should separate himself from them, and send them away from the very place he had chosen with a view to giving them rest. unto the other side to Bethsaida: rather 'towards' {pros), 'in the direction of,' Bethsaida, perhaps the next lake-side village. Matthew says simply ' to the other side ' without mentioning Bethsaida (xiv. 22 . John says 'over the sea unto Capernaum' (vi. 17), i.e. south-westward across a segment of the Lake — the same way as they had come. Further Mark and Matthew both state explicitly that they came at last to Geiaiesaret (vi. 53 ; Matt, xiv. 34) — which may explain John's reference to Capernaum. Were there then two Bethsaidas, one on the eastern side of the Jordan where it enters the Lake, and another somewhat west of it ? Bethsaida, meaning ' Fisher-home,' was a descriptive name likely enough to recur around the Lake. But it is really needless to assume this explanation. For the storm may have changed the 2o6 ST. MARK 6. 46-4S. X^k to Bethsaida, while he himself sendeth the multitude 46 away. And after he had taken leave of them, he departed 47 into the mountain to pray. And when even was come, the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on 48 the land. And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of course of the boat from E. to W., cf. verse 53. 'To the farther side ' may here be relative to the Jordan as dividing the eastern and western shores of the Lake at the northern end of it : and it was, in any case, natural that Jesus should wish his disciples to go eastwards, further from the route bj' which the excited people would be returning to their homes, westward of the spot where he stood. Sir G. A. Smith's suggestion {Htsl. Geogr., p. 458) that this was 'some way down the eastern coast,' and so further east than Bethsaida Julias, is excluded by the fact that such a situation would make the land route to it much further than that across the Lake by boat from Capernaum, and so less consistent with verse 33. 46. taken leave. The words are used of taking farewell of friends. It was a kindl}', though decided, dismissal. into the mountain: or 'the high ground' overlooking the lake. The attitude of the people, following on the death of John, made another crisis in his career, which required prayer and thought ; cf. i. 35. 47. when even was come. The miracle had taken place not long before sunset, verse 35. How long after sunset is here meant is not stated, but left to be gathered from verse 48. was in the midst of the sea. They had rowed, says John vi. 19, ' about five and twenty or thirty furlongs' — little more than half way across the Lake at its broadest. But probably Mark does not mean the absolute midst of the Lake of Galilee — for that was not the route they were to take — but simply ' well out to sea ' (Sv/ete). An early gloss or explanatory addition, '(was) since a longtime,^ anticipates the reader's surprise at their still being no further ; the reason of which is hinted in the next verse, viz. a strong contrary wind. 48. the fourth watch. From the height Jesus had watched their distress, and now went to their relief. The ' fourth watch * was from 3 to 6 a.m. The Jews (cf. Luke xii. 38) reckoned by three watches, \k\c first or beginning of watches fsunset to 10 p.m.), the middle watch (lo p.m. to 2 a.m.% and the morning watch (2 a.m. to sunrise). The Romans reckoned by four watches, and this reckoning is followed in Mark. ST. MxVRK 6. 49-52 XMk 207 the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea ; and he would have passed by them : but they, when they 49 saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was an apparition, and cried out : for they all saw him, and were 50 troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer : it is I ; be not afraid. And he went up unto them into the boat; and 51 the wind ceased : and they were sore amazed in them- selves ; for they understood not concerning the loaves, 52 but their heart was hardened. woTild have passed by them : i. e. made as though he would pass them (cf. Luke xxiv. 28). This is reported only by Mark, and means that Jesus would test them and train their faith. 49. cried out. They did not recognize Jesus, and the figure looked spectral and fearful as it moved on the water, in the desolate hour before dawn. 50. all saw him : i. e. it was not the delusion, therefore, of one heated brain or overstrained eye. 51. and the •wind ceased: as in iv. 39. The Johannine account has instead ' and straightway the boat was at the land whither they were going '—a touch which probably has a symbolic significance, whether it was meant in the first instance as a de- scription of the apostles' feehng that with Jesus' presence the end of their journey was as good as reached, or as a fact marvellous in its own nature. In any case this suggests that we must allow for the possibility of developments at various stages in the tradition of this episode (cf. Peter's walking on the water, in Matt, ad loc, and the notes there and on xiv. 33'), which occurred in the obscure hours before dawn, and might well be invested from the first with a special sense of mystery. It was not recorded in the form of the apostolic tradition which Luke follows (preferring it to Mark's, where they are not at one). sore amazed in themselves. The}' were profoundly moved and staggered, but did not or could not give expression to their thoughts (contrast Matt. xiv. 33! 52. understood not concerning' the loaves. The immediately preceding miracle, as Mark describes it, should have made this further miracle no such subject of amazement to them. But it was not so, and the reason given for it is that ' their heart was hardened ' or insensitive (cf. iii. 5). That is, they were not in the state of mind to receive the proper impression. This explanation 2o8 ST. MARK 6. 53- P 53 [P] And when they had «■ crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret, and moored to the shore. "^ Or, crossed over to the land, they came unto Gennesaret really explains little or nothing : it means simply that the narrator is at a loss to understand howthey were so unprepared by the recent experience of a miracle so stupendous — as he conceived it — that the one just narrated so amazed men who had already experienced Jesus' illimitable control over the order of Nature. To the narrator himself such a view of Jesus' power was now a matter of course. This note therefore but deepens our impression that the matter of t!ie Loaves was really rather other and less non-natural than is suggested by the traditional account. Moreover the theory of gradual growth of the marvellous, in the telling of the episode of a Walking on the Water, receives confirmation from the fresh feature of wonder found in Matthew's later version of it (which has also heightening touches in verse 33, in describing the impression produced), viz. the incident of Peter stepping from the boat into the sea and walking on the water to Jesus (xiv. 28-31). While, then, it may be impossible to explain the whole miracle away by saying that Jesus only walked upon the shore and was taken by the disciples, panic-stricken and in the dark as they were, for a spectre moving on the sea — which seems precluded by certain particulars in the narrative as it stands— still this nature-miracle, one of the strangest of its class, may, on the analogy of the feed- ing of the Five Thousand (itself one of the most stupendous kind), really have been in keeping with the ordinary laws of nature. (c) Popularity culminating, also breach with Pharisaism : vi. 53-vii- 23. vi. 53-56. Ministry of Jesus in the Plain of Gennesaret (cf. Matt, xiv. 34-36). Tliis brief paragraph has no parallel in Luke or John ; probably it was peculiar to Peter's tradition, being one of the most graphic of all Mark's descriptions. It bears in every line the signs of a transcript from the report of an eye-witness. 53. And when they had crossed over, they came to the land tinto Gennesaret. Rather as in the mnrgin of the R. V., 'and when they had crossed over to the land, theycame untoGennesaret.' So the place where they landed at last, contrary to the original plan (owing to the wind), was south of Capernaum. This Gennesaret, from which the lake seems to have taken one of its names, is supposed to be the modern el-Ghmveir, 'the little hollow,' a charming plain some three miles long and a little more than a mile broad. ' Such is the fertility of the soil,' says Josephus, ' that it rejects no plant, and accordingly all are here cultivated by the husbaniiman, for so genial is the air that it suits every variety ' ■Jewish War, III. x. 8). ST. MARK 6. 54-56. P 209 And when they were come out of the boat, straightway 54 the people knew him, and ran round about that whole 55 region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was. And whereso- 56 ever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces, and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment : and as many as touched ^ him were made whole. * Or, it 54-56. What made Jesus land forthwith on the populous plain ofGennesaret and undertake at this stage what was apparently a rather prolonged and systematic ministry there ? Possibly it was a result of his recent experience of the popular readiness to hear him, as shewn by the crowd's following him in his retirement with his disciples. He may have decided during the night of prayer (v. 46) to continue his appeal to the masses as before, in spite of the growing opposition of the Pharisees and the rumours that his mission was attracting the uneasy notice of Herod and his parti- sans, the Herodians (see viii. 15, and compare Luke xiii. 31-33, though the latter passage may refer to a later stage than that now reached). Had Jesus alread\' decided to retire (cf. iii. 7) from the regions adjacent to Tiberias (one of the seats of Herod's court, some seven miles south of Capernaum, and a place Jesus appears to have shunned deliberately), as he did a little later (vii. 24, cf. viii. 13), he would not have allowed even the eagerness of the people of Gennesaret for healing to detain him on the tour of some duration among their cities, villages, and farms, implied in verse 56. Perhaps the development of the controversy with the Pharisees and their scribes, or religious experts, which Mark proceeds to record in vii. r fT., but which probably included other episodes (some of which may be found in ii. 18-28 as well as viii, 11 ff.), led Jesus to reconsider the matter and withdraw from the danger of the joint plotting of his foes, the Pharisees and Herodians— now at length driven to forget their deep differences in their common fear of the Prophet of Nazareth (cf. iii. 6). 64, knew him: rather 'recognized him,' as having seen him before at Capernaum or in their own villages. 55, beds : that is, pallets (cf. ii. 3). 56. border of his garment: see on ch. v, 27. The paragraph gives a vivid picture of the rapidity with which the news of the coming of Jesus spread; and of the widespread faith of the people in his power to heal. P 2IO ST. MARK 7. i. XMk 7 [X^i^J And there are gathered together unto him the False and true ideas of Purity, vii. 1-23. This section falls into three distinct stages : ( i) Jesus answers Pharisaic criticism with a far-reaching counter- criticism (1-13). (ii) He declares before all, in a 'parabolic' form (14, 15), the vital principle underlying the special point at issue. (iii) He explains the same more explicitly to his disciples in private, at their request (19-23). 1-8. A question regarding ritual purity {cL Matt. xv. 1-9). The fact that some disciples of Jesus were observed to eat without per- forming the usual ceremonial ablutions was made a matter of complaint. Jesus uses the occasion to expose the false ideas that were current as to the relative importance of ' the tradition of the Elders ' and ' the commandment of God ' — a fundamental principle of true piety. 1. there are gathered togrether. Where, we are not told. But a rather deliberate interview is seemingly in question. We have here, in fact, a decisive stage in the controversy between Jesus and the local representatives of ceremonial Judaism, which may hitherto have been more accidental in nature, like the challenge due to the disciples' non-observance of the practice of fixed fasts, such as those of the Pharisees lii. 18 ff.). Now they seem to have called in the advice and help of a deputation from the central authorities of orthodoxy in Jerusalem, certain scribes, who had been for some little time on the spot watching the situation and collecting evidence. A recent observation of their own as to the practice of some of Jesus' disciples (cf Luke xi. 38) had given them the opening for a challenge, and for the debate they felt now ready to bring on, touching not only the specific practice in ques- tion but also the whole principle of the authority of 'the tradition of the elders.' This body of oral Law formed an integral part, and with the Pharisees of the day tiiat most honoured in the observance, of the whole Torali or way of life under the Law, as currently understood by strictly ' observant ' Jews, as distinct from the mass of 'common' persons. It was, then, the grave question of the official interpretation of Judaism as authoritative, that was set before the Galilaean ' prophet ' for his answer — by which he would stand or fall for Pharisaism. In fact Edersheim. whose Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (ii. 8ff.) may be referred to for the Rabbinic evidence bearin;;- on this passage, says that according to the fundamental principles of Rabbinic Pharisaism breaches of the traditional law 'involved heavier guilt' than sins against the written Law of Moses (compare C. I'aylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers, J 05 ff). ST. MARK 7. 2. XMk 211 Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples 3 ate their bread with '"«■ defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. * Or, common certain of the scribes, which had come from Jerusalem. Such are already mentioned in iii. 22. An opportunity for trying him with entangling questions is furnished by something they had seen certain of his disciples do (cf. ii. 18, 24). 2. some of his disciples: not all, as it seems ; and not Jesus himself (yet see Luke xi, 38, a case of his not ' washing ' before food), else would he have been directly challenged as to his own practice, and not as in verse 5 about his disciples' only. It was, in fact, a point on which Jesus, while himself tending to conform to the devout customs usual in most pious circles i_in the spiritual succes- sion of the Chasidim, ' the pious ones ' of the Maccabasan revolt against all laxity in usages, of whose zeal the Pharisees were the exaggerated exponents as regards technical forms of ' holiness '), did not feel called upon to enforce such ritual developments on all his disciples on every occasion, whatever their previous habits of outward devotion. ate their bread with defiled . . . hands : rather ' common,' i e. unpurified by ritual ablution. The emphasis here is not on religious ' uncleanness ' due directly to contact with ' unclean ' persons (e. g. Gentiles) or things, but on eating, that is taking into oneself, food rendered ' unclean ' by contact with legally unclean hands. This explains and so far justifies the evangelist's reference in verse 4 to the analogous case of possible defilement through utensils in which food and drink were prepared or conveyed to the lips. In both cases the danger of such defilement of a man through ' unclean ' food was, according to the Pharisees, removed only by ritual washing or lustration. This point, which has a bearing on the continuity of the argument in 14 f., seems often to be over- looked. The point has, indeed, been noticed by the learned Talmudic scholar. Rabbi A. Biichler of the Jews' College, London : but he questions the relevancy of the concepti. The explanation given by Matthew (xvi. 12) suggests that vv'hat Jesus had specially in view was the insidious influence of false ideas and aims. of the Pharisees aud the leaven of Herod. The repetition of the word ' leaven ' indicates that two distinct kinds of evil influence are referred to. Matthew's less accurate version has the leaven of ' the Pharisees and Sadducees' (though 'the leaven of Herod ' would be akin to that of the Sadducees). The leaven of the Pharisees is defined in Luke xii. i as religious formalism ('hypocrisy') ; and this is probabl}' chiefly in Jesus' mind. 'The leaven of Herod ' wouM be worldliness of mind, and the policy it leads to. 16. reasoned: better ' began to discuss ' with each other about this warning, taken in a dully literal sense. 'What,' we must imagine them sa3'ing, ' did our Master mean by that dark hint about ' the leaven ' of his foes : was he pointing to the possibility that they might take foul means to do away with him by offering us poisoned loaves in our need? What are we to do in the matter? How supply our need without risk?' 17. do ye not yet perceive, neither tinclerstand ? There is a tone of reproach in the question. Even after all their intercourse with him, they had not yet learned to reflect and take in the real meaning of things. Was their faith in his wisdom and ability to meet such a minor emergency (cf. Matt. xvi. 8, ' O little of faith ') so slight? What they had already seen him do in supplying need should have taught them to trust him more, and not to let their thoughts run on this lack of provision. 244 • ST. MARK 8. iS-22. X^k- p neither understand? have ye your heart hardened? 18 Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? 19 and do ye not remember ? When I brake the five loaves among the five thousand, how many * baskets full of broken pieces took ye up? They say unto him, 20 Twelve. And when the seven among the four thousand, how many ^.basketfuls of broken pieces took ye up? ax And they say unto him, Seven. And he said unto them, Do ye not yet understand ? 23 [Pj And they come unto Bethsaida. And they * Basket in verses 19 and 20 represents different Greek words. heart hardened: i.e. dully insensitive (cf. vi. 52), like the spiritual faculties of the masses in iv. 12 ; only there Isa. vi. 9 f. is in view, wliile here it is words of Jer. v. 21 which follow. 18. and do ye not remember? The best arrangement of the clause probably is this, ' And do you not remember, when I broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments ye took up ? ' 19. It is to be noted that the Greek construction used in the two parallel verses is not the same, that of the latter being nearest to Mark's own form in vi. 43, ///. ' fillings of baskets.' This rather suggests that verse 19 is a later gloss, especially as B L have no 'and' introducing verse 20. 21. Do ye not yet understand ? Jesus returns to his opening words of disappointment, and leaves them as a challenge to deeper thought. This is characteristic of Jesus' whole method of teaching by awakening the mind to 'seek.' Matthew's account is here more detailed and explanatory. viii. 22-26. Restoration of sight to a blind man at Detlisaida. The second of the two miracles which are giyen only by Mark (yet cf. Matt. ix. 27 ff.), probably from Peter's memory. In this case, as in the former (the healing of the deaf-mute, vii. 3ifr.\ the miracle is done apart from the multitude, in a gradual way, and with the help of tangible means. 22. tliey come unto Bethsaida. This episode, taken by itself, has nothing to suggest a journey other than by land — as would be the case if its true and original context was after ch. vii. 31. As Jesus proceeded from this Bethsaida to ' the villages of Caesarea Philippi,' Bethsaida Julias, standing back a mile or so from the north-eastern shore of the Lake, is meant, though it was now a city, whereas this Bethsaida ia twice called a ' village.' ST. MARK 8. 23-25. P 245 bring to him a blind man, and beseech him to touch him. And he took hold of the blind man by the hand, 23 and brought him out of the village ; and when he had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands upon him, he asked him, Seest thou aught? And he looked up, and said, 24 I see men ; for I behold theiJi as trees, walking. Then 25 again he laid his hands upon his eyes ; and he looked a blind man. So far as Mark's record goes, this is the first case of the kind brought to Jesus. In Matt. xi. 5, Luke vii. 21 we find a reference to blind receiving their sight made by Jesus in his answer to John's disciples. Blindness and ophthalmia have always been commoner in the East than in the West. The conditions of climate and life account for this. The word ' blind ' or ' blindness ' occurs no less than thirt3'-six times in the literal sense in the N,T., not to speak of its figurative use. Sightless, blear-eyed, miserable men and women often confront one in Syrian towns and villages, making one of the most distressing spectacles in Eastern Life. 23. out of the village. At this period of his ministry Jesus seems to have taken special precautions against a publicity which might upset his plans or lead to a premature issue. For this and what follows see vii. 33 fi". and notes there. spit on his eyes. As in the case of the deaf-mute. Such use of spittle was common in antiquity. A similar cure is attributed to the Emperor Vespasian (Suetonius, Life, ch. 7}. laid his hands npon him. The appeal liad been that he might touch him. To aid and stimulate the man's faith, which ma}' well have been dull and inert, he does even more. 24. 1 see men ; for I hehold them as trees, walking'. This rendering of the R. V. is better than that of the A. V., ' I see men as trees, walking,' which is based on an inferior Greek text. Better still, ' I see men; fori perceive objects like trees, walking' (Swete). 'Certain moving forms he saw about him, but without the power of discerning their shape or magnitude : trees he should have accounted them from their height, and men from their motion ' (Trench). They loomed larger than nature to his dazed vision. Even in Mark's narrative there is nothing more realistic than this. This experience of the healed man is true to nature and to medical testimon}'. What the man says about 'trees' and 'men,' and the use of the word ' restored,' suggest that once he had seen. 25. again he laid his hands upon his eyes. So gradual was the work of restoration. It needed time, and touch, and concen- trated attention on the part of the man, to interpret the new 246 ST. MARK 8. 26. P stedfastly, and was restored, and saw all things clearly. 26 And he sent him away to his home, saying, Do not even enter into the village. sensations. Archbishop Trench refers to an account of the cure of a man who had been blind from birth : ' When he first saw, he knew not the shape of anything, nor any one thing from another, however different in shape or magnitude; but being told what things were, whose forms he before knew from feeling, he would carefully observe, that he might know them again.' he looked stedfastly. The verb describes the act of fixing one's eyes on an object, so as to discern distinctly what it is (' see clearly,' in Matt. vii. 5 ; Luke vi. 42). saw all things clearly : better ' distinctly.' 26. Do not even enter into the village. The man did not live in the village. He had been brought to it, possibly from some adjacent farmstead or village, and his healer will have him go at once to his home. The healing was a pure deed of mercy, with no relation to Jesus' general ministry, it being his aim for the moment that public excitement and agitation, which might be hurt- ful to his real objects, should be avoided. 2. Second phase of this stage : viii. 27-ix. 50. ' Here opens a new section of the Gospel. The tendency to seek retirement with the Twelve, pronounced from vi. 31 onwards, now dominates the story. Jesus devotes Himself to training the Twelve in the shadow of the Cross. This concentration on His Disciples becomes possible when they pierce His [Messianicl secret. The full significance of the confession is only apparent if Jesus had not previously revealed Himself or been recognized as Messiah' (H. G. Wood, in Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 691). 'Further,' as Dr. J. Denney observes (Jesus and tlie Gospel, p. 185), 'the critical change in the teaching of Jesus, which sets in, has much to support it. It is . . . inherently credible and likely that such a change should have come with the crisis in the ministry of Jesus with which Mark connects it — a crisis in which the antagonism of Hi.s own people had driven Him beyond their borders, and led Him to concentrate His efforts on the training of the Twelve.' In the words of another scholar (W. C. Braithwaite, The Teach- ing of the TransfigiiratioYi, in the Proceedings of the Oxford Soc. of Historical Theology, 1904-5, p. 28), ' Christ's mind is being turned to the special ministry to his disciples which was needed to enable them to become' a stable nucleus for the Kingdom now nearing manifestation, ' the foundation on which the spiritual Israel should be built. His growing consciousness of approaching rejection and suffering was a natural reason for this (cf. Is. viii 16-18).' ST. MARK 8. 27. XMk 247 [X^k] And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, into the 27 villages of Caesarea Philippi : and in the way he asked (a) A turning-point in Jesus' ministry : viii. 27-ix. i. viii. 27-30. Jesus' Messiahship confessed by the Disciples (cf. Matt, xvi. 13-30 ; Lukeix. 18-21). Hereagainwe have the triple narrative at a turning-point of Jesus' ministry, which left its record in all the forms of the common apostolic tradition. The occasion w.ns a momentous one. The district of Caesarea Philippi was a remote part of the country, in which he could have the retirement which he had sought in vain elsewhere. Opposition was sharpening and the crisis of his life was drawing on. And here he found opportunity to bring matters to a point with his disciples in regard both to his Person and to his Passion. His way took him near the upper course of the Jordan, to the N. E. of the waters of Merom, and some twent3'-five miles above the sea of Galilee. It brought him into one of the most remarkable parts of the Holy Land— a region of deep solitudes, where, with Mount Hermon towering on the N., nature is seen in some of her grandest forms. 27. into the villages of Caesarea Philippi. It was probably Peter's memory which supplied Mark with the exact locality of the episode, to add to what was part of the common apostolic tradition (cf. Luke ix. 18). It was so called to distinguish it from another Caesarea, Caesarea Palestinae or Styaionis, ' Caesarea on the Sea,' the city north of Jaffa in which St. Paul was imprisoned. It got the name 'Caesarea' in honour of the Emperor Augustus Caesar; and the 'Philippi' was added in honour of Philip, the tetrarch of Trachonitis and all the region N. E. of the sea of Galilee, who had rebuilt and beautified it. In remote antiquity the site had been occupied by a city which is identified by some with the Baal-Gad of Joshua (xi. 17, xii. 7, xiii. 4), by others with the Baal-Hermon of Judges (iii. 3) and i Chronicles (v. 23). After Christ's day it was occupied by a town known as Paneas (the modern Banias), from the Paneion, a sanctuary of Pan in a deep cavern in the neighbourhood (Josephus, Aii/iq.xv. 10. 3\ Planted at the foot of the Lebanon on a terrace 1,150 feet above sea-level, surrounded by groves of oaks and poplars, with fertile plains stretching westwards, and the snowy Hermon to the north-east, it has a romantic beauty beyond any other town in the land. ' Almost a Syrian Tivoli,' is Dean Stanley's description of it. in the way he asked his disciples : better ' began to ques- tion.' He draws from them their ideas as to his mission. It is the first time that he questions the Twelve directly about himself. Luke has it that the exact moment when the crucial question was put was prepared for by prayer (ix. 18). So had it been also before he went on his first circuit among the synagogues of Galilee (^Mark i. 35), and before he chose the Twelve (Luke vi. 12). 248 ST. MARK 8. 28-30. X^k his disciples, saying unto them, Who do men say that 28 I am? And they told him, saying, John the Baptist: and others, Elijah ; but others, One of the prophets. 29 And he asked them, But who say ye that I am? Peter 30 answereth and saith unto him. Thou art the Christ. And Who do men say that X am? His first question wasabout the opinions of others. The reply of the disciples shewed how different were the impressions produced by his words and ^vorks. This confirms Mark's representation that Jesus had avoided any explicit claim to Messiahship thus far, the reason being that the popular conceptions of the office were largely alien to Jesus' own. A mass movement among the Galilaean peasantry, started by an unmodified impression that Jesus was such a Messiah as they were expecting, would have ruined all his plans (see note on v. 33^ 28. And they told him. The Baptist risen from the dead, the Elijah who was to return (Mai. iv. 5\ one of the line of the Prophets — these were some of the estimates formed of him. Matthew adds Jerentiah, possibly because of the warning note in Jesus' own ministry. These were all thought to be heralds of the coming Kingdom. 29. But who say ye that 1 am ? Now he will have their own view : ' But ye — who say ye that I am,' as the order of the words suggests it. Peter answereth: with that characteristic impulsiveness which made him their spokesman as a rule. Thou art the Christ. Luke ' the Christ of God,' Matt. :^ured ; that Moses and Elijah ' talked of Jesus' departure {exodus) which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem'; and that ' Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep ' — which suggests that the events happened during the night (cf. Luke ix. 37). He is clearly not here using Mark alone. 2. after six days. So also in Matthew : in Luke 'about eight da3^s ' — a less precise form of statement, but one not inconsistent with the other. Probably both phrases mean 'a week later' : see xiv. I. Peter, and James, and Jolin. The same select group as in the house of Jairus. a hig'h mountain. Luke says simply 'the Mountain' (see notes on iii. 13, viii. 27 above). No doubt a spur of Mount Hermon, a ' high mountain' indeed, for it rises over 9,000 ft. ; near enough to Caesarea Philippi to be easily reached in a few days, and in all respects a fit scene for such a retirement into solitude. transfigured. Luke says the change came over him when praying fi.x. 29), as it was also when he was praying that the heavens opened to him at his baptism (iii. 21 . The change is described by Mark as a 'transformation' (Luke says simply the fashion of his countenance was altered') or 'transfiguration,' as all the English versions from Wycliflfe's have agreed to render it. The O. T. has its parallel case in the shining of the face of Moses, due to his speaking with the Lord on the Mount (Exod. xxxiv. 29) ; cf Matt. here. So also the face of Stephen was seen 'as it had been the face of an angel' (Acts vi. 15), There are other historic instances, too, of a transfiguration of the countenance due to rapt communion with God. The most striking analogy to the Transfiguration, and in some ways the best com- mentary on its original meaning for Jesus himself, is the story of •St. Francis of Assisi on Monte Alverna, in t!ie upper valle3'of the Arno, whither he retired with four chosen companions for a special season of prayer and communion with Christ's Passion. In the ' Legend of the Three Companions ' (c. 69) we read that ' Whilst in seraphic ardour of desire he was uplifted toward God. and was transfigured, by the sweetness of partaking in His Passion, into the likene.ss of Ilim who of His exceeding love was willing to be crucified,' Francis had a vision so intense that it had bodily effects ST. MARK 9. 3-4. XMk 261 before them : and his garments became glistering, ex- 3 ceeding white ; so as no fuller on earth can whiten them. And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses : and 4 of a sympathetic order i the stigmata or nail-prints of the Crucified), which remained with him to his death. 3. glistering-: gleaming or radiant. The word occurs in the LXX of the 'flashing of burnished brass or gold (i Esdras viii. 56; 2 Esdras viii. 27) or steel (Nahumiii. 3) or of sunlight (i Mace. vi. 39),' as Dr. Swete notices. exceeding white. For this description of Jesus' garments as sharing his personal glorification, compare that of the raiment of the Ancient of Days in Dan. vii. 4, as 'white as snow.' It is the whiteness of light that seems to be in Mark's mind, cf. Matt. ' his garments became white as the light.' So Luke, whose special source (like Matthew's) dwelt on the change in Jesus' countenance, has ' white, dazzling.' 4. there appeared unto them. Mark (and Matthew) conceives this vision as granted to the disciples also, indeed treats all as occurring for their benefit in the main ; compare 'before them' in verse 2. Luke, on the other hand, in keeping with his special source (to wliich he adheres, presumably as of higher authority in his eyes, when it and Mark do not agree), has 'And behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elijah ; who appeared in glory, and spake of his departure which he was about to fulfil at Jerusalem. Now Peter and they that were with him were borne down by sleep ; but when they were fully awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.' Here it is implied (i) that the Vision was at first vouchsafed to Jesus alone, as he prayed ; (2) that in the midst of this experience of his, while he was speaking with Moses and Elijah, the disciples awoke and began to share in it indirectly, seeing Jesus irradiated with a strange glory ; (3) that they saw also the two men with whom he was speaking. Now it is only in this last point that the situation, so described, compels the view that the appearance of Moses and Elijah was objectivelj' presented to the disciples' senses. Otherwise it would be satisfied by the assumption that all else reached the spectators only as reflected in Jesus himself, the prime recipient of the revelation in question. But this third feature may easily have arisen in the course of tradition as an inference from the comment which Peter, in his half-dazed state of wonder, blurted out as he watched his Master, transfigured in face b}' the ecstasy of communion with his great spiritual predecessors in the way of the Cross (see ' The meaning of the Transfiguration,' after the note on verse 81, and heard his words of rapt utterance addressed to others than themselves. The names ' Moses ' and 5 262 ST. MARK 9. 5. XMk they were talking with Jesus. And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here : and let us make three ^ tabernacles ; one for thee, and ^ Or, booths ' Elijah ' may well have been overheard on his lips, and so deter- mined the form of Peter's 'answer' to the impression received Aeain as regards the Voice out of the cloud (the passing of which between the group and the moon interrupted the disciples' sight of Jesus, bringing, it may be, Jesus' own vision to a dose by a sudden change from vivid light to darkness), it is possible that it simply represents in the form of words the impression produced on the disciples' minds by the timing of that seeming heavenly intervention— a cloud being sometimes regarded as the manilesta- tion of the Divine Presence. Such an interpretative development would very naturally arise in the course of tradition. Of course some of this interpretation is speculative : but some such reconstruction of the original conditions lying behind our divergent narratives seems needful. In any case the essential impression for the three disciples, conveyed by their e'cperiences on the Mount of Transfiguration, was a PO^^^f"' .'=^"*l™^*^°" '".^ their belief that their Master was verily the Messiah of God, and as such greater even than Moses and Elijah. , , ^ ElljaH with Moses: the representatives of the two great stages of O.T. revelation, Prophecy and the Law This colloca- tion represents the unity in spirit of the Law and the Prophets, pointing forward to Messiah as the falfiller (ct. Deut. xvm. 15, cited in Acts vii. 37) of their essential message. Elijah is named first because he is Messiah's forerunner (Mai. iv. 4). In one Rabbinic saying of the first century a. d. we find the above conjunction : ' God says to Moses, When I bring the Prophet Elijah, you shall both come together.' Perhaps they are the two ' witnesses meant also in Rev. xi. i ff., which has probably a Jewish basis behind it If so, there too they appear as witnesses who are rejected and ^"^^lalklng witH Jesus. Luke gives as subject (ix. 3O that of which Jesus had just begun to speak openly viz. his coming death For the Cross was spiritually foreshadowed in their careers ; so that it was not really out of keeping with Jesus Mess.ahsh.p as witnessed to alike by Prophet and Lawgiver: cf. John v. 39, 43- Peter answereth : i. e. to the appeal of the situation. Rabbi. Mark gives the original Arama.c word ; for which Malthew gives ' Lord,' and Luke a word of his own, Master. tb«e tabernacles: or 'booths,' made by intertwining the branches of trees. He spoke vaguely, with no very clear idea beyon.l that of doing honour to the heavenly visitants, and to his ST. MARK 9. 6-8. XMk 263 one for Moses, and one for Elijah. For he wist not 6 what to answer ; for they became sore afraid. And there 7 came a cloud overshadowing them : and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son : hear ye him. And suddenly looking round about, they saw no 8 one any more, save Jesus only with themselves. Master whom they thus recognized. Surely it was ' good ' for him and his brethren to be where they were, in the presence of this august trio. 6. he wist not what to answer. The same is said of the chosen three at the Agony in the Garden fxiv. 40). A scene so wholly outside his experience, so overwhelming in its unwonted glory and mystery, dazed Peter. He spoke he knew not what, overcome by terror, in which also James and John shared — ' for they became sore afraid.' Such is Mark's view of the case, which he could not explain to himself otherwise. 7. there cazne a clond. As if in answer to Peter's impulsive proposal, a cloud swept across, overshadowing them all. Matthew conceives it as ' a bright cloud' : but Mark's description 'over- shadowing them' does not point that way. In the O.T. the ' cloud ' is associated with special manifestations of God, as in the wilderness (Exod. xiii. 21, xvi. 10, xix. 9, 16, xxiv. 15, xl. 34 ; Lev. xvi. 2 ; Num. xi. 25) and at the dedication of the Temple (1 Kings viii. 10). The later Jewish writings indicate that there was a belief that it was to reappear in the time of the Messiah (2 Mace. ii. 8). a voice ont of the cloud : the Divine voice (Bath Qol), heard also at the Baptism of Jesus. There it was for Jesus himself; here it is addressed to the disciples. This 'hear ye him' may be meant to echo Deut. xviii. 15, and speaks of a new duty and a new relation. The men of the old Israel had listened to Moses and the Prophets. Those who were to be the beginning of the new Israel are to listen to Christ, the final utterer of God's mind (Hob. i. i). This is my beloved Son: or 'my Son, the Beloved,' like ' Mj' Son, my Chosen,' in Luke ix. 35, R. V. Both are current Messianic titles ; compare Eph. i. 6, ' in the Beloved one,' and see journal of Theological Studies, xx. 339 ff. 8. suddenly loobing^ round about, they saw no one. The scene ended as unexpectedly as it had begun. All vanished as at a touch, and onl3' Jesus, as they had known him, was seen (cf. Matt. xvii. 7f.). The report of this incident, resting upon the converging testi- mony of three narratives, each with its own marks of independence, 264 ST. MARK 9. 8. X^k and at least one of ihem reproducing recolleclions of an eye- witness, cannot be explained away as a purely .deal "^-''-f ^V apologue with a didactic purpose, a mere mythical growth. But ftTs quite possible, even likely, that certam features of this sto y are secondary, added to the original facts when handed on in tradition by those deeply interested in the apostolic witnesses. The analogy of the storV of the Baptism, told differently in the three Synoptic Gospels as regards the objective nature of the Dove and the Voice-Mark alone making them experiences of Jesus only— suggests that the like tendency to involve others in the ceniawfsion of Moses and Elijah would here operate. In any case the event meant most for Jesus himself. He ascended the mountain partly at lenst to pray, and thereby to prepare himself Ltthis crisis of his ministry, for the path of suffering lying before him A strange vision of glory came to him when he was so en- .Lged. and strengthened him for his course Something ot this hScompanions doubtless read in his face and mien ; and probably he share^d more of it with them by words, for they too had reached fcrisis in their calling. They had made confession of their fa th and they had been staggered by the announcement of his lot of Suffering They did not see all that happened on the moun ; for Luke tells us that they were ' heavy with sleep,' and that . was only 'when they were fully awake' that 'they saw h.s glory But what they did see and hear was an important element in their raining. ^^^^ „,eamng of the Tyansfigtiraiion. 'Wellhausen and Loisy suggest, without sufficient reason that the whole story may be a Resurrection-appearance of Chn.t 'transferred to this point in the narrative to bnng out the s.gn.fi- cance of the Great Confession ;see summary in Montefiore, i 217). The Transfiguration is really best understood as a mystic ex- perience of self-dedication and Divine assurance, ^^hich Jesus actually went through soon after the decisive disclosure to h s d dples of what lay'in store for him Though the story 'S told from the point of view of the disciples '-at least in Mark and MaUhew-'its true character as ^uke hints lies in i^s being a record of the inner life of Jesus (cf. E. \JnAerhi\\ The MysUc Way I 1 17 f.). Perhaps for that reason even the other d.sc.ples weTe n;t to hear of it, till after the Resurrection ' (H. G. Wood, in Peake's Coiiim. on the Bibk . t 1 > ..^-.„r,t The above characterization is based mai^aly on Luke s account narticularlyix.3of., rather than on the Marcan narrative. This Tat er knows nothing of the topic of conversation between Jesus ' d ' eS a?ong with Moses 'being the shadow of the cross now Jllfing on hts pfth (according to Luke,, but-^to judge by the is inles' quesUon when descending the mount-assumes tha El Ih- pretence as the Forerunner of Messiah was the main point ST. MARK 9. 8. XMk 265 of the experience just vouchsafed to Jesus and themselves. In view of this divergence of conception, it is quite possible that the historical basis of the story, which has manifestly undergone certain changes in the various circles of Christian tradition re- flected in our Gospels, was a midnight vigil of prayer on the part of Jesus, of a character and in circumstances of companionship almost exactly anticipating that in Gethsemane fxiv. 32 ff.). There is no suggestion in this case, any more than the other, that Jesus sought the solitude for his disciples' sake rather than his own. If one may venture to seek a motive in Jesus' soul at this crisis, one would suggest that the strong recoil of the disciples' minds from the idea of his rejection had renewed some of the conflict in his own breast, the reality of which seems hinted in the severity of the rebuke to Peter in viii. 33. One may compare in this connexion Jesus' words in Luke xxii. 28 as to his 'trials' or 'temptations.' On this assumption we may read Luke's account as follows. As Jesus wrestled in prayer with the enigma of his future, a path of rejection by God's chosen People — his own people — and of suffer- ing seeming to lead up to death itself, his whole being was caught up and absorbed in the spiritual conflict. The final victory came to him only with the sure preception that such a lot was indeed the very method by which his Father had wrought redemption for his People all along. So was it, not only in the picture of ' the Servant ' in Isaiah, but also with otre side of the story even of Israel's greatest deliverer, her Lawgiver-prophet Moses, whose superlative 'meekness' (Num. xii. 3), in accepting the burden of Israel's stifT-neckedness and sins, constituted his truest greatness (see his intercession for Israel in Exod. xxxii), and of the fiery prophet of Carmel, who learned his deepest lessons from God in exile and weakness at Horeb. This was the lesson common to both their careers, and so probably the one before Jesus' mind at this time (see the conversation touching John as Elijah, as Jesus and the three descend the mount). This was not, indeed, the aspect of its national heroes' careers which Judaism was wont to read out of its inspired Scriptures. Yet the story of Moses' life, as distinct from his legislation, is in fact full of the spirit of the prophets : it was there to be read, if only the eye to discern it was also present (as in the author of T/ie Assumption oj Moses, just before Jesus' day, who speaks of what Moses 'suffered in Egypt, and in the Red Sea, and in the Wilderness during forty j-ears,' iii. 1 1). So we see clearly from Moses' career as summarized by Stephen (Acts vii. 20 ff.), himself full of the martyr spirit. Thus Jesus was now be- coming the ' pioneer-leader of faith ' in the path of spiritual heroism and self-forgetfulness (as he is set forth in Hebrews xi-xii), who by his travail of soul first read the full secret of God's deeper truth and will in the Old Testament, the real 'Messianic Secret' of the Son of Man, as it has been called in recent limes, though in a very different sense. 266 ST. MARK 9. 9. X^k 9 And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things Viewing himself, then, as the 'Prophet' whom Moses foretold that God should ' raise up ' from Israel, as He had raised him (cf. Acts iii. 22, vii. 37 niarg.'), Jesus now reached afresh, and more triumphantly than before, a clear conviction that the likeness between himself and Moses would include the element of rejection and apparent failure for a time, and that he too must ' suffer' and so only ' enter into his glory,' in his Father's good providence. Thus the meaning of Jesus' spiritual fellowship with Moses and Elijah in Mark agrees with that assigned to it explicitly in Luke, viz., his coming Passion, as this again with what Jesus is repre- sented, in the same special source here used by Luke, as teaching his disciples after the Passion and Resurrection (xxiv. 26 f. esp. 'beginning from Moses''. Accordingly this was the original significance of the Trans- figuration storj', the spiritual counterpart to which in the Fourth Gospel comes rather later in its story (xii. 20 ff.), in connexion with the desire of 'Greeks' to see Jesus. It was one personal to Jesus himself in the first instance, but it had also an indirect effect upon the faith of the inner circle of Three, who felt more sure tlian ever that their Master, whom they had seen in so glorious an hour of spiritual rapture and of fellowship with the spirits of Moses and Elijah, was verily the Christ, whatever dark and perplexing words he might let drop touching the immediate future. They had no inkling at the time of the topic of Jesus' communings in spirit with the august personages whom thej' overheard him addressing in that awe-inspiring hour of m^'stic rapture. But they descended the mount with faith confirmed, though in another sense than that of the confirmation which their Master himself had derived from his experiences there. ix. 9-13. The *■ rising front the dead' and ihe conting of Elijah (cf. Matt. xvii. 9-13). Of what passed as Jesus and the Three were on their way down from the mountain Luke tells us nothing: probably, then, it was not in the special source which he followed in what precedes, and whicii seems to have viewed the me.ining of the episode rather differently (see above). He simply remarks that these witnesses of the Transfiguration 'held their peace, and told no man in those days any of the things which they had seen ' (Luke ix. 36). 9. as they were coming' down. From Luke's ' next day ' (xi. 37) we may infer that the descent took place the day after the Transfiguration, and early in the day. charged them. The injunction to silence which had been laid on others touching the marvellous, as a ground forjudging of ST. MARK 9. IO-12. X»ii^ 267 they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead. And they kept the saying, 10 questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean. And they asked him, saying, n *The scribes say that Elijah must first come. And he 12 said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth "• Or, How is it that the scribes say . . . come ? his person and mission, is now laid upon the chosen three. But in this case there is a limit, till ' the Son of Man be risen again from among the dead ' — an idea the wording of which occurs here only in Mark. The whole clause, then, or all from ' he charged them,' may be secondary ; see next note but one and Appended Note after viii. 33. Luke simply refers to their keeping silence ' in those days.' 10. kept the saying'. The analogy of vii. 3f., 18 (cf. Apoc. ii. 14 ff.) favours ' kept fast hold of,' in the sense of 'observed,' though the old Latin of D and Jerome have here a stronger word for the verb than in ch. vii., so making it equivalent to ' kept silent' (as in the Gk. of Dan. v. 12 in Theodotion). The meaning is much the same in either case. They observed their Master's prohibition. questioning among- themselves. The order in the Greek lays stress on ' among themselves' (only). Though they told no man of the vision, among themselves they discussed the wording of the injunction, as regards the 'rising again from out the dead' as applicable to Jesus. It suggested thoughts of his death — an idea which they could not entertain, not being able to enter into their master's mind in the matter (cf. notes on viii. 31-33). But perhaps the tradition on which Mark here draws has added unconsciously this feature to the original facts and their tradition (cf. Luke). For it not only anticipates but goes beyond the guarded teaching which follows in verse 12. See also the note on viii. 33 and ix. 31. H. they asked him. Thej' had a difficulty, brought home anew by the presence of Elijah on the Mount of Transfigura- tion, as to Jesus' Mcssiahship— now their faith. The scribes (founding no doubt on Mai. iii. i, iv. 5) taught that Elijah was to come before the Messiah himself. How was it that Elijah had not yet come to Israel ? The verse may be read 'How is it that the Scribes say . . .?' as the marg. of the R. v., cf. 28 (where also Matt, has ' Why &c.'). ii. 16. 12. Elijah indeed cometh first. Jesus replies that it is, indeed, as the scribes said. Elijah was to come before the Messiah, to ' restore all things,' that is, to initiate a great moral renovation of Israel which would prepare the way for Messiah (Mai. iii. 2-4, iv. 6). • Israel will not fulfil the great Repentance before Elijah 268 ST. MARK 9. 13. X^k all things : and how is it written of the Son of man, that 13 he should suffer many things and be set at nought? But comes' (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer, xliii). But he had come in the person of John the Baptist (cf. Luke i. 17 ; Matt. xi. 14V and how is it written of the Son of man, &c. For the Son of Man see Appended Note after ii. 12. This second half of verse 1,2 seems to come in awkwardly, as interrupting the sequence between 12* and 13 ; in Matt, the order of the two is transposed and the wording is different. But perhaps the difficulty of this abrupt turn of thought is enlianced for us by its interrogative form, in which Jesus takes occasion from their questioning him about Elijah to question them about something he is anxious to bring home to their unreceptive minds. So he avails himself of the opening suggested by their virtual reference to the Scripiuyal forecast (to which the Scribes pointed) of the return of Elijah, as among the events by which the Messianic Kingdom will be ushered in, to add : ' Yes, and there is another scriptural problem in this connexion, namely how Scripture pictures suffering and rejection as part of Messiah's lot.' Or, as Hort puts this tactful turn of thought : ' Yes, Prophecy spoke truly there (i. e. as to Elijah's return). But it also spoke truly when it foretold that the Messiah must suffer.'' ' The former prophecy the Jews made much of: the latter they generally ignored (in spite of Isa. liii. Sec.) ; but, says our Lord, the one prophecy is as much to be believed as the other.' Having thrown out this searching suggestion by the wa}', as it were, Jesus does not himself pursue it further, but leaves it to work in his hearers' minds— not again naming suffering luito death, for which they had proved so unready in viii. 31-33, but hinting it through John's case. There is real verisimilitude in this method of gradually gaining over the minds of the leaders among the Twelve to the idea which was so hard for all to receive. The specific reference in the words 'and be set at nought' may be to Ps. cxviii. 22, 'the stone which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner,' cited a little later by Jesus in argument with the leaders of Judaism in Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 42, cf. i Peter ii. 7) ; for in Acts iv. 11 the verb 'set at nought' appears, as here, in place of 'rejected' (cf. Ps. xxii. 6 (in LXX), and Is. liii. 6 (Sym.), vvhere forms of the same word-root are u=ed in Messianic connexions). The applica- tion of this and other O. T. Scriptures touching sufferings to 'the Son of Man,' plainly identified with 'the Messiah '_ by Jesus in con- verse with his disciples since Peter's Confession, is not stated quite so definitely as the usual wording ' written of,' employed here also in the R. V., suggests, but rather as virtually present in the original statements, as 'with reference to' {epi] him. ST. MARK 9. 