,!i iij i ! i jhjj!|i|!;i l M , , ', I ' I I 'i 'i 1 I !! >i i!i!!!ii:ill:;:',! i:! *2f- THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO M A E K ISXPLAINliD IiY JOSEPH ADDISON ALEXAtfDEK FEW YORK CHARLES SCRIBNER 124 GRAND STREET 1858 Enteeed according to Act of Congress, in the year 185S, by JOSEPJI ADDISON ALEXANDEE, In the Clerk's Offlce of the United States District Court for the District of Now Jersey JOHN F. TROW, Printer, Stereotype], , and Electrotypes, Noa. 377 A 379 Broadwfty, New York. PREFACE It has so long been the habit, both of readers and interpreters, to treat the Second Gospel as a mere abridg ment, supplement, or compilation, without any indepen dent character or value of its own, that some may be surprised to find it here expounded independently of Luke and Matthew, as a history complete in itself, designed to answer a specific purpose and to make a definite impres sion. This is not the result of caprice or accident, but of a strong conviction, dating from an early stage of exeget- ical study, that Augustin's notion as to Mark's dependence upon Matthew, although acquiesced in for a course of ages, is a hurtful error, and that this description applies still more strongly to some later speculations of the Ger man critics. This conviction has been strengthened and confirmed by the whole course of late investigation and discussion on the subject of the Gospels, notwithstanding the tendency of some writers to the opposite extreme of making Mark the oldest of the Gospels, and the basis upon which the rest were afterwards constructed. With out attempting to determine its precise chronological rela tions, there is something in its structure, as described below, whicli makes it eminently fit to give the first impres sion of the Gospel History, and prepare the reader for the study of the other books. This, which has long been the IV PREFACE. writer's practice in academical instruction, he is happy to see sanctioned in one of the latest and best English works upon the Gospels, of which he was not able to avail him self until his own was completed. " The notes on the Gospel of St. Mark will be found to be more full than is tlie case in works with a similar design. These anno tations were written first, with the object of calling atten tion to an independent record which has been treated in some quarters with unmerited neglect, and with the view of relieving the first Gospel as much as possible from a redundancy of notes. We would suggest to those who may put this work into the hands of their pupils at school, that there are reasons why the Second Gospel should be read before any other, as the best introduction to the reg ular and systematic study of the New Testament." ("Web ster and "Wilkinson's Greek Testament, with notes Gram matical and Exegetical. Vol. I. p. 9. London : 1855.) Closely connected with these views is another feature of the plan adopted in the present volume, that of making it complete in itself, and leaving nothing to be eked out or supplied by reference, even to the writer's other publi cations. This will account for the occasional repetition of what he has said elsewhere, as a lesser evil than the irksome necessity of seeking it in places which, to' many readers of the present work, may be unknown or inac cessible. Tlie absence of all reference to other and espe cially contemporary writers, some of whom he highly values and has diligently studied, is partly owing to the want of room, but also to the fact that his design is not to supersede or rival other works upon the subject, but to supplement them by preserving the specific fruits of his own labours in the same great field. Princeton, September 1, 1858. INTRODUCTION. The Biblical History consists of two great parts, contained in the Old and New Testaments respectively. The New Testa ment portion naturally falls into two divisions ; the Gospel His tory or life of Christ, from his birth to his ascension ; and the Apostolical History, from his ascension to the close of the canon. The Gospel History, when measured simply by its chrono logical dimensions, or the space of time included in the narrative, is but a small part of the sacred history, yet fully entitled to the place assigned it, both by its absolute and relative importance. The absolute value of the Gospel History is that arising from the dignity of its subject, as the Life of Christ, in which, to our conceptions, there is nothing little or uninteresting, since all his words and actions are intrinsically great and worthy of attention. The relative value of the Gospel History is that which springs from its connection with the rest, and especially its striking in termediate position, as the winding up of all that goes before, and the foundation of all that follows, so that neither the Old Testament history nor that of the Apostolical Church would, without it, be of any use or intelligible import. But the Gospel History is not more distinctly marked by its subject and its relative position than it is by its peculiar form, in which it is unlike all other parts of Scripture. For although INTRODUCTION. we elsewhere meet with two and sometimes even three parallel accounts of the same events, this is the only case of four such narratives, and these not merely parts or passages of books, but complete and independent histories. But besides the mere plurality or quadruplicity of the ac counts, these four books, when compared, present a singular phe nomenon of striking difference and no less striking likeness. For although the subject is identical, and all exhibit the same Christ, far more harmoniously than Socrates is painted by his two dis ciples, Xenophon and Plato, there is a surprising freedom and diversity, not only in the choice of topics, but in their arrange ment and expression, and an independence in the statement of details amounting sometimes to apparent contradiction ; while in other cases, or perhaps in the same context, there are coincidences of form, even in minute points, too exact and yet too arbitrary to be accidental. It is this combined diversity and likeness which creates both the necessity and difficulty of constructing Gospel Harmonies, i. e. synoptical arrangements of the four inspired accounts in tended mainly to demonstrate their consistency, but partly also to determine the precise chronological succession of events, in which attempt the harmonists have failed as signally as they have been successful in the more important object. The true use of Harmonies, as aids in the elucidation and defence of the four Gospels, as consistent and authentic narratives, has sometimes led to their abuse, as something to be substituted for the books themselves in their original and independent form and even to their absolute amalgamation into one new