13. XMk 269 I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they listed, even as it is written of him. 13. Elijah is come. What Scripture foreshadowed, and was generally expected, in the case of Elijah, has been fulfilled (in the person of John; ; but not just as was looked for. For he came in a guise different from what men were expecting ; and so they treated him, in their blindness, 'just as they liked' — an O. T. expression for irresponsible, self-willed action (e.g. i Kings ix. i, X. 13 ; Ps. cxv. 3 ; 2 Mace. vii. 16). It was the aloof attitude of the leaders of Judaism that enabled Herod to treat him as he did. But although John, i. e. he who came ' in the spirit and power of Elijah' I, Luke i. 17), in the end suffered thus, nevertheless he was the Elijah of Prophecj', and did the work assigned to him (see next note). Why, then, should not the prophecies touching Messiah receive fulfilment through the like experience of suffering at the hands of the leaders of an unprepared {eople ? Such is the tendency of the argument, though it is not drawn out explicitly. even as it is written of him. The three Apostles would understand that Jesus identified Elijah with John (Matt. xvii. 13). On an earlier occasion, indeed, Jesus had pointed to this identifica- tion (Matt. xi. 14"). But where is it ' written ' that Elijah was to suffer? It is not enough to say that Jesus spoke with reference simply to the statements made in the O. T. on the sufferings of prophets generally. The reference is a definite one. Traces of the idea of Elijah as one whose faithful witness was at first rejected by God's People ma^' be found in the refeience to the ' two witnesses ' or martyrs in Rev. xi. i ff., which is probably based on an earlier Jewish writing where Elijah is thought to be one of the two heralds of the Messianic Kingdom described as about to dawn. A suggestive analogy to such a Jewish writing touching Elijah is furnished by the Apocryphal ' Mart3'rdom of Isaiah ' lying behind the Christianized apocalyptic book known as the Asceyision of Isaiah. But it is improbable that any such writing is here in view. It looks, rather, as if Jesus saw in the lot of the typical figure of God's ' righteous servant ' — rejected and wrong- full3' treated b}' men, even unto death — as depicted in Isa. liii., a foreshadowing of John (not exclusively, but inclusivelj', as a prime example of his class, 'the prophets,' cf. Lukexi. 49 f., vii. 26 f.). This hypothesis would help toexplain the fact, otherwise difficultto under- stand, that in spite of the arresting prominence of this aspect of the Servant of the Lord in Isa. xl. ff. — especially to an eye such as that of Jesus — he does not seem originally to have expected any- thing but acceptance for his own Good News of the Kingdom. 2 70 ST. MARK 9. 14- X^^ 14 And when they came to the disciples, t hey saw a great For if at first he read its fulfilment for that generation as having Ilreadv occurred in lohn, so that the redemptive fruit of h.s fa.th- Sness even unto dekh might "-v be looked i^^rjn Israel srecep- tiveness of soul to his message, as continued in h.s onvh Messianic Min"strv Tesus would naturally begin his preaching with high hopes of in ^.mediate breaking-in of the Kingdom, with no further need for suflering in the cup of its prophets, least of all n Mess^h's own. How fitlv would Isa. liu. 7-9 g've /n^^^ing o the statement hat men did un.o John 'whatsoever they listed' ! But nowTesus had gathered from bitter experience that rejection was to be even Messiah's way of bringing in the Kingdom. Well may H G Wood observe that the fact ' that Jesus regarded Join a fSfilling the ministry of Elijah is of great -Portance for Understanding how he came to anticipate H'%°X? fcf Matf x^ were sent in the ' wisdom' of the Heavenly Father (cf- Matt. xi. 76 xVrLuleJ'itsi-SS^. See further the Parableofthe Husband- men and notes on xii. i. ix 1^-20 HeaUn!^ of the Demoniac Boy (M att. xvii. 14-20 LkMx. o, 4;^ Mark s narrative is graphic and circumstantial. The nLr'ati^es of Matthew and Luke are shorter. Yet both give some TarSars not mentioned by MarL The dramatic and symbohc contrast of the two scenes, on the Mount and on Jesus return to he world of human life below, which Raphael's genms caught and translated into visible form in his picture on this theme was probabi; present to certain of the first .C^nstians and helps to explain the preservation of this '^"ej- incident. Espec^dydoes^^^ exDlain the length at which Mark relates it, with the aid of Feter s :r.?'d'Ll';A-i... touches „o.s,„rcdb,.h.co„„^ vivid memory, vvitn louuuc:^ u^. 0..^..^^ ."-',, f , Th^^ narallel tradition implied also in Matt, and especially Luke JJ^ PJ[^^'^ with Moses' case in Ex. xxxii. Divine communion mthe_ Mount and confusion ar present to their m meaning of which with Moses' case in Ex. xxx.i, u.vine com.uuxuu.. ■';"—■:-- and confusion and evil among men below, was also Pe^haps nrLnt to the"r minds. Some find too in the section features the 'eaning of which remains obscure, and which -ggest to t em tha ,e original setting of the healing of the Demoniac boy wa not exacth' what Mark gives us. But in the notes whicn louow, most if not ail, of them seem to find a natural solution. Both 7a«: and Luke'in large degree ignore l^^^y^Zw'^^r^^i the incident as otherwise known to them (in their other cmei source) b'egan more abruptly : in Particular they omit al re erence to the presence of Scribes engaged in discussion with the disciples This feature:however, just because it has - ^^-^XTtTsp^cia follows, may well be part of the circumstantiality of the special '^^::zix:'^^r'^i^;^^ now to the ST. MARK 9. 15-17. XMk 271 multitude about them, and scribes questioning with them. And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him. And he asked them, What question ye with them ? And one of the multitude answered him, '^ Master, I brought ^ Or, Teacher place they had left for the time. None of the Apostles had remained at the foot of the mountain. Jesus and the three found them now in the midst of a crowd of people, and engaged in a discussion with certain scribes. These scribes, who belonged probably to the district, seized an opportunity which presented itself for damaging the disciples of Jesus in the eyes of the public. questioning' witli them : ' arguing with them.' The incident of the discussion with the scribes is omitted both bj' Matthew and by Luke. The matter at issue was .ipparently the failure of the disciples to effect a certain cure. This gave the scribes an opening to throw doubt on ' the authority over unclean spirits ' (vi. 7) which Jesus was said to have given them. Their failure in this case may well have been a perplexity to the disciples themselves, making it difficult for them to answer the scribes. 15. greatly amazed : the word is verj' strong, and is found only in Mark. He uses it when he tells us that Jesus was 'greatly amazed' in his Agony (xiv. 33\ and again when he reports how the women were ' amazed ' when they entered the Lord's tomb (xvi. 5, 6 ; cf. Acts iii. 10). What caused the ' amazement ' on this occasion? Some think that the cause was the opportuneness of his sudden appearance. But perhaps the real point is that the afore- mentioned scribes had given the people to understand that * the Prophet of Nazareth ' had prudently retired, to save himself and his special intimates from gathering danger, and would be seen no more. 16. lie asked them. He took no notice of the scribes, the main disputants, but turned to the people, seeing they bad some difficult matter in hand, and asking them what it was that they were discussing with the disciples. 17. one of the multitude answered. The reply to the inter- rogation of Jesus comes from an individual in the crowd, and from the one most concerned. Master. Here again in the sense of 'Teacher.' X broug'ht unto thee my son. The father had come expect- ing to find Jesus himself there, but had had to be content with the disciples. Matthew refers only to the application to the dis- ciples (xvii. 16), Luke tells us that the boy was the man's ' only ' child (cf. vii. 12, viii. 42). 272 ST. MARK 9. 18-21. X^k 18 unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit; and wheresoever it taketh him, it '^ dasheth him down : and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away : and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out ; 19 and they were not able. And he answereth them and saith, O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you ? how long shall I bear with you ? bring him unto 20 me. And they brought him unto him : and when he saw him, straightway the spirit ^tare him grievously; 21 and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming. And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath * Or, rendeth him ^ Or, convulsed a dunxb spirit. He could cry out (Luke ix. 39), but could not utter articulate sounds. It appears from Jesus' words that the unclean spirit was also deaf (ix. 251. The two generally went together ; cf. the case in Dccapolis i^vii. 32). What is said of the spirit describes the condition of the afflicted bo3% 18. wheresoever it taketli him. The boy was the victim ol fits, which were of extreme violence, frequent occurrence ('oft- times,' ix. 22\ and of a kind that might come upon him anywhere without warning. They were the convulsive, recurrent, perhaps periodical, seizures of an epileptic. So Matthew represents the father as sa^'ing ' he is epileptic ' (xvii. i5\ Tlie combined accounts of the three Synoptists give a vivid picture of the effects of these seizures. The word rendered ' pineth away' is also used of the withering of the hand of the man in the synagogue (iii. i), of the plant that had no root (iv. 6), of grass (Jas. i. 11). O faithless g^eneratiou, how long-, &c. Jesus 'answers' the spiritual state of all those about him, the multitude as well as the father, who was here but their spokesmen. The vehemence of the exclamation reflects his cumulative sense of disappointment with the unpreparedness of Israel for full faith in God as the Heavenly Father, with whom he had just had such profound com- munion — in spite of all that remained mysterious to his human mind — on the Mount of Vision. He feels that his work among them lias had so little spiritual result. (The added epithet, 'and perverse,' in Matt, and Luke is probably due to Deut. xxxii. 5.) 21. he asked his father. '1 he interesting details given from this point on, to the first half of verse 25, are f)cculiar to Mark. They show at how early a stage in the boy's life these seizures ST. MARK 9. 22-25. XMk 273 come unto him ? And he said, From a child. And 22 oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him : but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us. And Jesus said 23 unto him, If thou canst ! All things are possible to him that believeth. Straightway the father of the child cried 24 out, and said % I believe ; help thou mine unbelief. And 25 when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together, "■ Many ancient authorities add wiih tears began, how frequent thai' were, and how dreadful — taking even the form of suicidal frenzy. They shew also how the father's faith had been tried, and how nevertheless it rose to the word of Jesus. 22. if thou canst do anything'. The leper had said ' If thou wilt, thou canst' (i. 40). But this man's confidence in the Healer had suffered the shock given it by the powerlessness of the dis- ciples of the Healer. 23. If thou canst I a repetition, in which Jesus takes up the father's word and utters it again with a touch of compassionate rebuke, declaring how the question of ability turns upon the question of faith. ' If thou canst, thou sayest : but possibility is limited only b}' one's faith.' So the question of the possibility of healing for the son is turned from what is in Jesus to what is in the Father himself. This, the line of spiritual awakening, was ever Jesus' way, his chief concern in healing the body being with the real man, to whom it gave an avenue of approach. 24. Straightway the father of the child cried out. The father catches the point, and the Master's word throws him back in the first instance upon himself and his own spiritual action, as the condition for the efficient exercise of the power on the side of Jesus. Instantly he rises to a higher faith ; and this avails, as in the case of the Syro- Phoenician woman, for the faith which the sufferer is not in a position to exercise. help thou mine unbelief. The help needed, he sees, is first for himself. Those who are trying to exercise living faith in God best know the unbelief that lurks in their hearts. 25. when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together. The lapse of time in this dialogue was causing the crowd to gather more thickly around. There is no reason for further delay, and there is an obvious reason for speedy action. Jesus at once speaks the word of deliverance for the boy. He speaks it in his own name, with emphasis on the I : 'I,' the T 2 74 ST. MARK 9. 26-29. X^k he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, 26 and enter no more into him. And having cried out, and * torn him much, he came out : and the child became as one dead ; insomuch that the more part said. He is dead. 27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; 28 and he arose. And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, ^ saying, We could not 29 cast it out. And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing, save by prayer °. * Or, convulsed '* Or, How is it that lue could not cast it out ? ° i\Iany ancient authorities add and fasting. Master — no longer the imperfect learners in my school of Divine power through faith — 'command thee.' 26. torn liim much. The command had been uttered in a tone of great authority and in very definite terms. The case required this, for it was one of extraordinary severity. This was seen in its last stage. Convulsions seized the boy again, convul- sions so violent and protracted that they left him utterly exhausted, as if the life had gone out of him. Most, indeed, took him for dead. 27. took him by the hand. So giving him ordinary human help in his collapse, and raising him out of it; as he did in the two previous cases of Peters wife's mother i^i. 31) and the daughter of Jairus (v. 41). 28. his disciples asked him privately. Lulie alone records the impression produced on the people : 'they were all astonished at the majesty of God ' (ix. 43). Mark and Matthew notice what happened with the disciples themselves. When the Twelve are in private with him, the nine ask him, as was natural, why they had failed. 29. by nothing', save by prayer* The A. V. adds ' and fast- ing.' But the shorter reading of the R. V. is better supported and doubtless original. Yet the addition has its own interest as reflecting the experience of later Christian exorcists as to the con- ditions of greatest power in such cases : ' fasting ' tended to release the spiritual faculty of prayer for full exercise. Here we have an excellent illustration of the sort of guileless cause which explains most changes in the N. T. text, springing as they do simply from the practical spirit and interest with which it was studied by its ST. MARK 9. 30, 31. XMk 275 And they went forth from thence, and passed through 30 GaHlee ; and he would not that any man should know it. For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son 31 readers. With 'this kind," this kind of demons, such aggravated cases of possession, nothing, says Jesus, avails but prayer, as the condition of habitual preparedness for the exercise of adequate 'faitli' — personal living reliance on God, the real efficient Worker behind all that is. The cause of the present inability of the disciples, therefore, was in themselves. Matthew reports Jesus to have told them in explicit terms that it was because of their ' little faith ' : i. e. he goes back to the ultimate secret of the matter, of which ' prayer' was the condition and so the immediate answer to their query. They had been trusting in their commission, and had thought but little of the moral conditions, those of faith and prayer, on which its efficacy depended. ix. 30-32. Second announcement to the Twelve of his coming Passion (cf. Matt. xvii. 22, 23 ; Luke ix. 43-45). 30. from thence. That is, from near Mount Hermon and the far north. throng'h Galilee : by the west side of Jordan. On their way to Csesarea Philippi and the north the}' may have gone by the east side of the river, outside Galilee proper. lie would not that any man should know it. While Jesus' motive for travelling incognito, in order to escape the attention of his foes (with Herod behind them), which had made him leave Galilee some weeks or even months before (vii. 24), still held good, it is now explained what was the topic preoccupying his mind at this time. He was engaged in trying to cotnplete the preparation of the Twelve for standing by hint, when he should make his new and final appeal to Israel, assembled in Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. As to its probable issue he had no illusions ; but now he felt it must be made in the interests of the Kingdom, if this was to come speedily, as the message given to John and to himself implied. It might come about in one way or another, either by a ' repentance' under present conditions or only with a repentance created bj' his own rejection, follow-ed by a Dixane vindication after a very brief interval — ' after three days,' as Hosea (vi. 2) had phrased it. 31. taug'ht his disciples: habitually during the course of the journey. This teaching and training of the Twelve made his chief work then ; and his theme was his being ' handed over into the hands of men.' Luke adds that Jesus said to them emphatically (in the Hebraic language of his source), ' Do ye deposit deep in {lit. '• put into ") your ears these sayings' (ix. 44). 2 76 ST. MARK 9. 32. XMk of man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him ; and when he is killed, after three days he 32 shall rise again. But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him. is delivered tip : rather ' is being,' on the way to be (cf. ' about to be,' Luke), 'delivered up.' He is already treading that path ; and the word used, i. e. ' handed over,' suggests that it was by his Father's hand that his 'surrender' was being made 'into the hands of men.' This draws out the ' Divine necessity ' implied in the 'must' &c. of viii. 31. Luke has no more than this summary form of statement touching Jesus' coming Passion, shewing thereby that his special source, the presence of which here is indicated by the Hebraic style of ix. 44a and 45b (note its parallelism with 45a), did not contain more. This independence in the two lines of tradition confirms the historicity of this topic as the subject of Jesus' teaching at this juncture. Does, then, lack of support from the other line throw some suspicion upon the further references to death and 'rising again after three days' which occur in Mark (cf. viii. 31, there followed by Luke also, and see notes) ? Hardly. For there seems positive necessity for the latter idea, as the reassuring element needful in a forecast which otherwise would have been too un- relieved in its sombreness for Jesus to have spent days on instilling it into their minds. And this idea in turn presupposes death. It was just this aspect of final victory for his cause — which the phrase 'rising again after three days,' perhaps regarded by them as one of his suggestive figurative expressions, left prominent in their minds — that would help the disciples to go forward with him in the face of imminent dangers in the actual situation, discounting the darker side of his forecast of the near future. Clearly they did not face seriously the suggestions of his ' death,' even up to the eleventh hour : cf. the next verse. 32. afraid to ask him. They had some indistinct and painful sense of what he meant, but no proper comprehension of it (this is confirmed by Luke's source in ix. 45'', in contrast to Matthew, which misses the real situation altogether) ; and they refrained from asking him. They had seen how Jesus could rebuke even Peter, when he spoke his mind about it on the former occasion (viii. 33"!. ix. 33-50. Jesus at Capernaum teaches His disriples htinnlity, discipleship, and self-tnastery. 'This section illustrates the kind of teaching which Jesus gave in private to his disciples. It may embody fragmentary recol- lections of a particular discussion ; but more probably Mark has ST. MARK 9. 33-36. XMk 277 And they came to Capernaum : and when he was in 33 the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning in the way? But they held their peace: for they had 34 disputed one with another in the way, who was the »■ greatest. And he sat down, and called the twelve ; 35 and he saith unto them. If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and minister of all. And he took 36 a little child, and set him in the midst of them : and * Gr. greater strung together utterances and incidents belonging to different occasions, the connecting Hnks being sometimes the mere repetition of a single word, such as " cause to stumble " (42 f.), or " fire " (48 f.), or even "in my name " (37, 39). The latter half of 37 and 41 are paralleled in Matt. x. 40-42,' and are closely connected (H. G.Wood in Peake's Conmt. ou the Bible, p. 692). ix. 33-37. Ambition and Humility (cf. Matt, xviii. 1-5 ; Luke ix. 46-48). (Immediatelj' before this Matthew, and it alone, introduces the narrative of the half-shekel in the mouth of the fish.) The topic of precedence is significant of Jesus' language at this stage as more suggestive of definite Messianic action on his part for the bringing in of the Kingdom. The disciples' question, how- ever, ' reveals the idea of the Kingdom which made it difficult for them to understand the Cross.' The principle of greatness through service, here used to correct their ambition, is again used and further developed in x. 42 f. 33. to Capernaum. Here he had begun his Galilsean ministry', and here, so far as the Gospels shew, he closed it. His way now was to be towards Jerusalem. in tlie house : see ii. i and note. 34. held their peace : realizing now the impropriety of their conduct, Mark (and Luke) refers to the discussion as if it related only to the disciples themselves. Matthew, following his tradition, gives the question a wider scope, and makes the disciples ask 'Who then is the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven (xviii. 1)?' The discussion possibly had its roots in anticipations connected with the lead taken by Peter among the Twelve as a body. Did such distinctions really point to their relative status in the Kingdom of the Messiah ? 35. sat down: as a Rabbi did when about to teach. For what follows, compare x. 43. 36. toofe a little child. The verbal lesson is followed up by 2 78 ST. MARK 9. 37. X^k 37 taking him in his arms, he said unto them, Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me : and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me. an object-lesson which none could mistake. A child is looking on or playing near by. (There is a tradition, but one of no value, that he was the Ignatius who grew up to be the famous bishop and martyr.) Jesus calls the little one (Matt, xviii. 2), takes him beside himself as he sat in the midst of the Twelve, and putting his arms lovingly round him so repeats his lesson. Mark alone records this last affectionate gesture. Matthew gives the words he spoke at a greater length (xviii. 3, &c.), some being the same as are found in Mark x. 15— a verse which better suits the present context and may well have been spoken before verse 37 (as in Matthew). 37. receive one of such little cliildren. ' Such : a little child like this one, i. e. any little child (in the literal sense) with the child spirit, and not only (as in verse 42) one ' that believes on me.' While, however, this seems the strict or immediate meaning, the principle, here embodied in an extreme case (childhood being then held in little regard), necessarily carries further; so that it amounts to this, ' to appreciate in men the Christ-like character,' in its unconscious or ' natural ' form as the child-spirit, instead of the self-seeking one, 'is to appreciate Christ, and more than that, the very nature of God.' This child was the representative of the class of little children, and a type also of the order of true disciples, self forgetful, modest, unassuming. in my name: ///. ' on (the basis of) my name,' that is, 'out of regard for me,' and my attitude to such. The ' name ' stands for the person himself. A truly characteristic and original saying of the Master's and one most revolutionary of ordinary values, especially in the ancient world. receive one of such . . . me. True greatness, tested by reception of, or spiritual companionship with, Jesus the Christ, and with His Father, is thus found, not in the assertion of self above others, but in reverence for that humanity of which the un- spoilt child is a type, and in self-denying service to it in others. Herein lies a mark of true discipleship. It is to be noted that Matthew (probably Luke's source also) has nothing corresponding to the latter part of the verse, but something like it in x. 40 (as Lk. X. 16). ix. 38-41. Tcachins; oti Discipleship Ccf. Luke ix. 49, 59 ; Matt. X. 42). This episode is felt by some to have no organic connexion with what precedes. The point of contact is a rather formal one. ST. MARK 9. 38, 39. P 279 [P] John said unto him, ^ Master, we saw one casting 3S out l> devils in thy name : and we forbade him, because he followed not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not : ?'j for there is no man which shall do a ^mighty work in my * Or, Teacher ^ Gr. demons ■= Gr. poiaer the ide.^ of acting 'in the name' of Jesus, and the section is miss- ing in Matthew. But when we remember the way tlie disciples were wont to la^' hold on a phrase, even without catching its true meaning (as with 'the leaven of the Pharisees'), we may regard that fact not quite conclusive (yet see note on verse 41). Perhaps, then, the secondary or glossing text followed in A. V., ' John answered and said ' (= Luke ix. 49), is true to the real connexion. 38. John said. John seldom appears in the Synoptic narratives, and only on this one occasion is he spokesman. He is coupled with James in the ambitious request for the chief places in the kingdom (^x. 351, end with Peter and James and Andrew in the question about the time of the end xiii, ^). •we saw one casting- out devils ('demons ') in thy name. The Master's word just uttered about receiving persons ' in his name' recalls a recent incident in the work of the disciples (cf. Luke ix. 52* for a special mission). Possibly John, who recalls it, and whose fervid zeal for his Master's honour seems implied in Luke ix. 54, had taken a leading part in the matter. W3 forbade Mm: or rather ' tried to hinder him.' They had seen one who had not the right coming from discipleship and a commission like their own, taking a liberty, as they judged it, with the name of Jesus in the work of exorcism; and they tried to stop him. John is now made uneasy about this. What Jesus had just said about the value of action ' in his name ' might bear on it. Were they right in what they lad done? Jesus had spoken of acting in his name; but it was about 'receiving', not rejecting, persons. l)9cause lie followed not us : rather ' was not following us,' i. e. had not joined our company. Luke gives this a rather different form, 'because he followeth not with us' (ix. 49). They had a reason for their action, and John states it. The man was not one of themselves, a man duly authorized to represent the Master. The narrative suggests, especially in Christ's reply, that the man, though he had not even joined the circle of professed disciples, acted in sincerity and believed in some measure in Jesus as sent of God, as well as in the power of his ' name.' 39, Porljid him not. The answer of Jesus is that they had erred by excess of zeal Compare the case cf Joshua, and the reply of Moses (Num. xi. 28, 29). 28o ST. MARK 9. 40, 41- P XWk 40 name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. For he 41 that is not against us is for us. [X^^] For whosoever speak evil of me. Jesus, too, gives his reason. There was nothing to fear from leaving such a case alone. A man who had faith enough in the power of the name of Jesus to think of using it in casting out demons, was not likely to prove an enemy. Rather might he be, or be gained as, a friend. 40. Per he that is not against us is for us. On another occasion Jesus said * He that is not with me is against me ' (Matt. xii. 30 ; Luke xi. 23) — a striking example of the fact that his sayings need to be taken in their historic context in order to be apprehended in their spirit, i. e. their real sense. The cases are in fact different, and yet the two sayings rest on the same principle, viz. that one cannot be for and against, friend and foe, at the same time. A man cannot be against Jesus Christ, if he has faith, how- ever imperfect, in his name. He cannot be the friend of Christ if he holds aloof, in a critical attitude, as did the Pharisees generally. The one saying does not negative the other, but supplements it. The one deals with a man's estimate of another's personal attitude to Christ ; the other with one's own attitude to him. In the former case the Law of Charity, doing to others as we would be done by, means ' giving them the benefit of the doubt.' 41. I"or whosoever shall give you a cup of water to dxink, &c. This verse continues, as it stands, the line of thought inverse 40, supporting it by a solemn declaration that even a slight indirect service to Christ, in the person of one of his followers, would receive its reward. But in Matt. x. 42 the service is to 'one of these little ones,' applied to the Twelve. Confusion between the literal and spiritual senses of 'little ones' — children and Christ's disciples as humble in lot — -would easily arise in tradition ; and this seems to have operated in both cases. Originally what appears in Mark x. 41 may have referred to ' one of these little ones' and followed directly on what we find in Mark ix. 37 (or perhaps in the context x. 14 f.), with its ' one of such little children.' For in v. 42 also we have 'one of these little ones' (as in Matt. x. 42), with the addition of 'who believe.' Confusion between kindred senses of a saying on the child-spirit would be apt to arise. In Matthew's form of the saying the like tendency to change the reference has seemingly been at work ; only there we see the change in process, as it were. ' And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones (the context pointing to Jesus' discii^Ics) a cup of ro/r/ water only, in the name of (7 disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall, &c.' The unexplained way in which ' one of these little ones ' occurs in Luke xvii. 2 also bears out the suggestion that its original reference was lost in tradition. ST. MARK 9. 41. XMk 281 shall give you a cup of water to drink, «. because ye are Christ's, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose * Gr. in name that ye are Note too that in verse 42 Jesus passes on in Mark's narrative (as in Matt, xviii. 5 ff. without the intervening digression caused by John's question) to the case of children disciples, in order to dwell on the terrible penalty (in contrast to the reward in verse 41) for putting stumbling-blocks in the way of 'little ones' in their child- like innocence. This seems to preserve a trace of the original sense in which the saying was uttered (see x. 13 f.), though the context in which it appears in Mark, immediately after reference to Jesus' ordinary, adult disciples, tends to make the reference ambiguous. For ' little ones ' had in the Apostolic Church come to mean — as it may possibly have meant somewhere in Jesus' own teaching (cf. Zech. xiii. 7) — his followers generally, who, as dis- tinct from the great or ' wise and understanding' (cf. Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke X. 21), were 'little' folk in men's esteem (cf. Rev. xi. 18, xiii. 16, xix. 5, 18, XX. 12, for the distinction in society between ' small ' and ' great '). So in Matt. x. 42, cited above, and also Luke xvii. 2, where no literal children have been referred to. In Luke, where Christians as such are in view, the same verse w^hich follows Matt, xviii. 6 (about 'little children'), to the effect that ' occasions of stumbling must needs come,' precedes the saying about causing offence to 'these little ones' — the saying found in Mark ix. 42 about child believers. This shews how easily con- fusion could arise as to the sense of the phrase, and so of the whole saj'ing. Further, as already hinted, the turn of the phrase, 'one of these little ones who believe,' suggests that it was spoken originally on an occasion when, not one little child (as in verse 36), but several were in question ; and this corresponds exactly to the situation in x. 13 ff. To this therefore it more properly belongs, especially as in that context the idea of ' causing to stumble,' or rebuffing the little ones, is already present. Finally, seeing that what follows in 43 ff. hangs on verse 42 by the rather artificial link of the idea ' to cause to stumble ' (see note on 43 for the difference in its use in the two cases), it becomes likely that verses 43-50 originally belonged to j'et another and different context altogether. because ye are Christ's : literally, as it is given in the margin of the R. v., ' in name that ye arc Christ's,' a too literal rendering of the Aramaic for 'on the score that ye belong to Christ.' As 'Christ' (without the article which makes it an official title, 'the Messiah ') appears here only in the Gospels, the form of this phrase is almost certainly not what Jesus himself uttered. 282 ST. MARK 9. 42, 43. X^k 42 his reward. And Avhosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe ^on me to stumble, it were better for him if I'a great millstone were hanged about his neck, 43 and he were cast into the sea. And if thy hand cause * Many ancient authorities omit on mc (? from Matt, xviii. 6). ^ Gr. a millsione turned by an ass. Matthew's 'in the name of a disciple' is more natural to the Gospel setting, Mark's phrase being really proper to the Apos- tolic age. ix. 42-50. On offending ' little ones,'' and on self-mastery (of. Matt, xviii 6, 8 f ; Luke xvii. 2"^. See note on verse 41. 42. cause ... to stxxmble. The present connexion is that, while kindness to a disciple has its reward, on the other hand an occasion of stumbling given to a child disciple brings heavy penalty to the wrongdoer. Allen shews in a careful 'Additional Note ' (pp. 199-202 I that the verb here rendered ' cause to stumble,' as by a stone put in another's waj', can also, like the noun skandaloii (whence, in a metaphorical sense, our 'a scandal'), mean ' ensnare.' Only the context can settle the better sense in any given case. The nature of this penalty, i. e. by a millstone, points to that in the R. V. as here preferable ; cf. note on verse 41. The weak and simple, who can so easily be hurt, ought to have special consideration. On that general principle Jesus himself acted. This principle of patient regard for the weak has a large place also both in the teaching and in the practice of Paul (Rom. xiv. 21 ; I Cor. viii. 13 ; 2 Cor. xi. 29). better for him if a great millstone: lit. 'an ass-millstone,' one turned by an asi. The ordinary hand-mill, as it may be seen ill the East to-day, consisted of two circular stones one above the other, worked by women, female slaves and others (Exod. xi. 5 ; Judges ix. 53). Here, however, the reference is to another kind of millstone, the tahanel, which was large enough to require an animal to work it. The whole figure is a strong one, expressing utter destruction. 43-48. The sequence of these verses, which turn from causes of harm to others to those to oneself, seems, like that of John's digression above 138-40), to be due to an incidental phrase and the idea it embodies, viz. ' cause to stumble.' Whether, then, they were uttered bj' Jesus on this occasion is very doubtful ; compare the similar case in 49. 43. if thy hand cause thee to stumble. The question of 'ofTenccs ' is now shifted, from the case of those caused to others, to that of those caused to ourselves. S[)iritual hurt may come to a man from himself, from some part of his nature which he suffers ST. MARK 9. 45-47- X^k 283 thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into ^ hell, into the unquenchable fire> And if thy foot 45 cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into «^hell. And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, 47 " Cr. Gehenna ^ Verses 44 and 46 (which are identical with verse 48) are omitted by the best ancient authorities. to be a source of stumbling or a snare to himself. It is his wisdom, therefore, to cut off the occasion, at whatever cost and wherever it lie, whether in hand, in foot, or in eye. In the personal life too there is the need for sacrifice. into life : in the sense, not of mere existence, but ' the life that is life indeed' (i Tim. vi. 19), the life of the coming Kingdom (cf. 47). into hell: rather 'into Gehenna.' Tiiis word 'Gehenna,' not found in the fourth Gospel, occurs eleven times in the Synoptics. It represents the O. T. Gc Hiiinom, 'the valley of Hinnom,' ' the valley of the children of Hinnom ' (Neh. xi. 30 ; Joshua XV. 8, xviii. 16 ; 2 Chron. xxviii. 3 ; Jer. vii. 31 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 10), the name given to a gorge mainly S.W. of Jerusalem, where in ancient times idolatrous Israelites sacrificed their children to Moloch. It was • desecrated ' b3- Josiah (2 Kings xxiii. ic^, and became, it is said, the place where the refuse of Jerusalem was thrown for burning in fires. The horrors associated with the name made it a natural figure for the place of future punishment : and that sense it bears in the later Jewish books, the Book of Enoch (xxvii. i), the Sibylline Oracles (i. 103), 4 Esdras (u. 291, &c. Its Rabbinic use is seen in one of 'The Sayings of the Fathers' {Pirke Aboih i. 6) : the sinner ' desists from works of Law (Tora/i), and in the end he inherits Gehinnom.' Jesus uses it here and elsewhere in this sense, that of the final place or condition of retribution. It passed into the Latin Bible ; but became rendered in English b}' the ambiguous 'hell,' used also for the Greek word Hades. into the unquenchable fire. Another figure of speech, recalling the closing words of the book of Isaiah {Ixv'x. 24), pro- bably in allusion to the cleansing fires that burned in the ancient Ge Hinnom. The existence of these fires, however, as kept burn- ing perpetually for the consumption of the offal deposited in the ravine, is not certain. But in any case it is the figure of a lasting spiritual penalty : so the Jewish paraphrase (Targum) of Isa. xxxiii. 284 ST. MARK 9. 48, 49. X^k cast it out : it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be 48 cast into ^ hell ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 49 not quenched. For every one shall be salted with fire K * Gr. Gehenna ^ Many ancient authorities add and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. See Lev. ii. 13. 14, 'the wicked shall be given over to Gehenna, to burn of ever- lasting fire.' Verses 44, 46, \vhich appear in the A.V., are rightly omitted b^' the R. V. as being insufficiently attested. 47. the kingdom of God. The phrase is used here as an equivalent to the 'life' ^vhich in the previous verses expresses one of the two final issues of our doings with others and with ourselves. 48. where their worm dieth not. Yet another strong figure, again in terms of Isa. Ixvi. 24, and expressing a future penalt}' that does not exhaust itself. 49. every one shall be salted with fire. Once more the con- nexion hangs on a phrase, here 'fire'; but in this case the continuity of thought between 48 and 49 is deep and strong, far rriore so than in the next case, that of the ' salting' in 49 and the 'salt ' in 50. The clause added by the A. V., 'and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt' (cf. Lev. ii. i3\ is no part of the original, but illustrates hozu additions due to similarity of idea tended to creep into the Gospel tradition, even when it was written down : how much more so when it was yet oral? The addition v/as originally an interpretation of the genuine text (which falls out in some early MSS.) : then it was added to it. The genuine saying, a very striking one, seems connected with the preceding mention of a fire that is not quenched, thus : ' Yes, the fire. I sa}', is not quenched ; for with fire— of one sort or another — all must, sooner or later, be salted.' The key to its meaning is found probably in the Levitical regu- lation which provided that with all oblations salt was to be offered (Lev. ii. 13), as the glossing addition rightly suggests. Salt was used in connexion with the making of covenants (Lev. ii. 13 ; Num. xviii. ig ; 2 Chron. xiii. 5~) ; and the sacrificial salt of the Levitical offerings was the S3'mbol of the covenant-relation between God and Israel. It was interpreted by this lime, at least, with reference to the properties of salt as a preservative against corrup- tion in things apt to putrify, a preservative, however, with a stinging, painful effect on sentient life. In this respect it is like ' fire,' which also causes pain, j-et, it may be, wholesome and purifying pain ; hence the combination of the two metaphors in ST. MARK 9. 50. XMk 285 Salt is good : but if the salt have lost its saltness, where- 50 the one idea ' salted with (purifying) fire.' To this discipline of suffering in one form or another, Jesus sa3's, all men must submit, whether freely or by constraint. The form he here sets before his disciples, for their good, is that of discipline ; voluntarily accepted for the sake of the true life, to be safeguarded thereby from corrup- tion ; and illustrations of this positive or cleansing function of moral fire have just been given in 43-47. But these are only special cases of the general principle of suffering as integral to the path of his disciples, as of their Master, which Jesus had set him- self to bring home to them ever since he had hinted, while near Caesarea Philippi, at the Cross looming before him (see ix. 31 f.). The best commentary on the whole saying is another equally striking, in Luke xii. 49 : ' I came to cast fire (of testing) upon the earth ; and what will I, if it is already kindled ? ' There he adds that he has himself to be ' baptized ' with this kind of searching • baptism' (cf. Matt. iii. 11, for the metaphor, ' He shall baptize you with holy spirit and fire ' ), and is sore pressed or ' straitened ' in spirit * till it be fulfilled.' The context which precedes this in Luke (xii. 47 f.) makes the parallel most illuminative, teaching as it does that ' stripes ' for servants will be ' few ' or ' many,' accord- ing as their unreadiness for their Lord's arrival is accompanied by knowledge or ignorance of his declared purpohe to return ere long, so that they should be ready for Him. The broad moral for all (♦every one') is the necessity for practice of the sacrifice of self, that ' life ' may be gained and loss escaped. 50. Salt is good. Here, once more, the connexion in a word just used seems artificial, so that the collocation is probably not original but due to accident in tradition. For the first half of this verse occurs in quite other contexts alike in Matt. v. 13 and Luke xiv. 34 ; and in both the ' salt ' meant is Christians themselves, as saving the world from corruption. The same sense seems to belong to the saying here also : yet such a sense is alien to that required by sequence to verse 49. The second half of the verse, on the other hand, seems more of a piece with the general trend of what precedes, from 34 onwards. Probably, then, 50* became attached in oral tradition ;its grammatical form for * salt ' differs from that in 50''). lost its saltness. The sweeping out of salt that has lost its virtue, and become useless or hurtful, is still, travellers tell us, a common sight in Palestine. wherewith will ye season it ? Salt once spoilt can never have its saltness restored. So if the qualities which make up the 'saltness' of the true disciple — fidelity at all costs of pain, self- abnegation, and the like — are turned to faithlessness and selfish- ness, what becomes of the discipleship which should save others 286 ST. MARK 9. 50. XMk with will ye season it ? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another. from the corruption of worldliness and selfhood ? There is no human source of ' saltness ' capable of renewing it. Have salt in yourselves. Keep the purifying sacrificial fire alive in your souls, and in particular let it burn up the egoism that destroys unity. and be at peace one with another. Let the saving salt of fidelity to your Divine calling fulfil itself in brotherly' relations with one another. So the words seem to bring us back to the disputing of the disciples (ix. 33) with which the conversation started. Selfish claims for the chief places destroy peace among men, and are not of the spirit of Jesus' disciples. 3. Third phase of this Stage : Jesus' back turned on Galilee, his face towards Jerusalem and its issues. (a) First stage of the Journey, x. 1-31. X. 1-12. Departure from Galilee. Question of Divorce (cf. Matt, xix. 1-9. Partial parallels also in Matt. v. 31, 32 ; Luke xvi. 18). 1. This verse covers ' the whole interval between the end of the Galilsean Ministry and the final visit to Jerusalem' (Swete). Jerusalem was now his goal ; and the way took him through ' the borders of Judaea and Trans-Jordania' (lit. Beyond Jordan, a native phrase for the region, see iii. 8, and cf. Gen. 1. 10; Num. xxii. i, of which Josephus gives the Greek equivalent, Peraea — not found in the N. T.). Mark, who never refers to Samaria, seems here (as in iii. 8) to use ' Judsea ' in a wide sense (inclusive of Samaria), according to the political or Roman usage of the time ; cf. the yet wider use, including Galilee, in the best text of Luke iv. 44. Prof. Burkitt (TVje Gospel History and its Transmission, 96 f.), who does not seem to have considered the possibility of this solution of the geographical difficulty, objects to the historical likelihood of the route through Peraea that Jesus, who was retiring from Galilee ' to avoid collision with tlie Herodian officials,' would hardl}' have risked arrest in this other part of Herod's tetrarchy. But apart from the fact that he was thus retiring gradually further and further from Herod's capital, Tiberias — and in ' the marches ' of Herod's realm — Jesus' attitude in Luke xiii. 31—33, viz. that he would not have his movements unduly influenced by threats of arrest, shews that we cannot press that consideration to the extent Burkitt feels needful. Indeed, Peraean conditions are suggested by his own view that the question as to Divorce, put to Jesus here by the same class of persons who were anxious to hurry Jesus' movements in Luke xiii. 31, viz. certain Pharisees, had special topical reference to Herod's own case and that of Herodias (who had practically divorced her husband, cf. v. 12). ST. MARK 10. 1-5. XMk 287 [XMkj And he arose from thence, and cometh into 10 the borders of Judsea and beyond Jordan : and multi- tudes come together unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. And there came unto him 2 Pharisees, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. And he answered and 3 said unto them, What did Moses command you ? And 4 they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. But Jesus said unto them, P'or 5 your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. and mnltitndes come tog'ether unto him again. Multitudes now again, as of old, kept gathering as he passed by ; and again, as before his retirement northwards, he taught them. 2. put away his wife. Probably the more specific form of the question as given in Malt., whose account here seems in the main to be based on its own form of the Apostolic tradition (X^'), is more exact. Could a man rightfully divorce his wife for any and every cause ? That was the issue involved in Herod's own case, which probably occasioned the question and gave it special point and purpose, so that by it his questioners were indeed ' making trial of Jesus. For a negative reply might bring him into conflict both with the Mosaic Law and at the same time with Herod Antipas, who had done this very thing in an arbitrary way. But Mark shews no consciousness of any special reference, only of the marriage ideal of Jesus. 3. What did Moses command you ? Jesus begins, as usual, by going direct to the Scriptural basis of Jewish Law, the final authority which they recognized. 4. bill of divorcement : see Deut. xxiv. 1-4. The Deutero- nomic statement of the grounds on which the husband's right of divorce might proceed was differently interpreted by the Rabbis, the school of Shammai (the stricter) and the school of Hillel (the less strict) being sharply divided on the subject. The former 'limited the right to the case in which the wife was unchaste' (Abrahams, op. cit., p. 711, a ground admitted in all Jewish circles as making divorce a positive duty, and one therefore which \s pre- sumably taken for granted both by Jesus and his questioners. 5. Por your hardness of heart he wrote you this command- ment. It is not meant that the Mosaic Law enjoined divorce or encouraged it, but only that it permitted it and controlled it by enjoining a legal form, by way of safeguard against loose and arbitrary practice in the matter. The ' commandment ' here is the 288 ST. MARK 10. 6-10. X^k 6 But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female 7 made he them. For this cause shall a man leave his 8 father and mother, * and shall cleave to his wife ; and the twain shall become one flesh : so that they are no 9 more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath 10 joined together, let not man put asunder. And in the * Some ancient authorities omit and shall cleave to his wife. regulation referred to, and its object was to check abuse and pro- tect the wife. The Deuteronomic Law, then, did no more than permit divorce, and that for an abnormal reason — the moral condi- tion of the humanity it had to deal with — men's 'hardness of heart.' 6. But from the beginning of the creation. Jesus goes back behind the permissive ordinance of the Mosaic Law, as relative to sin, and invokes the ideal or intention of the Creator. An ancient reforming, semi-prophetic Jewish work, perhaps of about Jesus' own day, recently published as Fragments of a Zadokite Work (ed. Schechter, 7. 1), makes a like use of this text. Divorce was not contemplated in the original relation of man and woman. *I. Por this cause, &c. The words attributed to the first man in the O. T. record of creation (Gen. ii. 24) : cf. i Cor. vi. 16 ; Eph. V. 31. The creation of man as male and female is the ground for the common life of the marriage union ; and that life makes husband and wife in such sense one that every other relation, even the filial, must yield to it. Dr. Kelman brings 'the exacting spirituality of this doctrine marriage ' under the head of Jesus' use of ' the spiritual idealism of the poet,' which runs through his whole mode of thought and speech, explaining its bold, one-sided emphasis, as the occasion demanded (see art. 'Poet' in Diet, of Christ and the Gospels, vol. ii). As to certain aspects of the problem of marriage today, Allen justly remarks : ' The question whether death dissolves it, or whether human sin (by adultery or otherwise) can dissolve it, and so thwart God's purpose, is not here raised.' That is, much of the modern use made of Christ's teaching on Divorce is not strictly relevant or warranted. In particular the case of adultery or unchastity, which by general consent was held ipso facto to dissolve the oneness of man and wife, and so make a formal act of divorce a duty, does not seem here in question, even in verse 9. Such a deed perse ' puts asunder ' the unity provided for by Cod's ordinance, which ' joined together ' man and wife as 'one flesh,' apart from any human ordinance of judicial 'putting asunder.' 10. in the house : better ' on entering the house ' — which for ST. MARK 10. II, 12. XMk 289 house the disciples asked him again of this matter. And n he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her : and 1 2 if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery. the time was the home of the party. Where it was is not stated : probahly somewhere in Peraga. Matthew continues the statement on divorce as if the whole had been addressed to the Pharisees. Mark gives this detail more exactl}'. But Matthew continues further with additional matter (10-12), in such a way as to shew the feeling which prompted the disciples to return to the question. 'The disciples say unto him, if the case of the man is so with his wife (i. e. the bond is indissoluble, normally), it is not expedient to marry ' at all : which shews common Jewish feeling in the matter (comp, Abrahams, op. cit., ch. ix). 11. Whosoever shall piit away. The statement is here given absolutely, as if divorce could in no case be followed lawfull}^ by another marriage union. But in Matt. xix. 9 (as in v. 32, in the Sermon on the Mount) one important exception is specified, that of the one offence by which the marriage bond is dissolved ipso facto: when divorce proceeds on that ground, the marriage of the man who has to put away his wife is not unlawful. That is the natural inference from the words in Matthew, and nothing in Mark, when 1 cad in its true historical setting (see above), calls it in question. Yet many Roman Catholic divines, and not a few Anglicans, affirm that so long as the divorced wife is alive, however guilty she may have been, the husband cannot marry again. This goes quite beyond the intention of Jesus' words here (see Allen), Mark does not refer to this exception, since by the Mosaic law it was punisl.able tuiiJi death (Deut. xxii. 22 ; cf. John viii. i ff.), and not merely by divorce (which shews that this case stood apart), simply because he is stating the principle in its broad or normal form, i. e. where there is no guilt in the partner, but only the self-regarding wish of the party anxious for a divorce (see V. 2). 12. if she herself shall put away her husband. The wife's right to divorce the husband was not recognized among tlie Jews. She could only leave him in factor ' depart' (so DandO. L., cf. i Cor. vii. 10 f.); and it was not lawful for a wife, who voluntarily- departed from her husband, to be married to another, unless her husband re- nounced her (An/iq. xv. 7. 10). Among the Greeks and Romans the wife had the right of divorce ; but cases like those of Salome, an Herodian princess tinged with Greeco-Roman \vaj's (Josephus, Antiq. XV. 7. 10), were exceptional. Hence it is doubted by U 290 ST. MARK 10. 12. XMk some whether Jesus himself stated this, although it was the proper outcome of his general attitude to women as man s equal before God It was not within this scope of the question as raised by the Pharisees, and Jesus was not likely to load his answer needlessly with a further 'hard saying.' Burkitt (as above pp. 100 f.) suggests that Herodias may here be in view ; but whether she, like Salome her great-aunt, had formally divorced her husband Philip, is doubtful. ... , ■ On the whole, then, there is much to be said for this verse being an addition which arose naturally in tradition, as the correlative in terms of Gentile thought (and for the instruction ot Gentiles) ot Jesus' own words applying the general principle to the husband only (according to the original Jewish context). Tesus' teaching on divorce, while it does not bear on all the problems of the Christian Law of Divorce relative to the ideas of the modern world (medical and other), does bear directly upon the weighty religious problem of his attitude to the Mosaic Law as Divinely inspired. Montefiore {The Synoptic Gospds, 1. 238) observes : ' Nowhere does Jesus go nearer to denying the absolute divinity, permanence, and perfection of the Law ; J^* ^"^ ^fJl^^J^ that he was not himself conscious of doing so.' As HG. Wood puts it (op at. p. 693), in relation to Deut. xxiv. if.: This law Sesus set^s asid^e, briaying down a far-reaching pnncple of interpretation which suggests that " the Mosaic Law was in certain cases a kind of second best," or by citing from Gen. 0- ^j) ^ P^^^ sage emphasizing the Divine purpose of marriage. Wellhausen would interpret Mark x. 6 thus : " But in Genesis Moses wrote, Male and female created he them . . . Jesus does not over- throw Moses with the higher authority of God, but Deuteronomy with Genesis." He corrects Moses by Moses.' But this hardly covers the whole case. Had Jesus so meant, it was to his interest so to put it explicitly. Rather we have here a case parallel with certain sayings in the Sermon on the Mount, like ' Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say un o you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. i'^ere too Tesus goes behind the Mosaic Law, as imperfect or limited in scope, to a spiritual principle more fundamental and searching. So with the teaching on Divorce, save that on the present occa- sion he has to hand another passage in Scnplure which sets forth the same matter in its more ideal form, and so has not to io.mu- latc his prophetic higher criticism of the substance ot the Mosaic Law in his own words, and thereby explicitly on his own authority. In the Sermon on the Mount in Matt. v. 31 f., on the other hand, the same teaching is given with ' but I say unto you. (borne tiiink Matt. v. 31 f. to be based on the above incident.) ST. MARK 10. 13, 14. XMk 291 And they brought unto him little children, that he 13 should touch them : and the disciples rebuked them. But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, 14 X. 13-16. Incident of the blessing of children (cf. Matt. xix. 13-15 ; Luke xviii. 15-17;. Mark's narrative suggests (cf. 17) that this occurred while Jesus and his disciples were ' in the house ' where the above conversation had taken place. Possibly Jesus' extra- ordinarily affectionate treatment of the little child in ix. 37 had somehow reached the ears of the mothers in question, and they were eager to have the prophet, whose attitude to Childhood was so different from the superior one usual among ' holy ' men and religious leaders, bless their treasures : see note on v. 16. 13. little cMldren. The word used by Mark is that used also in X. 36. and was applicable even to children of twelve years of age (Mark v. 39, 42). The children, therefore, were not so much babes in arms as little ones somewhat grown, yet young enough to be brought or 'come' to Jesus in their mothers' care. They were able to respond to spiritual influence as persons, ' to receive the Kingdom of God.' Luke uses a word more definitely applicable to babes and very young children (xviii. 15, cf. ii. 12, 16 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15) : and this has given rise to the more usual conception of infants in their mothers' arms. toucli them. Matthew puts it ' that he should lay his hands on them and pray ' (xix. 13). So in effect Mark means by his use of ' touch,' to judge from v. 16, with its la^-ing on of hands in bene- diction ; cf. the case of Israel blessing Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. xlviii. 14). rebuked them : in mistaken concern for the Master's dignity or ease. 14. moved witli indignation. Wrath, together with grief, is ascribed to Jesus in Mark iii. 5. This is the only occasion on which the expressive word selected here for indignation — as when one feels 'This is too nutch to be let pass calmly ' — is used of him. It is the word that describes the resentment of the chief priests and scribes when the children in the temple cried Hosanna to the son of David (Matt. xxi. 15"). It was a disappointment that kindled strong feeling, to see his spirit so misunderstood and his gracious work hindered, and that by the very men he had been instructing so patiently. Matthew^and Luke, significantly, both omit reference to the emotion displayed, as though it were hardly proper to attribute such to the Divine man. How different their feeling to- wards emotion in such a person was from ours to-day, may be seen from the statement of Dr. Kelman that 'the temj^erament of Jesus was in the highest way emotional— a trait which he connects 292 ST. MARK 10. 15-17. X^k and said unto them, Suffer the Uttle children to come unto me ; forbid them not : for of such is the kingdom 15 of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in 16 no wise enter therein. And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them. i; And as he was going forth ^into the way, there ran "^ Or, ('.'; his ivay with his poetic mode of thought and speech {Dkt. of Christ and the Gospels, 2si.'^o<^V). _, , . .u u-u - Suffer . . . forbid them not. The charter of the children s riehts Words of welcome encouragment to the parents, even if addressed to the mistaken disciples in tones that at once arrested them. ' We hear the Lord's indignant call, as it starlles the disci- ples in the act of dismissing the party ' (Swete\ of such is the kingdom of God. The quahties of an open soul '—simplicity, trustfulness, docility, affeclion- proper to child- hood, are the very ones that make the moral conditions for en- trance into the Kingdom. They that have them must not be forbidden : rather they belong, thus far, in temper to the Kingdom (cf. also ix. 41, and note). , .u , . 15. Most characteristic words, significant for Jesus thought alike regarding children and the child spirit and regarding the nature of 'the Kingdom of God.' • i .. 16 he took thsm in his arms. Another emotiona. act, noticed only by Mark (cf. ix. 36\ Luke omits the whole verse. Matthew records the laying on of Jesus' hands, but not the loving embrace Mark's word for ' he blessed them ' ' is intensive and far removed from any official benediction ' i^Wood). Hardly any- thing is more characteristic of Jesus than his attitude to children. It is unparalleled in ancient literature, though Paul's tone in Col. ni. 21 ' that they be not discouraged,' has caught something of it. X. 17-22. The incidevxt of the Rich Man ivhose wealth proved an obstacle (cf.' Matt. xix. 16-22 ; Luke xviii. 18-23) IV. into the way: or, as in margin, * on his way. 1 his striking incident took place just as Jesus was resuming his journey. ran one to him. From Matthew (xix. 20 we learn that he was young, the term 'young man' being one, however, that might cover any age from earliest manhood to middle life ; and from Luke that he was a 'ruler,' a person of position, perhaps one of the rulers of the local synagogue (xvui. 18). All three ST. MARK 10. i8. XMk 293 one to him, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good « Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life ? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? li * Or, Teacher Gospels notice his wealth. Mark alone mentions that he ' ran ' to Jesus, so eager was he. kneeled to him : another fact, shewing his earnestness and his estimate of this new teacher, noticed only by Mark. Good Master : that is ' Teacher.' The young man recognized Jesus as a great Rabbi ; and he saluted him reverently as such, as pupils were accustomed to do homage to distinguished teachers. He had no higher idea of what Jesus was. The question and the answer are given in substantially the same form in Mark and Luke. They appear somewhat differently in Matthew. There the question is 'What good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life ? and the answer is, ' Why asketh thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good' (xix. 17). The tradition with which Matthew was familiar, as also the Nazarene Gospel according to the Hebrews, avoids the difficulty touching Jesus' own person seemingly involved in the more original form (as shewn even by Matt. xix. 17'^) of Mark and Luke, by connect- ing the epithet ' good ' with ' thing ' instead of Master (see below), inlierit eternal life. This great phrase, ' eternal life, ' occurs first in Daniel (xii. 2), and there as a contrast to 'eternal' or age-long ' contempt.' It was familiar to the Jews, especially to the scribes and Pharisees. It had become a subject of discussion ; and in connexion with it many questions, some of them serious and others more theoretical, had arisen. 18. Wliy callest thou me good ? The 3'oung man's sincerity we have no reason to doubt. But his ideas were superficial. It is to correct these, not really to disclaim his own moral ' goodness,' that Jesus replies in these terms. The inquirer had opened with a conventional use of the adjective ' good,' as a mere term of courtesy ; and Jesus suggests by his challenge on this score that his whole mode of thinking, even of ' eternal life ' — a conception involving profound ideas, if rightly taken — may also be conven- tional, and in need of deepening in order to correspond to spiritual reality (see note on 21). He had no proper conception of 'eternal life ' as Jesus conceived it — just as his use of the term ' good ' was superficial. Jesus throws the inquirer back upon himself, by challenging the fitness of the t'tle 'good,' as ilius easily applied to him bj' a stranger, pointing the speaker to goodness as seen in God, and bringing him to the test of the Divine law. 294 ST. MARK 10. 19, 20. X^k 19 none is good save one, even God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not kill. Do not commit adultery, Do not steal. Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, 20 Honour thy father and mother. And he said unto him, a Master, all these things have I observed from my youth. '' Or, Teacher 19. Thou knowest the coinmandments. As he is referred, with a view to a worthier conception of goodness, to God (m whom alone it exists in perfection^ as its real standard ; so he is referred further to the commandments, in which, particularly lor a Tew the mind of God was seen. The order in which the com- mandments are cited, according to Mark and Matthew, is the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, (tenth), fifth ; according to Luke, the seventh, sixth, eighth, ninth, fifth. The former is that o our Hebrew text and of the Alexandrine MS. in Ex. xx and Deut. v. ; while the latter is that of the Vatican MS. of the LXX The position of the fifth commandment at the end is remarkable,^ and may well have been added in tradition, like what follows it in Matt. xix. \(^. , ,. . , . . , Tesus recites only the commandments dealmg with relations to one's fellow men. Fulfilment of the open and unmistakable duties to which these have regard is the test of the sincerity and reality of observance of duties towards God. The latter lie more within our own hearts, and are more liable to mistake by ourselves as well as by others. In naming those precepts of the second table, Jesus takes the suitable way of approach to a mind which, while open and honest in its way, had not risen beyond the external aspect ot '"do not defraud: lit. 'do not deprive.' There is special point in the precept expressed as ' do not defraud.' that is ' do not take from others what is theirs.' For this was the besetting stn of rich men, personally or through their agents (see James v. 4% It may be t .ken as a form of the tenth commandment Some rather think it a free quotation from Deut. xxiv. 14 (Cod. A\ comparing Ecclesiasticus iv. i, ' My son, deprive not the poor man of his living,' in both of which the same verb is used Ihis latter reference would fit in well with Jesus' concern for the poor in verse 21. ^.i. tu 20. all these things have I observed from my youth, ine mention of the commandments would come as a welcome surprise to the young man. He liad thought probably that something more was needed than that observance of the Law which he had studied, and which he could say lie had fulfilled, m his own conventional way. ST. MARK 10. 21. XMk 295 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said unto 21 him, One thing thou lackest : go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure 21. lookmg' upon hiui loved him. The look of Jesus evidently had impressed Peter greatly on this as on other occasions (cf. iii. 5. 34) V. 32, xi. II, and see Luke xxii. 61). These particulars are recorded only by Mark, but they go to the heart of the matter. Jesus, turning his searching look on the young man, saw in his frank and earnest face witness to the fact that he was an honest, though unenlightened inquirer after ' life ' ; and he regarded him with affectionate, yearning interest, as he brought him to the further test. One thing thou lackest. The young man had not got beyond the ordinary Jewish ideas of a conventional or legally correct observance of the Law. The requirement now made brought him face to face with a question of real self-denial, and so with the inwardness of the Law (which dealt Paul's Pharisaism so deadly a stroke, Rom. vii. 7-10^ — the deeper meaning of * goodness ' and ' eternal life,' and what it cost to achieve the former and win the latter. The words ' One thing thou lackest ' are not meant quantitatively but qualitatively, the specific duty put to this rich man being chosen as a test and index of his whole attitude to God and man, to probe his soul to its roots. go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor. ' These words are spoken from the level of the questioner's idea that by doing something external he could earn eternal life [i.e. a place in the Messianic Kingdom]. Entire renunciation of earthly posses- sions would be such an act [and at the same time serve another purpose, viz. bring him face to face with his own heart and its real love, which was not supremely to God and man] ; and following Christ would lead him into a region of ideas in which he would find that goodness consisted less in doing than in being' (Allen). That is, the specific command was 'a test of obedience and faith, which the Lord saw to be necessary in this particular case ' (Swete). It was not to be generalized and elevated into ' a counsel of perfection,' by which the full or ascetic tj'pe of devoted piety was to be marked off from the ordinary, as first-class from second-best, as later and monastic tj'pes of piety have taught. Yet it has again and again proved itself t/ie test which one and another of the most truly Christian souls — a Peter Waldo of Lj'ons, a Francis of Assisi, and many another less known to men — have needed, in order to free them from the bonds and entangle- ments of material wealth and comfort, and to .give them the true soul-liberty of love, as of one wedded to Lady Poverty as to a 296 ST. MARK 10. 22, 23. XMk 2 3 in heaven: and come, follow me. But his countenance fell at the saying, and he went away sorrowful : for he was one that had great possessions. 23 And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his spiritual bride (St. Francis's simile). It is a test which, in spirit at least, is pre-eminently relevant to our own state of society and Christian duty. It must always be assumed by those possessed of wealth to apply to themselves in some serious and searching sense, seeing to it how to fulfil its spirit or inner reality, alii - not^^p ^^ ^^^^^ ^^.^^ ^^^ TprSa ve'in'ii TatrTand efficacy' A-ordingly while the '^^L of Tesus' death as positively (i.e. as a righteous act of loving obedS atonTn^n cL^^^^^ as efficacious to change men's mo al and practical relations to sin, seems here present descript.on of that m his low y ™^^ wl^ .^ ^.^^^^ ^^ Jesus ' the Son of '^';\'%'^'^^^^'^^^, ^ith'which the sentence ^^' "'"t Heed' 'Tf esus anticipaTed hir death ' at all, ' he must Tari-ntir^pteted if af s^eTvi^e.^n'd as redemptive service ' (Wood). See further on xii. i ami !""■ ^^'^i- (c) FaiHi m Jisiis' MessiahsMp rewarded. Luke wm'ss'ir !»<:»""«"«" "'* ""= i"d>i«^"'. I'"™''""^'^ ;!"'•' Mii°irdyer".„tcile,ypo1„s to its having stood in the t Ja" c„ti "o^ m of Ihe G'o^pel of J-s .he ^hr St, part,, ^^anrsrw;" rw^r: incitr;;xv;:^»" - »». /c;'M ^"^^^ ^^'^^ it passed on from mouth to mouth to the blind man, now more sympathetically regarded in the light of this Prophet s own notice 50. he, 'casting away his garment, sprang up. Vivid touches typical of Mark, and bringing home at once the picture ol an insistent, anxious eagerness that could not tarry! 51. Rabboni. An Aramaic equivalent for Rabbi, Master or ^°52.^Jesixs"said'nnto Win. According to Matthew Jesus touc/wd the eyes of the two blind men. But according to Mark and Luke the restoration of Bartimseus was effected simply by a sovereign word, which also emphasized the co-operation of laitu on the part of the subject of the healing (cf. v. 34). E. The Last Days in Jerusalem, xi. i-xv. 47. There is difficulty here as to the order of events, and the time and circumstances of the entry into the city. The main question is as to the exact date of the arrival of Jesus at Bethany, and the time at which the supper took place there. According to John xii I he came to Bethany six days before the Passover, and spent the night there before passing on : but the Synoptic narrative implies that he went direct to Jerusalem. So with the supper and the anointing at Bethany. Matthew and Mark place these on the eve of the Paschal season: John brings them in before the Irium- phal Entry, probably because, on his view that Jesus suHered when the Paschal Lamb was slain, he could not put them where Mark and Matt. do. The idea that Jesus? entry was on a Sunday really rests only on John xii. i (compare 'Passion Week in IJie Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels), and hardly leaves room for all the Synoptics record of his ministry there (sec Mark xi. 19, xiv. 49, and Luke xxi. 37^ xi. i-ii. Public entry info Jerusalem and visit to the Tewple (cl. Matt. xxi. 1 II ; Luke xix. 29-38 ; John xii. i. i2-tq). ST. MARK 11. 1. XMk 311 [XMk] And when they draw nigh unto Jerusalem, n unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, 1 . And when they draw nig'h unto Jerusalem. It appears that they came direct from Jericho to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, i. e. to the villages near it. The distance from Jericho to these villages was about fifteen miles. unto Bethphag'e and Bethany: villages on or near the road from Jericho to Jerusalem, about where it begins to slope up the Mount of Olives on the side farthest from Jerusalem. Bethphage ('House of Figs') occurs in the Talmud, but its site cannot be identified. It seems to have been rather farther from Jerusalem than Bethany ('House of dates'), a village lying on the S. E. slope of the mount of Olives, fifteen furlongs, or a little less than two miles, from Jerusalem (John xi. i, 18, xii. i). In it was the house of Simon the leper (xiv. 3), also the home of Lazarus and his sisters (John). It too is never mentioned in the O. T. Since the fourth century its site has been identified with that of the village known as El-Aznriycli, ' the place of Lazarus,' a cluster of some twent3' houses inhabited by Bedouin Arabs. Dean Stanle}' speaks of it as now 'a wild mountain hamlet, screened by an intervening ridge from the view of the top of Olivet, perched on its broken plateau of rock, the last collection of human habitation before the desert hills which reach to Jericho' [Sinai and Palestine, p. 186). In MSS. noticed by Origen, on Matt. xxi. i, Mark had only Bethany, Matthew Bethphage, Luke both. D. and Old Lat. confirm Origen's testimony. The reference to ' the village ' in v. 2 might well cause the omission of Bethphage. the mount of Olives. In the O. T. we read of ' the mount that is before Jerusalem ' (i Kings xi. 7), 'the mountain which is on the east side of the city ' (Ezek, xi. 23), * the ascent of the rnotntt q/" Olives ' (R. V.,2 Sam. xv. 30^. The particular form 'the mount of Olives' occurs in the O. T. only in Zech. xiv. 4. The whole ridge of limestone hills \ymg on the east of Jerusalem, and separated from it by the valley of the Kidron, seems to have been spoken of as ' the mount of Olives.' More properly the name is given to the middle of the three chief eminences of that ridge, the one on the north being known as mount Scopus, and the other on the south as the mount of Offence (see Robinson, Biblical Researches, i. 274). The 'mount' rises to the height of about 200 feet above the temple, ar.d over 2,600 feet above the level of the Mediterranean. Dean Stanley speaks of the vision, too great for words, which it offers to the Christian traveller of all times, as the most detailed and the most authentic abiding-place of Jesus Christ ' {Sinai and Palestine, p. i8q\ 312 ST. MARK 11. 2. XMk 2 he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go your way into the village that is over against you : and straightway as ye enter into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no man ever yet sat ; loose him, and bring him. sendeth two of his disciples. It is suggested with some reason that Peter was one of them, the account given by Marie here pointing to the recollections of one present on the occasion (cf. xiv. 13). Jesus' idea in sending comes out in the sequel, 7 ff. 2. the village that is over ag-ainst you. Probably Bethany (cf. note above), especially as it seems to be a place where Jesus had friends (see xiv. 3, and compare Luke x. 38-42 witii John xi. I, for Lazarus and his two sisters). a colt. To a Greek this would mean a young horse ; to a Jew, a young ass (cf. Gen. xxxii, 15, xlix. 11 ; Judges x. 4, xii. 14, and especially Zech. ix. 9). Matthew quotes the passage in Zechariah, and finds its fulfilment in the present event, taking it (mistakenly) to refer to an ass and a colt, that is, the colt with his mother. whereon no man ever yet sat : as was appropriate in the case of a beast meant for a sacred service. See tlie provisions in the Mosaic Law (Num. xix. 2 ; Deut. xxi. 3). This may be a touch due to tradition (it does not occur in Matt.), as it sounds strangely on the speaker's own lips. Mark gives it and other features of the situation as the disciples were to find it, as if known to Jesus beforehand by supernatural ' second sight.' But it is possible that the impression arose in the tradition of the story, as heightening touches added to the original fact that Jesus sent confidently to the village for what he needed, relying on the circumstance that he had a friend there, possibly Lazarus (or Simon the leper, xiv. 3), who could be counted on to supply whatsoever 'the Master' wanted — if indeed there was no previous understanding. Jesus, as a visitor (on some former visit to Jerusalem) at the house of Lazarus and his sisters, would be known to their servants also, and to the villagers generally; hence the forecast of verse 3. Some features of the incident, then, reflect what the disciples found, rather than what they were led to expect ; but the two would easily become fused in tlie telling of the story ; and the fitness of the 3'oung ass never having been ridden by any other would strike the minds of disciples, looking back on the whole happenings of that memorable day in their Master's career, as more than accidental and so .is foreseen by Jesus himself (in the similar case in xiv. rafi'., touching the finding of the Upper Room, pre-arraiigement between Jesus and the host is probable : see notes"). The variations in Matthew, especially all ST. MARK 11. 3-7. XMk 313 And if any one say unto you, Why do ye this ? say ye, 3 The Lord hath need of him ; and straightway he ^ will send him ^ back hither. And they went away, and 4 found a colt tied at the door without in the open street ; and they loose him. And certain of them that stood 5 there said unto them, What do ye, loosing the colt? And they said unto them even as Jesus had said : and 6 they let them go. And they bring the colt unto Jesus, 7 and cast on him their garments ; and he sat upon him. * Gr. sendeth ^ Or, again being viewed as foretold in Zech. ix. g, point to enhancements of this sort as likely to arise. 3. The Lord hath need of him : better ' The Master ' (cf. John xiii. 13), used of a Rabbi or revered Teacher among the Jews. What follows about his returning the animal promptly makes any other meaning less appropriate. and straig'htway he will send him hack hither : lit. 'sendeth,' a Semitic prophetic present. Matthew has ' and straight- IV ay he will send ^'' with reference to the man's readiness to send the animal(s). Mark's words express the undertaking that the colt will not be kept longer than is required, but will be returned promptly. 4. in the open street. The word means 'the way round' a house, and so the open street or lane. 5. certain of them that stood there. This might mean those hanging about, as village people are accustomed to do in idle hours. Luke imagines the owners as the persons who put the questions to the two disciples. Most of the villagers must have known Jesus sufficiently well to make them ready to let the animal be removed for his use. *J. cast on him their garments. An unused colt would not be provided with trappings. The disciples put some of their own garments on the creature, to serve as a saddle. he sat upon him. Jesus' action in arranging and carrying out this form of entry to Jerusalem was suggested by and meant to suggest to others the prophecy of Zechanah ix. 9-1 1. The ass was the symbol of peace, in contrast with the horse, which was the symbol of war ; and suited fully Jesus' idea of his voca- tion in terms of the peaceful King of Zech. ix. In seating him- self on the colt Jesus left behind him the time of silence or reserve, and publicly affirmed, though only in a way which sugcrested a peaceful or prophetic type of leadership, his claim to be the Messiah. 314 ST. MARK 11. 8, 9. X^k 8 And many spread their garments upon the way ; and others a branches, which they had cut from the fields. 9 And they that went before, and they that followed, cried, Hosanna ; Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the * Gr. layers of leaves 8. And many spread tHeir garments upon the way: not the Twelve only, but many more who were followers in different de- grees The act was one of homage, such as was done to kings as ihey entered cities. See the case of Jehu (2 Kings ix 13). others branches : or better, as in the margin of the K. V., qavers of leaves.' The word is applicable to leafy twigs, long grass, reeds, rushes, and the like forms of 'litter.' So the enthu- siasm spread, and took the form of carpeting the way for him with green stuff. ^, . . r> ^.u which they had cut from the fields. The road from Bethany to Jerusalem, winding as it did by cultivated fields and gardens, or plantations of fruit-trees, would readily provide material for the purpose. , t i 9 they that went before, and they that followed. Luke xix 07 (i e his special source) says that it was ' the whole mass of disciples' that began to acclaim Jesus 'at the descent of the Mount ' i. e. from its crest, as the ' city of David ' came into view, and onwards (cf. 39)- Thus what follows was not the utterance of the whole multitude of pilgrims necessarily (as Matt, imphes), but rather of Jesus' special company in one sense or another. The multitudes which would more and more throng round them, while joining perhaps in the ' Hosanna ' cry, usual with pilgrims approaching the Holy City at Passover time, would not share m any Messianic acclamation of Jesus, though ready to repeat Ihis is the prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth of Galilee' (Matt. xxi. ii). See next note. . Hosanna : ' save now.' This is properly speaking a prayer ; and the invocation was here made repeatedly, as the verb implies. It is the ' Save now ' of verse 25 of Psalm cxviii, a psalm closely associated with the national hope of Israel (cf. xii. 10 f.). It was written to celebrate some great occasion in the national history - as some think, the triumph of Judas Maccabaeus and his purifica- tion of the temple in 165 B.C. (i Mace. iv. 37-59)- ^'i'''^;" (Jottrn. of Theol. Studies, xvii. 141 ff.) calls attention to the affinity between the use of green branches and the cry Hosanna here and in the Maccabean Feast of Rededication of the Temple. 1 his was itself the central act of a great national salvation of Israel religiously, as well as from alien rule, and so was full of Messianic associations akin to those of Zech. ix. 9-1 r, which filled Jesus thoughts at this time and probably entered into his words to his ST. MARK 11. lo, II. XMk 315 Lord : Blessed is the kingdom that cometh, the kingdom 10 of our father Uavid : Hosanna in the highest. And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple; and u disciples. A renewal of the true worship of Israel's God would be his central theme as he approached the Holy City. Of this he was the Prophet in the minds of all who heard him or of him — whether as Messiah also, or not, would be a point on which his dis- ciples and the crowd generally would be divided in opinion. This explains how for a time these two circles of sympathizers seemed to be at one, falling apart ere long as his action failed to answer to Messianic expectations. The new Purification of the Temple marked the climax of such ambiguit}', and so of popularity for the Prophet of Nazareth. When he failed to follow it up by other striking acts, though his teaching appealed to the more religiously minded of the masses, it was not enough : he was felt to be falling short of the lole of kingly' national deliverer ; and enthusiasm first cooled and then changed to scorn. Blessed is (or be) he that cometh in the name of the Iiord : from Ps. cxviii. 26. In the Psalm (where ' in the name of the Lord ' goes with 'blessed ') the sentence is a word of greeting to the pilgrim who comes to the temple at the feast Here it is a greeting addressed to Jesus, by his special following ; and it is pos- sible that a Messianic interpretation or application had been given before to the Psalm, or to this part of it (see xii. 10 f., where the verses just before are quoted by Jesus himself as Messianic ; cf. Matt, xxiii. 39). 10. Blessed is (or be) the king'dom that cometh. An ex- pansion of the words of the Psalm, recognizing that in the entry of Jesus on the colt into Jerusalem the kingdom that was promised to come was being inaugurated. And this 'kingdom' is called ^ the kingdom of our father David,' as to be of Davidic type. Eosanna in the hig^hest: i.e. 'in high Heaven.' Cf. the angels' song (Luke ii. 14). It is a prayer for such 'salvation ' to be heard in high heaven, where God reigns : compare DidachS, X. 6, ' Hosanna to the God of David.' Luke completes the picture b^' introducing the protest of the Pharisees among the multitude against the language of tiie disciples (39 f.), the tears of Jesus as he saw the cit\'. and his lamentation over its impending doom (xix. 4i-44\ They are full of value for Jesus' own outlook and feelings at this crisis in his career, when he felt all had come to the final test : notably ' I tell you that if these should hold their peace, the stones will cry out,' as if echoing the note of Ps. cxviii. 23 f. H. into the temple. Passing into the cit}', he rroved on at once to the place which gave it chief significance. Bj' 'the tcmpile ' here is meant not the shrine itself, the 'house of God' proper 3t6 ST. MARK 11. 12, 13. X^k when he had looked round about upon all things, it being now eventide, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve. 12 And on the morrow, when they were come out from 13 Bethany, he hungered. And seeing a fig tree afar off (Matt. xii. 4), but its precincts, the sacred enclosure. He would enter by the eastern gate into the court of the Gentiles. The traffic in sacred offerings, &c., which desecrated the place, incon- gruous as it was, went on in the outer courts. looked round about. His searching, indignant glance took in the whole scene and prepared him for the action of the morrow. As it was late, he did no more that day. In Matthew and Luke the account of the cleansing of the temple follows immediately on that of the entry into the city, as would seem most natural to those handing on the tradition without more specific knowledge such as Peter would possess. Probably Mark's account is, as usual, the more exact and circumstantial. he went out unto Bsthany with the twelve. This lie did each evening for several days at least (cf. ig and xiv. 49, and see Luke xxi. 37"). The word used both by Matthew (xxi. 17) and Luke (xxi. 37) of his sojourning on the Mount of Olives (at Bethany) is one which originally meant ' bivouacking ' out of doors, like the flocks and herds ; but it can also mean simply to ■ lodge' ; e.g. Tobit xiv. 10, 'no longer lodge in Nineveh.' We may per- haps imagine Jesus doing this with Martha and Mary ; and it may even be that the beautiful story about their entertainment of him in Luke X. 38-42 really belongs to this occasion. Certainly it would be one on which Martha might well be * distracted ' about the 'much serving' needed for so many guests at the table, and ' anxious and upset about many things ' connected therewith. xi. 12-14. ^/'^ Barren Fig-tree (cf. Matt. xvi. 18, 19). This incident is left unnoticed by Luke, probabl}' as not in his special 'source, and as having intrinsic difficulties for him as for us. It is reported by Matthew and Mark in the same connexion, 12. on the morrow: i.e. of the Triumphal Entry. he hungered. This would be strange under the circumstances of his lodging at Bethany. In view too of other features in this incident which seem hardly original (see note on verse 20), this touch may be secondary, being meant to explain Jesus' going to examine the fig-tree. Possibly he simply noted its peculiarity as he passed it on the roadside (Matt. xxi. 19), and took it as the text of an 'object-lesson' parable on the seemingly flourishing but really unfruitful state of Judaism. Thus it is worthy of note that in Luke xiii. 6-9 we have a parable comparing the spiritual state of the chosen People to that of an unfruitful Fig-tree, to which is granted a brief respite for further trial, under the special care of ST. MARK 11. 14. XMk 3x7 having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon : and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for it was not the season of figs. And he 14 the patient vine-dresser who pleads for another chance for it. This looks like Jesus' attitude to current Judaism at an earlier stage in his ministry to Israel : and that he should now at a later stage — the trial completed — return to the same simile, under the suggestion of a visible object-lesson offering itself to his use, is most likely. Then in the course of tradition the actual basis in fact for the analogy may have been extended and enhanced in effect by words really spoken parabolically, about Israel's having no further period of probation now before it (cf. the Parable of the Vineyard in ch. xii. i ff.), becoming referred to the fig-tree itself. Thus the notion would naturally arise that Jesus had rebuked or ' cursed ' it for its unfruitfulness, and that his words had imme- diately (in Matthew's account, before the spectators' very eyes — a clear enhancement, as compared even with Mark's tradition) authenticated themselves by the tree's ' withering away from the roots.' Thus a spiritual parable became a nature-miracle, one too which raises special difficulties as being a 'sign' of the merely marvellous order which Jesus is elsewhere stated to have refused to work. Such a view of the original occurrence, and of its gradual and unconscious transformation by misunderstanding in tradition, is further borne out by the fact that in Mark the promise in verse 23, there given as an encouragement to the disciples' faith (as its present context suggests) to expect God to work nature- miracles at their word, is in Luke xvii. 3-6 spoken in response to their plea 'increase our faith ', in order to enable them to rise to quite another form of miracle, viz. the forgiveness of one's erring brother even ' seven times a day.' Trace of this original reference may survive inverse 25, which otherwise seems quite out of place here. 13. having' leaves. The sight of the tree in leaf suggested that ' baply ' there might be an equally precocious growth ot fruit on it. For in the case of the fig-tree the leaf comes relatively late. nothing" but leaves. On approaching the tree he discovered that its abnormal forwardness was confined to foliage, and that there were not even young figs on it. for it was not the season of figs. An explanation of the fact that no fruit was found on the tree. In Palestine figs are gathered early in May, or more usually in June. But it was yet only the season of the Passover, which fell between late March and t.he middle of April. The point here is the association of /fa/and//^M»V, the fact that where the green foliage is seen, there fruit is to be expected. But in this case no fruit of any kind was discovered. A fig-tree in leaf, unless its appearance was a deception, should have frutt on it, green fruit at least. But this tree had nothing 3i8 ST. MARK 11. 15. X™"^ answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward for ever. And his disciples heard it. '5 And they come to Jerusalem : and he entered into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and them except leaves. It belied its professiorijand this was its condemna- tion. So Jesus makes it an object-lesson, to convey to the minds of his disciples a vivid idea of the moral attitude of the Jewish people, and the doom involved in a religion of much profession but spiritual barrenness. 14. No man eat fmit from thee henceforward for ever. In the parable of the Fig-tree Jesus had already dealt with the matter of confirmed unfruitfulness (Luke xiii. 6-9). But there the vine- dresser's reply suggests that it was at an earlier stage in the ministry, when yet there might be some hope of betterment in the nation's response to the call lor Repentance and preparedness for the Kingdom to appear. (Yet such a parable, already reported, would help Luke to decide on omitting the present incident, as its moral had so far been anticipated in the parable.) Here, however, Jesus — ' answering' the suggestion of the tree's condition — speaks of an unfruitfulness which is aggravated by vain, deceptive pro- fession : the tree failed to make good in any way the promise so amply displayed to the eye. And this was just like the Judaism of ' the holy city,' with its temple services, as compared even with that of Galilee. Of this thought the next incident, the Cleansing of the Temple, itself affords illustration. The sentence, then, which he pronounced upon it — as continuing the symbolism of the visible parable — was purely with a view to the moral instruction of his disciples. Mark's comment 'and his disciples heard it ' pro- bably prepares for Peter's remark in the sequel (verse 21). xi. 15-19 The Purging 0/ the Temple (cf. Matt. xxi. 12-17; Luke xix. 45-48). The Fourth Gospel reports a cleansing of the temple (John ii. 13-17) at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. The three Synoptic Gospels agree in recording one at the close of his ministry. The acts were similar : diflerencesin the details are not greater than is commonly the case in the narrative of events confessedly the same, as reported by the Synoptists and the Fourth Gospel respectively. If one has to choose between the occasions, then this one is to be preferred, as more organically related to the whole course of Jesus' ministry, as well as resting on earlier documents. 15. he entered into the temple. His purpose was to do what his brief inspection on the previous evening showed him to be necessary. The act was a striking challenge to the existing order in religion, one implying too the high prophetic authority — in fact practically Messianic (,cf. his recent Entry of the City)— to which ST. MARK 11. i6, ry. X^k 319 that bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold the doves ; and he would not suffer that any man should 1 6 carry a vessel through the temple. And he taught, and 17 said unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations ? but ye have he now felt called in God's Providence to lay claim openly, so bringing things to a religious crisis for the Kingdom he had been * sent ' to set up. cast out them that sold and them that honght. Sellers and buyers were alike dead to the sense of what the temple meant. The market in question had been allowed a place within the temple precincts on the plea of public convenience. Itdealtonlj with things required for the temple services, victims for the various offerings, wine, oil, salt, and the like ; and it had the sanction of the chief priests. It saved trouble, enabling all to obtain on the spot what they needed for sacred use. But it had become a great abuse. The sordid, mercantile spirit, with its tendency to greed and fraud, meant spiritual desecration. tables of the money-changers. Every Jew had to pay a tax of a half-shekel annually for the support of the temple, and it had to be paid in Jewish money (Matt. xvii. 24 ; Exod. xxx. 13, &c.). Pilgrims who brought Gentile money had to get Jewish coin for it. The money-changers reaped large profits at the time of the great festivals. They were allowed to make a large profit on each half- shekel exchanged. them that sold the doves. It was provided by the Levitical law that doves might be offered in certain cases by those who were unable to purchase lambs (Lev. xii. 8 ; cf Luke ii. 22). Doves were also the ofTerings prescribed in some other cases, such as the cleansing of lepers, &c. (Lev. xiv. 22, xv. 14, 29). 16. carry a vessel through the temple. This, too, is peculiar to Mark. The word ' vessel ' here is applicable to any kind of implement or any article of household use. People had got into the habit of taking a short cut through the precincts of the temple. This had been forbidden by the Jewish authorities. But the prohibition had fallen into neglect, and Jesus enforces it anew. 17. taught. The gist of his explanation of his startling action was as follows. a house of prayer for all the nations. The quotation is from Isa. Ivi. 7. The prophecy in Isaiah spoke of those 'that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto Him,' as being brought along with the chosen people from exile to God's ' hoi}' mountain ' ; as made joyful in His ' house of prayer ' ; and as laying their 320 ST. MARK 11. 18. X^k 18 made it a den of robbers. And the chief priests and the scribes heard it, and sought how they might destroy him : for they feared him, for all the multitude was astonished at his teaching. offerings and sacrifices with acceptance on his altar. Mark alone introduces this mention of ' the nations,' appropriate as it is to a dis- course whichhasitsoccasion in a desecration proceeding in the court of the Gentiles. But as Matthew and Luke both omit it, it is possibly a completion of the quotation added in a gospel mainly for non-Jews. ye have made it a den of robbers. This echoes another prophet, Jeremiah (vii. ii). Secularity had turned into dishonesty, as traders enriched themselves at the cost of those who came to offer their oblations to God. May one not well believe that it was on this occasion that Jesus uttered the striking saying — which actually follows in the narra- tive in the Fourth Gospel (misplacing it in time though it does) — in reply to the authorities' challenge of his right to interfere with Temple arrangements as he had done ? ' Pull down [as you bid fair to do by the spirit of your religious policy] this temple (that is made with hands, cf. Mark xiv. 58), and in three days ( = very shortly) I will build another (not made with hands).' Such seems to have been the original form and meaning of this saying, which was quoted in a garbled form ('I will destroy ') by witnesses at Jesus' examination before the High Priest (xiv. 58 ) : and it would give the more meaning to the description of the attitude of the chief priests and scribes which follows here in verse 18. So ariesting a symbolic saying would also become the talk of the crowd, which was greatly impressed by the note of spiritual power and assured authority in his teaching (iS"*). Reaction from its vague expectations of some striking deed of supernatural might on behalf of his claims, would best explain what seems the fickle attitude of the mob in turning against Jesus when he was meek in the hands of the powers that were, at and after his arrest : cf. xv. 29, which may perhaps be the scorn of disappointed hope. 18. chief priests and the scribes. The chief priests here naturally come on the scene as the Temple authorities. This is the first occasion of their appearance in the Synoptic Gospels. Luke adds ' the chief men of the people,' that is, prominent repre- sentatives, probably the elders (xix. 47). All the leading classes now went hand in hand, contriving how to get rid of Jesus, as threatening seemingly to become a Messianic agitator, ready to resort to methods of force. sought . . . feared . . . was astonished. These verbs, unlike ' heard,' express continual action. The authorities saw that he had now multitudes of the common people with him, under the spell ST. MARK 11. 19-22. XMk 321 And a every evening ^^he went forth out of the city. 19 And as they passed by in the morning, they saw the fig 20 tree withered away from the roots. And Peter caUing to 21 remembrance saith unto him, Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which thou cursedst is withered away. And Jesus 23 * Gr. w/ienever evening came ^ Some ancient authorities read ihev '• cf. verse 20. of his personality and teaching. This made them afraid to interfere openly. 19. every evening-: h't. 'whenever it became late' or 'even- tide.' This, being followed by the tense of continued action, describes (unlike v. 11) Jesus' custom for several daj-s. So Luke teaching.' The verse is inserted partly with a view to what follows in verse 20. out of the city : Matthew is more explicit and tells us it was to Bethany (see note on verse 11). It was Jesus' habit during these fateful days to spend his active hours in the city, and, when he could no longer teach, to retire to the quiet hamlet on the uplands xi. 20-25. T/ie IVitlieying of the Fig-tree (cf. Matt. xxi. 19-22). 20. as they passed by in the morningf: lit. 'early,' probably in returning to the city (verse 19). As we gather from Matthew (xxi. 19), the tree was by the side of the public road. they saw the fig- tvee -withered a-way. Matthew speaks of the tree as withering immediately after Jesus spoke the words, ' Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for ever ' — in fact before the very eyes of the disciples. Probably that gospel is here (as in its different order of the Cleansing of the Temple) follow- ing a source other than Mark. And this development in the marvellous element beyond that found in Mark suggests that even his form of the story may have undergone enhancement in the course of tradition, just as it has evidently lost a main original element, namely the application to the spiritual conditions of Judaism, which must have been explained to the disciples. While we have not the means of recovering with assurance the full and true history of the episode, from first to last— and Peter's inter- pretation of Jesus' words, addressed dramatically to the tree (v. 14), as a ' curse,' need not be pressed— j'et comparison of Luke xvii. 3-6 with Mark xi. 23, 25 (the latter of which verses comes in oddly) suggests the key (see note on xi. 12). V 322 ST. MARK 11. 23-25. XMk 23 answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou taken up and cast into the sea ; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he saith H Cometh to pass ; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto YOU All things whatsoever ye pray and ask for, believe that ye have received them, and ye shall have them. 25 [And whensoever ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have OQ Have faith in God : a direct reply to the wonder expressed .n?i;^~e. It ^z^^'-z^i::'^^:^^^ resu'™SreTeen^tit^a^^ in .hifve n of thought he turned to another visible object, to Enforce hiriessoa of Faith in God for whatsoever was m accord "'^a.^Wh^soever shall say unto t^^^ »--*f^- „\:;, f^re Olivet. Matthew has a like saying m -.'^°*^'; -^ ^ j^^^J.^f^.^ure at faith needed stimulating, on the occasion of the d's^l^s ^^'^^^^^^ the foot of Mount Hermon (xvii. 20) ; and Luke h^s PracUcaly the same one-including reference to faith as a mustard seed-in ye another 'fa th' context (xvii. 5 f-)- Mark's is the -o^t s^^^ab e con ext (' this mountain '), the special instance in Jesus; own mind nerhaos being his own experience of the apparently insuperable ri^^lin" in^heW of th'e immediate coming of Go^ viz. national unpreparedness. It was a f^^^^^" f/'SJ^^^^^^Xna for things passing ordinary capacity. Rabbis of exceptional nnuence were described as removers ov pluckcrs up of'"OU„iams but shall helieve : i. e. keep believing Jesus ^peaks o"t of his own experience. In the power of his faith in his Father a„d that alone, he was now going forward into an t>u/>nsse. Jhe same trustful dependence on God would be for them the source of a power whidi woEld make them capable of accomplishing what seemed to them impossible of fulfilment. ^^^ ^^^,^ 24. Therefore I say unto you. Hit- laa tiiai _ power is a reason for proceeding to speak also of P^J^^er^ ^ut whether Tesus actually did so on this occasion may be doubted. The 'epctitfon of ' I s^ay unto you' in two consecutive verses is hardlv natural : cf. last note on v. 25. „ j „„ heUeve tl^at ye have received them: that is as good as received :cf the connexion of faith with assured hope in Ileb. xi. I. 25 ""wiensoever ye stand praying. Kncliug or entire pros/ra- /,bfwaTtSe posture in which prayer was offered on occasions of ST. MARK 11. 25. X^«k 323 aught against any one ; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses!.* * Many ancient authoritieS'add verse 26 : But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. exceptional solemnity or trouble, e. g. the dedication of the temple (i Kings viii. 54), Ezra's confession (Ezraix. 5), Daniel's petitions in the face of the decree (Dan. vi. 10), Christ's agony (Matt. xxvi. 39), Stephen's death (Acts vii. 50), Paul's prayers at Miletus and at Tyre (Acts xx. 36, xxi. 5). But the ordinary posture seems to have been standing (cf. i Kings viii. 14, 22 ; Neh. ix. 4 ; Jer. xviii. 20; Ps. cxxxiv. I ; Matt. vi. 5 ; Luke xviii. 11, 13). forgive : a second condition, side by side with faith, of the efficacy of prayer ; and it is God's way that forgiveness on His part is linked with forgiveness on our part. Of this Jesus liad already spoken when he unfolded the nature of pra^-er in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. vi. 14, 15). your Father. The only occurrence in Mark of this highest name of God, which is characteristic, however, of the basal tradi- tion of Jesus' teaching common to Matthew and Luke. ' Your father who is in the heavens ' seems an echo of the very wording of the Lord's prayer in its Mattha;an (.Syrian) form, and may point to a later local addition (see below). your trespasses: a word meaning 'lapses,' and so misdeeds. To judge from its absence at this point, and its presence else- where, in Matt, (see vi. 14), as well as from its rather loose con- nexion with what precedes in Mark, it seems as if the above verse does not properly belong here any more than its negative form, which appears as verse 26 in the A. V., but is omitted by the R. V. The latter wae probably suggested later on by Matt. vi. 15 : cf. above on ' j'our Father. ' xi. 27-33. The Javish authorities challenge the authority of Jesus (cf Matt. xxi. 23-27 ; Luke xx. 18). ' On the Tuesday, an official deputation meets Jesus in the Temple, and asks by what right he has taken upon himself police duties like the control of the market. Who has given him per- mission to clear the court of the Gentiles and even to teach in the Temple ? The one decisive question which Jesus puts in reply is not a subtle evasion of an attempt to trap Him into a Messianic confession [which would give them a handle against Jesus with the Roman Procurator]. The nature of John's authority raised a fundamental issue on which Jesus' and they 'were at variance ' (Wood). Hence his question is at once natural and crucial as regards his own authority. 324 ST. MARK 11. 27-32. X^k 27 And they come again to Jerusalem: and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief 28 priests, and the scribes, and the elders ; and they said unto him, By what authority doest thou these things ? or 2n who gave thee lliis authority to do these things ? And Jesus said unto them, I will ask of you one * question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority 30 I do these things. The baptism of John, was it from 31 heaven, or from men ? answer me. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven ; 32 he will say. Why then did ye not believe him? '^But " Gr. word ^ Or, Bui shall we say, From men ? 