narrative distinct from all the others, but intended to include and super sede them. This attempt proceeds upon two groundless suppositions ; first, that exact chronological arrangement is essential to the truth of history; and second, that the Gospels, as we have them, are merely crude collections of materials, out of which the history must be constructed by the exercise of human skill and industry • whereas they are themselves complete authoritative histories, INTRODUCTION. Vll which may be usefully compared and harmonized, but which were designed to be separately read until the end of time. If this be so, the quadruplicity or fourfold form of the Gospel History becomes a lawful and interesting subject of inquiry, as to its specific purpose, over and above the ultimate solution, of which all such questions are susceptible, by simp-e reference to the will of G od. The question is not whether God so willed it, which is absolutely certain, but whether he willed it for a definite reason, either partially or wholly ascertainable by us, and if so not without effect upon our methods of interpretation. The fact itself to be explained, to wit, the immemorial exist ence of the Gospel History in the form of four complete books, is attested by the uniform tradition of the Church, which has never recognized as parts of the inspired canon, either more or less than these four Gospels ; nor ever attached any other names to them than those which they now bear ; a testimony only ren dered more impressive by the absence of such perfect unanimity in reference to the order of their composition, and their original relation to each other, which have therefore given rise to various hypotheses of more or less intrinsic probability, intended to ac count for the existence and the several peculiarities of our Four Gospels. In opposition to the view, avowedly or tacitly maintained by some believing writers, and perhaps by most believing readers, that the fourfold form of the Gospel record is a matter of course, or something altogether arbitrary, neither requiring nor admitting explanation, some sceptical critics have attempted to account for it as accidental, by assuming the existence of one or many original gospels, out of which, by various combinations, versions, and abridgments, the canonical Four Gospels were evolved and took their present shape ; a theory refuted by its complicated and gratuitous assumptions, and its total failure either to demonstrate the existence or to explain the disappear ance of the documents, to which it traces the extant gospels. A less extravagant and no doubt partially correct hypothesis is that of an oral gospel, constantly repeated, yet inevitably INTRODUCTION. varied, so as to account for both the likeness and the difference observable between the Gospels even in minute points of arrange ment and expression. The fatal defect, both of this and of the previous suppositions, is that they ascribe the present form of this part of the sacred history to gradual and accidental causes ; whereas all believers in its inspiration must regard that form as an essential feature of the Gospel as divinely planned from the beginning. But even holding fast to this assumption as the only safe one, we may still inquire, what was the specific purpose meant to be accomplished by recording the Life of Christ in four books rather than in one ? The simplest and the most familiar answer to this question is, that the later Gospels were intended to com plete and supplement the others by supplying their omissions. But this only throws the difficulty further back, and leaves it wholly unexplained why there were omissions to be thus supplied, or in other words, why the whole was not revealed at once and embodied in a single narrative, such as some harmonists have since endeavoured to construct. An ingenious effort has been made to solve this difficulty by exhibiting a gradual formation of the Gospels to meet actual emergencies and governed by contemporary causes ; the first Gospel being written to supply the original demand near the close of the first generation, and before the oral tradition was entirely lost, and Matthew being chosen to compose it as the only apostle whose previous occupation had accustomed him to writing ; the second being written to adapt the history to Gentile readers, and at the same time to preserve the vivid reminiscences of Peter ; the third to give it more historical completeness, as a methodical and formal composition ; and the fourth, to counteract corrup tions which had sprung up in the interval between its date and that of the three others. But whatever truth there may be in these suppositions, they are not entirely satisfactory so long as they ascribe the present fourfold form of the Gospel History, if not to accidental yet to providential causes, which are themselves left unexplained. The INTRODfJCTION. ix only possible solution of the problem seems to be .by adding to these plausible hypotheses the obvious assumption, that the four Gospels were intended to present the life and character of Christ in four harmonious but distinguishable aspects, each adapted to produce its own impression independent of the others, yet all reciprocally necessary to secure the aggregate effect intended to be wrought by this part of the sacred history. The Gospels, thus viewed, have been likened to four por traits or four landscapes, all presenting the same objects, but in different lights and from different points of view, and illus trative of one another, yet wholly insusceptible of mere mechan ical amalgamation without utterly destroying their distinctive character and even their intrinsic value. So the Gospels, although really harmonious and equally inspired, are designed to answer each its own specific purpose and produce its definite impression on the reader, a design which would be nullified by blending them together in one narrative, however chronological or skilfully constructed. This view is perfectly consistent with the plenary inspiration of the writers, which did not destroy their individ uality, as may be seen from their peculiar use of words and phrases, often wholly unimportant, but for that very reason the more certainly unstudied and the evident result of personal habit, turn of mind, or special purpose, all controlled but not con founded or destroyed by inspiration, any more than the authority of Moses is impaired because he did not write in Greek, or that of Paul because he did not write in Hebrew. What is true of different languages must needs be true of different dialects and idioms, and even individual peculiarities in the use of one and the same language. The individuality and independence thus evinced by minute peculiarities of language, may be also proved by diversities of plan