27. walking' iu the temple : probably in the court of the Gentiles, perhaps in Solomon's porch (cf. John x. 23). the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders. All the three classes now confederate approach him with a challenge. The party included the custodians of the temple, who might reasonably claim to know by what right Jesus asserted jurisdiction where they were in charge, and interfered even with customs which they sanctioned. 28. By what authority. . .? Their first question was as to the kind of authority he had. or who gave thee this authority to do these things ? Their second and alternative demand was that he should toll them the source of his authority. 29. I will ask of you one question. Before he will say any- thing about his own authority, he, too, has a matter to settle with them. It is about John's authority to baptize as he did. 30. was it from heaven, or from men ? The question placed them on the horns of a dilemma. But it was not one created by any dialectical ingenuity on the part of their questioner : it was inherent in Jesus' whole position as taking up and continuing John's message of Repentance, a change of heart and ways, as needful throughout Judaism as condition of the promised blessings of the Kingdom of God, coupled with the approach of the Messiah. Thus the question went right to the root of things as between Jesus and his opponents. 31. Why then did ye not believe him ? viz. one whom they admitted, in spite of his not having ordinary human credentials of his authority, to have Divine authority for his mission, a mission ST. MARK 11.33—12.1. XMk 325 should we say, From men — they feared the people : -"^ for all verily held John to be a prophet. And they answered ?,?, Jesus and say, We know not. And Jesus saith unto them, Neither tell I you by what authority I do these things. And he began to speak unto them in parables. A man 12 " Or, for all held John to be a prophet indeed. largely like Jesus' own. That is, the nature and source of Jesus' authority were like John's, derived immediately from heaven, i. e. prophetic in character. 33. We know not. They took refuge in an evasive profession of ignorance, and could not fu: tlier press their own question. But Jesus did not leave the issue there : he went on to press his case against them in parables. xii. 1-12. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen (cf. Matt. xxi. 33-46; Luke xx. 9-19). 1. he began to speak tinto them in parahles. The parable of the Two Sons, recorded only by Matthew (xxi. 28-32), follows up the line of thought in Jesus' question touching the attitude to John of the Jewish leaders, as contrasted with the publicans and harlots whom they despised as having no • knowledge ' of the Law or true religion. Then comes this parable of the Wicked Husbandmen, directed to the ofllcial classes in particular, and hinting at the authority of God as lying behind their authority over His people, one held only in trust and on terms. ' The story describes the history of Israel, and implies that Jesus felt Himself to be God's last appeal to His people, and also thought their rejection of Him would issue in His becoming the foundation of a new communitj' which should inherit God's Kingdom' (Wood). Compare the end of Isa. liii for this last idea. Thus this parable, one of the very few in Mark, is highly significant of Jesus' thought touching himself and his mission— its rejection by Israel, its issue in his death, and the place of that in the Divine economy of the Kingdom. All this has been most adequately realized by Prof. Burkitt [Transactions of the Third International Congress for the Htstoty cf Religion, ii, pp. 321-328). He argues that it shews that ' Jesus not only foresaw his death, but regarded tt as the divinely appointed means for Itastcning on the Day of Judgement, and thus for bringing in the Kingdom.^ He connects the thought in this parable with the conversation appended to the Transfiguration. ' Just as the herald had to suffer and die, so too does Jesus discern that he, the Messiah, must sufler and die like- 326 ST. MARK 12. i. XM^ planted a vineyard, and set a hedge about it, and digged wise In John's fate he reads his own '-or at least it is an analogy which helps Jesus to see the principles involved in the rejection he now read in the attitude of Israel ^cf. the parable of the Sower) and particularly that of the Scribes and Pharisees m Galilee and the Sadducaic temple hierarchy in Jerusalem This Pnnaple of a iudRement or discnmination within Israel itself, between the true or spiritual Israel and the outward or carnal (present in Isaiah s doctrine of ' the holy Remnant ' and Jeremiah s idea of the reno vated form of the Covenant^ is shewn in the parable and runs through Israel's whole history, from Moses and Ehjah (ct. ix. 4 and note) onwards-all great servants of God causing judge- ment ' among the People. Of this John the Baptist was but the last example, John the forerunner of himself as Messiah vhence the perfect fitness of the parable as a sequel to the testing question about John in xi. 29-33)- Nor was Messiah himself, the culmi- nating member of the series of God's messengers to Israel, God s very 'son' in unique spiritual affinity with Him as Fa her, to be an exception to this rule-contrary as this was to all previous expectation on the matter, including that with which Jesus himself had seemingly started his own ministry This was the great dis- covery, the mystery of the Cross for Messiah and his followers fere the Kingdom was consummated), even as rejection had been the lot of God's prophets and saints all along (Matt xxiii. 29-39, Luke xi. 47-52). This parable, then, casts welcome light upon the way Jesus reached the conviction, with the aid of OT. history read through his own spiritual experience. Accordingly, in spite of what Montefiore— whose summary (i, p. 392) has been used in the words between inverted commas above-has said by way ot criticism of Prof. Burkitt's use of the parable, it appears that the line of thought imphed in it is integral to Jesus' whole outlook m the latter part of his ministry, and is the key in large measure to his profound faith and doctrine as to the saving significance ol his coming sufferings and death. Compare x. 45, ^iv. 24, and notes ^ '"^ a vineyard. The foundation of the parable is the O. T. figure of Israel as the Lord's vineyard, of which we have instances both in the Psalms and in the Prophets e.g. Ps. Ixxx ; Isa. v. 2, &c., Jer. ii. 21). The passage in the fifth chapter of Isaiah is most in view here, its details appearing in what comes next. set a hedge aUout it. Thus was the valuable possession pro- tected against wild beasts Ps. Ixxx. 13 ; Num. xxii. 24 ; Song ol Songs ii. 15; Neh.iv. 31 and robbers. digged a pit for the winepress. The grapes were placed in a vat, in which they were trodden by the fcet-a joyous opera- tion accompanied with song (Judges ix. 27 ; Isa. Ixiii. a : Jer. xxv. ST. MARK 12. 2-8. XMk 327 a pit for the winepress, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into another country. And at 3 the season he sent to the husbandmen a "■ servant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruits of the vineyard. And they took him, and beat him, and 3 sent him away empty. And again he sent unto them 4 another ** servant ; and him they wounded in the head, and handled shamefully. And he sent another ; and him 5 they killed : and many others ; beating some, and killing some. He had yet one, a beloved son : he sent him 6 last unto them, saying. They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves. This is 7 the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. And they took him, and killed him, and cast 8 "■ Gr. bond-servajit 30). This was the 'press,' in most cases a trough dug in the solid rock or in the earth, in which latter case it was lined with masonry. At a lo\ver level was the ' pit,' a smaller cavity, also often exca- vated out of the rock, into which the juice of the grapes ran. bTiilt a tower. For purposes of observation and defence and for storage. So everything was done that care could do ; and the owner, who let the vineyard to tenants, here called ' the husbandmen,' was entitled to look at the end of the season for his rent. The rent was paid in the form of a certain portion of the fruits. The cultivators held their position on trust from the owner. 2. he sent to the hxisbandinen a servant. Here Jesus doubt- less had in view the treatment of the messengers of God by those in power in the evil times of Jewish history, including the stoning of Zechariah by the order of Joash (2 Chron. xxiv. 21), and the like. See Matt, xxiii. 30 ff. ; cf. Acts vii. 52. 6. He had yet one, a beloved son. For 'beloved ' as equiva- lent to 'only,' when used of a son, see note on i. 11 (and the Journal of Theological Studies, xx. 339 f. ). This adds force to the thought here in view. Not a servant only — though he came in that capacity ('He had yet one'), as the supreme fulfilment of the idea of 'the Servant (slave) of Jehovah' in Isa. liii — but one of more account by far than many slaves, his one and only son. 1. This is the heir. Jesus as Messiah is the ' heir,' in the unique sense in which also he is the 'son.' 8. The fact that the parable ends thus, with nothing to corre- 328 ST. MARK 12. 9-11. X^k 9 him forth out of the vineyard. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do ? he will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others, lo Have ye not read even this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the head of the corner: It This was from the Lord, And it is marvellous in our eyes? spond with the Resurrection — so central a point in the Apostolic Gospel — suggests that it is Jesus' own and not a creation of the Apostolic Church (Burkitt, Trans, of Third Congress of Religions, ii. 32: f.): cf. the allusion to Jesus in v. 6, as a 'bond-servant.' 9. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do? This is the question to which the parable is meant to lead up. Here it is put and answered by Jesus himself. Luke adds that the people reply ' God forbid,' as if conscious of what Jesus meant. In Matthew those addressed are made to give the reply which con- demns them in heightened terms out of their own mouth. 10. Have ye not read even this scripture ? ' Even this scripture ' ; for the passage was a familiar and oft-quoted one. It is taken from Ps. cxviii, which under the figure of a stone cast aside by builders, but afterwards made the key-stone of the fabric, speaks of Israel as set aside and despised by the world-powers, but finally restored to the place of honour designed for it by God among the nations. This Psalm appears to have received at this time a Messianic interpretation among the Jews (cf. xi. 9 f.V Here it is applied by Jesus to himself, the true representative of Israel, rejected indeed by the ruling classes of a perverted Judaism, but the elect of God, appointed to be the head of a new Israel, the point of unity of the people of God, both Jewish and Gentile. By ' the head of the corner' is meant not the coping-stone, but one of the stones set in the corners of a building, so as to bind the walls together— the chief of these, the one laid with public cere- mony. Peter makes use more than once of the words thus doubly consecrated by the Lord's application of them (Acts iv. 11 ; I Peter ii. 4-7). Paul also introduces the idea into his argument (Eph. ii. 20), attaching it in Rom. ix. 32 also to Isa. xxviii. 16. The meaning of the parable could not be mistaken. In its clear terms the leaders of the people were shown themselves, their privilege, their misuse of their trust, and their doom. Jesus came seeking in God's name for true righteousness or at least re- pentance ; and he was met with rejection and death. ST. MARK 12. 12, 13. XMk 329 And they sought to lay hold on him; and they feared la the multitude ; for they perceived that he spake the parable against them : and they left him, and went away. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and 13 of the Herodians, that they might catch him in talk. 12. they sought to lay hold on him. A second time they would fain have laid hands on him here and now, but dared not in face of the sympathy of the masses. xii. 13-17. A trap set by tlie Pharisees and Herodians (cf. Matt. xxii. 15-22; Luke xx. 20-26). 'The Pharisees and the Hero- dians perhaps represent the two horns of the dilemma by which they try to catch Jesus. The Pharisees leant to the popular view which chafed at tribute, and which found its extreme expression in the Zealots (cf. Josephus, Antiquities, xviii. i. 6\ The Hero- dians probably desired the siattts quo which ensured Herod's throne. If Jesus sa3-s it is lawful to pay tribute, the Pharisees will denounce Him to the people : if He says it is not lawful, the Herodians will denounce Him to the [Roman] authorities ' (Wood). Thus, either way, escape seemed impossible : and yet Jesus did escape their toils. No wonder that ' they marvelled greatly at him.' 13. they send unto him. This refers to the coalition of chief priests and scribes already mentioned. Matthew represents the Pharisaic party as the senders, and the persons sent as certain of their own ' disciples ', as if to awaken less suspicion as to the double motive behind the question. In any case his enemies change their tactics. Instead of confronting Jesus in a body, they now send separate groups of emissaries, all with the purpose of getting Jesus to compromise himself by something he might be tempted to say in reply to some apparently innocent question, such as the two which follow. and of the Herodians. The Pharisees take the lead, but associate with themselves some of the Herodians, members of the Herodian party of which mention has already been made (iii. 6) as in similar collusion in Galilee. Again, before Jesus had left the borders of Herod's dominions, as we learn from Luke xiii. 31 fT., the Pharisees had tried to intimidate him by warning him of Herod's enmity to him. Yet these two parties were sharply divided in their sympathies with regard to the matter at issue, the one being intensely opposed to the foreign rule of the Roman, the other accepting and profiting by it. In his reply, therefore, Jesus could not avoid, as they thought, giving offence to one or other. catch him : or ' ensnare ' him — a hunter's term. 330 ST. MARK 12. 14-16. X^k 14 And when they were come, they say unto him, ^ Master, we know that thou art true, and carest not for any one : for thou regardest not the person of men, but of a truth teachest the way of God : Is it lawful to give tribute unto .cCssar, or not? Shall we give, or shall we not gwe? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a ^ penny, that I may see it. i6 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose a Or, Teacher ^ See marginal note on Matt, xviii. 28. 14 we know that tHoti art true, and carest not for any one. A subtly contrived address, using his truthfulness and fearless- ness a inducements to make him answer. Surely he was not the man to shirk answering awkward and dangerous questions, without reeard to fear or favour ! „ -ru < ^^•u„t^ ' ^ IS it lawfxxl to ^ve tribute unto Cassar ? The tr.bute is the poll-tax (as distinguished from the ordinary custom, on merchandise), levied on individuals and paid yearly into the Serial treasury. It was an offence to the patriotic Jew, as _.t was the token of subjection to foreign rule ; even the coin m which it was paid bore the emperor's effigy. This was not the case with the copper native coins current among the Jews, as distinguished from the imperial coinage. In deference to Jewish feeling the former were stamped with national or at least neutral ''"'l5^"'shall we give, or shall wa not give ? The former ques- tion touched only the legitimacy of paying the tax, in oyalty to the Jewish law. This one put the matter as a practical Po>nt c,f policy-payment or refusal. The rising of Judas of Gahlee, tl e Gaulonite as he is called by Josephus {Ant.q. xviu. i. i), which is referred to in Acts (v. 37^ had its occasion in the odium a tachmg o SL taL. Tohim anfo^her Zealots, to pay tribute to a heathen ruler was to be unfaithful to Jehovah, whom alone they owned as ■"'"^bring me a penny : rather a shilling. The tribute had to be paid inth! imperial silver coinage. Matthew and Luke say 'shew me.' But Mark's 'bring me' expresses the exact PO^'t on. J' was Jewish coins that were required for the temple, and the men Tw about Jesus. Pharisees and others, might not have a rf^«amitiq.y.\\\. x. 6, xviii. i. 4\ The word is now generally understood to be derived from the proper name Zadok. The Zadok in view was probabl3' the faithful priest of David's time, high priest under Solomon (2 Sam. xv. 24, &c. ; I Kings i. 32, &c.). The ' sons of Zadok' had a conspicuous place among the priestly families after the return from exile. They represented the old priestly party, who came in lime to seek to assimilate Jewish life largely to Greek waj'S. Thcj^ are first heard of as a distinct party in the reign of John H3'rcanus (135-105 B. c). They enjoyed most power during the times pre- ceding Pompey's capture of Jerusalem. After the destruction of the Temple in a. d. 70 they are no more heard of, the party being made up mostly of chief priests and Iheir families. Hence when the ' chief priests' are mentioned, the Sadducaic party may be understood to be in view. They counted for little with the people religiously, and they do not seem to have taken an}' notice of Jesus till late in liis ministry. When he accepted the title * son of David ' — which seemed to point to intended revolt against the existing order in State and Church — and interfered with the jurisdiction of the temple, the Sadducees joined with others in the opposition which aimed at his life. which say that there is no resurrection. So says Josephus ST. MARK 12. 19-21. XMk 333 ^ Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, 19 and leave a wife behind him, and leave no child, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were seven brethren : and the first took 20 a wife, and dying left no seed; and the second took her, 21 and died, leaving no seed behind him ; and the third * Or, Teacher {^Antiq. xviii. i. 3, &c.). In Acts it is added that they held also that there is ' neither angel nor spirit ' (xxiii. 8). From Josephus we learn further that they denied the immortality of the soul, and future rewards and punishments ; that they thought of the soul as perishing with the body ; and that they disavow^ed the doctrines of * Fate,' or absolute foreordination, and Providence {^Aiitiq. xviii. i. 3, &c. ; Jewish War, ii. viii. 14). Probably Josephus overstates the negative nature of their views. They were rigid upholders of the view of life set forth iu the earliest form (as they judged it) of the Mosaic Law, viz. the Pentateuch, as compared not only with the oral Torah of the Pharisees but even with the Prophetic developments in doctrine. Thus they denied the natural immor- tality of the soul (such as the Greeks taught) ; and as regards the possibility that Jehovah could raise His own People to renewed life (as the Prophets taught), they simply held to an agnostic position (as did also the Samaritans for a similar reason), saying that the resurrection cannot be proved from the Law (i. e. the Pentateuch) — as the Talmud reports their view {Sanhedrin, ii. i). This gives special point to Jesus' argument here. 19. SXoses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die. The reference is to the Levirate law as given in the Deuteronomic code (Deut. xxv. 5, 6\ which was a provision to prevent the extinction of a man's part and lot from Israel, nt a time when no personal future life was thought of. This law of Levirate mari'iage was to the effect that, if a man died without a son to succeed him, his brother should marry the widow, and that the first-born son of this second union should rank as child of the deceased husband (cf. Gen. xxxviii. 8;. The law is quoted freel}', so that the terms vary somewhat in the several records. 20. There were seven brethren. They put an i[naginary case, and an extreme one, which might seem to reduce the doctrine of a bodily resurrection to absurdity. Not unlikely it was a familiar puzzle with which the sceptical Sadducee was accustomed to vex the orthodox Pharisee ; and to the ordinary Pharisee at this time, with his crude, material ideas of the future life, it would be a great difficulty. 334 ST. MARK 12. 22-26. X^k 22 likewise : and the seven left no seed. Last of all the 23 woman also died. In the resurrection whose wife shall 24 she be of them ? for the seven had her to wife. Jesus said unto them, Is it not for this cause that ye err, that 25 ye know not the scriptures, nor the power of God ? For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage ; but are as angels in heaven. 26 But as touching the dead, that they are raised ; have ye not read in the book of Moses, in tJie place concerning \hQ 24. Is it not for this cause tliat ye err ? The questioners themselves are at fault. The difficulty which they propounded has no foundation. He gives two reasons also for their mistake — their misunderstanding of the very Scriptures to which they appealed, and their ignorance of the power of God as not limited to present conditions. In the following verses he explains these reasons further, taking the latter first. 25. they neither marry, nor are given in niarriag'e. The Sadducees thought of life only as it was known to them under its earthly conditions. They made no allowance for a life that could be lived under higher conditions and with different relations. But God's power was not to be limited, as they imagined, to one order of existence. He could provide a life in which there was no death, and therefore neither birth nor marriage. In Luke the statement is given in these express terms : 'They that are accounted worthy to attain to that world (' ' age " or order of being' , and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage : for neither can they die any more ' (xx. 35, 36). are as angels. Not 'are angels,' but 'are as angels.' The difference between human existence and angelic remains ; but in the resurrection-life men will be like angels, as the possessors of an undying life, independent of the marriage relation. 26. have ye not read in the hook of Moses ? Jesus now passes to the other reason for their mistake, their misunderstand- ing of Scripture. They had appealed to Moses, their one final authority. He now confutes them by Moses himself. The ' book of Moses ' is the Pentateuch, which gets that name in the O. T. (2 Chron. xxxv. 12 , but in the N. T. is usually known as ' Moses' (Luke xvi. 29) or ' the law of Moses ' (Luiires. The 'clouds ' are part of the imagerj' which expresses the heavenly nature of this new kingdom. Elsewhere in the O.T. the 'clouds' are often used as figures of the descent of God and His intervention on behalf of His people i cf. Isa. xix. 1 ; Ps. xviii. II, 12, xcvii. 2). But that the ' Parousia ' or second coming now in question was understood to be a real, objective event, however difficult it may be for us to conceive, appears with sufficient dis- tinctness from various passages of the N. T. (Matt. xxiv. 3, 37, 39 ; I Thess. iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. i; Jas. v. 7, &c.). Here, too, Jesus is clearly identified with the figure in Daniel's prophecj', and the title, ' Son of man,' by which he had designated himself, with the ' son of man ' in Daniel — no longer taken as a symbol of God's Israel, but as an individual, according to the later Apocalyptic reading of Daniel. In him, the king of Israel and the representative of man, and in his kingdom, the vision was now felt by the Church to have its highest and final fulfilment. 27. send forth tlie angels : not as in Matthew ' his^ angels ' (so in Matt. xiii. 41, xvi. 27), the more primitive conception being that God places His angels at the disposal of the Son of man, ' when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world ' of men (Heb. i. 6). Matthew (xxiv. 31 > has also ' with a great sound of a trumpet' ; compare the Didache, in note on verse 26 above. Luke has not this verse at all (that is, it was not part of the 364 ST. MARK 13. 28, 29. XMk angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the utter- most part of heaven .1 28 Now from the fig tree learn her parable : when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, 29 ye know that the summer is nigh ; even so ye also, when ye see these things coming to pass, know ye that ^ he is "• Or, // tradition otherwise known to liim), but continues after verse 26, ' But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads ; because your redemption draweth nigh ' (cf. Rom. viii. 23, ' waiting for OMr adoption, the redemption of our body'). g'ather togfether his elect. The ' elect ' are now claimed as ' his elect,' the elect of the Son of man, cf, Enocli Ivii. 2, Iviii. The day of his return will be the day of the gathering of all his own, and of the open manifestation of his kingdom (cf. 2 Thess. ii. i). xiii. 28-37. Lesson of the Fig-tree and Fina! Warnings (cf. Matt, xxiv. 32-42 ; Luke xxi. 29-36). 28. Now from the fig tree learn her parable. The fig-tree, one of the commonest trees in the country, has already served as tlie occasion for solemn warnings and counsel (Mark xi. 13, 14, 20-25). Jesus here makes similar use of it again. ' Her parable ' is the lesson she suggests. The * parable ' here is one of the class of minor, partial parables, an illustration or analogy. Possibly this section followed almost directly on verse 21 (or even 13) in Jesus' original discourse : see note on 14-23. 'The signs of the times,' in Jesus' sense, were likely to be intrinsic (as in Matt, xvi. 3), rather than such formally defined ones as in 14-27 : of. the simile of the ' green ' and the * dry ' tree in Luke xxiii. 31. when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves: i. e. when tiie leaves burst forth, as the earliest token of the approach of summer (cf. Song of Songs, ii. 11-13). 29. these thing's : originally, it seems, the things testing his disciples' fidelity described in 9a, 11-13, ^"^ perhaps 21 also. he is nig'h : rather, 'it is nigh,' that is, the decisive event referred to, left thus in its unexplained mystery. Luke specifies the Kingdom of God as meant by the spiritual * summer.' Possibly this is right in essence, but the immediate reference may be the things of verse 4, viz. the destruction of the Temple as leading to the Kingdom — the central theme of the question to which Jesus is replying. ST. MARK 13. 30-32. XMk 365 nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This 30 generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished. \ Heaven and earth shall pass away : but 31 my words shall not pass away.1 But of that day or that 32 hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, even at tlxe doors : cf. Jas. v. 9. His disciples ought to be able to recognize the significance of the events spoken of, and discern in them the beginnings of the consummation. 30. This generation shall not pass. The word ' generation ' is to be taken in its usual sense, which it has in Matt, xxiii. 36 and in the Gospels generally — the body of men then living. Jesus here assures his disciples that the crisis in view (see verse 4) was not remote, and intimates that the things, a// of them, of which he has been speaking — not, it may be, all that the present discourse contains — would take place before his contemporaries should all have departed this life. This verse is equivalent in effect to ix. i, and both seem— if they were actually uttered by Jesus as they stand -to express the same faith as the phrase ' rise again after three days,' as explained in the note on viii. 31. 31. This verse does not come in really aptly here. It seems like an adaptation of Jesus' saying in Matt. v. 18 about the Law (in its essence) to his own teaching. The object of its use here is as a sort of assurance (surely not needed by his original hearers, as distinct from those living after the martyrdoms of James the son of Zebedee and Peter, two of the original hearers of this discourse) that ' the words' of his promise that 'all these things' should ' be accomplished ' within the generation that saw his earthly ministry, should ' not pass away ' without fulfilment. It may well be secondary. Verse 32 follov/s on verse 30 better without it. 32. But of that day or that hour : the ' day ' and the ' hour ' of the final accomplishment of what he had in mind in verse 30, be they merely the things in view in verse 4 or certain others also which are reproduced in the above discourse. knoweth no one, not even the ang'els in heaven, neither the Son. The precise time of the future crisis is hidden from all but the Father. It is one of the things He hath ' set within his own authority ' (Acts i. 7). The negatives here are absolute and exclusive, ' no one, not even the angels, nor yet the Son.' Angelic knowledge, though large, is not unlimited (Eph. iii. 10 ; i Peter i. 12). But the peculiarity of the present passage is that ' the Son ' himself is coupled with tfie angels in such nescience. The declara- tion is made, too, by Jesus himself, and in terms definite and unqualified. It is the ascription of a real nescience, not of an ignorance operating in one part of his personality but not in the 366 ST. MARK 13. 33. X^^ 33 neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch other ; nor an ignorance simply assumed for a certain purpose, while a real omniscience remained latent. Nor is there real difficulty in accepting the statement as it stands in Mark's Gospel. With the general picture of Jesui' humanity there given it is quite of a piece, though it is the one explicit statement of limitation of knowledge in a certain direction, and that on his own lips. Any difficulty about it is due chiefly to later theories of Christ's Person, worked out on the lines of abstract metaphj-sics rather than of moral psychology, controlled by the central idea of the unity of personality. Jesus" whole religious and moral life is represented in this gospel, in particular, as lived under the human conditions of dependence and trust in God as Father : else the victory achieved would not be fully t3'pical (cf. x. 40 for a passage of like tenor). The limitation in knowledge was only a part of the larger limitation implied in Incarnation, and in that subjection of Jesus to the ordinary laws of growth — physical, mental, and moral — which is affirmed of him in the N. T. (Luke ii. 40, 52 ; Heb. v. 8). Nor is such a nescience as is here attributed to him — of times and seasons — inconsistent in any way with perfect si nlessness. There are multitudes of things that are morally neutral, knowledge or ignorance of which makes us neither better nor worse in the moral sense : and liability to such ignorance is a condition of full humanity. But while the above holds true of the text as it stands in prac- tically all our authorities, there is reason to doubt whether Jesus' own words have not undergone some change. For the use of ' the Son ' absolutely, though found also in Matt. xi. 27 = Luke x. 22, is unique in Mark (cf. Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 194); and its presence here may be due to tradition, so surprising did the universal statement that ' no one,' with the sole exception of * the Father,' knew the exact date of the end, become to Christians who had never known their Lord in the flesh, as a real man. So ' nor yet the Son ' might slip in unconsciously, as the correlative in current use of ' the Father,' originally here used by Jesus of God in relation to men generally, not to himself in particular (cf. 'my Father and your Fatlier,' John xx. 17, and the frequent use of ' the Father' generally in the Fourth Gospel, e.g. xii. 26, xiv. 6, xvi. 23, 25-27). Accordingly the insertion of 'nor yet the Son ' in a position of climax, above the angels, tends to modify rather than enhance an3' difficulty to later Christian thought in- herent in the verse in any form. For while still including him under the universal ' no one,' it yet makes explicit reference to Jesus' unique and transcendent relation to the heavenly Father himself. Some suspect that ' not even the angels in heaven ' also but Matt, xviii. 10 shews its fitness, and the ST. MARK 13. 34. XMk 367 ^ and pray : for ye know not when the time is. // is as 34 zv/ien a man, sojourning in another country, having left ^ Some ancient authorities omit and pray. motive of this insertion would not be obvious. Luke's omission of the whole verse suggests that it was one which the later Apos- tolic age already found hard to receive. 33. Take ye heed, watch ""and pray"'. The disciples ' know not when the time is,' and the Master himself cannot disclose it. But this ignorance has its spiritual use. It should be an incentive to watchfulness at all times, and so to the sedulous cultivation of the mind ready for the Lord's coming at any time. The word used here for ' watch ' means properly ' keep awake,' and is used with reference to work as well as to prayer (Heb. xiii. 17 ; Eph. vi. 18). In Matt. xxiv. this verse is led up to by the O. T. example of the unreadiness of men ' in the days of Noah ' (37 ff.). The very degree of unexpectedness here implied, by the earnest call to constant vigilance, supports the probability that much in the dis- course is of secondary origin : for after such strikuig signs as those described in 14-25 it is psychologically improbable that Christians would be other than in a constant state of mental and moral vigil during the interval between then and Jesus' final 'season' of return as the Christ in glory. Hence this closing saying strongly confirms the theory already shown to be suggested by various phenomena, viz. that the original nucleus of this discourse was far simpler and less 'Apocalyptic ' in its outlook and language than what has reached us through the medium of the Church's tradition, as known even to Mark — let alone tiie variant and more elaborate forms found in the other Sj'noptics. 34-37. This section, introduced by the parable-germ on the servants left in charge by their house-lord during his absence, appears in various forms in the different Synoptics, particularly Luke xii. 35-48, where the context contains other sayings (49-53) parallel to Mark at an earlier point in this discourse (Mark xiii. 12). In that section of Luke verses 39 f. = Matt. xxiv. 43 f., verses42-46 = Matt. xxiv. 45-51 ; verse 38 somewhat resembles Mark xiii. 35 ; v. 41, Mark xiii. 37; while 35-37 (of which 37 is akin in idea to 43!.) contain a parable-germ on watching for a lord returning from bis marriage feast. The total effect is to support the general ideas expressed in Mark's closing verses, though we have not the means of judging which of the Synoptists best preserves the original wording. 34. // IS as when a man, sojourning in another country. The construction of the opening part of the verse is an example of Mark's rugged style. Here is a parable-germ or illustration, like 368 ST. MARK 13. 35-37. X^k his house, and given authority to his ^ servants, to each one his work, commanded also the porter to watch. 35 Watch therefore : for ye know not when the lord of the house cometh, whether at even, or at midnight, or at 36 cockcrowing, or in the morning ; lest coming suddenly 37 he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. '^ Gr. bond-servants the one taken from the fig-tree, enforcing the need of watchful- ness. In the 'lord of the house' we are to see Jesus himself, leaving the earthly scene of his ministry, and later returning to earth after an interval left undefined. Then, as to the special emphasis on the function of ' the porter ' as ^vatchman for the whole household, this can hardly mean other than a differentiation among Christ's ' servants ' or disciples, whereby to certain is entrusted the special duty of watchmen. By these seem meant the Twelve in particular, though watchfulness is stated in verse 37 to be the duty of all Christ's servants as such. 35. whether at even, or at iniduight, or at coclrcrowing', or in the morning' : that is, in any of the four watches of the night, according to Roman reckoning. Matthew and Luke use more general language here. But the latter, in his report of an earlier declaration, represents Jesus as speaking of the ' second watch ' and 'the third' (xii. 38). 37. what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch. See also Luke xii. ^i for this. The supreme duty of w^akeful vigilance is enjoined once more, and that as a duty applicable not to one class but to all. Matthew then introduces without any formal break the parables of the Ten Virgins, the Talents, and the Judgement, inculcating the same lesson of the need of watchfulness, and with that the need of faithfulness, diligence, and service. There are, then, two strands running through the Discourse as it reaches us in all the Gospels ; a primary one, going back to Jesus and to the original occasion and psychological horizon, best preserved in what is common to Mark and Luke ; and a secondary one, due to the later experiences and outlook of the Church, and to modifications in the tradition which these effected, partly by bringing in sayings uttered on other occasions but having affinity with this discourse, and partly by the influence of Jewish Apoca- lyptic ideas and language. Jesus did indeed at times utilize Apocalyptic imagery to a certain extent, in setting forth the transcendent aspects of the future, e. g. his return as the Son of ST. MARK 14. 1. XMk 369 Now after two days was the feast of the passover and 14 man in power, the judgement and separation among men effected thereby, the gathering of God's saints from all quarters into the Messianic kingdom (cf. Matt.viii. 11 f.), in which the Twelve should share his judicial and royal functions. But he used them with sovereign poetic freedom, and in far less wholesale manner than marks the discourse as it stands. Nor can he have departed so far from the lines of its occasion and opening, and of its close, with its emphatic warning touching the incakuJable suddenness of his return (cf. end of the Appended Note after xiii. 4). For if the signs specified in 14-27 must first appear before that return, then the urgent need of ' watching ' would date only from then and not before. Further, the detailed imagery, which is in any case meant in a more literal sense than characterizes Jesus' wonted use of figurative language, tells against its own authen- ticity. Thus 'we are compelled to choose between the declara- tions which exhibit the Kingdom as imminent, without any other sign than the Gospel itself (and its issues in the experiences of the Apostles described in vv. 5f., 9a, 11-13), 'and those which exhibit it as delayed till after a series of events which were to be accomplished before it was realized. The choice of the historian cannot be doubtful : the declarations of the first series are in keeping with the teaching of Jesus ; these of the second series are an apologetic explanation of the delay, which, notwithstanding the declarations of the Saviour himself, the Parousia experienced' (Loisy, £vangiles synoptiques^ ii. 405). It is very doubtful, how- ever, whether this really implies the use cf any such Jewish 'Little Apocalypse,' in written form, as many scholars assume to have been among the materials used by tradition or by our Synoptics in such expansion of the original nucleus as is recog- nizable in the Discourse as a whole (see Allen, pp. 163-7). Gradual development of the historical nucleus by the activity of Christian prophecy, using various Jewish Apocal3'ptic materials, is psychologically more likely. xiv. 1-2. Schemes of the Ecclesiastical Authorities {c{. Matt. xxvi. 1-5 ; Luke xxii. 1-2). 1. after two days. There are several sources of confusion for us in dealing with the Paschal calculations in this chapter and in the sentence of which this phrase forms part. There is (i) the difference between the Jewish and Roman (or Western^ reckoning of a day, which in the former case began at sunset, in the latter at dawn. Hence the Wednesday, here Nisan the thir- teenth, remained such to the Romans (as to us) even after sunset ; while to the Jews it became at sunset Nisan 14, until sunset on Thursday, when in turn Nisan 15 began, and therewith the Bb 370 ST. MARK 14. i. X^k the unleavened bread : and the chief priests and the Paschal feast or season. Similarly the Days of Unleavened Bread (lasting seven days, cf. Acts xii. 2), a stage of the whole Paschal Feast which began strictly with its second day, commenced in fact about midday on Nisan 14 (see v. 12), i.e. ere the fourteenth passed over to the fifteenth— but for the Romans remained the fourteenth until after the Passover meal (^sacrificed already on the fourteenth) was eaten before midnight. (2) A second source of ambiguity is the varying senses of ' the Passover' and 'the Unleavened Bread' {The Asyiues, in the plural), dealt with in the next note. (3) The ' inclusive ' and ' exclusive ' reckoning of time. The former is the regular Jewish method, seen in ' after three days ' in viii. 31, ix. 31, X. 34, meant by Mark in the sense of 'on the third day,' i. e. after a whole day and parts of two days on either side of it. This, however, does not equally hold good for Romans, or ^vhe^e a Jewish writer like Mark is writing freel3' for Graeco- Roman readers as an historian, and not as quoting a phrase already fixed in Jewish tradition, like the above. Accordingly ' after two days' may here mean either 'on the day following ' or ' after two full days.' Reckoning back from Friday, Nisan fifteen, this would make the day now in question either Nisan thirteen, Wednesday of Passion Week, or on the other hand Nisan twelve, the Tuesday. The former view is preferable, and answers to ' the fourth day ' of the week, later kept ^^like the Friday) by the ancient Church as a fast in memory of the fatal ' council ' (cf. Matt. V. 3) of Jesus' foes : see Didachc, 8, Apost. Const, v. 15. the pant of the passover. The word * Passover ' means sometimes the paschal Lamb 1 as in Mark xiv. 12, Luke xxii. 7', which was killed on the fourteenth of Nisan and eaten at sunset (as Nisan fifteen was beginningX in memory of the day when the Israelites were bidden prepare to quit Egypt (Exod. xii ; Num. ix ; Deut. xvi) ; sometimes the appoincnients of the paschal supper, as in Mark xiv. 16; Luke xxii. 8, 13 ; sometimes \.\\e paschal festival, the memorial feast lasting from the fourteenth to the twenty-first of Nisan, as here and in Matt. xxvi. 2 ; Luke ii. 41, xxii. i ; John ii. 13, 23, vi. 4, &C. and (of) tlie tuileavened bread. The term rendered ' un- leavened liread' is used sometimes of the unfermented loaves which the Israelites ate for seven daj's in commemoration of their departure from Egypt Exod. xxiii. 15; Lev. xxiii. 6), as in Matt. xxvi. 17 ; Mark xiv. 12 ; Luke xxii. i, 7 ; sometimes o( the paschal festival itseU, as here. The peculiarity of the present passage is that the Festival is designated by the double title, in terms both of the Passover proper and of the seven days of Unleavened Bread, which followed. This whole commemorative festival was an ST. MARK 14. 2. XMk 371 scribes sought how they might take him with subtilty, and kill him : for they said, Not during the feast, lest haply there shall be a tumult of the people. eight days" feast, beginning with a da}' of preparation (here ignored) for the paschal meal, and continuing through seven days of restriction to unfermented bread. sought how they mig-ht take him with subtilty: /;/. ' were seeking,' &c. Matthew specifies ' the chief priests and the ciders of the people ' (xxvi. 3), and clearly contemplates a full meeting of the Sanhedrin in the house ofCaiaphas, the High-priest. But this is not necessarily implied by Mark here, any more than inverse 10, where the leading groups of Jesus' foes, 'the chief l)riests and the scribes,' are in question. 2. Not diiring- the feast. Their plan was to keep clear of the Passover feast in any action they might take, for fear of popular excitement. Hence they must either act at once, as the passover began in a day or two, or delay till the seven days of the feast were over. lest haply there shall be a tumult. This was the reason for seeking to resort to some cunning trick, and particularly for their intention to keep clear of the feast. 1 hey knew that the mass of the people, largely from Galilee, though perplexed about Jesus, regarded him as ' a prophet' at least ; and they dreaded to raise their opposition. Once let the feast be over, and these provincial sympathizers scattered to their homes, the danger of a tumult would be less. This was their polic}' prior to the ' new fact ' now to be described, viz. that there was a traitor in Jesus' own inner circle, through whose aid all could be made simpler and safer. xiv. 3-9. The Anointing at Bethany (cf. Matt. xxvi. 6-13 ; John xii. 2-8). The narratives in Mark, Matthew, and John, appear clearly to refer to one and the same occasion. There is difference indeed in the chronological connexion, John placing the supper six days before the Passover, and the Synoptics introducing it along with circumstances belonging to a period several days later. Yet the difference in position counts for little. In Luke's Gospel also we have a narrative of an anointing at the hands of a woman (Luke vii. 36-5o^, which has a general resemblance to this, and in which the host bears, as here, the name of Simon. But the differences between Luke's story and this one are considerable. The incident in Luke is introduced at a much earlier point and seems to belong to an earlier period in the ministry of Jesus. In Luke, too, the chief actor is described as ' a woman which was in the city, a sinner;' in the first two Gospels she is designated simply • a woman ; ' and in the Fourth Gospel she is ' Mary, the 372 ST. MARK 14. 3. X^k 3 And while he was in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having a an alabaster cruse of ointment of ^ spikenard very costly ; * Or, a flask ^ Gr. pLstic nani, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean genuiizc ; others liquid, sister of Martha and Lazarus.' It is far more likely, then, that any point of contact between Luke's narrative and that of Mark in regard to Jesus' stay at Bethany is to be found in the beautiful picture of Jesus' welcome by Martha and Mary (x. 31-42), which may even have taken place early in this visit, as it is undated in Luke. The present incident fits psychologically into its place in Mark, in virtue of the foreboding tone of Jesus' words in verse 8. This would be quite out of keeping with his spirit at the time of his Triumphal entry (as John's narrative would imply), whereas it follows naturally on his recent experiences in Jerusalem, and the resulting situation as just described in vv. if. Thus, the incident probably took place on the evening of Tuesday or Wednesday of Passion Week. Further, if as seems likely, Mark and especially Matthew intend us to understand that the incident precipitated Judas's decision to deliver his Master into the hands of his foes — for whatever motive — this connexion favours that date. For it explains how the authorities were able, instead of having to tvati till after the Feast, to arrest Jesus before it without the danger of tumult, by a quick and stealthy coufi dc tnain facilitated by one of his own followers. 3. while he was in Bethany. Presumably soon after the moment indicated in verse i f, ; see the note above. Simon the leper. This concrete detail, on a point of no im- portance to the reader, is only one of innumerable touches of circumstantial fulness and precision which characterize tiie story of Passion Week in Mark : Luke too has his own, due to his special source, especially as regards the Last Supper. All connected with the great crisis would live vividly in apostolic memories. Simon was a common Jewish name. This Simon is distinguished from others by the title 'the leper,' he being perhaps one of those healed by Jesus. a woman. The Synoptists do not give her name. Probably it was Mary of Bethany, whose name does not occur in Mark. In John's account Martha of Bethany serves and Mary anoints the Master (cf. Luke x. 38-42). an alabaster cruse : or ' a flask,' as in the margin of the R.V. Literally it is ' an alabaster,' that name being given to vases used ST. MARK 14. 4. XMk 373 a7id she brake the cruse, and poured it over his head. But there were some that had indignation among them- 4 seh'es, sayi?ig, To what purpose hath this waste of the for the holding of unguents, because they were often made of that material. The alabaster of the ancients was different from what is known as alabaster among us (not a sulphate of lime, but a stalagmitic carbonate). It was supposed to preserve the aroma of the perfumes. of spikenard : lit. ' oi ptsiic nard,' a doubtful phrase, probably meaning genuine, pure nard, in contrast with pseudo-nard, an adulterated article known to have been sold (Pliny, Nat. Hist. xii. 12). Thus the adjective * pistic' is applied to a woman, as ' faith- ful ' or ' trustworthy,' by a second-century writer, Artemidorus. This 'nard' ^vas the essential oil of an Indian plant, a species of Valerian, known among the Arabs as the Indiatt Spike, and grown, according to Sir William Jones, ' in the most remote and hilly parts of India, such as Nepal, Morang, and Butan, near which Ptolemy fixes its native soil' {Works, v. p. 44). In the O.T. it is mentioned only in the Song of .Songs (i. 12, iv. 13, 14), in the N.T. only here. very costly. It was perhaps the costliest of all the fragrant oils of the ancient world. Horace promises Vergil a whole cask of wine for a small onyx of nard {Odes, iv. 12). brake the cruse : by breaking off the narrow neck of the flask itself, so that the entire contents might be spent more freely on the Master, with the lavish abandon of love. over his head. In John's narrative Mary anoints the feet of Jesus. The anointing of the head was a customary act of attention on the part of a host to his guest (cf. Ps. xxiii. 5 ; Luke vii. 46) or of goodwill to visitors. To anoint the feet was an unusual act, a token of deepest humility and veneration (see Luke vii. 46). 4. there were some. Matthew says they were 'the disciples.' John speaks of Judas as the murmurer (xii. 4), and the way in which Mark makes Judas's decision to betray Jesus to the Jewish authorities follow immediatel3' on this incident (verse 10) suggests that he had taken umbrage at Jesus' defence of the woman's action, including the tenor of his reply. had indignation among' themselves : the same strong term as was used of the ' indignation ' with which Jesus himself resented the interference of the disciples with those who brought little children to him (x. 14). The indignation of these 'some' did not express itself in any formal or public manner. It confined itself to grumblings that went from mouth to mouth among themselves. this waste. The judgement of a calculating utilitarian spirit, blind to the higher values of love. 374 ST. MARK 14. 5-8. XMk 6 ointment been made? For this ointment might have been sold for above three hundred pence, and given to 6 the poor. And they murmured againist her. But Jesus said, Let her alone ; why trouble ye her ? she hath 7 wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor always with you, and whensoever ye will ye can do them 8 good : but me ye have not always. She hath done what 5. three liimdred pence. That is, three hundred denarii or shillings, from £\o to ^12 in nominal value, but much more in actual purchasing power. The vase, John tells us, contained 'a pound' (Roman) of the nard. given to the poor. As we may infer from Mark vi. 37, the sum would have fed some thousands. murmured against her : rather ' vented their feeling,' the word used in i. 43. Their indignation, which at first had been but muttered, finally vented itself on the woman herself. a good work: rather 'a beautiful deed.' It was a deed of moral beauty, made so by the spirit of ungrudging love that prompted it. *J. For ye have the poor always with yon. Kindness to the poor is a primary duty. Yet there are timely acts to which even it may give place for a while. When such a conflict of duties arises, it is to be settled by the principle that what can be done only at a given moment, or not at all, shall have precedence over what can be done at any time. Love has its own insight, and makes its way by a sure instinct through all difficulties of com- peting duties, to the fitness of things. The clause ' and when- soever ye will, ye can do them good,' is peculiar to Mark. me ye have not always. A simple but pathetic reminder of what he had hinted to his disciples time and again — the fact that he was to die. The special fitness of the woman's act, therefore, was seen in its timeliness. 8. She hath done what she could. To what end ? Perhaps to express what she could not put into words, namely, her boundless sympathy with her great Master in the Cup which her woman's loving observation of his mood revcnled to her that he was now drinking, tiie cup of disappointment in his own People and his rejection by their leaders. If so, it was a wonderfully delicate and tactful way of attaining her aim, and one which seems to have moved Jesus profoundly. There was that in the passionate devotion and sympathetic insight of woman's love which formed a special bond between Jesus and true womanhood : ST. MARK 14. 9. XMk 375 she could : she hath anointed my body aforehand for the burying. And verily I say unto you, Wheresoever the 9 gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, compare the devotion of women disciples to the bitter end, XV. 40 f., 47, xvi. I f. The words which follow (8^, 9) are to be taken as the poetry of emotion, uttered in a mood of high exaltation and mystic vision, which the woman's spiritual!}' ' beautiful ' deed evoked in him. The case was similar to that on the return of the Seventy with their story, which caused him 'to exult in the Holy Spirit,' and then utter the sublimest expression of the inmost meaning of the Gospel (alike as regards its true recipients and his own unique fiinction in it, 'entrusted' to him b}' His Father) which the Synoptic tradition has preserved (Luke x. 17, 21 ff. ; cf. Matt. xi. 25 ff.). anointed my body aforebaiid. In the case of death it was customary among the Jews, after washing the body, to apply spices and unguents. for the burying : lit. ' with a view to its preparation for burial.' So in Matthew, 'she did it to prepare me for burial' (xxvi. 12). John gives it somewhat differentl}', ' Suffer her to keep it against the day of my burying' (xii. 7). Though this particular aspect of the act can hardly have occurred to the woman herself, she may have done what she did with a conscious anticipation of his death, i.e. that it was her last chance of expressing her love and reverence. Love's insight is quick: the woman was a disciple ; and if she was Mary of Bethany (cf. Luke x. 39), we can well imagine that to her woman's love the words Jesus had spoken regarding his Passion may have had a meaning which they had not even to the Twelve. This intuition Jesus met with grateful warmth of feeling, and put upon her act a fulness of meaning and a value beyond what she herself had thought of. 9. Wheresoever the gospel shall be preached. As wide as the preaching of the Gospel, so wide should be the fame of this deed ; for it was a deed most typical of the Gospel, i;i the uncal- culating devotion of its love (cf. xii. 29 ff., x. 21), and should not fail of its record as part of the Gospel story. througrhout the whole world. It is doubtful whether these words were actually uttered by Jesus. They may well be an un- conscious addition made to the phrasing of the saying, in terms of the Church's experience and language, as the Apostolic Age saw the Gospel's spread throughout the Roman world : compare xiii. 10. Jesus contemplated the Kingdom's coming in power quite soon (ix. i, xiv. 62). 376 ST. MARK 14. lo. X^k that also which this woman hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her. 10 And Judas Iscariot, ^he that was one of the twelve, went away unto the chief priests, that he might deliver * Gr. the one of the twelve for a memorial of her. To make her remembered with honour among men. xiv. lo, II. Compact bctivecii Jiidas and the Chief Priests (cf. Matt. xxvi. 14-16; Luke xxii. 3-6). 10. Jiidas Iscariot. In Mark's gospel Judas is mentioned only in the list of the apostles (iii. 19) and twice in this chapter (10,43). one of the twelve: lit. 'the one of the twelve,' possibly emphatic, in the sense of 'one of the twelve, as he was :' cf. Luke's ' being of the number of the Twelve.' A designation of tragic import, marking him out as such and sharpening the idea of his guilt. Recently it has been argued (e. g. by Dr. A. Wright in The Journal of Thcol. Studies, xviii. 32 f.) that 'the one' here means, as it can in modern Greek and perhaps also in the ancient papyri (witnesses to the colloquial rather than literary' language of this period), 'the first' or 'the chief of the Twelve. Such Judas might be, as steward of the common purse of Jesus and his inner circle (cf. John xii. 6). But it is very doubtful whether such a description would be introduced thus suddenly in Mark's narra- tive, with no hint that it needed explanation, as it certainl}' would to his readers, with their views of Peter as holding the first place at this time. Further, in the Book of Enoch, xx. i ff., the phrase occurs of several archangels, each being called '(the) one of the holy angels ' — a complete parallel. went away unto the chief priests: i. e. the most influential persons in matters of this kind. From Luke we hear that the ' captains,' the heads of the temple police — themselves priests — were also consulted (xxii. 4). that he mig'ht deliver him. What is the explanation of this deed of treachery? Some suppose that all he had in view was to force the hand of Jesus to the establishment of his Mes- sianic kingdom, by bringing to bear on him the compulsion of a popul.ir rising on iiis behalf to rescue him from the authorities. But of this there is no hint in the narratix-cs (unless it be in Matt, xxvii. 3V Others think he was prompted by wounded ambition, or by resentment caused by the rebuke giveti him in particular (as he felt) at the supper in Bethany (John xii. 6-g). The latter ST. MARK 14. I r. XMk 377 him unto them. And they, when they heard it, were ii glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently deliver him unto them. motive probably entered in (see verse 4 and note), but only as the last impetus given to an alienation of deeper and long-standing origin between him and his master, most likely connected with the latter's growing deviation from Judas's ideal of Messiahship, and now passing into bitter chagrin and hostility. But the Gospels themselves suggest only some Satanic temptation (Luke xxiii. 3 ; John xiii. 2, 27) and avarice. The latter is peculiar to the Fourth Gospel (with some inferential support from Matt. xxvi. i5\ which states that, having been chosen to manage the money aflfairs of Jesus and the Twelve, he abused his trust (John xii. 6). Thus it is implied that it was for this reason that he finally betra^'ed his Master, the fatal vice of greed, in him from the beginning, having been allowed to feed on the opportunities offered it, until at last it blinded him to every other consideration. Against this stands the absence of any hint of it in the Synoptic tradition. So the matter remains largely a mystery, unless we can adopt Allen's view of the meaning of Iscariot (see iii. 19) as confirming the first hypothesis. 11. they, when they heard it, were ^lad. They needed no longer either to scheme or to think of delay ; the means of giving effect to their fell purpose were as good as put into their hands. proinisecl to give him money. The exact sum is recorded neither by Mark nor by Luke. Matthew, however, who also represents Judas as asking how much the authorities would give him, mentions that it was thirty pieces of silver (xxvi. 15). The whole sum, however, would amount to less than £i,, a small sum truly for such a service and hardly such as to content any one, especially an avaricious man. On the other hand, it is the sum mentioned in Zechariah xi. 12, a point which Matthew xxvii. 9 f . emphasizes as a fulfilment of prophecy : so that this may be the real origin of the sum there named. he sought how he might conveniently deliver him : rather • he began to seek,' &c. Luke adds : ' in the absence of the multitude,' or, 'without tumult' ixxii. 6\ The risk of a rising on the part of the people was what the chief priests were seeking to avoid. Judas went back to those he had left for the time, and watched his chance to devise the means and find the occasion, as Jesus' plans for his movements developed. What favoured Judas's purpose, viz. Jesus' presence in Jerusalem by night, is stated in what follows; but it is not made clear just when Judas visited the authorities (yet see note on verse 13). I. 378 ST. MARK 14. 12. XMk And on the first day of unleavened bread, when they sacrificed the passover, his disciples say unto him, Where xiv. 12-16. Preparations for the Last Supper (cf. Matt. xxvi. 17-19; Luke xxii. 7-13). 12. on the first day of unleavened bread. Luke calls it simply 'the day of unleavened bread' (xxii. 7). It means the day when leaven was removed and the eating of unleavened bread began. This expression occurs also in Joseph us (Jewish IVar) : ' When the day of the Unleavened Bread, the fourteenth of the month (Nisan) . . . had come.' Matthew, a gospel written mainly for Jewish readers, supports this phrase of Mark's as being true enough to popular Jewish language at the time (though later it seems to have passed out of use\ the first day of the Passover season being regarded as preparatory to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which began strictly with the fifteenth (after sunset on the fourtei nth). Josephus, however, both by calling the fourteenth ' the day of the Unleavened Bread' and by writing ' we keep a feast for eight days which is called [the Feast"| of Unleavened Bread' (Antiquities, ii. 15. i), virtually supports Mark's use of the phrase ' the Jiist day of the Unleavened Bread,' which has been chal- lenged by modern Jewish scholars as a solecism, contrary to Rabbinic usage (see Allen's Additional Note on xiv. 12 for further evidence from Josephus). All three Synoptics mean the same day, the fourteenth Nisan, which began after sunset on the thirteenth. In post-Exilic times it was customary for the head of the family to search the house with a lighted candle on the evening of the thirteenth Nisan, in quest of leaven. On the fourteenth the eating of leavened bread was suspended, the abstention beginning before noon. Allen suspects an error lying behind Mark's Greek, for an Aramaic original 'on the day before the Unleavened Bread.' when they sacrificed the pa,ssover. This further definition is found also in Luke, but not in Matthew, which as a Gospel for Jewish readers did not feel needful the explanation which Mark added for his Gentile readers. The paschal lamb was killed in the court of tlie priests, with considerable ceremonial. 1'lieeating took place after sunset. This year, as the Crucifixion was mani- festly on Friday, Mark implies that it took place on Thursday. Where wilt thoii that we go and make ready ? The pre- parations that had to be made at the house were elaborate, embracing the providing of place, unleavened cakes, wine, water, the bitter herbs, Ihe sauce called C/iaroset/i, the setting out of the table, &c., apart from the lamb, brought at the last stage from the temple to be roasted. Thus this question does not in itself neces- sarily imply that the Passover was to be eaten the same evening, ST. MARK 14. 12. XMk 379 wilt thou that we go and make ready that thou mayest as the opening words of the verse obviously do. Indeed Monte- fiore says, touching the view that such was the case (as the Synoptics state, though some think it does not suit all they relate), ' the odd thing is perhaps that no arrangement was made before Thursday morning.' But Jesus had good reason to allow Judas as short notice as possible of his exact plans. This perhaps explains the very form of Jesus'directions ; while only the fact that it was the Paschal meal warranted his arranging to be in Jerusalem after dark. The directions given by Jesus are often thought to point to supernatural foresight. But of this there is no trace in Matthew, which may here follow the Apostolic tradition as known to him apart from Mark. According to Matt. xxvi. i8, Jesus replies, 'Go into the city to so and so (naming the man to the two disciples, Peter and John, as Luke tells us\ and saj' to him, " The Teacher saith My time is at hand ; at thy house I keep the passover with my disciples." ' Luke adopts Mark's narrative here, after an independent opening from his special source (vv. 7f.) — which throughout the whole Passion narrative makes its presence very evident, and may have had no account of the details special to Mark, as compared with Matthew. These special features pro- bably describe the actual circumstances imder which the disciples found the house Jesus had in mind. It is most likely that they were in fact foreknown by Jesus, for the simple reason that he had so arranged with the master of the house, a local disciple, in order to keep his next movements unknown to Judas, whom Jesus suspected but whose purpose was hidden from his fellow-disciples. Thus they might unconsciously have given away their Master's safety, had they known where exactly they were going before they started (hence Matthew's idea that Jesus had named his future host is probably inaccurate). By the time they returned, it might be too late for Judas to steal away and give the precious information where in Jerusalem Jesus was to be found that even- ing, and so enable his foes to take measures to seize him with little or no public notice. As it was, Judas was in fact able to warn them of Jesus' whereabouts onlj' at the eleventh hour, pos- sibly by leaving the very board of his Master (as John's Gospel implies) on some pretext. Mark does not say that the matter had not been thus arranged : nor are we free to infer it from his silence ; for in fact the con- text in which he places the incident may well be meant to suggest that Jesus did not deliberately play into the hands of his enemies, but rather tried to save Judas from executing his purpose. On the other hand the very vivid details which Mark supplies may point to his special knowledge of the circumstances from personal 38o ST. MARK 14. 13-15. X^k 13 eat the passover? And he sendeth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water : follow him ; 14 and wheresoever he shall enter in, say to the goodman of the house, The » Master saith, Where is my guest- chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my 15 disciples ? And he will himself shew you a large upper * Or, Teacher connexion with tlie household in question (see note on 51). He may even have been the man carrying the pitcher. 13. two of his disciples. Lulie tells us they were Peter and John (xxii. 8). a man bearing' a pitcher of water. A servant or member of the family. ' The carr3'ing of the jar of water was no doubt a pre-arranged sign of identity' (Allen), between Jesus and the liouseholder. This would suggest that the arrangement had been made as a counter- plan after Judas's visit to the chief-priests, which therefore probably took place on Tuesday night or during Wednes- day. 14. The Master (Teacher) saith, Where is my g^uest- chamber ? ' My guest-chamber,' that is, ' the lodging destined for me' — perhaps a suggestion of pre-arrangement This was the simple message with which the two were charged, and they were to deliver it to ' the goodman of the house ' himself. 15. he will himself shew you. The master of the house was himself to take them to the room — another trace of the object of Jesus' secret understanding with him, to avoid all risks. They were to be shewn a 'large upper room,' a chamber suitable for the occasion and for the company, all ' furnished and ready,' that is, provided with the necessary low table and carpets or divans. See also the note on verse 51 for this as a disciple's house. xiv. 17-21. The Last Supper {cf. Matt. xxvi. 20-25 ; Luke xxii. 14, 21-23; John xiii. 2, 21-30^ Edersheim {Lt/e and Times of Jesus the Messiah, ii. 510) justly observes that, 'while the historical nexus with the Paschal Supper is evident, it almost seems as if the Evangelists had intended, by their studied silence in regard to the Jewish Feast, to indicate that with this celebration and the new Institution the Jewish Passover had for ever ceased.' To this we may add that, Mark's Gospel being meant special!}' for Gentile readers, its narrative of the Last Supper is ns free as possible of anything that implies for its under- standing any knowledge of the usages proper to a Passover Meal. ST. MARK 14. 16-18. XMk 381 room furnished atid ready : and there make ready for us. And the disciples went forth, and came into the city, 16 and found as he had said unto them : and they made ready the passover. And when it was evening he cometh with the twelve. 17 And as they "■sat and were eating, Jesus said, Verily I say 18 unto you, One of you shall betray me, even he that eateth * Gr. reclined It directs attention purely to the acts and words of Jesus which bore on the situation in which he and his disciples then \vere, and on the light in which he wished them to view it— in a word, on its distinctive!}' Christian aspects. Yet in reconstructing the com- plete story in the Upper Chamber, even so far as Mark affords liints towards it, a knowledge of Passover customs at the time is of value ; only we must beware of assuming that these were as fixed and elaborate as those in use to-day, or even as those wit- nessed to in our earliest Jewish authorities (cf. Edersheim, ii. 492 ff.). \*l. when it was evening'. The Passover was eaten just after sunset (Ex. xii. 6), 'between the evenings' (marg.\ i e. in the twilight between sunset and dark. with the twelve : including Judas, now thinking how he might use the opportunity that was arising. 18. as they sat and were eating- : therefore after the Kiddiish or Solemn Blessing, and probably during or after the eating of the Paschal Lamb itself, which would give point to the words which follow. One of you shall batray me. A new suggestion, which must have caused blank consternation to the rest of the Twelve, and to Judas strained expectancy as to what his Master would say or do next. According to John, it was after he had washed the disciples' feet that he spoke the significant words ' ye are clean, but not all,' and referred to the fulfilment of the Scripture ' he that eateth my bread lifted up his heel against me' (John xiii. 10, 18). This affords a parallel account to the intimation here of the terrible fact that other hands than those of hostile Jewish and Roman officials were to be concerned with his delivering up and death. The words 'even he that eateth with me' are given only b}' Mark. They refer, however, to the verse of a psalm (xli. 9) which John xiii. 18) records that Jesus quoted : 'Yea, mine own familiar friend, . . . which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me.' The traitor was an intimate of him whom he betra3'ed, even by the sacred bond of common food. 30 382 ST. MARK 14. 19, 20. XMic 19 with me. They began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I? And he said unto them, It is one of the twelve, he that dippeth with me in the Luke shews at this point, in a striking way, the independence of the special source which colours so largely his account of the Last Supper, since he places the reference to betrayal after the symbolic acts and words in verses 22-25. For this there is much to be said on the ground of superior probability in the order of thought in his narrative here. Jesus begins by saying that he had indeed desired earnestly 'to eat this Passover' (a phrase pro- bably meant by Luke to imply that the Passover meal was already nearly over when he spoke, though some think this was a mis- take, helped by Luke's olher source, viz. Mark) with his disciples before he suffered : for he will not eat it (again, cf. ' henceforth,' just below) ' till it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God ' (for another view see Box in ihe Journal of Theol. Studies, iii. 357 ff., cf. below). Accordingly, since he and they were to be parted till then, the hour becomes in idea the eve of their renmon in the Messianic Feast (verses 29 f.) ; and so he proceeds to hallow it 'over wine,' according to the Jewish custom of the Kiddnsh (Hallowing) on the Eve of Festivals. He then breaks bread as symbol of his own body, as Paschal Lamb, as preparing the way to the Messianic Kingdom and Feast. This leads dircclly (after 19 a, in the shorter text) to the thought of the means by which his death was to come about, viz. the act of a betrayer, whose ' hand ' was with his on the same table of friend- ship. For thus the Son of Man was to go his predetermined way of rejection and death (cf. Isa. liii). ' But woe to that man through whom be is delivered up.' This gradual approach to the terrible climax, brought about through one of themselves, has a psychological fitness which com- mends it as likest to Jesus' own considerate way with his friends. Further, that Mark had no clear clue to the reverse order is .'sug- gested by the fact that he introduces both the section about betraj'al and that which follows, by the same vague description, ' andasthey were eating' (verses 18 and 22, so Matt, after him). In any case the opening reference in Luke xxii. 15 f., to the great desire Jesus had felt to eat the Passover with the Twelve (and to use its asso- ciations of deliverance through sacrificial blood for their benefit, as well as his own) ought almost certainly to be added to Mark's narrative before verse 22 (so in Tatian's Harmony). 19. Is it I ? Rather ' Surely it is not L is it ? ' None of them, be it noted, thinks of Judas, or asks ' Is it he there? ' According to Matthew (xxvi. 25) Judas himself was not ashamed to ask, as others had done, ' Is it I ? ' 20. he that dippeth with me in the dish. To dip into the ST. MARK 14. 21, 22. XMk 383 dish. For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written 21 of him : but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed ! good were it "• for that man if he had not been born. And as they were eating, he took i' bread, and when 23 * Gr. for him if thai matt ^ Or, a loaf same ('the one' BC) dish with another was a token of intimate friendship, as is seen in the invitation of Boaz to Ruth at mealtime (Ruth ii. 14). There is no good reason to see here any more specific reference. According- to the Fourth Gospel, however. John at Peter's sug- gestion asked Jesus directly who was meant ; and Jesus facing towards John, as they reclined on their left elbows, and having the latter's ear near his own lips, replied that it was he to whom lie was about to give the sop (John xiii. 24-26). This would be the sign, the selection of Judas to receive a special mark of table- fellowship. But that is probably not what the saying in Marie and the other Synoptics reall}* means ; it has in view only a general description of a trusted friend. This is clear in Matt. xxvi. 23, ' he that hath dipped.' 21. the Son of man goeth. This simple, solemn word ' go ' is repeatedly used by John with reference to the death of Jesus John viii. 14, 21, xiii. 3, 33, xiv. 4). even as it is written: or, as Luke gives it, 'as it hath been determined.' The departure of Jesus to his death was no mere accident in his career, nor simply the result of that collision with the world to which all prophets and rightrous men are subject, but the fulfilment of the purpose of God and of the testimony of Messianic Scripture, e.g. Isa. liii; Ps. xxii. but woe unto that man. The deed of Judas was the work neither of chance nor of necessity. The counsel of God fulfilled itself indeed, even through his treachery. But that neither super- seded the free action and responsibility of Judas nor relieved him of his guilt (cf. Acts ii. 23). g"ood were it for that xnan if he had not been born. A current phrase, found in Enoch xxxviii. 2, and suggestive of a dread and exceptional doom, cf. ix. 42. xiv. 22-25. Ji'siis'' coining Paschal Sacrifice foreshadowed in symbol (cL Matt. xxvi. 26-29 > Luke xvii. 17-20; see also i Cor. xi. 23-25 . 22. And as thoy were eating, he took bread. According to Mark's narrative a later stage of the meal tiian that alluded to in 384 ST. MARK 14. 22. XMk verse i8 had now been reached : yet in view of our note on verse i8 we can be sure of no more than that the meal was actually in progress. At what point was it that ' he took bread ' as here described ? On this question opinion is divided. All depends on whether the meal was the Passover or not. In the former case it is most reasonable to suppose that Jesus would not interfere with the usual ceremonial, but would follow it out in all its essen- tial parts, and only then add the special acts known as the Insti- tution of the Lord's Supper. The celebration of the Passover at that time appears to have begun with the Kiddush or 'Hallowing' of the Feast by a preliminary Blessing of God over a cup of wine, which was then passed round and drunk. Later a second cup was drunk, after the 'telling' {Haggddak) of the Paschal deliver- ance and joyous praise for the same in the singing of the first part of ihe Hallel (consisting of Psalms cxiii, cxiv), just before the actual eating of the Passover began. Thereafter the third cup was drunk, a ' Cup of Blessing ' in connexion with ' Grace' after the meal ; then followed the singing of the second part of the Hallel, consisting of Psalms cxv-cxviii, and the drinking of the fourth and final cup. Perhaps, then, what is here recorded came soon after the lamb was eaten (cf. i Cor. xi. 25, 'after having supped ') and the characteristic ceremonial of the Passover was now practically ended. (The objection that there is no explicit reference to eating the Paschal lamb is quite without force, since there was no need of this for the purpose of Jesus' special words and acts.) The ' blessing ' and ' breaking of bread ' was a familiar form of ' hallowing' (Kiddiisli) or prelude to coming festivals (see next note). Even the daily meals of Jesus and his disciples had a sacred character in virtue of the Blessing by which they were hallowed, in keeping with Jewish usage (cf Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah, ii. 207), especially where a group of male Jews partook together of food and drink — regarded as gifts of their Covenant God for which thanksgiving was offered in return, as 'the sacri- fice of praise ' (see Mansfield College Essays, pp. 55 ff. and refer- ences there). This is clear, not only from Jewish analogy, but also from the reference in Luke xxiv. 30 f, 35. For there we learn that it was from the way in which the stranger at Emmaus 'blessed ' the bread, as he brake it ceremonially at the beginning of their evening meal, that the two disciples recognized him as none other than their Master. If, on the other hand, the Last Supper was eaten the evening before the Passover (as the Fourth Gospel implies), then the Breaking of the Bread as a symbol of Jesus' body, and the giving of the Cup as symbol of his blood, took the place of the Passover Meal, as a sort of symbolic anticipation of it during the meal of fellowship then being enjoyed for the last time. According to such a view Luke would best preserve the order of the meal of Fellow- ST. MARK 14. 22. XMk 385 ship on this occasion. It would include a Kiddtish or ' Hallow- ing ' Cup of Wine, to hallow the feast which followed, as at the meal on the eve of each Sabbath and all the great Festivals.^ As the Passover Festival began on this evening (the opening of the preliminary Day of Unleavened Bread, referred to on verse 12), Jesus might naturally allude to the coming Festival in connexion with his Blessing over the Cup of Wine, the first of the two which occur in the usual text of Luke (one before, one alter, the Break- ing of the Loaf). According to some (e.g. Box, as above', he did so in order to say how he had longed to join once more with them in the actual Passover feast, but that his longing was not to be realized : 'for,' says Jesus, ' I will not eat it until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God ' — the new order, for the bringing in ol which his Paschal death was, as he now felt with assurance, the prior condition. But though he could not share the coming Pass- over with his disciples, he could share the Kiddi'ish or Hallowing of the Festival of Redemption, both in memory of its old form and in anticipation of its new and higher ' fulfilment' in and through his own broken body and shed blood. Of this redemption he then proceeded to set forth prophetically a symbolic representation, under the form of Bread and Wine as symbols of his body and blood. Of these two views the latter seems excluded b\' Mark's words ' as they were eating,' since Kiddiish, whether for Sabbath or other festival, precedes all eating at the meal : the former, on the other liand, fulfils this condition. While it followed the Paschal meal, it was relative to a Feast yet future, ' in the Kingdom of God.' But though ivhat Mark records was in fact the Kiddiish for the Messianic Feast, it is so narrated as to be intelligible to non-Jewish readers per se, viz. as a symbolic foreshadowing of Jesus' coming death, for the disciples' instruction as to its meaning and saving value. That this is the primary thought in Jesus' mind — in keeping with his disciples' actual need for reassurance before- hand touching the meaning of his death (a thing inconsistent with their conception of the Messiah) is strongly borne out by the way in which Paul sums up the significance, one and the same in the case of both symbols, of the Lord's Supper in i Cor. xi. 26 : ' For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye proclaim the Lord's death'' (as the Jewish family set forth the Paschal de- liverance in symbolic act, after previous ' telling' {Haggadah) of it in word by the house father). There is no emphasis on the ^ See The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, by Oesterley and Box, ch. xviii ; also the latter's paper on ' The Jewish Antece- dents of the Eucharist,' in The journal of Theological Studies, iii. 357 ff., or his notes in the companion volume on Matthew in this series. But see also the cogent criticism of this view by J. C. Lambert, in the same journal, iv. 1 84 ff. C C 386 ST. MARK 14. 23. X^k he had blessed, he brake it, and gave to them, and said, 23 Take ye : this is my body. And he took a cup, and eating and drinking of the symbols : these acts are only incidental to the normal use of the sj'mbols employed, as the means by which they were appropriated, without any suggestion that the reality symbolized by them had to be appropriated in similar fashion (see note on ' Take ye,' and observe that there is no injunction at all with the giving of the Cup, of which in fact ' all drank ' before Jesus explained its symbolism). For the above conception of lesus' meaning see further Dr. R. H. Kennett, The Last Supper, 'its significance in the Upper Room (Cambridge, 1921), who treats the 'words of Institution' as prophetic revelation, rather than as 'mystery' in the usual sense of that term. wlien he liad blessed, lie brake it. In Luke and Paul the words are ' when he had given thanks ' (Luke xxii. 19 ; i Cor. xi. 24). There is nothing to indicate that the 'blessing' was other than of the type usual at the breaking of bread. It was simply a prayer of thanksgiving. The wording of such ' blessing,' to judge by modern Jewish use (a use probably going back in essence to Jesus' day), was ' Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who bringest forth bread from the earth.' This was the Blessing over Bread in ordinary meals ; but in the Kiddnsh or Sanctification for the Festival of Passover, the Blessing over the Day, as distinct from that over the Bread or the Wine which accompanied it, blessed God also for His love in giving ' the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the season of our Freedom, as a memorial of the departure from Egypt. . . . Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the Universe, who has kept us in life, and hast preserved us, and enabled us to reach this season.' Such would be the kind of 'blessing' in Jesus' thoughts, if not on his lips, as he ' blessed ' God over the bread in his KiddAsh for the com'ing 'fulfilment' of the Paschal Festival in the Kingdom of God, shortly to follow on his death. gave to them : by handing it round, piece by piece, as in Kiddnsh. Take ye. The ' cat ' which is inserted after the ' take m the A.V. appears not to belong to the original text. It is found, ho\y- ever, in Matthew's account. Neither ' take ' nor 'eat' appears in Luke and Paul. They are natural but later expansions. It is the object-lesson, putting his coming death in a Paschal light, one of deliverance, not of disaster, that Jesus has here in view in his acts and words. this is my body. By ' this ' Jesus means the piece of bread which he had given to each — as a supplement, as it were, to the Paschal meal proper. By the whole phrase he declares the significance of the broken loaf as related to the actual occasion, ST. MARK 14. 24. XMk 387 when he had given thanks, he gave to them : and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my 24 with its Pabchal associations present to all minds. There would be in the original Aramaic used by Jesus no verb or copula like ' is,' defining the sense in which the bread stood for or represented his 'body ' — 'just as it does not occur in the Jewish formula in the breaking of bread at the beginning of the Paschal Supper ' (Edersheim), viz. ' This (is) the bread of misery which our fathers ate in the land of Egypt.' And as he himself was there in living bodily form, he could not mean that each piece of bread was in any proper sense his body. Read in their original context, what his words expressed was the fact that the bread which had been given them, after being broken, stood symbolically for his bod}' — or rather the sacrificial giving of himself for them. In Paul's account are added the words 'which is for (on behalf of} 3'ou ' (i Cor. xi. 24), so making this meaning explicit ; while in Luke we have ' which is (being) given for you ' (xxii. 19). 23. And he took a cup. Probably not a cup belonging to the Passover rite (e. g. the third cup, ' the cup of Blessing ' or of Grace after the Meal, for this was not a cup used in common), but a Kiddi'ish cup added to the bread, to set forth another aspect of his sacrificial death, already represented bj' the bread (Jesus' broken body) used as Kiddush for the true Paschal Feast, the Messianic Banquet of the Kingdom now imminent (cf. Luke xxii. 29 f.). There is no reference to this Cup in the shorter — many think the original — text of Luke ^see margin of R. V.) : or rather, in the tradition preserved in Luke's special source (= Luke xxii. 17) it had changed its position, and come to precede the Bread as its Kiddush. (That is, the Bread was not viewed as Kiddush— as in Mark — but in the way in which Christians had come to 'break bread ' ' in remembrance ' of their Lord, as the Christian Paschal Lamb or Redeemer.") Thus the accompanj'ing words in Luke have no symbolic reference to Jesus' blood, as in Mark and Matt., as well as Paul. For a similar change of order see the Didachc, ch. ix. and they all drank of it: before, that is, Jesus added words giving this Cup its special significance. 24. This is my hlood. Wine, 'the blood of grapes' (Gen. xlix. 1 1 \ and human blood are natural symbols the one of the other. Thus, ' the wine of the drink offering seems to have been a surro- gate ' or substitute 'for sacrificial blood' (Kennett, op. cit., p. 27). Ecclesiasticus (1. 15) says that Simon the High Priest 'poured of the blood of the grape, he poured out at the foot of the altar a sweet-smelling savour unto the Most High, the King of all.' Hence 'a devout Jew in the time of our Lord would find no difficulty in regarding wine as a substitute for, or at all events a 388 ST. MARK 14. 25. X^ 25 blood of ^ the ^ covenant, which is shed for many. Verily * Or, the testament ^ Some ancient authorities insert new type of, sacrificial blood ; and . . . although the drinking of any real blood (sacrificial or otherwise) would have seemed to be absolutely abominable, he would have no scruples in drinking that which was lawful in itself and which was associated with religious usage, always provided that he did not take literally the comparison of it to blood ' {id.). By ' this ' Jesus means the wine in the cup which he gave to the Twelve ; and this wine, he says, stands for or represents his blood. of the covenant. So also in Matthew. Paul and Luke give the sentence in the form ' This Cup is the new covenant in my blood ' (r Cor. xi. 25). The words, say most, point back to those spoken by Moses of the covenant of God with Israel at Sinai, ' Behold the Blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words ' (Exod. xxiv. 8). They would thus mean that Jesus was instituting a new and better covenant than the Sinaitic, and that it was to be ratified by the blood of a better sacrifice. But this is very questionable, since it starts (as Allen admits) 'a new thought,' unrelated to the associa- tions of the Passover, which alone seem to have been before the thoughts of all at this time (cf. i Cor. xi. 26, cited above). Hence by 'the covenant' here in Mark and Matthew (as distinct from the wording in Paul and Luke) seems to be meant the fundamental covenant with Israel, in their father Abraham, under which (cf. Exod. vi. 4 f.) God intervened with the Paschal Redemption (cf. next note) out of Egypt — the alien world-power which held Israel in bondage — not the covenant as re-made with Abraham's seed collectively on another and later occasion. Of this latter there is no suggestion either in the narrative or in the psychological associations proper to the Paschal season : it has to be imported quite abruptly into the circle of thought within which all has hitherto been moving. As e.g. Allen admits, 'the thought of the covenant is not further developed here ' : and, indeed, it is probable that it is introduced at all only as implied by the Paschal deliver- ance, not for its own sake, as though Jesus' blood were the seal of a ttciv covenant. The emphasis represented by the addition of ' new,' first in Paul and then in Luke, is foreign to the context of the passage, and probably to Jesus' own thought, which deals rather with the idea of ' fulfilment ' of the Mosaic Law in the Gospel in a higher and more real, because spiritual, form (so in the Epistle to Hebrews, as distinct from Paul's special emphasis). which is shed for many : rather ' which is being shed on behalf of many ' ; comp. x. 45, 'to give his life a ransom instead of many.' Tlie pouring out of the wine corresponds to the breaking cf the bread, and has like Paschal reference to the self-sacrifice of ST. MARK 14. 25. XMk 389 I say unto you^ I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Jesus as of a Iamb without blemish (i Peter i. 19). The sacrificial meaning of his death and its relation to the spiritual redemption of God's People (cf. x. 45) — from the midst of a ' perverse generation ' (Acts ii. 40, cf. vii. 51-53"!, and a state comparable spiritually to Egypt (cf. Rev. xi. 8) — is suggested, in terms proper to the Pass- over season, by Mark's description of Jesus' 'covenant blood ' as ' in process of being shed on behalf of many.' A more specific form is given to the idea in Matthew's ' shed for (Jtt. "concerning") man}', unto forgiveness of sins.' For the general idea of a life offered on behalf of ' many,' see Isa. liii. 10 f. 25. I will no more drink of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the king'dom of God. Compare the promise in Luke (xxii. 29, 30), ' that ye may eat and drink at my table in my Kingdom,' and for the simile (which was used in con- temporary Jewish thought as a figure for the joy of Messianic Kingdom) the parables of the great Supper and the Marriage Feast (Luke xiv. 16-24 5 Matt. xxii. r-i4\ Matthew's more pointed form, ' I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine' (xxvi. 29), is meant to bring out the contrast implied. The words express, in the first place, the fact that this was the last occasion on which Jesus would thus drink wine with his disciples, so hinting plainh' at his imminent death. But they speak, in the second place, of a future renewal participation — a day when he should drink it new ('new,' not in the sense of recent or fresh, but of another and better kind). This refers, as the phrase ' in the kingdom of God ' implies, to the perfected condition of things, the consummation of God's kingdom, the Coming Age in which all things are to be made new (Rev. xxi. 5). There he will take part in a Feast of a new and better kind, in a fellowship of a higher order. Luke has this verse before Jesus' reference to himself as the coming Paschal Lamb of the Messianic Kingdom, in connexion with a Kiddiish cup which has no accompanying reference to his blood. Mark's account of the Institution is the most concise and clear. It contains no statement either of the memorial purpose of the Supper or of its perpetuity. The same is the case with Matthew. As regards both of these points, their absence means that the words and symbolic acts distinctive of the Last Supper had as their first intention the preparation of the disciples for the shock of their Master's coming death, by shedding anticipatory light upon its true meaning. Thus it was primaril}' an embodied ' parable ' of the Kingdom, in its most profound and cardinal aspect as redemption, 39° ST. MARK 14. 26, 27. XMk 26 And when they had sung a hymn, they went out unto the mount of OUves. 27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be » offended : * Gr. caused to stumble in which the solidarity of Jesus and his own, in his redemptive death and in the glad fellowship resting on it, is most strildnglj- set forth for heart as well as head (comp. Kennett, The Last Supper, cited above). But it does not follow from this, as some argue, that the Lord's Supper, as we know it, was the creation of Paul. It is in the Pauline account, indeed, that we have the first express statement of the memorial meaning of the Supper, to be observed till Christ comes (r Cor. xi. 24-26). But we have good reason to believe that Paul had received his account of the Last Supper (for the most part) as already an Apostolic tradition, just as he had received the essence of the common Apostolic Gospel from those bel'ore him (i Cor, xv. i, sff.). Exactly how that tradition took shape, and how it was related to the practice of Eucharistic ' Breaking of Bread' in the primitive Church i;.\cts ii. 42, 46), is a rather obscure page in t!ie history of the Apostolic Church, touch- ing which any definite assertion would here be out of place. xiv. 26. Departure to the Mount of Olives (cf. Matt, xxvii. 30 ; Luke xxii. 39; John xiv. 31, cf. xviii. i). 26. when they had sung a hymn : in all probability the second part of tlie Hallel, which it was customary to sing after the Paschal meal. This consisted of Psalms cxv-cxviii. unto the mount of Olives. They turned their steps in the direction of their usual resting-place for the night. This answers to John xiv. 31 rather than xviii. i, which is parallel in time rather to verse 32. xiv. 27-31. Announcement 0/ Desertion by the Twelve and Denial by Peter{c{. Matt. xxvi. 31-35 ; Luke xxii. 31-34 ; John xiii. 36-38). 27. And Jesus saith unto them. The words that follow are given by the first two Evangelists as spoken after the party had left the supper-room. Luke and John introduce their equivalents before that. In view of the greater fulness and circumstantiality of Luke's narrative of what happened in the Upper Room, especi- ally after the Supper proper (24-38), his account may perhaps in this be preferred. Mark's and Matthew's are possibly both based on current Apostolic tradition, not on Peter's special memory (note the O. T. quotation from Zech. xiii. 7, which is not in Mark's usual manner ; cf. note on verse 28% and give the conversation in the order of ideas rather than in that of time, so bringing it into more immediate connexion with the fulfilment of Jesus' words. offended: cf. John xvi. i. Jesus had spoken to others of offences or causes of stumbling, Mark iv. 17, vi. sfi"., ix. 43 ; Luke ST. MARK H. 28-30. XMk 391 ' for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered abroad. Howbeit, after I am raised 28 up, I will go before you into Galilee. But Peter said ^9 unto him, Although all shall be ^ offended, yet will not I. And Jesus saith unto him. Verily I say unto thee, that 3° thou to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, * Gr. caused to stumble vii. 23. These warnings are directed now to the Twelve them- selves, largely unconscious as they were of the trial before them. for it is written. What follows is taken, with some modifi- cation, from Zechariah (xiii. 7) : ' Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the Lord of Hosts ; smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.' Neither this verse nor the next appears at all in Luke. 28. after 1 am raised np. Here 'raised up,' not Mark's usual 'rise again' (viii. 31, ix. 31. x. 34), is to be noted, as perhaps a sign that he is following a different type of the Apostolic tradition from his usual one (cf. Matthew's form of the above passages). No notice of any such saying as this verse contains is taken by Peter in his response i^ contrast ix. 10^. a fact which suggests that it was a secondary element in the tradition (cf. verse 30^ when the original psychological situation was parti}'- forgotten. Cf. 253 top. go before yon into Galilee. Cf. xvi. 7, words put into the Angel's lips at the tomb, and see Appended Note after ix. 13. 29. But Peter said vinto him. Ihe impulsive, warm- hearted Apostle cannot bear the thought of cowardly faithlessness; and in the haste of his self-confident feelings he breaks out into hot, impetuous words of repudiation. The protestation is given in much the same form b}' Matthew. In Luke the terms are some- what different, and the forewarning itself is more pointed and circumstantial (xxii. 31-34). The differences in John's narrative, too, are considerable, and point (together with Luke's account) to a rather different context (xiii. 36-38). 30. thon to-day, even this night, before the cock crow twice, Shalt deny me thrice. Notice the significant ' thou ' (correspond- ing to Peter's 'I '), rightly placed at the beginning by the R. V. In Matthew it is simply ' before the cock crow,' or rather ' before a cock crow,' that is, before day begins to dawn. In Mark the declaration is made more pointed bj' the precise statement of time, in Jewish terms (' to-day, «r« this niglit'), and the mention of the twice. Cock-crowing is identified with the third of the four Roman watches (see xiii. 3:5^. That watch, extending from mid- night till about 3 a.m., is called 'the cock-crowing' in this Gospel (xiii. 35). As to the 'twice,' which is peculiar to Mark, it may (it 392 ST. MARK 14. 31, 32. X^k 31 shalt deny me thrice. But he spake exceeding vehe- mently, If I must die with thee, I will not deny thee. And in like manner also said they all. 3i And they come unto •''a place which was named Geth- "■ Gr. ait enclosed piece of ground genuine ; many MSS. omit) be a secondary feature (cf. note on verse 27), due to the actual ibrm of the fulfilment (see xiv. 72). 31. But he spake exceeding vehemently. The words imply that he went on protesting, and with greater heat. The Master's words mortified him deeply, and made him assert himself the more. Neither Luke nor John relates his reiteration of fidelity. And in like manner also said they all. This, too, is staled also in Matthew, but not in Luke and John. xiv. 32-42. The Agony in Gethsemaiie (cf. Matt. xxvi. 36-46 ; Luke xxii. 39-46 ; also John xviii. i). The fullest accounts of this momentous scene are given by Mark and Matthew. John does not record the Agony. Luke gives a briefer and partly independent narrative, which sa3'S nothing of the choice of the three and speaks only of one season of prayer. 32. And they come unto a place which was named Geth- semaue. It is not stated when the party left the upper room or when they arrived at this place. To judge from the sleep of the disciples, it must have been late, possibly near midnight. Luke speaks of the place as ' the mount of Olives' (xxii. 39), and John speaks of it as ' a garden' across 'the brook Kidron ' (xviii. i). Mark and Matthew give the name Gethsemane, a word meaning ' olive-press,' and indicate by the term they use for ' place ' that it was 'an enclosed piece of ground,' as the margin of the R. V. explains, 'a property' (Allen). It seems, therefore, to have been an olive orchard ; and even if it were a private enclosure, it could be entered without difficulty, especially during the Paschal season. The fourth Gospel, moreover, implies that it wasa favourite haunt of Jesus and the Twelve, and so probably a garden belonging to a personal friend. The traditional site is some fifty yards beyond the bridge across the Kidron. There a plot of ground presents itself, surrounded by a stone wall and having within it some olive trees. Whether the modern Gethsemane really occupies the site of the ancient garden, however, is doubted by not a few. But in any case the former cannot be far from the latter. There, then, or hard by, was enacted within the next hour or two the most sacred and momentous, in a real sense the most tragic, drama in the world's spiritual history, that on which de- pended its whole future trend and spirit. Its poignancy affects us ST. MARK 14. 33, 34. XMk 393 semane : and he saith unto his disciples, Sit ye here, while I pray. And he taketh with him Peter and James 33 and John, and began to be greatly amazed, and sore troubled. And he saith unto them, My soul is exceeding 34 the more powerfully by reason of the contrast afforded by the insensibility to the spirit of the hour and its issues on the part even of the nearest of the companions of the Central Figure, those whom he had, in his utter spiritual solitude and lack of understand- ing sympathy — as well as for their own preparation for the coming ordeal — invited to share his solemn vigil. The spirit of the scene is admirably caught by the following lines : A voice upon the midnight air, Where Kedron's moonlit waters stray, Weeps forth in agony of prayer, O Father ! take this cup away. Ah ! Thou who sorrowest unto death, We conquer in Thy mortal fray ; And earth for all her children saith, O God ! take not this cup away. Sit ye here, while I pray. Prayer, solitary prayer, was the supreme resource of Jesus with death now full in view, and in anticipation of the conflict which he felt gathering within him. For that he sought this place, which, while near the highway, yet gave opportunity of seclusion. From John (xviii. i) we gather that the Eleven went with Jesus into the enclosure. But eight of them were bidden sta}' near the entrance, and only the three, chosen for the last time for most privileged fellowship, were taken further within. 33. began to be greatly amazed. The inward conflict "was soon upon him ; and it was so severe that the Evangelist seems to exhaust the vocabulary of struggle and dread, in order to express it. ' Greatly amazed,' says Mark, using a word peculiar to him- self in the N.T. and expressing here the pain of a great shock of emotion, as elsewhere the excess of an awe that surprises or overpowers (Mark ix. 15, xvi. 5, 6). Matthew softens it to ' be sorrowful.' and sore troubled. Another expressive word, occurring only here and in the parallel in Matthew and once in Paul (Phil, ii, 26). It expresses, as is well put by Swete, 'the distress which follows a great shock, "the confused, restless, half-distracted state" (Lightfoot), which may be worse than the sharp pain of a fully realized sorrow.' ' Full of terror and distress ' is Dr. Weymouth's rendering of the two words. 34. And ho saith unto them. The three are with him, there- 394 ST. MARK 14. 35, 36. X^^ sorrowful even unto death : abide ye here, and watch. 35 And he went forward a httle, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass 36 away from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things fore, thus far, seeing all ; and to tliem he reveals the sorrow that distracts his soul within, craving as it did to unburden itself to others. my soul is exceeding' sorrowful even unto death. Here the word ' soul,' often used as equivalent to ' life,' has the more definite sense of the seat of the feelings and emotions, and so of what we call ' psychological " pain. So it is also in John xii. 27, but nowhere else so distinctlyin the N. T. (cf. Ps. xlii, 6, 12, xliii. 5). ' Unto death,' that is, to the point of dying under it (Jonah iv. gf. ; Psa. Ixxxviii. 3 ; Ecclus. li. 6). abide ye here, and watch: i. e. keep vigil. In the agoniang passages of life men crave at once solitude and sympathy. Jesus must be alone, yet he would have these faithful three near him ; he would have their S3-mpathy, and their fellowship in watchful preparation for the impending crisis. 35. And he went forward a little. Luke gives it more pre- cisely as 'about a stone's cast' (xxii. 41). fell on the grotmd. ' On his face,' says Matthew (xxvi. 39). Luke states simply that he 'kneeled down' (xxii. 41), a natural attitude and common in earnest pra3'er (Acts vii. 60, ix. 40, xx. 36, xxi. 5). that, if it were possible, the hour mig'ht pass away from him. The full agony of the struggle is in this cry, 'if it be possible,' i. e. without loss to the Divine purpose of good. The 'hour' is the appointed hour, the time ordained for him in his Father's counsel, and now foreseen by himself. Even so he prayed — with the instinctive shrinking of nature, as yet unstilled by the mind's steadfast thought or purpose — that his ' hour' might at the last moment be averted. This phrase ' the hour,' ' his hour,' occurs repeatedly in the Fourth Gospel, in more than one applica- tion, but usually with reference to his death (John ii. 4, vii. 30, viii. 20, xii. 23, 27, xiii. i, xvi. 21, xvii. i). 38. Abba, rather : words, Aramaic and Greek, having the same sense. Here the second is an explanation of the first for the benefit of non-Jewish readers (Rom. viii. 15 ; Gal. iv. 6\ as if the double term had become a familiar form in prayer among Greek-speaking and even Gentile Christians. Mark alone intro- duces this ' Abba,' and the only other occurrences of this twofold name of God are the two in Pauline Epistles. ST. MARK 14. 37, 38. X^k 395 are possible unto thee ; remove this cup from me : howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt. And he 37 Cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou ? couldest thou not watch one hour ? ^ Watch and pray, that ye enter not into 3^ * Or, Wntch ye, and pray that ye enter not remove this cup from m.e. The figure of the 'cup' was used before also with reference to liis sufl'erings : see on x. 38. 'The directness of the ungranted request is modified in Matthew' (Allen), possibly already in the tradition known to him, as in Luke also. howbeit not what I will, but what thou wilt. The longing, natural to humanity, to escape a shameful death of agony, and that as the final expression of his people's rejection of his message and of their own good through it, yields in the end to the superior claim of the Divine will. So really had Jesus a human will capable of conflict with the Divine. With this fact our theories must fairl}^ reckon. It is the problem of theology to frame a conception ot Jesus' unique person such as shall neither take from the integrity of his humanity nor ascribe to him a double personality. 37. findeth them sleeping. After this first paroxysm of prayer he seeks again the fellowship of the three, but finds them asleep, his charge to ' watch ' forgotten. So unalive were thej* even now to the crisis really impending. Simon, sleepest thou ? He selects the one of the three who had been loudest in protestation, as him from whom more might be expected ;and calls him, not Peter, but Simon. There was, per- haps, at least to the evangelist's mind, reproach in the use of the old familiar name of friendship, instead of the new name of grace and office. Cf. Luke xxii. 31, ' Simon, Simon, behold, Satan asked (successfully) to have you (the apostles;, to sift as wheat.' one hour ? Even so brief a space, only the third part of one of the watches of the night. The foremost of the apostles had not the strength even for that ! Luke explains the sleep of the three as due to sorrow (xxii. 45) ; but probably he, even more than the other evangelists, fails to realize how little the disciples had as 3'et caught Jesus' sense of what was imminent. 