and method, and apparent reference, in the first instance, to different classes of readers, more especially to Jews and Gentiles, as well as by habitual attention to particular topics or to circum stances of a certain kind, which one systematically introduces and the rest omit. Such are Luke's repeated mention of our X INTRODUCTION. Lord's devotipnal habits, Mark's of his looks and gestures, Mat thew's of the prophecies fulfilled in his history, and John's of the feasts which he attended and his double affirmation (Verily, verily.) Nor is the truth of this view in the least dependent on our own capacity to trace distinctly or completely the specific purpose of each Gospel as distinguished from the rest, or the pre cise impression meant to be produced upon the reader. It is enough to know or to believe, as we have already seen abundant reason to believe, that such a purpose and impression were in cluded in the plan of these divine memorials, which are therefore to be tenderly and reverently handled, not as bundles of historical material to be wrought by us into a definite intelligible texture, but as ready-made authoritative histories, adapted to affect us in a certain manner, when perused as they were written, whether we can account for the effect or not. But while the view, which has been now presented, of the Gospels in their mutual relations and their individual peculi arities, does not necessarily imply that these relations and pecu liarities are clearly traceable by us in all their manifold details, it does imply that each and every Gospel has a character and method of its own, which may be readily detected and described by all attentive readers, and which cannot be entirely neglected without injurious effects on its interpretation, or at least without, obscuring those peculiar traits by which it is distinguished from the rest, and by which alone its separate existence can in any measure be accounted for. It now remains to ascertain how far these conditions are complied with in the second Gospel. On examining the book itself, the following particulars are found to distinguish it from all the others. It is the shortest of the four, although this difference is sometimes overrated in con sequence of measuring it simply by the number of the chapters, which are very unequally divided, and some of which in this book are unusually long. But even when compared with more exactness, it is still below the others in extent of surface. This is no doubt partly owing to another circumstance, by which it is distinguished, and relating more to its internal structure. It INTRODUCTION. XI contains but little that is purely biographical, and is confined almost entirely to our Lord's official life or public ministry. A third peculiarity, less strongly marked, but -also serving to ex plain its brevity, is the predominant attention given to the Sa viour's actions, as distinguished from his words or his discourses, which are not only introduced more sparingly, but almost always incidentally, and as it were in illustration of the acts or incidents with which they were connected. In this respect the second Gospel differs even from the first and third, but still more from the fourth, in which an opposite method is pursued, the incidents and actions seeming to be mentioned only for the sake of the dis courses which they serve to introduce and to illustrate. As a fourth distinctive feature of this Gospel, although really included in the one just mentioned, is the curious and interesting fact, overlooked by undiscriminating readers, but sufficient of itself to show the author's individuality and independence, that to him we owe almost all the hints that we possess in reference to our Saviour's looks and gestures. The same thing is evinced, in this as well as in the other Gospels, by the frequent use of fa vourite expressions, some of which will be noticed in the expo sition. Among these singularities of diction is the repeated introduction of Latin words and phrases, which has led to various conjectures, both as to the author and the class of readers whom he had immediately in view. That the latter were not Jews but Gentiles, is made probable, not only by this circumstance, but also by the frequent explanation of terms and usages, with which all Jews were perfectly familiar, and particularly by the Greek translation of our Lord's Aramaic or vernacular expressions, the occasional retention of which may be regarded as another striking feature of the second Gospel. Besides all these distinctive marks belonging to the book before us, and abundantly establishing its claim to be regarded as an independent and original production, there is still another, more directly relating to its structure, and of more importance in its bearing on the question of its origin and mutual relation to the other Gospels. This is the circumstance that, unlike all the 1* Xii INTRODUCTION. rest, it contains scarcely any thing entirely peculiar to itself, ita incidents and topics, with a few very limited exceptions, being common to it with the others, and especially with Luke and Matthew. Its remarkable resemblance to the latter, both in form and substance, early led to the mistake, still unfortunately current, of regarding Mark as an abridgment or epitome of Mat thew. This error, although sanctioned by the great name of Augustin, is completely refuted by the fact, that Mark not only re-arranges much of the material which he has in common with Matthew, but in many instances adds graphic and minute details not found in Matthew; so that while his incidents are fewer, they are often far more fully and minutely stated, which is wholly at variance with the very idea of abridgment, except upon the arbitrary and unnatural assumption, that the writer, blending two almost inconsistent processes in one act, at the same time contracted and embellished his original. Another error, of more recent date but equally untenable, is that of representing Mark as a compiler, who sometimes follows Luke and sometimes Matthew. This assumes of course that the traditional arrangement of the Gospels, which assigns to Mark the second place, and which was recognized by Origen as chro nological, has really no such foundation. Indeed modern critical conjecture has in turn adopted every possible combination of the four names, and transported Mark not only to the last but to the first place in the catalogue, as the original and fundamental Gos pel, out of which the others have been gradually amplified. The specious arguments, by which this last opinion is supported, al though far from proving it to be correct, do serve to show the superficial shallow nature of the opposite extreme, which repre sents this Gospel as a mere epitome or compilation. The ease and plausibility, with which