38. Watch and pray, that ye enter not: or, as in the margin of the R. v., ' Watch ye, and pray that j'e enter not.' The former rendering puts more forcibly the truth that by these two things, vigilance and prayer, they may be kept from giving way to tempta- tion (an excellent illustration of the meaning of the petition on deliverance from temptation in tiic Lord's Prayer). Watchfulness 396 ST. MARK 14. 39-41. X^^ temptation : the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh 39 is weak. And again he went away, and prayed, saying 40 the same words. And again he came, and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy ; and they 41 wist not what to answer him. And he cometh the and prayer are meant to serve each other. From Luke it would appear that Jesus had already enjoined this duty of praying against temptation upon the disciples generally, when he came to the garden, and before he went apart into yet deeper solitude (xxii. 40). temptation : the great inclusive term for all those things by which man is tried and proved, whether by pain and sorrow or by varied solicitations of ' the flesh ' to sin, as these affect the egoism and shrinking from pain native to human beings. the spirit indeed is williug^, but tlie flesh is weak : a characteristically kind but searching apology for human nature, even when it fails and disappoints. Occurring where it does, it may even come in part out of Jesus' own recent experience of the testing to which man's estate exposes him : compare Heb. ii. i8, iv. 15, V. 2, 5 ff . He had just felt how insufficient the instrument is through which the spirit has to work (cf. Rom, viii. 3), To understand all that these two things, flesh and spirit, mean, we have to turn to the Epistles of Paul and John. Everywhere in Scripture 'the spirit ' is that which gives life and links man with God ; but in the N. T., with a meaning at once deeper and higher. Everywhere, too, 'the flesh ' is the note of man's limitations ; in the O. T. the designation of his dependence, frailty, and mortality ; in the N. T, the designation not only of the weakness of his nature, as it now is, but also more definitely of its sinfulness, its self- centred opposition or indifference to God's will as such. 40. for their eyes were very heavy ; and they wist not what to answer him. Compare the statement in ix. 6. The tradition followed by Mark, like Luke's narrative (see note on 'one hour,' v. 37), is concerned to explain the disciple's strange carelessness at such a season, the real fact probably being that they did not realize its nature as later Christians felt that the}' must have done ; whereas tlicir very confidence in their Master's power made them slow to take his hints of danger seriously. They were, tradition suggested, overpowered by sleep to an almost helpless degree. It is the same sort of apology as Luke gives for rather similar con- duct on the Mount of Transfiguration. But Mark's ' they wist not ' points to shame, rather than a dazed condition, as the cause of their silence when again found sleeping. ST. MARK 14. 42. XMk 397 third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest : it is enough ; the hour is come ; behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Arise, let us be going : behold, he that betrayeth me is 42 at hand. 41. Sleep on now, and take your rest. On the third occasion he says nothing more of watching, but bids them sleep and rest; for the time for watchfulness was gone, so far as concerned the present emergency. There is more here than resigned permission of the slumber which had a certain excuse in the weariness of nature. There is irony in the words. Jesus had already employed this weapon in dealing with typical Pharisees (Mark vii. 9). Nor is there anything incongruous in his use of it even at this most solemn moment. ' Irony is not inconsistent even witli the deepest anguish of soul' (Meyer). it is enough. Better, simply ' enough ! ' 'No more of that!' (Moffatt). A phrase peculiar to Mark, and scarcely to be found anywhere else in its present use. It seems to have meant colloquially ' the account is closed.' Here it probably means ' All is over,' and follows on the foregoing thus : 'Go on sleeping now and take j'our rest out : the chance that I put within your reach of forearming for the conflict is already past. Enough of that experiment : it is over.' Or it may refer, as most lake it, to the slumber of the disciples ; 'But enough of sleep ; it is the time for action.' So his tone changes. He has caught sight of a body of men wending their way from the city, and the mood of sorrowful irony gives way again to that of deep pathos. This, however, is rather too abrupt — following on ' take your rest,' and puts the transition at the wrong point, which comes rather with 'Arise, let us be going,' a formal reversal of the earlier word, ' Sleep on now.' But in any case the short, rapid sentences that now fall from his lips — enough ! the hour is come, the Son of man is being given over; arise, let us be going — express tense, agitated feeling. into the hands of sinners. The phrase 'the sinners' usually meant for Jews the Gentiles, and m.ay do so here in Mark (cf. x. 33), while Matthew has 'sinners,' i.e. sinful hands (cf. ' of men,' Mk. ix. 31 ; Matt. xvii. 22 ; Lk. ix. 44). 42. Arise, let us toe going. Certainly not with a view to flight, but to meet the decisive hour and face the betrayer. The three disciples were still lying on the ground, though awake. He has been standing over them, and now bids them rise and go with him. John states explicitly that Jesus ' went forth ' and met Judas and his band (xviii. 4). The account which the Synoptical Gospels give of this profound 43 398 ST. MARK 14.43- X^k And straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, and moving passage in Christ's experience has the unniistakable stampof reality, and differs wholly from what myth or legend S have produced. They record an Agony which a,d not Sst in mere physical suffering, nor yet in simple fear of an ordinary kind. It is not due simply to the defeat ot his hopes S sappltment with his friends, or -ythmg of that k.nd alone nor IS it the mere recoil of a sensitive spirit from the prospect ot 5eath-thouc.h this was surely a real element m his ' cup, as s fmpUed by rhe writer to Hebrews.(v. 7 f) in the -st notably realistic characterization of the Passion found in the IS. 1. li tnai we e^ll^hen we should have to say that Jesus himself was ,n ferior ?o many, not only of his followers, who have felt strengthened following Jn the ste'ps of Faith's Great P.oneer(^Heb^xi..),bu also of certain non-Christian heroes and saints, in courage, sere "'1: t.t:«e"r^%iew Jesus, feelings .ar,e>y Jjf » --"-I his Messiknic experience and consciousness. We must see the rejection by God^ People, and the death virtually at its hands rTm which'he shrank Xith such agony of soul jn the ,^gh of h- representative function as the bearer of the Father s message ot good wm and love to His erring children, H.s wandenng sheep lo viewed, their treatment of God's Anointed, H.s ^on fiar excel- IJ, meant for Jesus their own self-condemnation as men cuU nablv blind, in virtue of long failure to respond as they should have done o the higher aspects of the Law and the Prophets God's special revelation in its preparatory forms, and one meant ^ lead up to recognition of the final or Messianic message of Siv ne Love in the^Gospel. To feelthat he, with h^ utter devo- tion alike to the Heavenly Father's gracious will for Israel, and to he welfare of Israel itself, was being turned by h.s own 'people's attTtude to himself, and to the Gospel entrusted to h.m, fnto^he means of bringing their corporate s- to a head in a terrible crime, was, indeed, to have a bitter cup held to his l.ps Dy his Father's hand. Fain would he be spared the draining of it but if nothing short of this could suffice to effect the change of hearfbTwlikh alone Israel's redemption f- ^^ --f^tfiVh" r sinful state might be achieved, and she rendered fit to ^^[^^ ^^J vocation as t"e^ medium of blessing to all nations, - P-'-f.^d to Abraham then let the Father's will be done, cost him what it mS The victory was won ; and henceforth he advanced calm 3 master of his fillings - and so of the situation as it developed —on the strange way of the Cross. xiv. 43-50. The Betrayal and Arrest (cf. Matt. xxvi. 47 -.05 Luke xxii. 47-53 ) Jo^n xviii. a-i t). ST. MARK 14. 44-46. XMk 399 one of the twelve, and with him a multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. Now he that betrayed him had given them 44 a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that is he ; take him, and lead him away safely. And when he 45 was come, straightway he came to him, and saith. Rabbi ; and '- kissed him. And they laid hands on him, and took 46 * Gr. kissed him much 43. straightway, while he yet spake, cometh Judas. ^ But Mark gives no hint as to when he liad stolen away to inform the chief priests. Apart from John xiii. 27-30, we should infer that it was only after coming with the rest of the Twelve to Geth- semane. • one of the twelve. There is a tragic note in this designation of the traitor, here given again, as already in verse 10, by all the three Synoptists ; cf. also John vi. 71. with him a multitude with swords and staves. Judas 'went before them,' says Luke (xxii. 47), acting as guide to a hastily gathered band sent by the chief members of the Sanhedrin, roughly armed against resistance with short swords and clubs or cudgels. It was an irregular body of men, probably made up in the main of the Levitical guards (John xviii. 3, mentions also the 'band' or 'cohort' of- soldiers, whose services the Jewish authorities may have secured by making a representation to Pilate). These guards were accompanied also by sen'ants of the high-priests (as is implied in verse 47) and others, including, as it appears from Luke (xxii. 52), even members of the San- hedrin. 44. had given them a token. This had been arranged before they started, and it was Judas's own proposal. The concerted signal was the usual salute given bj' a disciple to a Rabbi, a kiss. take him, and lead him away safely. ' Seize him,' or 'arrest him,' 'and carry him ofT securely.' 45. and kissed him: rather 'embraced him ' with fervour (cf. the margin of the R. V., ' kissed him much '). Matthew represents Jesus as saying to the traitor, ' Friend, do that for which thou art come ' (xxvi. 50). Luke gives the words, 'Judas, betrayest thou the Son of man with a kiss 1 ' (xii. 48). John omits the incident of the kiss, and reports Jesus as going forth to meet the crowd and putting to them the question, 'Whom seek ye ?' (xviii. 4). ' He was familiar with the place, as John tells us (xviii. 2). 400 ST. MARK 14. 47-50. XMk 47 him. But a certain one of them that stood by drew his sword, and smote the * servant of the high priest, and 48 struck off his ear. And Jesus answered and said unto • them, Are ye come out, as against a robber, with swords 49 and staves to seize me ? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not : but this is done 50 that the scriptures might be fulfilled. And they all left him, and fled. * Gr. bond-servant 47. But a certain one of them. John tells us it was Simon Peter (xviii. 10). drew his sword. A short sword or knife. Luke tells us that the eleven had two swords with them (xxii, 38), and also that, when they saw what was likely to happen, they asked him whether they might not use the weapon to repel the assailants (xxii. 49). Peter, in his impetuous way, acted on his impulse, and struck at once in his Master's defence. the servant of the hig'h priest. All the Evangelists record this, but only Jolm gives the name, Malchus — by no means an unusual one. The eye-witness whose testimony underlies this part of that Gospel in particular, being acquainted with the high priest (cf. note on v. 50), may have known the man, who probably was taking a foremost part in the seizure. struck off his ear. The ' right' ear, according to Luke and John. Neither the remonstrance of Jesus nor the healing of the ear is recorded by Mark. The former is given by the other three Evangelists, though in different terms (Matt. xxvi. 52 ; Luke xxii. 51 ; John xviii. 11). The latter is reported only by Luke (xxii, 51). 48. Are ye come out, as against a rotober ? A protest against action fitter for a brigand or highwayman than for a religious teacher, one, too, who had been speaking publicly day after day in the temple, and who had given them abundant opportunity of apprehending him there, if they had adequate cause. 49. that the scriptures might be fulfilled. Referring prob- ably to such passages as Isa. liii ; Zech. xiii. 7 (cf. v. 27 above). 50. And they all left him, and fled. That is, all the eleven, the three and their comrades. Peter, however, soon followed again, though 'afar off' (Markxiv. 54), and also ' another disciple' (John xviii. 15), probably a resident in Jerusalem. xiv. 51, 52. Incident of the Youth. A picturesque and interest- ing episode, peculiar to Mark. ST. MARK 14. 5t-53. Mk 401 [Mk] And a certain young man followed with him, 51 having a linen cloth cast about him, over his naked body : and they lay hold on him ; but he left the linen cloth, 52 and fled naked. And they led Jesus away to the high priest ; and 53 51. a certain youngf man folio-wed with him: i.e. near to Jesus' side. The word implies a mere youth. Many conjectures have been hazarded as to who this young man was. Most pro- bably he was a youth from the house in which the meal had been eaten, the home of a disciple, some member of whose family might well be concerned to watch how it would fare with Jesus. A further probable conjecture is that he was the Evangelist himself (cf Burkitt in The Journal of Theol. Studies, xvii. 296). This would explain w^hy, while the name is not given, a slight incident like this, which also stands in no essential relation to the arrest, is introduced in the Second Gospel and it alone. If he was Mark, and had come from the house where the Last Supper was held, he may have been the son of the head of the house — himself, then, the husband of Mary, Mark's mother, wbose house was later a nndezvous of the Christians at Jerusalem where Peter was a familiar figure (Acts xii. 12 ff.). But if so, this incident would be ' the Evangelist's signature to his portrait of Jesus ' (Wood). It is quite likely, then, that the rest of the Passion narrative is Mark's own memories [Mk], rather than the Petrine form of the general Apostolic tradition [X'"^"']. See also note on xiv. 13. having' a linen cloth cast atoout him. The word ' cloth ' here means a 'wrap' or 'shirt.' It may have been 'a light summer "square" hastily caught up, or, possibly, a night-dress' (Swete). The j'oung man, therefore, may have been roused from his bed by the noise of the crowd as it passed, and have rushed out to discover what it meant. Mark does not tell us where this happened — whether the young man had made his way along with the multitude, or had met Jesus in the street after the arrest. The former is suggested by the opening of the verse, ' was accompany- ing him.' 52. left the linen cloth, and fled naked. His courage sank when his obvious sympathy for the prisoner led to hands being laid upon himself; and he fled precipitately. xiv. 53-65. The trial before the High Priest (cf. Matt. xxvi. 57- 68; Luke xxii. 54 f., 63-71 ; see also John xviii. 12-14, 19-24). 53. And they led Jesus away to the hig^h priest. The Synoptists agree in stating that he was taken straight from Geth- semane to the high priest, or to his house. Mark and Luke do not give at this point the name of the high priest. Matthew says Dd 402 ST. MARK 14. 53. Mk there come together with him all the chief priests and 'to Caiaphas the high priest' (xxvi. 57) ; John says that they led him 'to Annas first,' and gives as the reason for this the fact that Annas was ' father-in-law to Caiaphas, which was high priest that year' (xviii. 13). Annas was high priest during a. d. 7-14; and Caiaphas, or Joseph Caiaphas, held office a. d. 18-36. It was the part, therefore, of Caiaphas, the actual holder of the office at the lime, to conduct any official inquiry. But Annas was still a very influential personage, as well as Caiaphas' father-in-law ; and if his house was nearer the scene of arrest, Jesus may well have been taken to his house, and a preliminary inquiry been actually held there in an informal way. and there come tog'ether witli Mni all the chief priests. From this, and the phrase ' the chief priests and the whole council' (San/iecirin) in verse 55, it is clear that Mark conceived a full meeting of the supreme judicial Court of Judaism to have been held in a hurry and by night, and to have passed actual sentence of death upon Jesus then and there. This, as will be shown in the appended note, is most improbable and is excluded by Luke's account. Thjs being so, it is not easy to say how much of this verse and of what follows is bound up with the confusion in the tradition (one between an informal hearing by night and a regular meeting of the Sanhedrin next morning) upon which the mistaken conception rests. Whether or not any others of the high-priestly class (cf. Acts iv. 6), especially Caiaphas, were with Annas when the preliminary inquiry was held (John xviii. 12-15, ^^9-24, seem to imply the contrary), at any rate the presence of 'all the chief priests,' much more of 'all the elders and scribes ' composing the Sanhedrin, is out of the question, as will now be shown. Appended Note on Jesus' Trial before fhe Sanhedrin. Our reading of Mark's (and Matthew's) narrative at this point, and onwards to verse 65, must be unsatisfactory until we have reckoned with the divergent accounts in Luke and John. These agree in excluding any trial before the Sanhedrin by night, as distinct from an informal interrogation at Annas' house (cf. Luke xii. 54)by the high priest (by whom John means Annas), followed in the morning by a hearing before (Caiaphas and) the Sanhedrin in its proper place of meeting (Luke xxii. 66) ; after which the Sanhedrin saw its way to bring Jesus before Pilate (Lukexxiii. i ; cf. John xviii. 28). This latter account has recently been firmly established as more accurate than the Marcan in a paper by Rev. H. Danby in The Journal of Theological Studies (xxi. 51-75), entitled 'The bearing of the Rabbinical Criminal Code on the ST. MARK 14. 54. Mk 403 the elders and the scribes. And Peter had followed 54 Jewish trial narratives in the Gospels.' He shews that we can- not rely on the tract Sanhcdrin of the Mishna, or other later Talmudic materials, for truly historical data as to the criminal jurisdiction and usages of the supreme Jewish Court under Roman rule in the first century X.I). Further he shews (a) that 'the Gospel narratives [as a whole] will not bear the interpretation traditionally given to them — that Jesus was formally condemned to death as a direct result of a trial by the highest Jewish ' tribunal ; (b) that ' the Lucan version, which implies that there was no night trial, nor any trial at all in a real sense, but only a preli- minary examination of the prisoner, and (perhaps) examination of witnesses, which aimed at ascertaining whether sufficient evi- dence was forthcoming to condemn the prisoner when brought before the Roman tribunal,' is to be preferred to the Marcan (and Matthaean) one ; and (c) that the latter's ' description of the pro- ceedings 'at night 'was derived from the tradition of the morning trial,' independently' ' preserved by Luke, of which the mention of the morning meeting (in Matthew and Mark) was a further reminiscence' (pp. 60 f., the latter quotation being derived from A. H. McNeile's Gospel of St. Matthew., p. 397). Mr. Danby also justly observes (62 f ) that ' Luke's version is not a casual abbre- viation but a deliberate emendation' of Mark's, by adherence to his other and more trusted source (cf. also xviii. 32 in contrast to Mark x. 33") ; and this although ' the Church very early began to lay the chief blame for our Lord's death on the Jewish people (i Thess. ii. 14 f. ; cf. Acts xiii. 27 f.), rather than on Pilate, and this tendency gradually became more marked until it reached its culminating point in the Acta Filati'' (the apocryphal Gospel of Peter marks a stage in the process). It is, then, very doubtful whether the Sanhedrin actually exceeded its powers at the time, viz. those of preliminary investigation in a criminal issue such as this ; or whether, in any case, we have in the tract Sanhedrin and the Talmud generally an adequate criterion for judging the validity of its methods at the date in question (75 f). On the whole question one may here cite Montefiore's summing up (i. 346). ' That there was any meeting of the full Sanhedrin is most doubtful : doubtful also is the part played by the Scribes and Pharisees ; but that the Sadducean priesthood was at the bottom of the arrest and of the "trial," and that the result of this " trial " was adequate to obtain a condemnation from Pilate, can- not reasonably be doubted.' 54. Peter had followed Mm afar off. Peter had been carried off with the rest bj' sudden panic, but soon turned back and fol- lowed at some distance. 404 ST. MARK 14. 55, 56. Mk him afar off, even within, into the court of the high priest ; and he was sitting with the officers, and warming 55 himself in the Hght of the fire. Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witness against Jesus to 56 put him to death ; and found it not. For many bare false witness against him, and their witness agreed not into the coiirt. He had even gone within, into the open court, round which the rooms of the residence were built. He owed his admission to the fact that he was with the ' other dis- ciple,' who ' was known unto the high priest' (John xviii. 15'). was sitting' with the officers: probably with the Levitical guards, who had brought the prisoner in and were now seeking the welcome heat of the fire. For the spring nights are cold in Jerusalem, and especially so in the watch precedini,' sunrise. in the lig^ht of the fire : thus the more exposed to recogni- tion. This touch is peculiar to Mark. While Peter, who had made his way within, in his anxiety ' to see the end' (Matt. xxvi. 58), sits there by the charcoal fire (John xviii. r8), which had been lit ' in the midst of the court ' (Luke xxii. 55"!, his Master stood before the Jewish authorities in one of the rooms above (cf. 66). 55. the chief priests and the whole council. It was, there- fore, a representative meeting of the great national council in some sense, presided over by Caiaphas. In this view Mark -was mis- taken : see above on verse 53. See further xv. i, which tends to confirm the Lucan account that it was in the iiioriiing that any such hearing, with ivitnesses, reallv took place : cf. John x\iii. 24, 28. It is natural that the Petrine story of the Passion should not be com- plete or clear as regards the more or less secret hearings of Jesus by Jewish authorities. Here, then, Mark would be more liable to confusion in telling a connected story. sought witness. The effort was to prove him guilty of a capital oflfence. With that object witnesses had been got together, prepared to give testimony to the desired effect, turning some of his own words against him. 56. many bare false witness. ' False,' that is, in its effect, even if verbally correct up to a point. In some cases at least it may have been bond fide on the part of those giving it, from their standpoint. Rut its essential falsity was shown by the inconsis- tencies in it as a whole. their -witness ag-reed not together. There were many witnesses, but they did not agree in their evidence. According to the Mosaic Law it required the consentient testimony of two witnesses at least, in order to establish a capital charge (Dcut. xix. 15). ST. MARK 14. 67, 58- Mk 405 together. And there stood up certain, and bare false 57 witness against him, saying, We heard him say, I will 58 destroy this « temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands. " Or, sanctuary ST. And there stood up certain. The most specific and dangerous offence against Judaism alleged is liere cited in par- ticular. Matthew states that it was spoken to b}' two witnesses (xxvi. 60). But again they failed. 58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days 1 will build another made without hands. The charge was that he had made a statement in disparagement of the Temple, and as if he would overthrow it. The basis of this was a genuine saying of Jesus, reported in John ii. 19 (out of its original chronological setting), viz., ' Destroy this Temple, and in three days I will raise it.' This was probablj' a warning to his countrymen of the inevitable result of their rejection of his message of radical reformation witli a view to the Kingdom at hand, coupled with an assurance that, in spite of this self-induced calamity, the Divine counsel of grace would yet be fulfilled through him as Messiah, in that God would forthwith have a worthy dwelling-place in earth — His renewed People indwelt by His Spirit. As Montefiore observes {The Synoptic Gospels, i, p. 300% ' it is not unlikely that Jesus, like a new Jeremiah, should have predicted the destruction of the Temple. This may account for the hostility felt towards h'm, perhaps even for the revulsion of popular feeling (cf. xv. 29 for this charge as cast at him in scorn, when he was on the cross). It is in accordance with his prophetic character,' and ' w-ilh the spiritual character of his religion.' This is borne out by the parable of the Vineyard and the Unfaithful Husbandmen (see Mark xii. 9-12 and parallels\ The above saying is now cited in a garbled form by these two witnesses, when they reported him to have said ' I will destroj' ' (Mark xiv. 58), ' I am able to destroy ' (Matt. xxvi. 61), instead of ' Destroy . . . .' Quite possibly, however, he may have contrasted the existing temple, as one 'made with hands,' with another which he himself was to build 'without hands' : for this is quite in Jesus' stj'le of thought, nor does Matthew call these witnesses 'false witnesses.' But in the animus given to the form of the saying, bj' the change in its opening, laj' an element of false testimony ; and in giving it the witnesses did not even agree. The statement of tlie two is given in a briefer form by Matthew, 4o6 ST. MARK 14. 59-61. Mk ;9, 6o And not even so did their witness agree together. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing ? what is it which these 61 witness against thee? But he held his peace, and which in its bluntness may be also a more original one. It was meant as one of the heaviest accusations that could be brought by one Jew against another. So Stephen was afterwards charged with a similar offence (Acts vi. 13, 14). Yet it begged the very point in question, viz. whether Jesus was or was not really God's Anointed One {Messiah), sent to raise Israel's religion, whether as exercised in the Temple or otherwise, to a higher and more spiritual level. For it was part of Messianic expectation that 'a new and glorious Jerusalem would be built in the Messianic Age' (Tobit xiii. 15 f., xiv. 4 ; also Rev. xxi. 9-21 ; cf. Jlpoc. Baruch, iv. 26, xxxii. 4 ; 4£'sm, vii. 26) ; and ' according to Lev. Rabbali. ix, the Messiah will himself re-erect the Temple,' ruined in a. d. 70 (Oesterley and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 222 f.). On this view of the matter, it was not so much a disloyal or irreverent attitude to the Temple, as a virtual Messianic claim on the part of Jesus, that was being spoken to by the witnesses : because they failed to establish their point owing to discrepancy in their evidence as to its form, the high priest resorted to the legally incorrect method of trying to get the accused to witness against himself in answer to a leading question. Verse 61 does not, then, really ' raise a totally fresh question ' (Montefiore). 59. And not even so did their witness agfree together. Though in this case the witnesses agreed in the main point, the general effect of what Jesus had said (as summarized in the last verse), yet under cross-examination as to his exact meaning, whether as judged by his actual words or by their context, dis- crepancy again emerged and invalidated their evidence for the purpose even of a prima facie case against the accused ; and this was what was needed in order to warrant bringing him before the Roman Governor on a capital charge. 60. the hig^h priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesns. Seeing the case against the accused, as it had been carefully pre- pared, breaking utterly down, and chagrined at the silence of Jesus, Caiaphas wished to get the accused himself to incriminate himself, and ' stood up in the midst' (which implies a meeting of the Sanhedrin) in order to extract something from hini to this effect. 61. he held his peace. He had nothing to say, seeing the witnesses had refuted themselves. ST. MARK 14. 62. Mk 407 answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? And Jesus said, I am : and ye shall see the 63 Ag'ain the Tuigh. priest asked him. Caiaphas, in his dis- appointment and perplexity, makes a second attempt to draw Jesus into speech that might compromise him and help out the case. He asks him directly (on oath, according to Matthew) whether he claimed to be the Messiah. Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? The terms of the question, ' the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,' were to Jewish minds and ears sj'nonyms (see Ps. ii. 7, Ixxxix 26f.\ The name ' the Blessed ' is used nowhere else in the N. T. in this absolute and undefined way : it is a Jewish circumlocution cf reverence, to avoid naming- the Divine Name outright. Yet it tends also perhaps to heighten the idea of the majesty of God, and sharpens therefore the blasphemy involved in any unwarranted claim to be in the relation of Son to God in anj' unique sense, such as attached to the idea of Messiah (cf. 'the Holy one, blessed be He,' see Rom. i. 25, ix. 5 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31). The Sadducaic high priest, however, would not mean such unique Sonship to God in the Apocalyptic sense (involving pre-existent Sonship), though Mark may so take it. 62. And Jesus said, I am. Swete is probably right in com- menting: 'To the direct question "Alt thou the Christ ? " solemnly put to him on oath by the ecclesiastical head of the nation, Jesus at once replies.' But his exact reply is left doubtful by its diver- gent forms in the three Synoptics. Matthew and Luke, differing as they do in words, yet agree against Mark in effect, viz. that Jesus did not give a direct explicit affirmative reply, but one which simply did not deprecate the suggestion of the high priest's words. Luke (who makes the Sanhedrin as a whole repeat the question) has ' you say that I am ' ; while Matthew has ' Thou hast said it,' or ' so you have said ' (cf. xxvi. 25\ a rather non- committal form of acquiesence, like our ' I do not deny it.' One ma J' compare Jesus' replj' in all three Gospels to Pilate's 'Art thou the King of the Jews ? ' viz. ' Thou sayest it.' Swete quotes Dr. Thayer {Joiirttal of Bibl. Literature, xiii. 4ofr.) as shewing 'that the balance of ancient opinion is against' the view that this is 'an idiomatic affirmative,' 'and that the words mean simply what they say, while the context, the tone, and the circumstances must in each case determine the exact inference which is to be drawn from them.' He himself adds that ' Mark (or rather the tradition he follows) has seen in this ' reply a direct affirmation, and interprets it accordingly ; hut it is possible that the Lord pur- 4o8 ST. MARK 14. 62. Mk Son of man sitting at the right hand of power, and posely preferred the vaguer form.' So Origan (on Matt.) says that Jesiis, 'taking the word out of the mouth' of the high priest, 'converts it into a refutation of the latter himself, saying "Thou iiast said so," that thereby he might appear to be convicted, not instructed' (^ by Jesus himself), on the point. There is, however, a difference in our gospels between the modes of verification of his claim which Jesus foretells as to be vouchsafed to his judges. In Matthew and Luke it is to begin 'from this time forth,' and so must be understood of the tokens of Jesus' Messianic power in and through his disciples, which came into view (• ye shall see,' Matt.) forthwith, in the events in the early part of Acts (cf the idea of Mark xvi. 20). But in Mark it is not so specified, but may refer rather to the crisis of his return front heaven (to which Luke has no reference, though Matthew retains it) at some widefined 'day' and ' hour.' The latter seems more in line with other references to the future in the Synoptic tradition, as distinct from the Church's experience of what actually followed on the triumph of his foes. and ye shall see the Son of man sitting^. Matthew and Luke prefix to this the idea ' Henceforth,' that is, from that ver}' time onwards. Not only is his Messiahship declared in the figura- tive terms of Dan. vii. 13, expanded by a phrase from Ps. ex. r, ' Sit thou at my right hand ' ; it is so in such a way as to declare also the imminence of his manifested authority and hea\'enl3' power. It is his affirmation of future exaltation, when the arraigned one will be the Judge. ' By the reference to well-known prophecy respecting the Messiah, Jesus made his claim as bold and plain as words could make it' i^W. N. Clarke). at the right hand of power : rather ' of the Power,' a reverential Jewish synonym for God. In the moment of supreme challenge to his consciousness of Messianic .Sonship, Jesus in this verse most clearly uses language of an apocalyptic type, as fittest to body forth the full height of his trust in the transcendent destiny which the Father had in reserve for him, after and in spite of the mystery of seeming defeat. What precisely was in his mind as he uttered this triumphant prophecy, we need not try to determine. For the form of the language, and probably of his own outlook as he used it, was that of sublime poetry, not of exact knowledge (cf xiii. 32). It expressed his faith as 'the Son of man,' in the primary sense in which he was wont to use it (viz. as representative man, in rela- tion to tlie condition of humanity according to the Divine idea and purpose), a faith rooted in and springing out of experienced spiritual relations with God as his Father. Such a faith guaranteed the fulfilment somehow of his own Messianic vocation, much as ST. MARK 14. 63, 64. Mk 409 coming with the clouds of heaven. And the high priest 63 rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy : what 64 think ye? And they all condemned him to be ^ worthy * Gr. liablf to the resurrection life for men of God general!}' was thus assured, as set forth in xii. 24, i;6 f. 63. rent his clotlies. Rending one's clothes was an ancient sign of passionate grief, as in the case of Jacob (Gen xxxvii. 29). It also became the sign of horror (2 Kings xviii. 371. What further need have ive of witnesses ? Caiaphas sees his \\a.y clear now, all trouble in securing presentable evidence gone, and the prisoner incriminated by his own confession. 64. the hi ispheiiiy : i. e. not in the strict technical sense per- haps, but in a virtual one, that of making claims derogatory to the Divine Being in one wny or another ; compare ii. 7, where tiie like charge is made touching Jesus' claim to forgive sins on earth as 'the Son of man,' the Messianic representative of humanitj'. 'The claim to be Messiah, without any of the ordinary qualifica- tions of a Messiah— a claim admitted by a solitary prisoner in the full power of his enemies — must have seemed a presumptuous insolence, a kind of taking God's holy promises in vain ' (Montc- fiore, i. 350). what think ye? There is no thought of inquiring into his Messianic claims : they were assumed to be unworthy of notice. Caiaphas calls for the vote of the court as to what such claims by such a person meriteil. they all condemned him to he worthy of death. Legally the Jewish court had no power to give effect to a sentence of death. That was reserved for the Roman authority. But possibly the Jewish court could declare a man liable according to their religious law to the death penalty, and have their decision con- firmed. The penalty for blasphemy according to the Mosaic Law was death, the Jewish mode of carrying it out being by stoning (Lev. xxiv. 16; i Kings xxi. 10; John x. 30; Acts vii. 58). Luke does not record a formal verdict b}' the Sanhedrin ; and Mark may here, and elsewhere, conceive the matter too broadly as an act of the whole Sanhedrin, as representing Judaism generally. ' It would,' as Montefiore says (p. 344\ 'be enough to assume that an informal meeting of the Sanhedrin or of some of its lead- ing members was held, at which Jesus was interrogated and per- haps even some evidence taken against him. It was considered that enough had been elicited with which to obtain his condem- 4IO ST. MARK 14. 65. Mk 65 of death. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy : and the officers received him with ^ blows of their hands. * Or, strokes of rods nation from the Romnn procurator.' They could now ' denounce Jesus to Pilate as a false Messiah^ (his 'blasphemy,' in their eyes, being simply the falsity of his claim to the sacred function of Messiahship), and so the further proceedings against him 'would be protected and guaranteed against any popular movement, and upon the Roman Governor would be placed the responsibility of the condemnation ' and execution. The Christian tradition, how- ever, as current when Mark wrote, shews traces of the desire to emphasize Jewish responsibility for its Lord's death ; hence per- haps the heightening features of the trial before the whole San- hedrin and the formal sentence of death pronounced by it (see also next note). It is to be noticed that in the anticipatory description of his coming passion put into Jesus' lips in x. 34, Mark's narrative seems to assign all mockery to 'the Gentiles' rather than the Jews, who onl)' hand Jesus over to them ; also that Luke puts the mocking and other ill-treatment by subordinates in the high priest's house before the trial, and has nothing of the sort after it. John xviii. 13 ff., which gives a preliminary brief interrogation before Annas ^wliich helps to explain the two lines of Synoptic tradition), puts any violence at the close of that informal hearing, which ends with an officer smiting Jesus. This might well be followed, after Annas had retired, by the mockery and ill-use of the prisoner at the hands of his guards which Luke relates as occurring during the night. 65. some begran to spit on him. Probably this did not occur at the point here reached : see above. The ' some ' who indulged in these indignities seem to be in Mark and Matthew certain members of tlie Sanhedrin. But in fact the perpetrators of such insults were the guards who had Jesus in charge. Spitting was the Jewish way of shewing utmost contempt and abhorrence (cf. Num. xii. i ( ; Dcut. xxv. g'). Seneca notices it as an exceptional thing that a man was found to spit in the face of Aristides the Just, at Athens, when he was brought to punishment. and to cover his face : preliminary to a mock testing of the prisoner's ' supernatural powers ' in what follows. and to say unto him, Prophesy. Matthew and Luke make the meaning of this clearer, ' Prophesy unto us, thou Christ : who is he that struck thee ^Matt. xxvi. 68) ? ' and the officers: or 'subordinates,' in contrast to certain of ST. MARK 14. 66-68. P 411 [P] And as Peter was beneath in the court, there cometh 66 one of the maids of the high priest ; and seeing Peter 67 warming himself, she looked upon him, and saith, Thou also wast with the Nazarene, even Jesus. But he denied, 68 saying, ^ I neither know, nor understand what thou sayest : * Or, / neither know, nor understand : thou, what sayest thou ? the Sanhedrin above. They follow^ the evil example of their betters (as Mark conceives it), but in their own way. received Mm. with blows of their hands : or, as in the margin of the R. V., ' with stroltes of rods,' i. e. when he was handed over to their charge until the morning. The word means either strokes with sticks or slaps in the face with the open hand. The fact that this form of abuse seems to be dis- tinguished from the bufieting points to the former (cf. Isa. i. 6). Of verse 65 as a whole Wood writes : 'This scene seems to be reflected in i Pet. ii. 20-23. Some trace it to O. T influence ; see Mic. v ; Isa. 1. 6, liii. 3.' xiv. 66-72. Peter'' s Denials (cf Matt. xxvi. 69-75 ; Luke xxii. 56-62 ; John xviii. 25-27). 66. And as Peter was beneath in the court. ' An oriental house is usually built around a quadrangular interior court, into which there is a passage (sometimes arched) through the front part of the house, closed next the street by a heavy folding-gate with a smaller wicket, kept by a porter' (Robinson, Harmony, 225). The ' court ' or court-yard is this interior area, open to the sky, and in the present case no doubt paved. Here the fire had been lit by the servants, and here Peter stood, while his Master was before the high priest in some audience-room, higher than the central area and looking into it. So Peter was 'beneath,' as Mark sa^'s, and ' without ' as Matthew puts it. 67. seeingf Peter warming' himself, she looked upon him. John specifies the maid 'that kept the door' (xviii. 17 ; cf. Acts xii. 13). The portress, as it seems, had noticed Peter when he had entered with the others ; and her attention had been attracted to him again as he stood in the light of the fire. Recognizing him, she charged him with being with Jesus. 68. neither know, nor understand. The double negation in Mark reflects the precipitancy and embarrassment of the denial. Peter disowns all consciousness even of what she meant. The margin of the R V. brings out still more the energy of his denial, ' I neither know, nor understand ; thou, what sayest tliou ? ' Or perhaps one may render it still better, 'I neither know nor gather, you there, wliat you are talking about.' 412 ST. MARK 14. 69-71. P and he went out into the * porch ; ^and the cock crew. 69 And the maid saw him, and began again to say to them ^Q that stood by, This is one of them. But he again denied it. And after a little while again they that stood by said to Peter, Of a truth thou art o?ie of them ; for thou art ^i a Galilsean. But he began to curse, and to swear, " Gr. forecourt ^ Many ancient authorities omit and the cock crew. into the porch. His uneasiness made him change his posi- tion, from the brightness of the fire to the darkness of the vestibule or passage that led from the street-door to the court. and the cock crew. This clause is omitted by some of the most ancient of our authorities. It is a gloss due to ' the second time ' in verse 72. 69. And the inaid saw him. The four reports differ in the particulars of Peter's denials, as regards persons and positions, as well as the terms of the challenges and the replies. This serves clearly to bring out the independence of the tradition followed by each, and so confirms the main fncts themselves. The charge here is assigned by Mark to the same maid ; by Matthew, to 'another maid' ; by Luke to 'another person'; while John's version is, ' they said therefore unto him ' (xviii. 25^ If we follow Mark's account, the maid who ' kept the door ' had returned to her post of duty in the porch, and repeated her charge there, directing the attention of the people who stood about to Peter. 10. Bnt he agfain denied it : ' witli an oath ' says Matthew. And after a little while. Luke gives the interval more explicitly as ' after the space of about one hour ' (xxii. 59), a fresh sign of his special source's accuracy here. they that stood by. Luke says simply ' another.' John confirms this by saying that the accusation was made in the most definite terms by a slave related to Malchus, who supported what had been said by others with, ' Did not I see thee in the garden with him ? ' (xviii. 26). for thou art a Oalilsean. 'Thy speech betrayeth thee,' says Matthew. The people of Nortiiern Palestine had certain provincialisms of speech by which they were easily distinguished from those of Judaea. 71. he began to curse, and to swear. To 'curse,' that is, to call down an anathema upon himself if his denials were not true (cf. Acts xxiii. 12). Cauglit at his weakest nmment, when liis moral courage was lowered and confused by surprise and the ST. MARK 14. 72. P 413 I know not this man of whom ye speak. And straight- 73 way the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word, how that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. *^ And when he thought thereon, he wept. * Or, And he began to weep shock of a dire disappointment, and drawn from one false step to another, Peter plunges, desperate and reckless, into this last depth of falsehood and disloyalty. 72. straig-litway the second time the cock crew : better, ' a second time a cock crew.' ' Immediately, while he yet spake,' says Luke (xxii. 60). It was at the very moment of the utterance of his third denial, the oaths and curses yet upon his lips, that Peter heard the fateful cock-crow that changed all (or him. It is to be noted that none of the other three Gospels has 'a second time,' any more tlian ' twice ' in Jesus' prophecy, as recorded either here or earlier (parallel with verse 30). This casts doubt on the Marcan form of this saying (which the ' Western ' text assimilates to that of Matthew and Luke : see Westcott and Hort, Introduction, § 323). Probably, however, ' a second time ' is an authentic touch due to Peter's vivid memory of this intense crisis, viz., that it was only the repetition of the strident sound of the cock's crowing which brought to his mind liis Master's warning about a fall ere cock-crow. If so, it is also possible that, just as the wording of Jesus' warning has been assimilated to this accidental feature of its fulfilment, so there has been assimilation at an earlier stage (i. e. in the oral tradition as known to all the Synoptists) as regards another like feature, viz. the 'thrice' of the denial. In that case what Jesus had actually said was simply, ' Before cock-crow (i. e. before another day dawn) thou shalt deny me.' Dr. C. H. Mayo's attempt {The Journal of Tlieol. Studies, xxii. 367-70) to refer the cock-crowing to the Roman watch so called {Galhciniurn) seems groundless. called to mind. For the time he had forgotten all about Jesus' warning. Now it leaps forth into his recollection, and breaks him down. Luke alone notices that ' the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter' (xxii. 61). when he thought thereon : better ' he set to ' and wept. This has the support of a usage revealed by an Egyptian papyrus cited in J. H. Moulton's N. T. Grammar, and may be what is meant by the old Syrian and Latin versions, ' he began to weep.' 'And he burst into tears' (Moflatt). Other suggested renderings may now be dismissed from account. The meaning is * he began 414 ST. MARK 15. i. Mk 15 [Mk] And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, 2 and delivered him up to Pilate. And Pilate asked him, to weep with all his might,' which suits alike the occasion and the man. It agrees too with Luke's version of the matter, ' and going out he wept bitterly.' XV. 1-15. The Trial before Pilate (cf. Matt, xxvii 1-26 ; Luke xxiii. 1-5, 13-25; John xviii. 28-40, xix. 4-16). 1. straightway in the inorning' : i.e. 'immediately morning came ' (Moffatt). Mark conceives that the * trial ' already described (which really only followed now, as Luke rightly records, cf. John xviii. 24) was in the house of Caiaphas, the High priest ; and that there too (as it seems) a meeting of the Sanhedrin was held in due form by daylight, in order to regularize and confirm the findings reached rather informally by night, and to plan for their sequel. 'The chief priests,' says Mark, 'with the elders and scribes and the whole council ' The hierarchy certainly took the lead in the proceedings (cf. 11), but the other orders were at one with them ; and what followed the consultation was nomi- nally the act of the whole council. But throughout the whole account of the Trial by Pilate, as in that by the Jews, Mark shews the effects of a tendency to put as much blame as possible on the latter and to minimize the part taken by the former in Jesus' condemnation and death. In various respects Luke's narrative is again more accurate. This applies also to the episode of Pilate's trying to shift the decision of a case which had elements out of the ordinary, and was to his eye a matter of domestic differences among Jewish religious parties, on to Herod, the native ruler in Galilee. bound Jesus . . . Pilate. The feast had begun. The risk of an outbreak, when the adherents of Jesus gathered in their num- bers, was great. The Jewish authorities, knowing there was no time to lose if they were to escape such dangers, took instant action, and carried eft" their prisoner at once to Pilate. The Evangelists give only general indications of the time. But as Roman courts did not meet before sunrise, and gave no judge- ment before 6 a.m., it was probably 5 or 6 a.m. when Jesus was taken to the Procurator. John states that he was led into ' the palace ' or praetorium (xviii. 28). It is difficult to say whether the place in question was the palace of Herod the Great, a magni- ficent marble structure on the north side of Zion, occupied for the time by Pilate, or the fortress of Antonia on the north side of the Temple : see note on verse 16. Fllate. On the deposition and banishment of the subject ST. MARK 15. 2. Mk 415 Art thou the King of the Jews ? And he answering King Archelaus in a.d. 6, Judaea was united to Syria and put under the authority of its governor or legate. But, subject to this overlordship, it was ruled immediately bj' a 'procurator' sent from Rome fjosephus, Antiq. xvii. 13. 5, xviii. i. i, Jewish War, ii. 8. i). The procurator lived at Caesarea on the Sea (Acts xxiii. 23 ; Joseph., Jewish War, ii. 9. 2>, but came up to Jerusalem at the Passover season to keep order. The fifth in the series of procurators of Judaea was Pontius Pilate, who succeeded Valerius Gratus in a.d. 25-26. He is referred to not only in the narratives of Passion Week but elsewhere in the Gospels (Luke iii. i, xiii. i>, and is named by the Roman historian Tacitus as the procurator by whom, in the reign of Tiberius, Christ had 'been punished' {Annals, xv. 44). His character is drawn both by Josephus {Antiq. xviii ; Jewish War, ii. 9. 2 ff.) and by Philo the Jew {De. Leg. 38). The latter represents him as given over, in his public life, to rapacity, corruption, ruthlessness, and all manner of op- pression and wrong. The N. T. indicates incidentally the ruthless cruelty of his rule (Luke xiii. 1). It represents him at the same time as having something of the sense of justice proper to a Roman judge, though vacillating in purpose and not strong enough to give effect to it in opposition to the pressure put upon him by the relentless Jews. How far, if at all, this picture is coloured by a wish to make the Jewish authorities the more responsible for the sentence actually passed by Pilate, it is hard to say. 2. asked Mm, Art thou the Kin^ of the Jews ? According to John xviii. 28 f., Pilate met the Jews outside because they were too scrupulous to enter the palace of the heathen ruler, lest they should be defiled and so prevented (on the chronology of that Gospel) from taking part in the coming Passover. After this first interview with the Jewish authorities Pilate entered the palace again and, summoning Jesus before him (John xviii. 33), put to him the question recorded by all four Evangelists. How did Pilate come to put such a question ? The Jews had charged Jesus with making regal claims, giving the Messianic title ' King of the Jews' a political meaning. This accords with the fuller statement which Luke gives of the accusation as one essentially of sedition : 'We found this man perverting our nation, forbidding to give tribute to Caesar (so twisting his reply touching the Tribute- money, xii. 17), and saying that he himself is Christ a king' (xxiii. 2). The above question was a private and preliminary one, and its form (with emphasis on the ' thou ') suggests, as Westcolt thinks, 'a feeling of surprise on the part of the questioner.' The question in itself was one involving the crime of ' treason ' [tna- fesfas), the most fatal one in Roman eyes. Thou sayest: an acquiescent reply (see Luke xxii. 70 and 4r6 ST. MARK 15. 3-6. Mk 3 saith unto him, Thou sayest. And the chief priests 4 accused him of many things. And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing ? behold how many c things they accuse thee of. But Jesus no more answered anything ; insomuch that Pilate marvelled. 6 [Mk] Now at "■ the feast he used to release unto them * Or, a feast here), as far as it goes, but not a distinct affirmative (which the sequel excludes), like ' So thou sa\'est.' Moiitefiore remarks (p. 361) : 'Anyway Jesus did not deny the charge. It would be consistent both with his practice of evasion before hostile critics, and with his own spiritualized conception of the Messiahship and Kingship, if he neither affirmed nor denied. He was not the King of the Jews in Pilate's sense of king ; yet he was, or was to be, their king in another sense ; and even in this dark hour, his faith in this Kingship, to which God had appointed him, did not succumb or fade away.' The Fourth Gospel says that Jesus first asked Pilate why he put such a question to him, and then explained in what sense he claimed to be King and what manner of kingdom his was (xviii. 34-38). 3. the chief priests accused him of many things. A highly condensed account. The Jewish officials had remained without, and were gradually joined by the mob (^I.uke xxiii. 