these opposite hypotheses may not only be propounded a priori, but carried out in detail when once assumed, only shows that they are founded upon no sufficient data, and ought not to be adopted as the basis of interpretation. It is just as easy, by the use of such means, to establish Mark's priority as Matthew's ; and it is better therefore to expound them INTRODUCTION. xiii as co-ordinate and independent, or to acquiesce in old and not incredible traditions with respect to them. Among the oldest and most uniform of these traditions, so far as the main fact is concerned, although extremely variant in the details, is that which represents the second Gospel as em bodying the vivid reminiscences of Peter, and composed in some sense under his direction. An ingenious living writer* has im proved upon this ancient statement, by supposing that the second Gospel was composed by Peter in his native language, and trans lated into Greek under the same divine direction and authority. The proofs of this position drawn from Peter's eminent position and the strong antecedent probability that he would have a part in the recording of his Master's history, and also from supposed traces of his knowledge and experience as a seaman, although in conclusive, are confirmatory of the old tradition that this Gospel is in some sense his, and does owe some of its most interesting contents to his recollections. The name attached by uniform tradition to this Gospel as its author is the Roman one of Mark or Marcus. Upon this, with certain supposed military attributes of style and manner, another living writer of great eminence t has founded the remarkable opinion, that this Marcus was the Roman soldier sent to Peter by Cornelius (Acts 10, 7), and therefore mentioned by the former as his spiritual son (1 Pet. 5, 23.) The arguments in favour of this singular conclusion, though ingenious, are by no means likely to subvert the old traditional belief, that the Mark who wrote this Gospel was the John Mark, often named in Scripture as the son of a Christian woman in Jerusalem (Acts 12, 12), and a near relative of Barnabas (Col. 4, 10), who attended him and Paul from Jerusalem to Antioch (Acts 12, 25), and ministered to them in their mission to Cyprus (Acts 13, 5), but forsook them at Perga in Pamphylia (Acts 13, 13), and was afterwards a subject * Smith of Jordanhill, in a dissertation added to his " Voyage and Ship wreck of St. Paul,;' (2d edition, London, 1856.) t Da Costa in his Lectures on the Gospels, called in the English version "The Four Witnesses." (New York, 1806.) XIV INTRODUCTION. of dispute between them and returned with Barnabas alone to Cyprus (Acts 15, 37-39), but appears in Paul's epistles as a valued fellow-labourer with Luke and others (Col. 4, 10. Philem. 24. 2 Tim. 4, 11), which is perfectly consistent with his filial relation to Peter (1 Pet. 5, 23) as an older acquaintance and a spiritual father. This Gospel has always formed a part of the New Testament Canon, being' found in all the ancient catalogues as one of the homologumena or undisputed books, and quoted (or referred to) by the earliest Christian writers. The text has been preserved in many manuscripts, of which above five hundred have been critically collated. Of these about thirty are of the uncial class, written in capitals, and for the most part without stops, accents, breathings, or division of the words, all which are reckoned signs of later date. Among these are the four oldest copies of the Greek Testament known to be extant, and distinguished in the latest critical editions by the four first letters of the alphabet. A. The Codex Alexandrinus, in the British Museum. B. The Codex Vaticanus, in the Papal Library at Rome. C. The Codex Ephraemi, in the Imperial Library at Paris. D. The Codex Bezse, in the University Library at Cambridge. The precise date of these manuscripts is still disputed, but is now commonly agreed to range from the fourth to the sixth centuries inclusive. All the important variations of the oldest manuscripts, par ticularly those adopted by the latest critics, will be noticed in the exposition. The only portion of the book, whose genuineness has been called in question, is the last twelve verses of the six teenth chapter, where the grounds of this opinion will be stated and disposed of. Besides the preservation of the Greek text in these copies, the book has also been preserved in several ancient versions the most important of which are the Syriac Peshito, made in the third if not the second century, and the Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome, on the basis of an old Italic version, near the close of the fourth century. Other early versions, from the third to the ninth century, are the Egyptian in two dialects, the Ethiopic INTRODUCTION. XV Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, and Slavonic. Occasional reference will be made, in the following exposition, to some mod ern versions, more especially to Luther's, and the six old English versions, those of Wiclif (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), the Rhemish Version (1582), and King James's Bible (1611), the last of which is still in common use. Two of these, Wiclif's and the Rhemish, are translations of the Vulgate ; Cranmer's is little more than a reprint of Tyndale's, with a few unimportant variations ; the same is true, but in a less degree, of the Geneva Bible ; while the common version, though to some extent influenced by all the others, is founded mainly upon Tyndale's, with occasional changes for the worse and for the better, but a frequent adherence to him even when in error. Besides mere versions or translations, this book, in common with the other Gospels, has been a constant subject of interpre tation from the earliest to the present times. In consequence, however, of the false position commonly assigned to it, as having no original or independent value, it has not received its due pro portion of distinct consideration until recently, when, some of the best writers have begun to treat it independently (though not irrespectively) of Luke and Matthew. This change for the better is especially observable in England, where it has been carried out by several of the latest and best writers on the Gospels. On the same principle the present exposition will be so conducted as to show the book to be a complete history in itself, harmonious with the other Gospels, and susceptible of illustration from them, but designed to answer a specific purpose and produce a definite impression. This idea of harmonious independence is suggested by the traditional but ancient title, the Gospel according to Mark, which has sometimes been erroneously explained as meaning that he was not its author but a mere penman or amanuensis. This, however, is no more true of the Gospels than of the Epistles, where the formula has never been applied by usage or tradition. The true sense of the phrase in question is that the Gospel has a fourfold form (ivayyiXtov Terpafiopcpov), and that this is XVI INTRODUCTION. the particular aspect under which it is presented by the hand of Mark. The present division into sixteen chapters was made by Cardinal Hugo, in the thirteenth century, to facilitate the use of his Concordance to the Latin Vulgate, and was not adopted in the copies of the Greek text till the fifteenth century. The division into verses first appears in the margin of Stephens's edition (1551), and is said to have been made by him during a journey between Paris and Lyons. The actual separation of the verses, by print ing them in paragraphs, appears for the first time in one of Beza's editions (1565), and although discontinued in the latest publica tions of the Greek text, still prevails in most editions of the Eng lish Bible and of other modern versions. The history of these divisions should be clearly understood, in order to prevent their being thought original, or even ancient, and thereby to deprive them of an undue influence upon the exposition of the text itself. The distinction of the chapters in this book is sometimes inju dicious and unskilful, and at best these conventional divisions are mere matters of mechanical convenience, like the paragraphs and pages of a modern book. But while we make use of these mechanical contrivances for ease of reference and consultation, they must not be suffered to usurp the place of a more rational division growing out of the relations of the history itself, as a methodical and systematic whole, designed to answer a specific purpose. The most cursory inspection shows the book to be, as we have seen already, a con nected narrative of Christ's public ministry, as introduced by John the Baptist and concluded by his own Ascension. The ar rangement is both topical and chronological, the actual order of events being probably retained wherever it was not at variance with the writer's purpose of displaying, chiefly by examples, the character and method of our Saviour's work, his teachings and his miracles, his treatment of the law with its peculiar insti tutions, his preparatory steps towards the reorganization of the Church, the reception which he met with both from friends and foes, and the providential causes by which the catastrophe or crisis INTRODUCTION. xvii of his history on earth was first retarded and then brought about. In execution of this purpose, Mark begins with the prepar atory work of John the Baptist and the preliminaries of Christ's own ministry, his baptism and temptation, his appearance as a teacher in Galilee, and the calling of his first disciples, with ex amples of his miracles, avowedly selected from a greater number, and the commencement of his itinerant ministry in Galilee, with its powerful effect upon the people, as evinced by the extraordinary concourse which attended him (ch. I.) It entered into the design of the evangelist, not only to de scribe our Lord's success, but the malignant opposition of his enemies. He now presents the dark side of the picture, and enables us to trace the growth of this malignant opposition from its earliest appearance in a series of charges brought against him as a violator of the law ; by claiming power to forgive sins ; by holding intercourse with publicans and sinners, and even calling a publican to be one of his apostles ; by his free and simple mode of life, involving the neglect (as they supposed) of all ascetic duties ; and lastly by his frequent violation of the Sabbath (ch. n.) But in spite of this increasing opposition, his fame and popu larity were growing still more rapidly ; and when they had at- taiaed their height, he takes his first step towards the re-organizing of the Church by formally embodying the twelve apostles. As the concourse still continues, he refuses to be checked in his la bours, either by the well-meant but mistaken interference of his friends, or by the growing rancour of his enemies, who now accuse him of collusion with the Evil One ; but solemnly repels both forms of opposition, by warning men against the unpardon able sin, and by asserting his own independence of all natural relations, when in conflict with the claims of his great spiritual family (ch. m.) Besides selecting, training, and embodying the men by whom the Church was to be organized upon its new or Christian basis, Christ prepared the way for that great change by teaching men the principles on which his kingdom was to be established and INTRODUCTION. administered. This was one primary design of our Lord's para bles, of which mode of instruction Mark gives both a general de scription and particular examples, setting forth the various recep tion of the Gospel, its independence of all human agency, and its expansive nature and design, by figures borrowed from the pro cesses of husbandry (ch. iv.) It becomes more clear as we proceed, that the evangelist's design was to illustrate, by alternate instances, the two great functions of our Lord's prophetic ministry, his teachings and his miracles, in their most intimate reciprocal connection as attesting and enforcing one another. Having thus exemplified his parabolic method of instruction, he resumes the account of his miraculous performances, presenting a new series of four miracles selected from the mass, not only on account of their intrinsic greatness, but as representing different kinds or classes of such wonders. The first shows his absolute dominion over winds and waves, as if they were his slaves ; the second his control of evil spirits, even in great numbers, and his power to regulate their presence and possession both of men and brutes ; the third his knowledge of the most secret and inveterate diseases and his power to heal them by mere contact with his person ; and the fourth his higher power over death itself, as exerted in his first recorded miracle of resuscitation (eh. iv. v.) Reverting once more to the dark side of the picture, Mark describes our Lord's rejection by his oldest neighbours and ac quaintances at Nazareth, but instantly contrasts with it his inde fatigable labours, both in person and by proxy, through the agency of the apostles, whom he now commissions and sends forth, with powerful effect upon the people and their wicked ruler. The re turn of the apostles from their first experimental mission gives occasion to a new creative wonder, that of feeding- the five thou- sand, followed by another proof of his capacity to rule the ele ments, and by a general description of his miracles in that same region and that period of his ministry (ch. vi.) By another alternation and transition, clearly