4). After the brief, inconclusive inquiry apart, Pilate comes forth again, and gives the Jews to understand, as Luke ^xxiii. 4I and John (xviii. 38) tell us, that he found no fault in the accused. This provokes a fresh burst of accusations on the part of the Jews, who clamour with furious insistence about his disloyal action from the Roman standpoint, in stirring up the people, ' teaching throughout all Judaea, and beginning from Galilee even unto this place' (Luke xxiii. 5). 4. Pilate again asked him. His conviction of the innocence of Jesus being perhaps somewhat shaken by these new and serious charges, Pilate furtlier questions him, but elicits no reply. The governor marvels at the tranquil, dignified silence maintained by Jesus in the face of the fierce storm of accusations and the danger of the charge against him. He is embaTassed ; and, as Luke suggests, he catches at the mention of Galilee as the scene of the first teaching of Jesus. He asks more particularly about this, and learning from ihe accusers themselves that Jesus was 'of Herod's jurisdiction,' lie sends him on to that prince, he being in Jerusalem for the Feast. But Herod sent him back to Pilate Luke xxiii. 6-I2\ 6. ITow at the feast he used to release nnto them one ST. MARK 15. 7. Mk 417 one prisoner, whom they asked of him. And there was 7 one called Barabbas, lying bound with them that had prisoner. The reference is to the Passover feast, as John ex- plains (xviii. 39). Of the custom itself nothing is known beyond what is stated here. There is no mention of it in the later Jewish writings. whom they asked of him: rather 'whom they begged oflT,' The point of the concession lay largely in the fact that the selec- tion of the prisoner was left to the Jews themselves. Pilate's second expedient for relief was to take advantage of this custom. Comparing the several narratives, we see that, when Jesus was sent back by Herod, Pilate called the Jewish authorities and the people together again (Luke xxiii. 13), and seated himself upon the judgement-seat (Matt, xxvii. 19). with the intention of declar- ing Jesus guiltless and ending the trial. It was the custom for the procurator, when he was to give his judgement in a trial, to take his seat on a movable tribunal. In the present case, as we learn from John, this tribunal was set up 'at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha ' (xix. i3\ i.e. outside the palace, which the Jews could not enter at this season. Here Pilate formally declares that neither he nor Herod found any fault in the accused, and announces his intention to scourge and then release him. His idea probably was to set Jesus free under the custom referred to. He thought in this way not only to satisfy his own sense of justice, but to please the people by releasing a prisoner whom he imagined they would value, and to propitiate the Sanhedrin by chastising Jesus. But he pleased no one. 7. one called Barabhas : better ' he who was called Barabbas,' implying that he was at the time a notorious person. * Barabbas,' says Montefiore, ' is supposed to mean "Son of the Father," that is, "of the Master"— the Teacher (cf. M.itt. xxiii. gV Was he the son of a known Rabbi ? ' We have names of this type in the Talmud ; and Jerome says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews had here 'Son of the Master.' Of this Barabbas noth- ing is known beyond what we gather from the Go-pels, namely, that he was of the desperado or robber type (John xviii. 40) ; that he had stirred up a faction riot in the cit}' and had been guilty of murder (Mark xv. 7 ; Luke xxiii. 19^ ; and that at the time he was lying a prisoner along with his fellow rioters, charged with faction and murder. He was possibly one of those men of violent methods who often joined hands with the uncompromising patriots known as the party of the Zealots, in outbreaks against the Roman rule, and gave constant trouble to the Roman gover- nors. Barabbas was guilty of much the kind of crime, that of sedition, which the Sanhedrin tried to fasten unjustly upon Jesus. E e 4i8 ST. MARK 15. 8-14. X^k made insurrection, men who in the insurrection had 8 committed murder. And the multitude went up and began to ask him to do as he was wont to do unto 9 them. And Pilate answered them, saying. Will ye that 10 I release unto you the King of the Jews ? For he per- ceived that for envy the chief priests had delivered him up. " But the chief priests stirred up the multitude, that he 12 should rather release Barabbas unto them. And Pilate again answered and said unto them, What then shall I 13 do unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews? And 14 they cried out again, Crucify him. And Pilate said unto 8 f. the multitude . . . 'beg'an to ask him . . . When the people came to claim their usual right, Pilate seized the oppor- tunity to try to get out of his dilemma, by suggesting, ' Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews ? ' The accent of Pilate's question is probably * a mixture of pity and contempt. " Shall I release this harmless simpleton who apparently calls himself your king ? " ' ( Holtzmann.) 10. This is quite a likely motive of Pilate's action. He may have been really impressed by Jesus. Further, his conduct all along might be determined by a wish to play with the Jewish rulers, up to the point where his own interest began to come in. Pilate's appeal to the people was defeated by the counter- appeal of the chief-priests. We are not told how the people were induced to prefer Barabbas. There may have been a secret sympathy with the braves on which the chief priests contrived to play. Further the mere fact of Jesus' arrest by his enemies would tend to discredit his claims to Messiahship in their eyes. 12-14. Many scholars not unnaturally suspect certain things in this dialogue between the haughty Roman Governor and the Jewish crowd, as being coloured in the course of tradition among those inclined to dissociate Jesus' death from Roman action and to lay it entirely at the door of the Jews, whose hostility to the early Christians increased the unfavourable light in which the latter tended to view the part played by national Judaism in the crime of the Cross. 13, Crucify him. This dreadful cry, calling for a penalty characteristically Roman in its unfeeling hardness, where non- Romans were concerned, and one reserved for the worst criminals in their eyes, is one of the touches the historicity of which has been questioned, yet on no really conclusive ground. ST. MARK 15. 15, 16. Mk 419 them, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out exceedingly, Crucify him. And Pilate, wishing to 15 content the multitude, released unto them Barabbas, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away within the court, which 16 15. Pilate, wishing to content the mtiltittide: W. 'satisfy,' the phrase being a Latin idiom taken up into late Greek (cf. Jer. xlviii. 30 ill LXX ). Their will, working on his irresolution, beats down the governor's last scruples, and extorts from him the fatal order. The Fourth Gospel, with its more detailed account here, pictures fully how Pilate struggled against the meshes closing about him. Certain features in that picture, notably how he would have had the Jews take Jesus away and themselves aiicify hint ; how at last they declared the real cause of their offence with him to be his claim to be the Son of God ; how the judge, the more afraid when he heard this, took Jesus again within and interrogated him in private — all these are very hard to reconcile with the general probabilities of the case ; and this must react also on our estimate of the associated account of the motive finally reconciling him to set aside his own scruples, viz. the menacing cry, ' Thou art not Caesar's friend' (John xix. 1-14). At this point Matthew records how Pilate 'took water and washed his hands before the multitude' (xxvii. 24), an incident which is reported only by him. It was a Jewish ceremony (Deut. xxi. 6; Josephus, Antiq. iv. 8. 16), symbolical of guiltlessness in the matter of shedding blood. It was also the custom for heathen judges, when about to pass sentence, to protest their innocence of the blood of the person whom they were to condemn to death (see Meyer on Matt, xxvii. 24"). when he had scourged him. This particular word, another Latinism, is found in the N.T. only here (and in the parallel pas- sage in Matthew). Roman scourging inflicted suffering so terrible that often the victim died under it. Such scourging was usual before crucifixion (Josephus, Jevbish War, ii. 14. 9, v. 11. i). XV. 16-20. The Mockery of the Soldiers (cf. Matt, xxvii. 27-31; John xix. 2, 3). This incident is omitted by Luke. 16. the soldiers: i.e. 'of the governor' (Matt, xxvii. 27I These Roman soldiers iiad to see to the execution of the sen- tence : and Jesus is henceforth at their mercy. They consisted probably of a few men with a centurion, and formed part of the band or cohort stationed in the castle of Antonia (Acts xxi. 31). within the court. The scourging, then, had taken place 420 ■ ST. MARK 15. 17. Mk is the * Praetorium ; and they call together the whole 17 ^band. And they clothe him with purple, and plaiting * Or, palace ^ Or, cohort outside, in front of the palace. Jesus in now brought into the courtyard. ■which is (the) Praetorium : or 'that is, Headquarters.' The Greek word, based on the Latin, is used of the tent or head- quarters of a commander in a Roman camp. But in the Gospels and Acts it means the official residence of a governor (cf. Acts xxiii. 35). Opinion is divided, as we have said, on the subject of the place in view here. Some hold that the palace of Herod tlie Great was used by the Roman procurator as his official residence for the time. Josephus tells us, indeed, that it was so used by Florus {Jewish War, ii. 14. 8). Others, pointing to the fact that Herod Antipas, the native ruler in Galilee, was himself (according to Luke) in Jerusalem at the time, and to the proceedings in con- nexion with the trial, conclude that the Praetorium was connected with the fortress of Antonia. See further Swete for this view as the more probable. Blass, however, regards the whole clause ' which is (the) Praetorium ' as based on a mistaken view of the Greek aide, which means simply the 'courtyard' of the place where Pilate was staying. If so, it would be a later gloss. But, as Bacon observes (/s Mark a Roman Gospel ? p. 56), the clause 'need not be a "mistranslation,"' but 'may merely serve for closer determination.' the whole hand. Tlie word ' band ' is of somewhat uncertain application. It may mean a tnaniplc, which ^vas the third of a cohort and consisted nominally of 200 men. But, as the ' band ' is said to have a chiliarch or ' chief captain ' (John xviii. la ; Acts xxi. 31), it is supposed to have the sense of cohort in the N. T. 17. with purple: or, as Matthew gives it, 'a scarlet robe.' Jesus had been stripped, in order to be scourged. But whether his garments had been put on again when he was brought back into the court, Mark does not note. Now Pilate's soldiers, imi- tating the mockery practised by Herod and his men when they sent Jesus back 'arrayed in gorgeous apparel' f Luke xxiii. ir), put upon him the royal, or rather Imperial 'purple,' perhaps really, as Matthew puts it, 'a red cloak,' i.e. the ordinary military cloak. This they did in ridicule of his kingly pretensions. There is no need to look, as some have done recently, beyond this obvious motive, for a further meaning of a folk-lore or pagan religious character in this mockery. ST. MARK 15. 18-21. Mk 421 a crown of thorns, they put it on him ; and they began 18 to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews ! And they smote 19 his head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and bowing their knees worshipped him. And when they had 20 mocked him, they took off from him the purple, and put on him his garments. And they lead him out to crucify him. And they » compel one passing by, Simon of Cyrene, 21 coming from the country, the father of Alexander * Gr. impress a crown of thorns : in derisive imitation of the laurel wreath, the badge of victor^', worn at times by the Roman emperors in token of military distinction or on festal occasions. This wreath was made of the twisted spines of some sort of thorn, probably the nabk tree. 18. to salute him. Matthew notices that a reed was put into his right hand (xxvii. 29 i, to represent a sceptre : cf. the next note. 19. smote his head with a reed. Allen quotes a close Tal- mudic parallel to this. The mock homage offered him was accom- panied (or followed, as in Matthew) by blows and insults When the soldiers had had enough of horse-play and brutality, they took off the red cloak and clad Jesus again in his own garments. Com- pare the prediction in chap. x. 34. 20. they lead him out to crucify him. It is not possible to determine the route to the place of crucifixion. Tradition defines it as the way called the Vin Dolorosa, running across the city from the fortress of Antonia to the Holy Sepulchre But the name, if not the tradition itself, appears to be later than the twelfth century. XV. 21-32. The incidents on the way to and at the Cross (cf. Matt, xxvii. 32-44 ; Luke xxiii. 26-38; John xix. 16-24). 21. they compel one passing' by: better ' impress,' as in the R.V. margin. It is a word of foreign origin, used in particular of the couriers of the kings of Persia. It came to be applied to any kind of compulsory service (Matt. v. 41V Simon of Cyrene: i.e. in North Africa. We learn from Josephus that a body of Jews settled there in the time of Ptolemy I {Cont. A p. ii. 4, Antiq. xiv. 7. 2). In the N.T. there are other references to Jews there (Acts ii. 10, vi. 9. xiii. i\ the father of Alexander and Sufus. Mark alone describes 42 2 ST. MARK 15. 22, 23. Mk and Rufus, to go with them, that he might bear his 22 cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, 23 which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. And they offered him wine mingled W'ith myrrh : but he Simon thus by his sons. We infer from the statement that thej' became persons of some prominence, at least in the locality for which Mark's Gospel was first written, whether Antioch or Rome. That Paul salutes a Rufus and his motlier in Rom. xvi. 13 suits either hypothesis, since he had presumably met them elsewhere, and quite possibly at Antioch (see Acts xi. 20). that lie might bear his cross. Plutarch says that it was the custom to make the condemned man carry his own cross, or at least one of its two beams. John mentions that Jesus ' went out, bearing the cross for himself (xix.17) ; cf. note on verse 21 above. It appears, therefore, that Jesus bore the cross at least to the city gate. Then his strength gave way, and Simon was compelled to relieve him of the burden. At this point Luke introduces the incident of women of Jerusalem bewailing Jesus (xxiii. 27-31), and Jesus' striking \vords in response. 22. the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. Luke says ' the place which is called The Skull,' omitting the Aramaic word Golgotha. John is more pre- cise, 'the place called The place of a skull, which is called in Hebrew Golgotha.' This 'place of a skull 'was rendered locus Calvariae in the Old Latin and Vulgate. We owe the word Cal- vary to the Old English versions following the Vulgate. W^-clif, e. g., gives ' the place of Calvarie.' The name Golgotha indicates that the place was a bare, skull-shaped knoll or mound. It seems to have been well known. The Gospels indicate that it was out- side the city, yet near it (John xix. 20), and having a garden by it (Johnxix. 41). But its exact position cannot be determined. The traditional Mount Calvary is within the city. It has been placed on the west bank of the Kidron, north of St. Stephen's Gate (so Dr. Thomson); on the hill north-cast of Herod's Gate (Sir C. Wilson, &c.) ; on the hill, without the present wall, north-east of the Damascus Gate; on the 'Skull Hill' or 'Grotto Hill,' near the Damascus Gate, above the grotto of Jeremiah. The last is perhaps the most likely suggestion, and fits fairly with the site pointed out as early as the end of the third century, on the witness of Eusebius iOnomasticon^, viz. 'to the N. of Mount Zion.' 23. offered him wine mingled with myrrh : in keepingwith a merciful custom, in order to stupefy and so ease the coming agony. Matthew has 'wine mingled with gall' (xxvii. 34), a description perhaps coloured by Ps. Ixix. 21, cf. Lam. iii. 15. There was a strong tendency to look for ' fulfilments 'of Messianic ST. MARK 15. 24-26. Mk 423 received it not. And they crucify him, and part his 24 garments among them, casting lots upon them, what each should take. And it was the third hour, and they 25 crucified him. And the superscription of his accusation 26 forecasts, both in the Prophets and the Psalms, in the experiences of the Passion. This tendency may even have added hght touches to the Evangelic tradition, especially in Matthew. Jesus refused the potion, after discovering its nature by a sip, according to Mat- thew (xxvii. 34) — a frankly human touch. 24. part his garments. The clothing of the condemned was the perquisite of tlie soldiers on duty at executions. casting' lots. Possibly they had dice with them for their musement. The Fourth Gospel makes a distinction here. It speaks of the ' garments,' as distinguished from the ' coat,' as being divided into four parts, one for each man in the quaternion of soldiers. This they might do by loosening the seams. But the ' coat ' or * tunic,' which was woven of one piece, was not divided, but assigned in whole to one by lot (xix. 23, 24). 25. it was the third hour: i. e. 9 a.m. (cf. Acts ii. 15, and verse 33 below). Mark alone gives this as the time. The Fourth Gospel says it was ' about the sixth hour ' when Pilate brought Jesus out and took his seat for judgement (xix. 14^ Various explanations of this apparent discrepancy have been given. The most probable is the supposition that the two writers here follow different modes of reckoning time, the latter having in view a division of time like our own, which would make the 'sixth hour' about 6 a.m. But this has been somewhat shaken b}' recent research, especially by Ramsay (Expositor, iv. vii, p. 216 ; v. iii, p. 457). Others assume a natural corruption in the single letters used as numerals, viz. F for r (so Jerome). In any case, of the two statements Mark's is the more definite. 26. the superscription of his accusation. It was customary to have the cause of condemnation inscribed on a tablet, which was fastened to the prisoner or borne before him as he was led to execution. This was afterwards fastened to the cross itself, above the sufferer's head. There were several kinds of crosses : the St. Andrew's cross, in the shape of the letter X ; St. Anthony's cross, also known as the Egyptian or the Greek cross, with the form T ; and the Latin cross, which was of the shape +. The terms of the record [iHtdus), as ' inscribed ' rather than ' written over,' are given with certain variations in the Gos- pels; but in each the significant words 'the King of the Jews,' which indicated the real cause of offence, are found. From John (xix. 20) we learn that this title was written not only in the official Latin, but also in Hebrew and Greek. 424 ST. MARK 15. 27-32. Mk 27 was written over, the king of the jews. And with him they crucify two robbers ; one on his right hand, 29 and one on his left.'*' And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ha ! thou that destroyest the ^ temple, and buildest it in three days, 30,31 save thyself, and come down from the cross. In like manner also the chief priests mocking hiin among them- selves with the scribes said, He saved others ; ^ himself 32 he cannot save. Let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe. And they that were crucified with him reproached him. * Many ancient authorities insert verse 28 Av.d the scripture was fiilfiUed, -tvhich saith, And he was reckoned with transgressors. See Luke xxii. 37 ** Or, sanctuary ' Or, can he not save himself? 27. two robbers : or, according to Luke, 'malefactors.' Not ordinary ' thieves,' but rather highwaymen. 28. The A.V. introduces here the verse, 'And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the trans- gressors.' This shews the tendency referred to in the note on verse 23 The quotation from Isa. liii. 12 is given by Luke at an earlier stage (xxii, 37). 29. they that passed by . . . wagging' their heads : comp. the phrasing of Lam. ii. 15. The first half of the verse has a general likeness of idea to Ps. xxii. 7, but the language seems independent, save for the phrase ' shake the head.' thou that destroyest the temple. The accusation of the two witnesses before Caiaphas (xiv. 58 ; Matt. xxvi. 61). It had become matter of common talk. 31. the chief priests. Even these dignitaries joined in the • mockery, not with the crowd indeed, but passing their jeers from mouth to mouth among themselves. The taunt in which they indulge, ' H<; saved others ; himself he cannot save' (or, 'can he not save himself? '), is not the same as Ps. xxii, 8. 32. they that were crucified with him: so also Matthew. Luke refers only to one of the malefactors as railing on Jesus, and adds Ihv. rebuke administered to him by his fellow criminal, his petition to Jesus, and the answer it received (xxiii. 39-43)- From Luke we learn also that the soldiers joined with others in the common heartless derision (xxiii. 36). ST, MARK 1 5. 33, 34- Mk 425 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness 33 over the whole ^ land until the ninth hour. And at the 34 ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my '^ Or, earth XV. 33-41. The Last Hours and the Events attendant on the Death {ci. Matt, xxvii. 45-56; Luke xxiii. 44-9; John xix. 28-30). 33. there was darkness. Luke explains it as due to ' the sun's light failing' (xxiii. 45^ over tlie whole land nntil the ninth hour: that is, from 12 noon until 3 p.m. This darkness, if an actual historical fact (for another view see below), cannot be explained as the result of an ordinary eclipse. An eclipse at the Paschal full moon is an impossibility. It must be understood, according to the Gospel narratives, t(i have been a gloom out of the ordinary course of nature, in which all that happened during the last three hours of the Saviour's Passion was shrouded from view. What the Evangelist has in mind is probably rightly expressed in the main by the earliest extant Greek commentator on Mark, Victor of Antioch ic. fifth to sixth cent."")- — largely a compiler from other sources — who writes : ' then took place the very thing they used to ask for from Jesus, a sign from heaven.' Possibly Amos viii. 9 may be in view : 'And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the Lord God, that I will cause the sun to go down at noon, and 1 will darken the earth in the clear day,' a passage cited by Irenaeus (end of second cent.) in this connexion. The phrase ' over all the land ' niay also mean 'over all the earth ' It is most natural to take the more limited application ; so the Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, 5, takes it. 34. at the ninth hour : that is, the hour for the evening sacri- fice (cf. Acts iii. i\ when the Paschal victims were being brought for sacrifice (cf. Swete on xiv. 17). Jesus cried with a loud voice : not in the feeble voice of one exhausted. That this \vas the sense in which the Evangelist intended the words is suggested by the fact that he represents the centurion as regarding the similar loud cry of verse 37, with which Jesus expired, as a mark of heroic greatness. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? The cry is given in the vernacular, with a translation for the benefit of Gentile readers. Sabachthani is Aramaic, not Hebrew, as is also the form Eloi, the Hebrew being £■//!£■/ ^ /is found in some old MSS , cf Matt. here). But the misunderstanding of the cry by certain Jewish bystanders, as tliough he called '^//jah,' points to Jesus having uttered the 426 ST. MARK 15. 35. Mk 35 God, » why hast thou forsaken me ? And some of them '^ Or, why didst thou forsake me ? words (familiar to him through the Synagogue reading of them) in the original Hebrew. Hence it looks as if the wording of the cry had been Aramaized in tradition. If so, at this crisis in his sufferings Jesus gives utterance, as an instinctive relief for his pent-up feelings of agony, to the opening words of Ps. xxii in the original Hebrew. The psalm may have been running in his thoughts as the closest O.T. parallel to his own case, in its utter solitude and human helplessness, and one which he had probably applied to himself as Messiah ever since the Passion confronted him in the path of his mission, cf. x. 32. The words are not to be explained simply as the recoil of nature from the pangs of dissolu- tion. It is the cry of one deprived for the time of sensible tokens of God's fellowship — the cry of loyalty struggling with this novel and strange experience, in utter darkness clinging to faith and trusting itself to God, but bereft for a season of the gladness of realized fellowship. Here is an experience too deep for us fully to fathom, as that of a soul standing in a relation widely different from ours to man and his sin, and to God and His grace. This is the only cry from the cross that is recorded by Mark and Matthew. That there were others we gather from Luke and John. The spirit and purport of the words, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' have been much disputed. They are not words which would have been put into Jesus' mouth by Christian tradition, simply as a Messianic O.T. parallel taken over by later reflexion, and are therefore to be viewed as true to Jesus' own experience. Rut do they denote the desolation of defeat and despair? Dr. Estlin Carpenter (as quoted by Montefiore, ad. loc.) replies that, though such an interpretation at first sight appears most natural, it 'seems inconsistent with the whole character of Jesus, and especially with the inner history of the fatal night. The possibility of death had been in sight for weeks. He had come to Jerusalem ready to face the worst. As it approached, it proved, indeed, a trial more grievous than even he had foreseen [witness Gethsemane]. But in Gethsemane he had solemnly offered himself to God. Could he llinch when the offer was accepted? What pain and shame could undo his trust, or sever tlie fellowship of his spirit with the Father? It is more congruous, therefore, with his previous attitude to interpret the cry as a iinal declaration of faith,' in terms of the Psalm on which he had been dwelling and staying his soul, as we may infer, throughout his sufferings. We must, that is, view the words, with wliich that psalm of passionate pleading opens, in the light of its thought as a whole (so Menzies), which passes on to a note of ST. MARK 15. 36. Mk 427 that stood by, when they heard it, said, Behold, he calleth EUjah. And one ran, and filling a sponge full 36 of vinegar, put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him triumph and thanksgiving for God's deliverance : ' I will declare thy name unto my brethren : in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee (quoted in Heb. ii. 12 as a sequel to Jesus' sufferings as the Son of man). For God hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted ; neither hath he hid his face from him : but when he cried unto him, he heard.' It may even be that Jesus was only beginning to recite to himself a favourite psalm, as a counteractive giving relief to the tension in the final paroxysm of his Passion, and intended to go on to the trustful confession of faith to which it rises : but his strength failed, and he said no more that was audible, until aroused perhaps for a moment by an attempt to press reviving drops of sour wine through his lips, as next described (see note on verse 36). Then he rallied, with a supreme effort, his powers of consciousness enough to add 3'et another cry, which Luke records to have expressed the trust in his Father which was as yet unuttered, in the familiar and loved terms of Ps. xxxi. 5 (closely akin to Ps. xxii). This, too, was in a 'loud voice,' with the energy of a supreme effort which seems to have deeply impressed the cen- turion superintending the carrying out of the sentence (verse 39). As Simon of Cyrene may have been the source of the common tradition recorded in Mark and Matthew (with some marks of independent tradition in the latter, e. g. Matt, xxvii. 49), so what Luke adds may have come through a different channel of tradition, 35. Beliold, lie calleth Elijah. There is no sign in the narra- tive that this was other than an innocent misunderstanding, turning on the similarity in Hebrew (or Aramaic) between the word for God and the name of the prophet. The special point of the suggestion may have lain in the connexion which Elijah had with the Messiah in popular belief: but Elijah is also in Jewish legend the stock helper of people in moments of distress and danger. 36. filling- a sponge full of vinegar. The drink offered at this point was 'vinegar,' that is to say, the sour wine drunk by the common soldier and the labourer in the field (Ruth ii. 14). John tells us that a vessel of this was 'set there,' whether for the soldiers' use or expressly for the relief of the sufferers. On this occasion a sponge was dipped in the wine, and put upon a reed (a stalk of hj'ssop, John xix. zg^, and brouglit to his mouth. Let he; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take him down. According to Matthew it is the others standing by, ' the 428 ST. MARK 15. 37, 38- Mk 37 down. And Jesus uttered a loud voice, and gave up 38 the ghost. And the veil of the ^ temple was rent in * Or, sanctuary rest,' who said this. According to Mark it is the man who ran with the sponge; and on his hps the 'let be' might mean, 'let me have my way with this.' He seems to have noticed signs of collapse in the sufferer (cf. end of note on verse 34). 37. uttered a loud voice. Apparently, to judge from Matthew and Luke in particular, different from that in verse 34. Luke supplies the words uttered, 'Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ' (xxiii. 46). gave up the ghost: lit. 'breathed forth' his life, 'expired' fso also Luke). ' Yielded up the spirit ' (Matt), ' bowed his head, and gave up the spirit' (John), are later expressions possibly hinting at a death which was a voluntary laying down of life. Whatever the immediate physical cause of Jesub' death (see John xix. 34 and note there), it was probably accelerated by the intense mental anguish — possibly at the very last by the effort of will put into the loud cry of self-committal to God. 38. the veil of the temple. The temple had two veils or curtains, one before the Holy Place and another before the Holy of Holies. The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of the tabernacle, mentions ' the second veil ' (ix. 3). The curtain intended here is no doubt the one before the Holy of Holies (Exod. xxvi. 31; Lev. xxi. 23). The rending of the veil is reported by all three Synoptists. For a figurative application of the 'veil,' see Heb. vi. 19 ; for a more mystical sense of the rent veil (as Jesus' flesh\ see Heb. x. 20. In Mark, the rent veil certainly symbolizes the effect of Jesus' death. But in what sense? Is it as a symbol that with Messiaii's death, as ' a ransom in place of many' (x. 45\ there was opened a new era in the Covenant with God, the Messianic age of unimpeded personal access of each and all to God in worship, such access as Jiitherto had been reserved for the Hi.^h-priest only, and that but once a year? Another meaning, more directly related to the idea of a supersession of the material Temple system altogether, is favoured by the Jewish Christian Gospel accotdms[ to the Hebrews known to Jerome, to the effect that 'the lintel of the Temple, of marvellous size, fell down in fragments.' This distinctly suggests the coming destruction of the Temple and its worshij), as foretold by Jesus in Mark xiii. 2, and would suit the spirit of that saying upon which was based the charge against him, that he would destroy the temple made with hands and in three days build another made without hands (cf. verse 29). Strangely enough there is also a passage in the ST. MARK 15. 39. Mk 429 twain from the top to the bottom. And when the 39 centurion, which stood by over against him, saw that he * so gave up the ghost, he said. Truly this man was ^' the * Many ancient authorities read so cried out, and gave tip the ghost. ^ Or, a son of God Babylonian Talmud (Joina, ag**), cited by Allen, which contains the idea that the fate of the Temple was foreshadowed about this time : ' Forty years before the fall of the temple, the doors of the temple opened of themselves, until Rabbi Jochanan ben Zaccai rebuked them, saying, O Temple, Temple, why troublest thou thyself? I know that thy end is near.' In the light of all the above, it seems that the rending of the veil of the Temple, a breach within its Holy of Holies, meant in Mark and Matthew a warning from God that the existing external temple system of Judaism was doomed, rather than the more subtly allegoric symbolism of the Epistle to Hebrews. As to the historicity of the event, it may be noted that Luke seems to take it and the reference to the preternatural darkness (verses 44 f.) simply from Mark (his special source may well have passed straight from verse 43 to 46), while it is ignored in the Fourth Gospel, in spite of the fact that its suggestive symbolism would naturally suit that Gospel's thought. Matthew's additional portents, too— a quaking of the earth, a rending of tombs, and a rising of many O.T. saints (xxvii. 51, 52' — also tend to suggest that here Christian tradition, at this crisis in the work of Salva- tion, has become expanded by the symbolic action of the pious imagination, as it dwelt on the momentous significance of the event. 39. the centurion. A Latinism, the usual Greek for it being a different word. He was the officer in charge of the quaternion of soldiers. The name given to him in the apocryphal Acts of Pilate is of no historical value, being given also to the soldier who pierced Jesus' side and the prefect at the execution of Paul in his Acts. saw that he so g-ave up the ghost. The A.V. reads that 'he so cried out, and gave up the ghost.' This resls on inadequate documentary evidence, but is probably true to Mark's meaning. Fur his reference to the manner of Jesus' expiring as having im- pressed the centurion apparently points back to the wonderful energy of Jesus' final crv, in contrast to the languor or coma usual in such cases. Luke, who describes Jesus' last cry as a confident address to God as his ' Father,' traces tlie impression produced generally ' to that which had taken place.' But in any case the 43° ST. MARK 15. 40. Mk 40 Son of God. And there were also women beholding from afar : among whom were both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the ^ less and of Joses, » Gr. little way in which Jesus expired was something entirely foreign to all the experience this soldier had had of similar deaths; and it made so great an impression upon him that he confessed this sufferer to be no ordinary Jew, but ' a righteous man ' (Luke), ' (the) Son of God ' or rather ' a son of God ' (Mark and Matthew). This does not mean acknowledgement of Jesus as the Messiah, but expresses the centurion's sense of something supernatural in the sufferer whose death he had witnessed. The title 'Son of God' would mean no more to a pagan, even if taken up by the soldier from the mouths of the Jewish passers-by who had used it as a synonym for Messiah (Matt, xxvii. 4o\ (Matthew saj's that 'they that were vvith him watching Jesus' joined in this confession, and traces it to the fear excited by the ' earthquake and the things that were done,' xxvii. 54.) 40. also women. These were disciples from Galilee. Apart, at some distance from the cross, they gazed upon the Sufferer and the scene with deeper feelings than those of the centurion. Three are mentioned by name in Mark and Matthew. Mary Mag-dalene : so called from the place to which she belonged, probably the Magdala, now el-Mejdel, on the western side of the Sea of Galilee, at the southern end of the district of Gennesaret. She had been delivered from 'seven demons,' and had become a follower of the Healer, ministering to him of her substance (Luke viii. 2, 3 ; cf. Mark xvi. 9). She is introduced here for the first time by Mark. Mary the niotlier of James the less (or, the little) and of Joses. Joses is probably the same as the Joseph of Matthew. John I xix. 25) speaks of her as ' the wife of Clopas,' and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus. Some take Clopas to be the same as Alphacus, and so make this Mary the mother of the Apostle James, the second James in the lists of the Twelve. But the identification of Clopas with Alphacus is doubtful. In ancient Church history mention is made of a Clopas who was the brother of Joseph and so the uncle of Jesus himself, and father of the Symcon who was president of the mother church of Jerusalem after the death of James the Just (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. iii. 11, 22, 32 ; iv. 22). The term applied to this James, ' the less,' or rather 'the little,' is taken by many to mean 'the younger' or 'less' (as compared with James the brother of Jesus), though often it expresses merely small size. It is used, c. g., to express the fact that Zacchacus was ' little of stature ' (Luke xix. 3). ST. MARK 15. 41-43- Mk 431 and Salome; who, when he was in Galilee, followed him, 4' and ministered unto him ; and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. And when even was now come, because it was the 42 Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, there 43 came Joseph of Arimathaea, a councillor of honourable and Salome. Here found only in Mark, and bj^ him left unexplained, probably as being a name well known among Chris- tians and not shared by any other woman of Jesus' circle. Matthew describes the person here in view as 'the mother of the sons of Zebedee ' (xxvii. 56 ; cf. xx. 20). In the Fourth Gospel the women standing hard by the cross of Jesus are described as ' his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene' (John xix. 25). 41. many other •women. Looking on the cross were not only these faithful Galilean women, who had been constant in their loving attendance upon Jesus and are mentioned by name, but also a band of others of less note, who had followed him on his last journey to Jerusalem. Of the former class Luke in his earlier narrative mentions other two byname — 'Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward, and Susanna ' (viii. 2 ; cf. xxiv. 10). With this group of women Luke now refers also to 'all his acquaintance' (xxiii. 49). XV. 42-47. The Burial of Jesus (cf. Matt, xxvii. 57-61 ; Luke xxiii. 50-55 ; John xix. 38-42 , 42. even was now come : that is, laic afternoon or early evening, the time at the end of the Jewish day, which may be taken rather differently according to the context, i. e. as just after sunset (as i. 32) or shortly before it, as here. See Deut. xxi. 22 ff. for the burial of dead criminals before nightfall (cf. Josephus, Wars, iv. 5. 2^. because it was the Preparation : that is, the preparation for the sabbath, particularlj' from 3 p.m. to sunset (Jos. Ant. xvi. 6. 2). It was, as Mark explains for his non-Jewish readers (cf. Luke xxiii. 54^ the eve of the sabbath, whicli began at sunset, not long after 6 p.m. So the word ' Preparation ' becomes a technical term, used of Fridaj'. The mention of the Preparation is intro- duced in explanation of the action of Joseph ( cf. Luke xxiii. 54). The Fourth Gospel states that the Jews had already taken action with a view to having the body removed before the sabbath began (John xix. 31). 43. there came Joseph of Arimathiea. Ancient Christian writers identified this Arimath^a with the Ramathaim-Zophim in 432 ST, MARK 15. 44,45- Mk estate, who also himself was looking for the kingdom of God ; and he boldly went in unto Pilate, and asked 44 for the body of Jesus. And Pilate marvelled if he were already dead : and calling unto him the centurion, he asked him whether he -"^had been any while dead. 45 And when he learned it of the centurion, he granted the * Many ancient authorities read were already dead. Syr. sin on. already the hill-country of Ephraim (to which Elkanah belonged, i Sam. i. i), which again is identified by some with er-Ram, a place some miles to the north of Jerusalem. But Eusebius, the Church historian, placed it near Lydda (cf. i Mace. xi. 34, ' Lydda and Rathamein '). a councillor of lionoiirable estate : a member of the Sanhe- drin, that is to say, and one of high standing in the body. Matthew speaks of him as 'a rich man' (xxvii. 57) and a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one (John xix. 38). Luke also says that he was * a good man and a righteous,' who had not consented to the ' counsel and deed ' of the Jewish court in condemning Jesus ^Luke xxiii. 5o\ Neither Mark nor Luke implies that Joseph was an actual disciple of Jesus, rather than a man in sympathy with the spirit of his teaching. looking' for the king-dom of God. He belonged to the class of devout, expectant Jews, represented also by Simeon (Luke ii. 25), of whom there were not a few in Jerusalem itself (Luke ii. 38). . boldly went in unto Pilate. The emergency made him rise superior to any risk in the act. asked for the body of Jesus. It was the Roman custom to leave the bodies of the crucified hanging for a length of time, exposed to sun and rain and the attacks of beasts and birds of prey. In the more merciful Jewish law it was expressly ordered that the body of one hung upon a tree should not be left exposed all night, but taken down and buried on the day of suspension (Deut. xxi. 23). 44. Pilate marvelled if he were already dead. Usually the crucified died a lingering death, their sufferings lasting from a day and a half to three days. From John we learn that the legs of the robbers crucified with Jesus were broken at the request of the Jews, in order to hasten death bffore the sabbath began, but that Jesus was found to be dead already xix. 31-33). 45. granted the corpse to Joseph. The word rendered ST. MARK 15. 46. Mk 433 corpse to Joseph. And he bought a Hnen cloth, and 46 taking him down, wound him in the linen cloth, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock ; and he rolled a stone against the door of the tomb. 'granted' conveys the idea of a boon conferred (used only once again in the N.T., in 2 Pet. i. 3). The Greek word for ' corpse' (cf. vi. 29) seems to preserve the hard technical term used in the official permit, softened into ' body ' in the other Gospels. 46. bought a linen cloth. Such an act favours the view that the Passover Day had not yet begun. The Fourth Gospel adds that Nicodemus, Joseph's fellow councillor, also came, bringing with him 'a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight' (xix. 39), and assisted Joseph in removinrj the body from the cross and placing it with the spices in the folds of the linen cloth — binding it with strips of cloth ('swathing' is Mark's word) — according to the Jewish custom for burial (John xix. 40). But this account of an embalming of Jesus' body is not only un- supported by the two forms of earlier tradition in Mark (with Matthew) and Luke, but seems excluded by the preparations for a seemingly similar act by the women, who had watched the hasty and perhaps only provisional proceedings of Joseph and his helpers. Even John xix. 42, 'there, then, owing to the Prepara- tion of the Jews, because the tomb was hard by, they placed Jesus,' seems to suggest that Joseph meant his pious ministry to the dead to be only provisional, as Jesus' friends might wish later to dispose of the body cthcrv^-ise. laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of a rock. Sepulchral chambers of this kind (cf. Isa. xxii. 16) are found in numbers on the south, west, and north-west of Jerusalem. This tomb was a 'fresh ' one, having never been used (Matt, xxvii. 60 ; Luke xxiii. 53 ; John xix. 41), and was situated in a garden near where Jesus had been crucified (John xix. 41). ha rolled a stone. It was usual to close the tomb in this way ; cf. John xi. 38. A large, slab-like stone, more or less circular, moving in a sort of groove, is possibly meant (cf. xvi. 3 f.). (Matthew says that the stone was sealed at the request of the Jews and had a guard set over it, xxvii. 64-66.) At this point Luke has the words 'And it was the day of the Preparation (Friday), and the Sabbath drt w on,' niarg. 'was dawning' — in a meta- phorical sense, for the new day began for the Jews at sunset. This is followed by a verse corresponding to verse 47 in Mark, and the statement that ' they returned (^home), and prepared spices and unguents' for later use. Ff 434 ST. MARK 15. 47—16. 2. Mk 47 And Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses beheld where he was laid. 16 And when the sabbath was past, ""Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome,^ bought 2 spices, that they might come and anoint him. And very early on the first day of the week, they come to the 47. And Mary Magdalene and Mary tlie mother of Joses: two of the three specified in verse 40. Luke speaks generally of ' the women, which had come with him out of Galilee,' as follow- ing Joseph's steps and seeing the tomb and the burial (xxiii. 55). Mark says simply that they 'were observing where he was laid.' Knowing where they could find the loved body when the sabbath was past, they went their way, purposing then to return with the spices and unguents needed for the performance of the last sad offices (Mark xvi. i, Luke xxiii, 56). xvi. 1-8. The Women and the Empty Tomb (cf. Matt, xxviii. 1-8 ; Luke xxiv. i-io ; also John xx. 1-18). 1. And wlien the sabbath was past. That is, after sunset on the Saturday. According to Jewish reckoning it was now the third day after the crucifixion, Friday after 3 p.m., Saturday, and the opening or 'dawn' of Sunday (after Saturday evening: cf. Lk. xxiii. 54 for this use of ' dawn '), including parts of three days. fMary . . . Salome. ^ The oldest form of the Latin version (D k n) omits this specification of those who brought spices, which probably was inserted when Mark's text was divided into lections for reading in church (Salome being added from xv. 4o\ But the verse reall3' goes with xv. 47, not xvi. 2. (Jhey) bouglit spices. Luke writes as if the women had prepared the spices before the sabbath (xxiii. 56). The women are those previously mentioned as having 'beheld' where Jesus ' was laid ' (47). They procure what was necessary to complete what had been done, by embalming the revered body. Compare the account of the burying of King Asa 1:2 Cliron. xvi. 14). Matt, xxviii. I, like xxvii. 61, makes no reference to any purpose other than that of beholding the grave — a trace of independent tradition. 2. very early on the first day of the week. The four Evan- gelists agree in the care with which they note the time. Mark has ' very early on the first day of the week . . . when the sun was risen' ; Matthew, 'late on the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week ' ; Luke, ' on the first day of the wxek, at early dawn ' ; John, ' on tlie first day of the week . . . while it was yet dark.' Probably all these phrases mean that the first streaks of Sunday's dawn were appearing. The one difficulty here is Matthew's ' late on the Sabbath, at the hour when ST. MARK 16. 3. Mk 435 tomb when the sun was risen. And they were saying 3 among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone the first day of theweek (^Sunday) was dawning.' In view of their object, 'to gaze on the tomb,' it seems as if this were in terms of Roman reckoning, even if 'dawning' here means ' opening,' as in Luke xxiii. 54, ' it was the day of the Preparation, and Sabbath was dawning.' On this use of the Greek verb epiphoskeh', see C. H. Turner in The Journal of Theol. Studies, xiv. 188 fT., and F. C. Burkitt, ib., pp. sagflf. Illustration of the Jewish use of the verb ' to dawn ' is afforded by the non-canonical 'Gospel of Peter,' 2, where Herod says in the morning of Friday that ' the Sabbath is dawning,' i.e. drawing on, referring to the time of sunset that evening, when 'the first day of the Unleavened Bread ' was to begin. Yet more striking is the phrasing in section 9, where we read 'and in the night in which the Lord's Da}' was dawning,' i. e. the hours of darkness preceding the Resurrection morning. But, as Burkitt shews (p. 545), Matthew — in writing ' late on the Sabbath '—is not following Jewish reckoning of the ending and beginning of the day, but the Western, which placed it atsunrise rather than sunset. when the suii was risen: but while it was still 'very early.' The word ' early ' is sometimes used of the fourth watch, that is, from 3 to 6 a.m. ; the phrase ' very earlj^' therefore, is relative to that space of time. Mark's first note of lime consequently is to be taken as of a general kind, and means ' as early as they possibly could' (Burkitt). It is, then, probable that Mark here means not full sunrise, but the illumination heralding its appearance, i.e. the hour between ' cock crow ' and ' early morn ' proper '^see xiii. 35 . Thus ' very early' is the same as Luke's 'at early dawn ' (as the Old Syriac renders the Greek there). Andrews notices that at the season of year in question ' the sun rose about half-past five, and it began to be light enough to discenn objects at least half an hour earlier' {The Life of our Lord, p. 598). This reading of Mark is confirmed by the distinction between the time of buj'ing the aromatics in verse i, viz. just after Sabbath ended with sunset on Saturday, and the time of going with them to the tomb in verse 2, viz. at sunrise. Naturally women would hardly attempt to go to a tomb outside the city, and begin such a task as lay before them, when the shades of night were falling or still black. This consideration excludes the theory suggested by Allen, that the translator of an Aramaic Mark mistook the sense of a ^vo^d which might mean ' dawn ' either literally or metaphorically. 3. Who shall roll us away the stone? They knew the way in which it was customary to secure rock-hewn sepulchres, and probably had seen the stone put in its place by Joseph. 436 ST. MARK 16. 4-6. Mk 4 from the door of the tomb ? and looking up, they see that the stone is rolled back : for it was exceeding great. 5 And entering into the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, arrayed in a white robe ; and 6 they were amazed. And he saith unto them, Be not amazed : ye seek Jesus, the Nazarene, which hath been crucified : he is risen ; he is not here : behold, the place 4. looking up : i.e. looking ahead. A graphic touch, true to the hfe. They were now approaching the spot where the tomb was, and their eyes went where their thoughts were already. rolled back. The word means probably that it was ' not rolled right away, but rolled back so as to leave the opening free ' (Swete) : cf. note on xv. 46. for it was exceeding' great. This is added to explain how they were able to see the stone at some distance, and to discern that it was not in the expected position. Mark says nothing of the earthquake or of the rolling away of the stone by ' an angel of the Lord ' which Matthew narrates (xxviii. 2). 5. entering into the tonib : not noticed by Matthew. The Fourth Gospel reports Mary Magdalene as at the sepulchre alone, and gives another train of circumstances (xx. i-io). Luke agrees with Mark, and adds that ' they found not the body [of the Lord Jesus].' they saw a young man sitting on the right side. The 'young man ' is described as 'an angel ' by Matthew. Luke says that in their bewilderment they became aware of ' two men ' standing by them. So in 2 Mace. iii. 26, 33 ' two young men ' appear to Heliodorus, and are described as ' splendid in their apparel.' This precedent may have influenced the source foUow^ed by Luke. in a white rohe. A long robe or stole. Matthew says of the angel that ' his appearance was as lightning, and his raiment white as snow' (xxviii. 3) ; and Luke describes the two men as ■ in dazzling apparel ' (xxiv. 4). Cf. the Transfigured Jesus in Mark ix. 3 and parallels. amazed. The strong word which was used also in ix. 15, xiv. 33, for awed amazement. Luke describes the women as ' affrighted ' and ' bowing' down ' their faces to the eartli.' G. he is risen; he is not here. So, too, in effect Matthew. Luke reports it as a question, ' Why seek j-e the living among the dead?' and the angels remind them of the Lord's words in Galilee (ix. 44 ; cf. xviii, 33) about his death and resurrection (xxiv. 6, 7). ST. MARK 16. 7, 8. Mk 437 where they laid him ! But go, tell his disciples and 7 Peter, He goeth before you into Galilee : there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out, and 8 behold, the place where they laid him I So in Matthew, 'Come, see the place where the Lord lay.' The place was empty ; the body was gone ; that is the thought emphasized here, and more elaborately in John xx. 3-10. *1. But go, tell his disciples. They are not to linger in the wonder and rapture, but to discharge the duty ('go quickly,' Matthew) of being the bearers of the news and of a message to Jesus' disciples generally. and Peter. The special reference !o Peter, broken down by the shock of his own denials, as well as by the death of his Master, appears only in Mark. The words ma}' point to a separate appearance to Peter as recorded in the original sequel. He goeth Toefore you into Galilee. A repetition of words already recorded ( xiv. 28, Matt. xxvi. 32) but having no effect upon the disciples' minds or conduct. It is to be noted, too, that in Matthew (' Lo, I have told you') there is no allusion (as in Mark and Luke) to any earlier saying to this effect, while in Luke the reference is simply to words of Jesus in Galilee about his death and resurrection. All this suggests that the tradition on the point grew up in the Church's tradition gradually (and that Matthew's other source had no such reference in xxvi. 32). there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. The latter clause refers back to xiv. 28. From the former clause we can liardlj' infer that in the original sequel in Mark, now lost (see below), there was only one resurrection appearance to * the disciples' (including Peter) recorded, as is the case in Matthew; for thus far Matt, is not keeping close to Mark's narrative. 