showing that the writer had a definite though complex end in view, he now INTRODUCTION. XIX resumes the history of the Pharisaic opposition to our Saviour, and records a fresh attack upon him on account of his neglect and tacit condemnation of their superstitious baptisms, or uncom- manded ceremonial washings, with his striking and authoritative answer, exposing their corruption of the law in this respect, aud laying down important doctrines as to ritual and moral purity. With this, by a natural association, and perhaps by immediate chronological succession, is connected an account of our Lord's one visit to the Gentile world, and of a miracle performed upon a Gentile subject, under circumstances otherwise remarkable and unlike those of any other case recorded in the Gospels. The same thing is true of another miracle here added, which moreover is among the few found only in this Gospel (ch. vn.) The care with which the writer thus far has avoided all un necessary repetition, or the record of events precisely similar, draws additional attention to a second miracle by which a multi tude was nourished with a little food, and shows that the evan gelist regarded these as perfectly distinct events, and not as vary ing versions of the same. The opposition of the Pharisees now shows itself anew by demanding a peculiar proof of Christ's Mes- siahship, which he refuses, and admonishes his followers against their hypocritical formality. The series of his miracles here closes with another case peculiar to this Gospel, and the only one on record of a gradual or progressive restoration (ch. vm.) Having thus exemplified, concisely yet as fully as his plan required, the progress both of the Messiah's work and of the oppo sition to it, Mark begins what may be called the second portioD of his history, by showing how our Lord prepared his more imnie diate followers for the close of his career, by first eliciting a strong expression of their own belief of his pretensions, then predicting his own passion and their sufferings in his behalf, and warning them against the danger and temptation of denying him (ch. VIII.) These solemn and distressing premonitions are succeeded and relieved by a momentary anticipation of his glory, afforded to his three most confidential followers, which gives occasion to an au- XX INTRODUCTION. thoritative exposition of the prophecies respecting his forerunner. Then comes a miracle of dispossession, which all the parallel ac counts place directly after the Transfiguration, and an unsuccess ful effort to perform it by the nine who had been left behind on that occasion. This failure, at a time when he was so soon to leave them, leads to a fresh prediction of his death, and this to a humiliating strife for the pre-eminence, from which he takes oc casion to explain the nature of his kingdom and the only mode of rising to distinction in it, with appropriate warnings against the corresponding sins and errors (ch. ix.) The discourses and incidents which follow might have seemed incoherent, or at least without a definite relation to any general plan or purpose, but for certain intimations in the narrative itself, that they all chronologically appertain to Christ's last journey to Jerusalem. The topics thus connected and determined are, an answer to a question of the Pharisees in reference to marriage and divorce ; an interesting vindication of the rights of children ; a still more interesting exposition of the hinderances to men's salvation, and the only means by which they can be overcome ; a fresh prediction of his passion, and a fresh display of blind am bition on the part of his disciples, and a fresh declaration of the nature of his kingdom and affecting exhibition of his own exam ple, not only in words but by a miracle of healing wrought in the last stage of his journey to Jerusalem (ch. x.) Having brought the Saviour to the scene of his last suffer ings, the evangelist records with great particularity the principal occurrences which took place during the eventful week succeeding his arrival ; his public recognition by the multitude as the Mes siah, and his entrance as such into the Holy City ; his purgation of the temple in the same capacity ; his judicial and symbolical denunciation of the fig-tree. This varied assertion of his Mes sianic claims provokes a series of corresponding movements on the part of his opponents, beginning with a formal and official demand from the national authorities, as to the nature of his claims and the foundation upon which they rested. To this de mand he makes no answer, save by an appeal to the testimony of INTRODUCTION. XXI his forerunner, as a messenger from God, commissioned to prepare his way and to attest the truth of his pretensions (ch. xi.) The rulers being thus foiled in their effort to suppress his Messianic measures, two of the adverse parties, the Herodians and Pharisees, unite in an insidious attempt to bring him into hostile collision either with the Jews or Romans. This endeavour also failing, the more frivolous Sadducees seek to throw contempt upon his teaching by a real or pretended case of doubt as to the resurrection, but are met by a solemn and an unexpected re- assertion of that doctrine. A third question, rather curious than insidious or frivolous, was propounded by a Scribe, and had respect to the relative importance of the precepts in the decalogue, to which our Lord replied by quoting the familiar summary recorded in the Pentateuch itself. He then turns the tables by proposing an unanswerable question in relation to a Messianic prophecy, the true sense of which had been lost sight of, even by their spiritual leaders, and warns the people against leaders so unworthy to be trusted, both on account of their false doctrine and their covetous hypocrisy, with which he puts in striking contrast the small but self-denying contributions of an humble widow to the divine treasury (ch. xn.) Having publicly assumed his Messianic office, and begun to exercise its powers ; having defined his position with respect to the existing theocratical authorities, and by his denunciations cut off all hope of further tolerance or reconciliation ; our Lord now bids farewell to the temple, with a solemn prophecy of its destruc tion. This is addressed to his disciples, whose inquiries with respect to the true premonitions of the great catastrophe afford occasion for a long prophetical discourse, in which he first tells them what are not and then what are the signs of the approach ing end, concluding with an earnest exhortation to perpetual vigi lance and constant preparation for his coming (ch. un.) Having wound up the history of Christ's prophetic ministry, Mark now proceeds to treat of his sacerdotal work, beginning with the final resolution of the rulers to destroy him, coinciding with the treachery of Judas, as matured by an occurrence which Xxii INTRODUCTION. took place at Bethany and is here recorded. Then follows the last Jewish and first Christian passover, dividing yet connecting the two dispensations; the prediction of his followers desertion and especially of Peter's fall ; the mysterious prelude to his final passion in the garden of Gethsemane ; his seizure and arraign ment as a criminal before the Sanhedrim ; his refusal to defend himself, but final declaration, under oath, of his Messiahship ; his consequent conviction on the charge of blasphemy ; to which is added, as a sort of episode or supplement, the literal fulfilment of his prophecy respecting Peter (ch. xiv.) Mark now proceeds to give the second part of the judicial process, namely, that which. took place at the judgment-seat of Pilate ; Christ's avowal of his regal dignity, but silence with respect to the Jewish accusations ; Pilate's efforts to release him, but final submission to the people and their rulers ; the proces sion to the place of execution, and the actual crucifixion ; the co incidences tending to identify him as the subject of the Messianic prophecies ; the preternatural darkness ; the derision of his ene mies ; his death upon the cross ; the rending of the vail, denoting free access to God, thrown open by his death to Jews and Gen tiles ; and the recognition of his claims, by the officer who had charge of his execution, as well as by his female followers who witnessed it, and seem to have been providentially commissioned to supply the place of the apostles during their defection, by watching over his remains between the burial and resurrection (ch. xv.) The whole history is now wound up by a narrative of Christ's Resurrection and Ascension, with his intermediate appearances to his disciples. This account, though really harmonious with those of Matthew, Luke, and John, is strikingly distinguished from them by the choice of incidents and facts recorded, a distinction satisfactorily explained by Mark's specific purpose to show how the incredulity of the eleven was gradually overcome ; first, by the testimony of the women ; then, by that of Mary Magdalen alone ; then, by that of the two disciples who returned from Em- mans ; and, lastly, by the Saviour's actual appearance to them INTRODUCTION. XX111 selves. The whole narrative then closes with the renewal and enlargement of their great commission, his ascension into heaven, and their execution of his farewell orders (ch. xvi.) This summary attempt to show beforehand that the book is not a desultory series of mere anecdotes or random recollections, but a systematic history, in which the topics are selected and ar ranged with constant view to a specific purpose, can be verified only by a patient process of detailed interpretation, to which this analysis may serve as a provisional basis and an introduction. GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK. CHAPTER I. After a general proposition of his theme or statement of his purpose (1), the Evangelist begins its execution, by describing the preparatory min istry of John the Baptist (2-8), and the preliminaries of our Lord's own ministry, to wit. his baptism and temptation (9-13). Then comes the history of the ministry itself, beginning with his first public appearance in Galilee (14—15), the vocation of his first disciples (16-20), two ex amples of his earliest miraculous performances (21-31), and a general description of their nuinber and design (32-34). After a season of de votional retirement, he begins his itinerant minister in Galilee (35-39), and by his miracles attracts great multitudes (40-45). 1. The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God ; The simplest and most natural construction here is {this is) tin beginning of (or here begins) the gospel, &c. It is then a title or de scription of the whole book, such as we often find in the first sentence of an ancient writing. (Compare the liturgical formula, " Here begin- neth such a chapter ; here endeth such a lesson.") Some interpreters connect it with the next verse, the beginning of the gospel (was) as it is written in the prophets ; others with v. 4, ; the beginning of the gos pel was John baptizing.' But these constructions seem too artificial, and the facts which they are meant to indicate, though not expressed here, are suggested by the context, namely, that the ministry of Christ was introduced by John's, and that both had been predicted in the ancient Scriptures. According to the syntax first proposed, the verse describes the whole book, or the book describes itself, as the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Gospel, according to its derivation both in Greek and English, means good news, glad tidings, though commonly applied in the classics to the reward paid for such intelligence. In the 1 2 MARK 1, 1. 2. dialect of Scripture it denotes by way of eminence the good news of salvation, or of Christ's appearance as a Saviour ; then the history of his saving work, whether as orallv related or as written by divine au thority ; and. lastly, the whole system of saving truth or Christian doctrine, of which the Gospel, properly so called, is the historical foun dation. It is here used in the second of these senses, and denotes the history of our Saviour's ministry, his personal and public work on earth. The other constructions, above mentioned, suppose gospel to denote the ministry itself, or the 'act of preaching, which is contrary to usage. The subject of the history is Jesus Christ the Son of God. This is not a mere personal designation, but an official title or descrip tion, showing in what specific character the subject is to be presented, namely, as the Saviour of his people {Jesus) ; as the Messiah of the prophecies {Christ), i. e. the Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel ; and, lastly, as the Son of God, not in the lower sense of crea ture, or the higher sense of one intensely loved, but in the highest sense of a divine person, a partaker of the Godhead, and sustaining the rela tion of eternal Sonship to the Father, from which both take their respective titles. Some interpreters dwell only on this last clause, and suppose Mark's Gospel to be distinguished by it from the others. But this description would be more appropriate to John's if taken by itself, which is forbidden by its intimate connection with the previous titles {Jesus Christ), which are equally significant, denoting the Anointed Saviour. We find, accordingly, that Mark presents our Lord as the Messiah and the Saviour no less than Luke and Matthew, although not precisely in the same form. The description of the subject here is not distinctive or exclusive, though specific and definite, admonishing the reader that the history which here begins is not that of a mere man or a private person, but of one who claimed to be the anointed, promised, and divine deliverer of his people from their sins (Matt. 1, 21.) 