8. went out, and fled from the tomb. The word ' fled,' along with what follows, conveys a totally different impression of their state of mind from that implied either in Matthew or Luke (let alone John xx. x8 in the case of Mary). Luke sa3's nothing of fear, while Matthew qualifies Mark's' fear' (not named at all in Matthew's own special matter) by adding ' and great joy.' But ' trembling and astonishment' is all that Mark attributes to the women ; and it is emphasized by the whole verse, which ends ' for they were afraid.' This points to a radical contrast between the Marcan tradition as to the effects of their visit to the tomb upon the women, and their conduct as reflected in the other Gospels, which no doubt became also the prevailing tradition in the Church generally as time went on (j'et with some variations, 438 ST. MARK 16. 8. Mk fled from the tomb; for trembling and astonishment had come upon them : and they said nothing to any one ; for they were afraid. e. g. the account in John xx. i ff. of the first visit of Mary Magdalene alone to the tomb, and her report ' They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we knovir not virhere they have laid him '). trembling and astonishment had come upon them : rather ' possessed them.' ' Trembling,' a word used in the Gospels only this once. ' Astonishment,' //'/. ' ecstasy,' the word used in v. 42 (as also in Luke v. 26; Acts iii. 10). It means the state of being out of one's normal mind, being 'beside oneself from any over- mastering emotion ; cf. iii. 21. So it may mean trance (Acts x. 10, xxii. 171 ; but also any condition in which one loses control of himself. and they said nothing to any one ; for they were afraid. The general effect of this, following on the first part of the verse, is that they lost their heads. This is the one explanation which to Mark could account for what his tradition told touching the action, or rather inaction, of the women after seeing 'the empty tomb.' For the very emphatic words, * and to no one did they say anything,' are too strong to be taken other than absolutely, i. e. as meaning that they held their tongues altogether at the time, even among the disciple circle. This, be it noted, is how the Gospel according to Peter took the verse as a whole. Perhaps too it had the sequel in Mark before it (cf. note on verse 10). But is such silence on the part of the women really credible ? Montefiore states the case quite justly. 'That the occurrence at the tomb should fill them with awe and fear is reasonable enough ; but that, when they joined their friends, they still said nothing seems most peculiar. . . . The only explanation which is possible seems to be that it was known that the disciples were unprepared for what they saw in Galilee. The faith in the risen Messiah owes nothing to the discovery of the emjity tomb. No story of the empty tomb had reached the apostles when that faith was born within them. 'The empty tomb' story grew up afterwards. Hence it had to be explained why the women kept silence ; this is done as well as might be.' Now it must be conceded that Paul's silence in i Cor. xv. 5 ff. as to anything of the kind as bearing on the faith ' Jesus is risen,' does favour such a view. Mark's emphasis, then, on the women's fear, as so disabling as to hinder their carrying out their commission in time to inform the disciples before their hurried return to Galilee (which Mark seems to imply, and probably went on to relate), would be the first form which ST. MARK 16. 8 439 the solution of the difficulty took. Thereafter, to quote Montefiore again, ' when the story of the empty tomb became current and accepted, the need was no longer felt for the silence of the women,' on which Mark had laid such stress. ' Its improbability, on the contrary, became felt. Hence the change in Matthew and Luke.' But this involved reference in turn to the unbelief of the disciples touching the zvonicn^s testimony, such as we find in Luke xxiv. lo f., 22-25, in Matthew (in a partial form only, in xxviii. 17), and in the appendix to Mark (gff.) which we have jet to examine. In Montefiore's statement of the case, however, there is one in- secure element, viz. the assumption that because 'no story of the empty tomb had reached the apostles ' before ' the faith in the risen Messiah ' was born within them in Galilee, therefore there was no such story to tell, and that the whole of it grew up after- wards. In reality another possibility remains open, namely that, while this particular story of the empty tomb grew up afterwards, there was an ' empty tomb ' story to tell from the first, yet such that the women had no special interest in being in anj' hurry to tell it. If what they found on going to the tomb to embalm the body of Jesus, after its all too hurried burial by Joseph, was an empty grave and nothing more — no angel with a message of reassurance as to its meaning, and no commission to deliver it to the disciples — then they may well have stolen away in silence, utterly at a loss what to think of it, and in no mood to hasten to share with others so unwelcome a piece of intelligence. Mean- time the disciples were ' scattered.' ' the shepherd ' having been ' smitten ' down in death, and were making for Galilee in order to escape sharing his fate ; and ere the three women's story of ' the empty grave ' in Joseph's garden reached their ears in Galilee, they had already reached by personal experiences the triumphant faith that Jesus was living, and was therefore risen from the dead. It would be only later, in the course of the controversy with Jewish denial of the Resurrection — as based on those first-hand experiences of Jesus' personal disciples, especially ' the Twelve ' and the larger circle of 'all the Apostles ' (to which Paul himself appeals as the final evidence in the matter) — that apologetic use was made, as in the Marcan form, of the women's experience of ' the empty tomb ' and the angelic witness seated therein. To this the Jews probably replied in terms of the explanation 'his disciples came by night, and stole him away' from Joseph's tomb (Matt. xxviii. 13), which we find worked into the special episode in Matt, xxviii. 11-15, embodying an answer to .^ny such suggestion. But in any case that answer seems to imply the fact of ' the empty tomb' — a point which the Jews could (and had every reason to) disprove, if the belief itself were groundless. Accordingly, while the angelic vision in Mark's story of ' the empty tomb' can fairly 440 ST. MARK 16. 8 be said to have ' grown up afterwards,' it may well be that there was from the first a story of Joseph's emptj' tomb, as seen by the women (unlikely to be invoked as witnesses, rather than men) whose names and object in visiting it Mark recounts so circumstantially and naturally ; and that the disciples nevertheless left Jerusalem without receiving word of it. Of explanations of ' the empty tomb,' on such a theory, the simplest is 'that Joseph had only provisionally put the body in his own vault, and had had it removed to another resting-place before the visit of the women ' (Montefiore) ; but that knowledge of this did not exist in the circles in which the present stories of the fact that the tomb was found empty by the women assumed the forms in which they appear in our Gospels. Of course all this is but one of several hypotheses which may be framed to harmonize the conflicting data of those Gospels touching the matter : but the same is true of any account which faces all the facts fairly and aims at reconstructing from them a consistent narrative. Whatever the ultimate significance of the above representation of the women's conduct (which John xx. i ff. qualifies by its account of Mary's separate case, though this cannot be harmonized with Mark's account of her as one of the panic-stricken women), the effect of the Marcan narrative is that no story of ' the empty tomb ' had reached the disciples when they left Jerusalem. What, then, was the sequel in the original text of Mark ? In Matt, xxviii. i6, directly after the matter added to Mark in verses 10-15, there comes an appearance to 'the eleven disciples' in Galilee (cf. i Cor. xv. 5), on ' the mountain where Jesus had appointed them' (though no mountain had been referred to in the foregoing as the place of meeting). This appears in Matthew as the one and only interview between the risen Jesus and his disciples, and as the occasion of their missionary commission to 'all the nations,' ' until the consummation of the Age.' That im- pression, of course, is not a correct one in view of i Cor. xv. 5-7, where Paul enumerates five appearances (before that to himself), beginning with one to Peter and including two to the twelve, the latter to them as among ' the apostles, one and all ' (i. e. those at the final Commission). But the interview Matthew gives may have been regarded by its author as the fundamental one (as well as the one proper to the local tradition its compiler habitually used), typical of any other appearances to the disciples in a body, and so sufficient for the purpose of completing his Gospel. Matthew's account corresponds at its opening most nearly to the second of the list in r Cor. xv, that to 'the Twelve' (less Judas), but in its latter part (18 ff.) to the last, 'to all the Apostles': and it may ST. MARK 16. 8 441 well be that the two became fused in tradition into one occasion (cf. the similar fusion, as it seems, in Luke xxiv. 36 ff., where both place and time are changed, and in Mark xvi. 14 ff., where 14 and 15 ff. cannot belong to one occasion). Such a process may have gone on elsewhere, and may help to explain the very involved phenomena of the various appearances of the risen Jesus as found in our Gospels, especially as none records as many (yet cf. John XX. 30) as those distinguished, in time though not in place, in Paul's list, which is far the oldest evidence of all. Confining ourselves, however, to Mark's Gospel, which alone concerns us here, an appearance in Galilee to the disciples is clearly foreshadowed in verse 7, and is so far borne out by what Matthew relates of ' the eleven disciples.' This, as we have just seen, has yet earlier support in the fact that such an appearance stands in the Pauline list as the first to a body of disciples col- lectively, though therean appearance to Peter (see below) precedes it. (As to whether this last took place in Galilee or in Jerusalem, Paul gives no hint. The reference to it in Luke xxiv. 34 is perhaps an addition due to i Cor. xv. 5.) Luke's Gospel has no mention of appearances in Galilee. But the source he uses seems already to have confused and combined two appearances to apostles, one in Galilee and the other, a final one, in Jerusalem, into a single interview located in Jerusalem, whence the Ascension which follows it was viewed as having taken place (cf. Acts i. 8-13 and perhaps also the Marcan Appendix, xvi. 14 ff., see below). In any case, even though an appearance to Peter happened in Galilee, before one to the Eleven as a body, this would no doubt be only preliminary to the record of one or more to the Eleven, as fore- shadowed in xvi. 7 and implied by the three other Evangelists (see p. 443\ Accordingly it seems best to picture Mark's Gospel as containing, like our Matthew, an appearance to ' the Eleven ' whom Jesus had speciallj' trained to continue his work, and with the com- mission given to them so to do. The description of that inter- view and its commission may have been somewhat different in the two Gospels, as is the case with their parallel narrative in the earlier part of this chapter. Matthew, at any rate, includes in his account features which seem to belong more properly to the appearance which conveyed the final commission to ' the Apostles one and all,' on a later occasion, according to the Pauline list: and perhaps the original Marcan ending already did the like, if to a lesser degree, unless it recorded both separately. Comparison of the Resurrection Narratives in the Gospels. The tendency to transfer to the occasion of one appearance sayings else^vhere found in connexion with another marks the 442 ST. MARK 16. 8 Resurrection traditions generally, in different circles. Thus the Apostolic commission in Luke is assigned to an appearance in Jerusalem (xxiv. 44-49\ which apparently is treated as one and the same with the first to 'the eleven and those with them' (33-43), gathered on the evening of the Resurrection day itself (13 ff.). Similarly it is to that same appearance, on the evening of the first Sunday, that the Fourth Gospel assigns the Apostolic commission, ' Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' &c. (xx. 19-23) ; while it is only in ch. xxi, which seems an appendix added some- w^hat later to the completed Gospel, that any allusion is made to an appearance in Galilee, described as ' the third time that Jesus was manifested to the disciples ' as risen. This appearance to Peter and six other disciples is perhaps (as Prof. C. H. Turner has argued in The Journal of Theological Studies, xiv. i8iff.) the basis of a somewhat similar scene in The Gospel of Peter, at the point where our fragmentary MS. of it breaks off abruptly ; or its account may be based on local tradition, if not on the original sequel to Mark xvi. 8. But the fact that the Fourth Gospel places this Galilean appearance only after two in Jerusalem, on the first and second Sundays following the Crucifi-xion, shews how different are the types of tradition touching resurrection appearances which lie behind our four Gospels. Of these two types of tradition — that in Matthew, and originally (as has been argued) in Mark also, and that in Luke and John xx. — the superior claim of the former or Galilean type to priority is suggested both by the earlier date of its authorities and by the internal difficulties implied in the narrative as given by Luke's Gospel, with the decisive Apostolic Commission as given in Jerusalem, apparently on the first appearance of all (a view withdrawn by Luke in Acts i. 3\ As regards the Fourth Gospel, moreover, the special case of the Apostle Peter is there dealt with, not before that decisive general commission (as implied by I Cor. XV. 5-7, and as inherently appropriate), but as a sort of appendix ; and in it this Galilean episode is explicitlj' assigned a position subsequent to the two Jerusalem appearances (xxi. 14), as though with the purpose of correcting anotlier conception oi m&\Xers as between the two types of tradition. But the evidence of Luke, the other and earlier witness to the same type of tradition — which makes Jerusalem rather than Galilee the scene of resur- rection appearances — first claims notice, as coming nearer in date to the Marcan Gospel. The Lucan evidence exists in two forms, at the end of Luke's Gospel and at the opening of Acts ; and, most significantly, the latter tnodifies the imprfssinn conveyed by the former. For while Luke xxiv leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee, since it places its single one, to 'the Eleven' and their companion disciples, in Jerusalem and on tlie night of the first Lord's Day, ST. MARK 1 6. 8 443 it is othenvise with Acts i. 2 ff. The secret of the involved and obscure narrative there given lies probably in the fact that its author is correcting the representation contained in his earlier account, in the light of the other stream of tradition. For he ([) summarizes what he had there described, viz. 'the day in which Jesus \vas received up. after giving commandment to the apostles whom he had chosen ' ; (2) adds that * he also presented himself to them, 'alive after his passion, by many sure evidences, becoming visible to them at intervals over forty daj's, and speaking the things touching the Kingdom of God ' ; (3) returns to the occasion already alluded to in (i), in order to set it now in its proper historical perspective, namely as following on the whole series of occasional appearances alluded to in (2) but ignored in Luke xxiv. Accordingly it looks rather as if Luke, already when he wrote his Gospel, knew Mark's Gospel without its true ending (see below"), and only later became convinced by fresh evidence, oral or written (e.g. by Paul's list in i Cor. xv), of appearances other than the ones he records in ch. xxiv (see Acts i. 3). Indeed Prof. C. H. Turner holds strongly {loc. cit., p. 162) ' that the First Evangelist' also 'only knew the Second Gospel as we know it ourselves, shorn of its conclusion.' And this seems to be the best view. If, then, the original conclusion of Mark's Gospel, in proper historical sequence to what precedes in xvi. 1-8, did not run on lines similar to those of Matt, xxviii. 16 ff., can we infer its nature from any other evidence? Perhaps we can, if we may use the fact that the appearance in John xxi is given as the first in Galilee (^though 'the third' in all, relative to the two assigned to Jeru- salem, V. 14). There Jesus appears quite unexpectedly (contrast Matt, xxviii. 16) to Peter and a small group of fellow disciples (so in 'the Gospel of Peter', but with other, perhaps only two, comrades named), not to the Eleven Apostles as a body. If this was the case in the immediate sequel to Mark xvi. 8, we have at once a strong reason for its suppression, as inconsistent with what was now becoming the dominant tradition, which Matthew em- bodies, in favour of an expected and formal first appearance in Galilee to the Eleven. Next, the appearance in John xxi was under conditions admitting of ' eating and drinking ' (cf. Acts x. 41) with the risen Jesus vv. 9-13), as likewise in Luke xxiv. 42, where too the 'broiled fish' suits the Lake-side better than Jerusalem, and so points back to a more original form of underlj'ing tradition. On such lines, then, we may best conceive the setting of the original Marcan tradition as to the first appearance of the risen Jesus to his disciples in Galilee, as foreshadowed in xvi. 7. But there was also, no doubt, more concrete detail of the Marcan t3^pe associated with this, descriptive in the main of the disciples' lack of faith then as before, perhaps also of a humiliating 444 ST. MARK 16. 8 confession on Peter's part and his restoration by the Master (John xxi. 15 ff., esp. verse 17, may preserve an echo of it). This in turn would be followed by a meeting with the Eleven, where their slowness of belief in the Resurrection was verj' faithfully set forth. Here was matter which a growing sentiment in the Church (especially in Anlioch, cf. the local Gospel of Matthew, e.g. xvi. i7fi'.) preferred to pass over in silence. Such suppression of its closing paragraphs seems the only adequate explanation of the abrupt ending of Mark's Gospel just at the point where it breaks off. The hypothesis of accidental loss of the end of the MS. roll which contained it will hardly do ; still less Allen's suggestion that this Gospel alwaj's ended thus, seeing that an Aramaic original (for which he argues) cou'.d close with ' for they were afraid ' without stylistic impropriety, such as tells against it as a concluding clause in Greek. The difference of treatment in the case of Matthew in spite of its clash with the first two written forms of the other tradition, that appearance to Apostles took place in Jerusalem (Luke and John), was probably due, not so much to supposed direct apostolic authorship as to the fact that this Gospel did not clash as sharply as Mark, but softens even its reference to the first doubts of Apostles bydistinguishing among those who on the mountain 'worshipped' certain onlj' who ' stood in doubt.' That the above suppression of the original ending of Mark's Gospel took place very early, in fact possibly even before it had been used by the author of Matthew and had in local opinion been superseded by this fuller and more edifying account of the words as well as deeds of Jesus the Christ, is probable from the very fact that no copy containing this ending has left any direct trace in subsequent tradition. Further, that the fresh ending in our Mark xvi. 9 ff., composed mainly on the lines of Luke's two Evangelic narratives, was not added directly after the loss of the original one, is proved by the absence of xvi. g ff. from the most ancient of our authorities; while certain others contain a much briefer alternative ending. To the details of these phenomena we now proceed. Later endings to Mark's Gospel. (a) The Longer Ending : xvi. 9-20. These last verses of the traditional text followed b}' the A.V. are absent from our oldest copies (the earliest form of the Old Syriac, the Old Latin MS. >&, Origen, Eusebius, our two fourth century ST. MARK 16. 9-20 445 Greek MSS., Jerome, and others: see Westcott and Hort. The N. T. in Greek, ii. 45, for the evidence in full). Moreover, in the MSS. containing 'the shorter ending' (,b), .the longer ending, where it exists at all (not in /t\ follows on the shorter, so suggesting that the latter originally stood alone in certain regions, as the supplement to make good an obvious defect in the text hitherto current there. The longer ending is in fact a mosaic made up of materials from various sources, some of which we can trace with assurance, some more doubtfully. The former include Luke's two writings in particular. Its secondary nature appears also from the lack of continuity with what precedes both in contents and in style, in which it contrasts strongly with the Marcan Gospel as a whole. A notable and seemingly very early feature of this Appendix, as it has been called, is its emphasis on the disbelief 0/ the disciples towards the reports of those who had seen the risen Jesus — a feature elsewhere most characteristic of Luke's Resurrection narratives. This note recurs in all the three paragraphs here recording appearances. In this it goes far bej-ond what even Luke sajs : see ir, 13, 14. This fact is of moment for the stand- point and motive of its author in adding the section ; his interest, that is, reveals itself as being didactic rather than historical. As Sir A. F. Hort saj-s, he shews a strong desire ' to point a moral ' (e.g. 'and he upbraided them'^. And this moral seems to be that unhesitating /(?!?// in the Gospel of the risen Jesus — shewn by his resurrection activity to be 'the Lord ' (^ verse 19) of humanity — is incianhent on all who hear that Gospel on the basis of his original witnesses (cf, 16), a moral found also in John xx. ^9. This Appendix on Resurrection Appearances of Jesus, recounted in a definite order, is in fact far more peculiar in its contents and conception than appears at first sight. It seems a mere summary of what we are familiar wilh (for the most part in more detail) in the other Gospels : but on closer inspection it is found to depart from all of them savo Luke at important points, while it goes beyond what we find in any one of them in certain respects, notably for the last of the appearances. There the features additional to the nearest parallel, that in Matt, xxviii. 16-20 (though the occasion is given as different, viz. 'as they sat at meat,' as in Luke xxiv. 36, 42, not on a Mount in Galilee), imply the use of independent tradition, oral or written. They are probably akin to the original ending of Mark, though divorced now fiom its Galilean setting, as in the Lucan type of tradition. But if non-canonical tradition be here the source of the matter parallel to Matthew's narrative, then it is reasonable to suppose that such tradition may be the supplemental source throughout, if, as we shall see, there are disagreements, as well as agreements, with both Matthew and John in the matter additional to Luke. The 446 ST. MARK 16. 9-20 only real point of contact with the Fourth Gospel is in the words ' he appeared first to Mary Magdalene ' (contrast Matt, xxviii. gf., verses which are ignored, if indeed known) ; and it is followed by a description of this Mary in terms of Luke viii. a alone, whereas in John xx it is assumed that she is a well-known figure in the Church. This phenomenon points to an earlier date for our Appendix than that of John xx, or at any rate loan author whose mind shared the Lucan way of looking at things. But further, while verses 10 f. are close to Luke xxiv. 1 1 as regards the hope- less and unbelieving attitude of the disciples, they are out of accord with John xx. 2-10, 18. Probably, therefore, they repre- sent an earlier stage of the tradition (perhaps in the same region) of a special appearance to Mary Magdalene than that in the Fourth Gospel. As to origin, Westcott and Hort {The N. T. in Greek, ii. 47-51) argue that this paragraph was not written specially for its present position, but that ' a scribe or editor, unwilling ... to add words of his own ' to the abrupt ending left by the loss of all after xvi. 8, ' was willing to furnish the Gospel with what seemed a worthy conclusion by incorporating with it unchanged a narrative of Christ's appearances after the Resurrection which he found in some secondary record then surviving from a previous generation ' (p. 51). As the paragraph was known already as part of Mark's Gospel to Irenaeus, and, as it seems, to Tatian also (c. 170) — if not also to his teacher Justin — this would carry back its first composition to well before 150, and most likely to Ephesus ; and if the Acts of Pilate, too, knew it in the same way, its date as part of Mark may well be yet earlier. But those who are not convinced that 'the opening words of verse 9, Now when he was risen early, without Jesus or any other name, imply a previous context,' other than Mark xvi. 1-8, are the freer to seek not only as early a date of origin as this, but one even within the first century, especially if verses 11 and 14 may be viewed as excluding any use of the Fourth Gospel (see notes there). On this shewing, there is no definite reason to question the ascription of this appendix to Ariston, found in the margin of an ancient MS. of the Armenian version of the Gospels (see Intro- duction, § 13). Arist(i)on, as a primitive 'disciple of the Lord,' would be the sort of man to have both the traditional knowledge to add to Luke's information, presupposed above, and the authority enabling him to supply a fresh conclusion to Mark's Gospel with acceptance in some local church, such as Ephesus ; and thence it would gradually spread into wider currency (being added to the shorter ending (^b), where that was already current as the local supplement : see below). On the whole, then, the Appendix seems best accounted for on ST. MARK 16. 9, lo 447 [ a Now when he was risen early on the first day of 9 the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven ''devils. She went and 10 * The two oldest Greek manuscripts, and some other authorities, omit from verse g to the end. Some other authorities have a different ending to the Gospel. *• Gr. demons the theory that it was constructed primarily on the basis of Luke among our Gospels, by some one using also non-canonical traditions (e.g. like that known to Papias, cf. 18 a) at very much the stage represented by Matt, xxviii. 16-20 (which also deals with 'the Gospel' in practice) and prior to that represented by John xx. Further, while Dr. Hort's view, that it was adapted from another writing, has much to commend it (though it would be strange that the fact was not observed and noted in any early Father), it may not be needful, when we take into due consideration that this compiler may have come to his task of supplying a proper ending with a mind full of the Resurrection idea generally, rather than fresh from a perusal of Mark xvi. 1-8 and aiming to carry on its line of narrative. So he takes up the story of the Appearances, which was lacking in Mark as it lay before him, at the same point of time as that already referred to in Mark xvi. 2, Luke xxiv. i — on which had followed only indirect witness to Jesus as risen. This witness he treats as introductory to Jesus' own appearances, the idea of which so possesses his mind — as one familiar also to those for whom he was writing — that he omits to specify the subject of the opening clause and writes, ' Now having risen early on the first day of the week, He (cf. "The Lord Jesus'' in verse 19) appeared first . . . ' The author may be Arist(i)on, writing c. 75-90- xvi. 9-1 r. Appearance of the Risen Lord to Mary : his disciples' unbelief {zL John xx. ir-i8, Luke xxiv. 11). 9. Now when he was risen early on the first day of the week. Note the lack of formal continuity with the foregoing narrative, as well as the absence of any expressed subject of ' appeared ' (see above for its possible explanation). he appeared. The word here used of the appearance of the Risen Jesus is one found nowhere else in the N.T. in this con- nexion. In Luke (xxiv. 34) and in Paul (^i Cor. xv. 5, &c.) the word used is one meaning ' was seen.' first to Mary Magdalene. Compare John xx. 11 ff. But this is inconsistent not only with Mk. xvi. 8, but also with Matthew (xxviii. 9 f.), which therefore was probably unknown to the writer. from whom he had cast out seven devils (or ' demons '). This deliverance is noticed only by Luke, at an earlier stage in his 448 ST. MARK 16. 11-13 told them that had been with him, as they mourned Ti and wept. And they, when they heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, disbelieved. 13 And after these things he was manifested in another form unto two of them, as they walked, on their way 13 into the country. And they went away and told it unto the rest : neither believed they them. narrative (viii. 2^. Here it betrays another hand than Mark's, since this Mary has already been referred to (xv. 40, 47 ; xvi. i) without any such description. 10. them that had been with him: an expression unparalleled in the foregoing narrative, and corresponding most to what we find in Luke xxiv. 19, 33. The phrase 'mourning and weeping' (cf. Luke vi. 25; Rev. xviii. 11, 15, 19) occurs in The Gospel of Peter 7, which may borrow it from this passage (rather than vice versa) or from a source common to both. There is no basis for the idea in John xx. 18. But it is of a piece with ideas in ri, 13, 19. 11. had been seen of her. Tlie word for 'seen' here used occurs now here in the body of Mark's Gospel, though it is found twice (see verse 14) in this Appendix. It is an expressive word like our ' behold,' used several times in a profound, solemn sense in the Fourth Gospel (e. g. John i. 14, 32 ; cf. 1 John i. i, iv. 12, 14). they . . . disbelieved. So Luke reports that the things told the Apostles by the women 'appeared in their sight as idle talk ; and they disbelieved them ' (xxiv. i r) : and this is transferred here to the report of Mary also. It ill accords with the disciples' attitude in John xx. 20, as contrasted with Luke xxiv. 37 f. xvi. 12, 13. Appearance to tivo of the disciples: unbelief of the rest (= Luke xxiv. 13-35% 12. after these thing's he was manifested. The word used here and in verse 14 for 'manifested,' appears in Mark iv. 22, also in John xxi. 14 : cf Barnabas, xv. 9. in another form. Pie was so altered as not to be recognized at first (Luke xxiv. 16). on their way into the country : to ' a village named Emmaus,' as Luke puts it (xxiv. 13). 13. neither believed they them. The same result as before. Luke docs not say so (indeed v. 34 in his present text implies the contrary') : and so it is probable that other tradition is being drawn on. xvi. 14-18. Appearance to the Eleven (cf Luke xxiv. 36-43; Matt, xxviii. 16-20). ' The paragraph,' to the end, 'seems to be ST. MARK 16. 14 449 And afterward he was manifested unto the eleven 14 themselves as they sat at meat ; and he upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was a summary of the various narratives within the writer's knowledge which spoke of appearances ' (Swete) to ' the Eleven.' Here we see, only in a greater degree, that fusing of appearances, or features special to such, which was noted above as found in our Gospels themselves. As Sir A. F. Hort observes, the charge (15-18) agrees generally with that recorded in Matt, xxviii. 16-20, but is obviously not taken from it. The circumstances, 'as they sat at meat,' conflict with Matthew's meeting on 'the mountain ' in Galilee, agreeing more with Luke xxiv. 41-3, and John xx. 19. 14. Here again we have special affinity with Luke, but along with a certain difference as regards the unbelief of ' the eleven,' which is once more described as unbelief towards those who had seen Jesus. The scene seems still to be Jerusalem. as they sat at meat. This agrees in effect with the narrative of Luke, which states that Jesus took a piece of broiled fish (which suggests the Lake of Galilee as the original scene) and ate it before the Eleven : yet it goes beyond Luke in the next sentence. upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart : rather ' reproached their unbelief.' The verb used implies a stronger sort of censure than that elsewhere attributed to Jesus in relation to the disciples. becaiise they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen : cf. 11, 13. This has no real parallel in our Gospels in spite of Luke xxiv. 38, 41. In John xx. 25-29 ' the doubt is impersonated in Thomas alone ' (Menzies), as distinct from his brother disciples as a body (cf. Matt.)— a distinction which our compiler could hardly have ignored had he known of it. As it is, he seems unembarrassed by the unbelief of the Apostles as such, but treats it rather as a typical instance of human ' unbelief and hardness of heart,' like that against which he goes on to record the Lord's warning in v. 16, addressed to all who may hear the Gospel of the Risen Saviour. But, as time went on, the disciples' unbelief exercised the mind of the sub-apostolic Church a good deal, and it became softened down as in Matthew and the Fourth Gospel. Later on still the effort was made to supply some apology for what seemed the strange fact, in men such as the Apostles. Jerome tells us that there was 'in certain MSS., especially Greek ones,' an insertion after the above words which he quotes in part ; and the full text of it has recently come to light in an early Greek MS. (the 450 ST. MARK 16. 15, 1 6 15 risen. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, 16 and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that 'Freer' MS. W, of the fifth or sixth century). ' And they began to excuse themselves, saying, " This Age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who by the agency of the unclean spirits suffereth not the true power of God to be apprehended (so Jerome ; or " the truth of God to take to itself power"). Therefore reveal forthwith thy righteousness." So said they to the Christ. And the Christ addressed them, saying, '' The limit of the years of Satan's authority is already completed ; but there are at hand other dread things, even for those on behalf of whom in their sin I was delivered unto death, in order that they might turn unto the truth and no lon^iersin, that the^' might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness in heaven." ' This insertion, which is in a different style from our appendix itself, is almost certainly taken from some early second century Christian writing (compare the use of tlie ' Preaching of Peter ' in the Shorter Ending, below). When, however, we consider its contents closely, it becomes doubtful whether the subject of this Apostolic ' apology ' in its original context i, before insertion in the Appendix to Mark) was their own unbelief, so much as the difficulty ' the truth of God ' had in gaining power over men's minds under the conditions of the present evil 'age'. In fact this was probably their excuse for not going forth to preach the Gospel in their Master's name '.the idea of the Preaching of Peter, which may thus be the actual source of the words here adapted to a rather different use). 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole ci-eation. The rebuke passes into a commission, with a strange abruptness which suggests a fusion of different traditions ; and this is largely paralleled by Luke xxiv. 38 45 and 46-9. Further, during Jesus' earthly ministry the commission of the Twelve had been limited to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, S.amaritans and Gentiles lying outside its scope (Mark vii. 27, Matt. xv. 24). The commission to the Apostles now obtains enlargement (cf. xiii. 10) : cf. Matt, xxviii. 19, 'Go ye, then, and disciple all the Nations.' preach the gospel to the whole creation : rather ' to all mankind,' according to a Jewish usage of the term ' creature ;' so Didache, xvi. 5, 'Then the creation of men shall come unto the fire of testing,' and Pirke Aboth, i. 13, 'be . . . loving mankind' (lit. 'the creatures'). For the idea of 'preach the Gospel' to 'all the world,' cf. Mark xiv. g, as well as Matt, xxviii. 19. 16. He that helieveth and is baptized shall be saved. For ST. MARK 16. 17, 18 451 disbelieveth shall be condemned. And these signs shall i-^ follow them that believe : in my name shall they cast out * devils ; they shall speak with ^ new tongues ; they 18 shall take up serpents^ and if they drink any deadly thing, * Gk. de7?io:!S ^ Some ancient authorities omit new the thought, cf. Acts ii. 38-41 ; for the phrasing, Acts xvi. 31 ; also Rom. x. 9. For the negative aspect which follows, ' he that disbelieveth,' cf. John iii. 18. ' It was probably this idea [i. e. belief and unbelief] which in the writer's mind made the con- nexion between 15-18 and what has preceded' (Sir A. F. Hort). 1*7. these signs shall follow them that toelieve. The promise has the widest extension, to all believers, not only to teachers or to the Eleven. The powers in question were to be 'signs,' con- firming their word and work, cf. v. 20. For the word ' signs,' cf. xiii. 22, and for the idea, Acts iv. 30, v. 12. in my nam.e shall they cast out devils (or ' demons ') : cf. iii. 16, ' to have authority to cast out demons.' ' In my name ' here is equivalent to 'authorit3'' there : cf. the use of Jesus' name as 'authority' in the case also of the Seventy in Luke x. 17-19. Others, too, who were not declared disciples of Jesus, had been seen casting out demons 'in' his 'name '(Mark ix. 38). The Book of Acts records the exercise of such power by Philip in Samaria (viii. 7) and by Paul at Philippi (xvi. 18, cf. xix. 15). they shall speak with [newj tongues. The word 'new,' which is of considerable importance in the interpretation of the gift, is of uncertain authority. If genuine, it would mean the same as 'other' tongues in Acts ii. 4, and probably in the sense there defined in verses 6 ff., referring to foreign languages. But there the meaning was originally (as Peter implies in verses 15-18) a sort of ecstatic or rapt utterance, a spontaneous language of emotion (as in Cor. xii. 19, xiv) ; and so probably here also. ' Speaking with tongues ' is first heard of on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 4-11), and again in the cases of Cornelius and his friends (Acts X. 46) and of certain disciples at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6). 18. shall take up serpents. Compare the case of Paul at the island called Melita, our Malta :^Acts xxviii. 5% So Jesus is said to have given the Seventy ' authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy ' (Luke x. 19). if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them. Nothing of this kind is recorded in the N. T. But there was a famous case current in sub-apostolic tradition, which reached the early writer Papias through ' the daughters of Philip the Apostle ' (see Philip of Side, who is fuller than Eusebius iii. 39 in his report of the whole matter", that Barsabas, ' called Justus 452 ST. MARK 16. 19 it shall in no wise hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken unto them, was received up into heaven, and sat down at the (Acts i. 23), when put to the test b^' unbelievers, drank snake's poison in the name of the Christ and was preserved scatheless.' The circumstances of this event exactly suit the context in which the present allusion to such * signs ' occurs, they shall lay hands on the sick. The Apostles received power for healing the sick from Jesus during his ministry (e. g. vi. 13). The 'Gifts of healing' are referred to both by Paul (i Cor. xii. 9, 28) and in James v. 14, 15. In the Book of Acts, too, we read of them in v. 12, ix. 12, xxviii. 8. xvi. 19, 20. The Ascension ;cf. Luke xxiv. 53 ; Acts i. 3-12 ; see also Rom. viii. 34 ; Heb. viii. i ; i Pet. iii. 22). 19. So then the Iiord Jesus. This designation ' the Lord Jesus' occurs frequently in Acts, e.g. i. 21, iv. 33, and is used at times by Paul (e.g. i Cor. xi. 23, xvi. 23). This is the only distinct occurrence of it in tlie Gospels, the case in Luke xxiv. 3 being very doubtful (see R. V. margin). It is an early type of phrase, and favours a fairly early date for this Appendix {c. a. d. 80-100). after he had spoken unto them : i. e. immediately after he had spoken the words recorded in the preceding verses. For the conception is most probably derived from Luke xxiv. 51, Acts I. 9, where that is the case. The verse is referred to by Irenaeus, c. 180 {Against Heresies^ iii. 10. 6), as part of the end of Mark's Gospel. was received up into heaven: cf. Luke xxiv. 51. This is the only occurrence in the Gospels of the word here rendered 'received up.' It is used again of the Ascension in Acts i. 2, 11, 22 (cf. I Tim, iii. 16), whence it was perhaps adopted. In the fuller account given in the Third Gospel we are told how Jesus led the disciples out ' until they were over against Bethany ; ' and how, while he was in the act of blessing them, he ' parted from them and began to be carried up into heaven ' (Luke xxiv. 50, 50- and sat down at the right hand of God : rather ' on the right side ' (see below). Here our author, as Swcte says, ' passes beyond the field of history into that of Christian theology. The belief that the risen and ascended Ciirist ' ' sits "or " stands " at the Right Hand of God is one of the earliest and most cherished of Christian ideas (Rom. viii. 34, Col. iii. i, Eph. i. 20; Heb. i. 3, viii, I, X. la, xii. 2 ; i Pet. iii. 22, Rev. iii. 21), , , , and it is not ST. MARK 16. 3o 453 right hand of God. And they went forth, and preached 20 everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word by the signs that followed. Amen.] unlikely that the writer has adopted here a primitive formula ; ' compare the creed-like hymn quoted in i Tim. iii. 16, ' was received up in glory.' Acts ii. 34 f., David ' himself saith, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies the footstool of thy feet ' (the fulfilment of which, Peter argues, proves ' that God hath made both Lord and Christ this Jesus whom ye crucified '), shews both the source and the very early Christian use of this conception (cf. Heb. i. 13). It may indeed have been suggested by Jesus' own application to himself of the very passage (Psalm ex. i) there cited, on two memorable occasions, explicitly in xii. 36, and virtually in xiv. 62 (comp. * on the right side of the Great Power' in the mouth of James, in Hegesippus, ap. Eus. ii. 23 : see Luke i. 11, xxiii. 33, Acts ii. 25, Matt. xx. 21, 23, xxv. 33 f., for the Biblical or Jewish Christian nature of the idea, apart from the particular phrase). The exact Greek of the Psalm, i.e. 'on the right side,' rather than ' at the right hand ' (as in the Epistles), recurs here, as also in Acts vii. 55 f., the earliest use of the whole phrase other than in quotation ; and it is that of the earliest Creed-like uses of the phrase, e.g. Polycarp To the Philippians, ii. i, 'having given him glory and a seat (throne) on the right side . . . who is coming as judge of living and dead.' So also, rather significantly, in the Jewish Christian Ascejtsion of Isaiah, probably off. a. d. 68-100 : 'Thou (the Lord Christ) shall ascend in glory and sit down on My right hand side ' (x. 14). Two early MSS. substitute ' at the right hand ' in our verse, probably because this became in time the more usual phrase in creeds. 20. they went forth, and preached : the same phrase as in vi. 12. Not, however, at once, as the words, if they stood alone, might mean. It is a summary statement, no doubt meant to cover what the writer knew from the Book of Acts, where the Apostles were instructed to tarry in Jerusalem until they should receive ' the promise of the Father,' the gift of (the) Holy Spirit, and where they did wait as they had been told (Acts i. 4, 12, &c.). everywhere : the outlook of Acts and the later Apostolic Age. So the Epistle of Clement, 42, ' the Apostles . . . went forth preaching as Gospel (lit. ' Evangelizing ') that the Kingdom of God was about to come.' Justin Mart3'r, Apology, i. 45, seems actually to use our passage : ' From Jerusalem the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere.' the Iiord workiug^ with theiu : i. e. ' the Lord Jesus ' of 454 ST. JNIARK 16. 20 verse 19. The idea is that of Acts i. i. ' What Jesus began to do and to teach,' until his own ministry ended, was carried on through his 'Apostles,' as recorded in Acts. confirming' the word. This term ' confirming ' occurs no- where else in the Gospels. It is used repeatedly', however, in the Epistles (Rom. xv. 8 ; i Cor. i. 8 ; 2 Cor. i. 21 ; Col. ii. 7 ; Heb. xiii. 9). The most striking parallel, both in form and idea, is Heb. ii. 3f., where the author refers to the Christian 'Salva- tion, which, having at the first been spoken through the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by manifold powers.' This passage, if not actually in our writer's mind, at least bears out by its similarity of idea the early date of so kindred a piece of writing. (b) The Shorter Ending. ' But all that had been enjoined they reported concisely to Peter and his companions Jt't. "those about Peter"). And after these things Jesus himself also appeared to them, and from East even to West sent forth through them the sacred and incorruptible proclamation of eternal salvation.' Thisendingoccurs in four uncial MSS.rangingfrom the seventh to the ninth century, the Old Latin k, and tlie marginofthe Harclean Syriac, besides some copies of the Egj'ptian and Ethiopic Versions. The addition once concluded the Gospel in some region, as is implied by the Anicn at its close. Its language has striking affinities with the Homily known as 2 Clement, which dates from about a. d. 120-30, and hails possibly from Alexandria. Here, then, we may imagine the Shorter Ending as originating some time in the first half of the second century, before the Longer Ending \vas known there, though later it also came to be added to the shorter one as anotlier current supplement (so in the four uncial MSS. referred to above). Westcott and Hort {Notes, p. 44) observe that its author ' completed the broken sentence' in verse 8 ' by a summary of the contents of St. Luke xxiv. 9-12, and the Gospel by a comprehensive sentence suggested probablj' by Matt, xxviii. 19, Luke xxiv. 47.' Tliis is true as far as it goes. But there is a i'lirther possibility, or rather probability, that the suggestion of the final comprehensive sentence came immediately from an apocryphal writing dealing with 'the Proclamation' {Kerygma) entrusted by the Risen Christ to ' Peter and his circle,' viz. the so-called * Preaching (/i'f>3'^;;;rt^ of Peter ' (already referred to in connexion with an insertion after verse 14), a piece of missionary propaganda composed c. J 20-30, and that the sentence is largely in terms of this writing. The authorities for this Ending, and its style, both point to an origin in Alexandria. INDEX Abrahams, I., 83, 92, 140, 287. 336 f., &c. Ages,' the two, 91. 93 f., loi. Alexander and Rufus, 6, 421. Allen, W. C, 19, 151, &c. Antioch and Mark's Gospel, 36 ff. 'Apocalypse, the Little,' 349 ff. Apocah-ptic, 45 f, 54, roi, 128 ff., 348 ff. Apostles,' 197, cf. 148. Appendix to Mark, 444 ff. Aramaisms, in Mark, 21, 27 f, 34. 36, 88, 104, 425 f. Arist(i)on, 43. 446 f. [Ascension of Jesus], 452 f. Bacon, B. W., 11, 14, 19, 37, 42, S:c. Banus, 86. Baptism, John's, 81 ff., 98, 368. — of Jesus, 88-95. Bath-Qol, 92. Beelzebub, 152. Bethany, 31T, 316, 372. Bethsaida, 205 f , 244. ' Blessed, The,' 407. Blindness, 245. Bradley, W. S., 252 ff. Brethren of Jesus, 157. Bruce, A. B., 30, 48, &c. Burkitt, F. C, 31, 66, 138, 144, 286, 325, &c. Caesarea Philippi, the crisis at, 24, 48, 64, 247. Capernaum, 106. Catechcsis, 15, 17, 102, Charles, R. H., 93, &c. Chief priests, 250, 320, 401 ff. Christ, see Messiah. Christians, their lot, 15, 38 f., 255, 353 ff- Christology of Mark, 45 ff. Christs, false, 352, 360. Clement of Alexandria, 10, 35. Corban, 218 ff. Covenant, the, 388. Cross, 255, 422 f. — bearing of, 255, 422. — forms of, 423. Cup, 304, 384-7. Dalmanutha, 241. Decapolis, 178. Demon, history of word, 115. Demoniacal possession, 108, 113 f. Denney, J., 22 n., &c. Didache, The, see leaching. ' Disciples,' 105. Divorce, 287 ff. Edersheim, Dr., passim. Enoch, Book of, 128, &c. Eschatology in Mark, 41 L, 347 ff- — in Tesus' mind, 65 f., 259, 349 ff., 368 f. Essen es, 85 f. ' Eternal,' 155 ff., 293. Eusebius of Cassarea, 9 f., 41, passim. Fasting, 134 ff. Father, as name of God, 323. Feedings, the two, 204, 236, 238 ff. 456 ST. MARK Fire, unquenchable, 283 f. Flesh, the, 396. Food as ' defiling,' 221 ff. Galilee, 98 f. — sea of, 103. Gennesaret, 208. Geography in St. Mark, 37, 52. Golgotha, 422. Gospel, use of word, 75, 77 f., 99 f. — and the Gospels, 11 ff. — in Isaiah, 76 f., 79 f., &c. Gospel ace. to the Hebrews, 90, 142, 293. — 0/ Peter, 5, 435, 438, 442 f., 448. Halachah, 213, 215 ff. Hawkins, Sir J. C, 95, (Sec. Healings, 95, 235, Heart, 224. Hell, 283. Hermon, Mt., 247, 260. Herod Antipas, 192 ff., 243. — Philip, 194. Herodiaiis, 144, 329. Hippolytus, 5, 37. Historicity of Mark's Gospel, 50 ff Holy One of God, 109 Holy Spirit, 87, 355. — descent on Jesus, 91. — blasphemy against, 155. Hort, Sir A. F., 199, 26B, 445, 449) 451) &c. Hosanna, 314 f. Idumsea, 146. Immortality, Jewish views of, 333 f- Irenaeus, 6, 10, 35, 41 f., [452]. Iscariot, 151. Jerusalem, fall of, 348, 356 ff. Jesus, as God's laff., 25. Evangelist, Jesus, as Messiah, 12 f., 32, 44, 57, 78,9of-,249, 314^-) 34^ f-, 407 f. — his ' Messianic Secret,' 55 f. — Appearances of, 440 ff. — [Ascension of], 452 f. — Baptism of, 88 ff. — - Betrayal of, 376. — limited knowledge in, no, 341, 365 f. — Passion, see s. v. — Resurrection of, 438 ff. — Temptation of, 75 ff. — Transfiguration of, 264 ff. — Trial, 402!', 414. John the Baptist, 16, 39, 75 f., 81 ff., 193 ff., 269. — the Apostle, 105, 150, &c. — the Presbyter, 9, 36. Josephus, 83, passim. Judaism and the Gospel, 136 ff., 2or ff., 226 ff. — in our Mark, 14, 52 f., 212 ff. Judas Iscariot, 151, 376 f., 399. Justin Martyr, 10, [453]. Kennett, R. H., 386, 388, 390. Kiddiish, 381 ff. King of the Jews, 415, 423. Kingdom of God, 14 f., 24 f., 56, ^3) 66, 76 ff., 89, 100 f., &c. Latinisms, 27, 38, 419, 429. Law, the, 210 ff., 290, 336 f. Leprosy, 118. Levi, 130 f. Life, eternal, 155 ff., 256, 293, 299. Luke, his Preface, 18 n., 40. — sources of, 19. Mark, person and author, 6ff. — relation to Peter, 6-1 1, 52. — relation to Paul, 6-8, 40, 164. — as eye-witness, 7, 379 f., 401. — Gospel of, nature and value, 3 f., 66 ff INDEX 457 Mark, ancient testimonies, 4-6. — sources, i6ff. — plan and method, 24 f. — language and style, 27 ff. — characteristics, 29 ff, — compass and contents, 23 f. — date, 41 f. — destination, 34 ff., 345. — 'realism,' 30 f., 48. — aim, 38 ff. — integrity, 42 f. — ending's, 43 f., 444 ff. — not a biography, 47, yet see 67 f. — not ' history ' proper, 50. — its historical setting, 52 ff. — psychological data, 64 ff. — relations to Matthew and Luke, 25 ff., 66 ff. — Literature on, 68 f. Matthew, his Logia, 9, 18. Medicine, Jewish, 113, 192. Menzies, Dr., 38, 113 f., &c. Messiah, see Jesus. 'Messianic Secret,' 55!. Meyer, E., 22 n. Miracles, 108, 1230., 179, i8i, 185 f., 188 f., 202 ff., 207 f., 274 f. Montefiore, C. G., 226 ff., &c. Moses as type of Christ, 264 f. 'Most High God,' 175. Moulton, J. H., 27 f., &c. ' Mountain, the,' 147. Muratorian Canon, 10. Mystery, 162 ' Name,' use of term, 278 f. Nazarasans, 90. Nazareth, 88. Oil, anointing with, 192. Olives, mount of, 311, 390. Papias, 4, Bff, 35 f., 304. Parable, Jesus' use of, 153, 158 ff. Parousia, 347 f. Passion, the, 13, 39, 49 f , 58 ff., 249, 302. Passover, 370. Peter, behind our Mark, 8- 11, 17, 21, 38 f. — Epistle of, 38 f. — The Gospel of, 5, 130, 442, 448. — The Preaching o/, 450, 454. Pharisaism, 52 ff., 135, 210ft., 218 ff, 226 ff., 326 f. Pharisees, 132 f., 241 f. Philo, 92. Pilate, 414 {. Prsetorium, 420. Preaching, 12 f. Predestination, 162 ff. Preparation, the, 431. ' Publicans,' 131 f. 0, its nature, 19 ff. Ransom, 306 ff., 388 f. Repentance, 81 f Resurrection, doctrineof,252ff., 334 f- Riches, 295 ff. Rome, and Mark's Gospel, 34 ff. Sabbath, 138 ff". Sacrifices, 339. Sadducees, 332 f. Salt, 284 ff. Sanday, W., 58-60. Satan, 95 ff., 153. Scribes, 124. Septuagint, Mark quotes from, 34- 'Servant of Jahweh,' 560., .327- Sign from heaven, 242. Sin, eternal, 155. Sins, remission of, 82f., 123 fl., .154^-, 323- Sisters of Jesus, 181. Son of David, 340 ff. 458 ST. MARK Son of God, 40, 45 f., 56, 58, [75]) 93, 91, 263, 365 f; 407 f. — ofman, 6iff., iz-j S , i4of., 258, 362 f. — of the Blessed, 46, 407. — of Most High God, 175. Soul, 256. Spirit, the (Holy), 87, 91 f. — blasphemy against, 155. — • descent of, on Jesus, 91 f Spittle, use of, 237, 245. Streeter, B. H., 19, 21. Supper, Last, date of, 369 f., 378 ff. Swete, Dr. H. B., passim. Synagogue, 106 f. Synoptic Problem, the, 19 ff. Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 191, 201, 215, 315, 363, 387. Temple, purging of, 57, 3186. ' Third da}', the,' 252 ff. Torah, see Law. Tradition, the Gospel, 14 ff., 284. — Apostolic, 16, 44 f., 47 f., 52, 55, 69, 102, &c. — 'of the elders,' 213 ff. Treasury, 344. Tribute, 329 f. Turner, C. H., 301, 442 f. 'Twelve, the," 148 f., 189 f. ' Unleavened bread, the,' 369 f. Washings, ceremonial, 210 ff. Watches of the night, 206, 368. Weiss, J., 41, 44, 46-50. Wellhausen, 21 n. Women in the Gospel, 374 f., 431- Wood, H. G., passim. World to come, see Ages. X, the nature of, i9ff., 102. Zealot, 151, PETNTED IN GREAT BRITAIN AT THE PRESS OF THE PUBLISHERS. I UNIVERSIl Y OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. t'K IhM) n * V 35m-8.'71 (P634784)-C-120 d