2. As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee ; Some interpreters, as we have seen, connect this in construction with the first verse, and understand it as denoting that the gospel, or the ministry of Christ, began in strict accordance with the prophecies. But if that verse be taken by itself as a descriptive title of the whole book, the one before us must be construed with what follows. As it was written .... (so) John was baptising. The writer's purpose here is to connect the ministry of Christ, through that of his forerunner, with the ancient Scriptures and the church of the Old Testament. This he does in a very striking form by quoting, at the outset of his narrative, the text of the Hebrew prophets, thus connecting the two canons in the closest manner, notwithstanding the long interval of four hundred years between them. As if he had said, in commencing the gospel of Jesus Christ, I am only recommencing the long broken series of divine MARK 1, 2. 3. 3 communications which terminated four hundred years ago in Malachi. The prophecy itself (Mai. 3, 1) is slightly varied, not in substance but in form, by being addressed to the Messiah as a pledge or promise, which, though not expressed, is really involved in the original. Behold, in Greek as well as Hebrew, introduces something unexpected and surprising. I send (am sending or about to send), the verb from which apostle is derived ; my messenger, the Greek word commonly translated angel, which is indeed a mere abbreviation of it, but here used in its primary and wider sense. The original passage predicts the advent of two messengers or angels ; the angel of the covenant, who is also represented as the Lord of the temple, and another who was to prepare his way before him. These two are here identified, the one expressly, and the other by necessary implication,with our Lord and his forerunner. Prepare, an expressive Greek verb, meaning to make fully ready, to equip or furnish. Thy way, thy advent or appearance. Before thy face, a literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, which means be fore in application both to time and space. In the Hebrew text it stands at the end of the sentence, in the oldest copies of Mark between the clauses, a transposition which has^no effect upon the meaning. The repetition in the common text is found neither in the Hebrew nor in the oldest Greek manuscripts. 3. The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. The function which Malachi ascribes to the forerunner, that of preparing the Messiah's wa}r, is evidently borrowed fi-om an older prophecy, still extant in Isaiah (40, 3), which Mark accordingly sub joins, as if it were a part of the same context, and as being really the theme of which the later passage is a variation or a new edition. Isaiah's words are commonly referred to the return from Babylon, of which, however, there is no express mention in the text or context. The image really presented to the prophet is that of God returning to Jerusalem, revisiting his people, as he did in every signal manifestation of his presence, but above all at the advent of Messiah, and the opening of the new dispensation, of which John the Baptist was tho herald and forerunner. The voice of one crying is the Septuagint version of a Hebrew phrase which might be more exactly rendered a voice crying. (The oldest English versions have a crier.) It is a kind of exclamation, as if he had said hark ! one cries (or is crying.) In the wilderness, both in the literal sense, thereby identifying John as the subject of the prophecy, and in the moral sense of spiritual desolation, in the midst of which, or through which, God was to re turn to them. Prepare, not the same Greek verb that is used in the preceding verse, although Isaiah and Malachi employ thesame Hebrew one, denoting a specific kind of preparation, that of clearing a road by the removal of obstructions. This was to be done by repentance on the part of the people, and by preaching repentance on the part of the 4 MARK 1, 3. 4. forerunner. Make straight, in Hebrew one word, straighten, rectify, in reference either to obliquity of course or unevenness of surface, more probably the latter, as expressed in English by the verb to level. Paths, or worn ways, beaten tracks, as the Greek verb properly denotes. The corresponding Hebrew word is in the singular, and means an artificial causeway or high road. His paths, in the original, a highway for our God. These two predictions are combined by Mark, not inad vertently, much less through ignorance or by mistake, as some have foolishly imagined, but from a clear view of their mutual relation, as distinct and distant but harmonious predictions of the same event, which might therefore be regarded, after the fulfilment, as parts of one and the same prophetic utterance. The subordinate relation of the later to the earlier prophecy as such, though equally inspired, would account for the reading, in Isaiah the prophet, found in some old copies, and regarded as the true text by the latest critics. (A still stronger case of the same kind occurs in Matt. 27, 9.) 4. John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance, for the remission of sins. As it was thus written centuries before, so was it now fulfilled. As Isaiah in prophetic vision heard the voice of one summoning the people to prepare the Lord's way, and as Malachi beheld one messenger or angel preparing the way for another, so in due time this preparatory process really began in the ministry of John the Baptist. Was (be came or came) baptizing, i. e. exercising his ministry, of which baptism was the badge or seal. In outward conformity to the prediction, he appeared in the wilderness, i. e. as we learn from Matthew (3, 1), the wilderness of Judea, a phrase sometimes denoting the whole desert region west of the Dead Sea, and sometimes a particular division of it, here most probably the tract along the Jordan north of the Dead Sea. Preaching, proclaiming, publicly announcing. The idea of in viting and exhorting, though implied, is not expressed. Baptism, symbolical or ceremonial washing, such as the Mosaic law prescribed as a sign of moral renovation, and connected with the sacrificial types of expiation, to indicate the internal connection of atonement and sanctification. It was from these familiar and significant ablutions that John's baptism was derived, and not from the practice of baptiz ing proselytes, the antiquity of which as a distinct rite is disputed. Baptism (not the baptism) of repentance, i. e. a ceremonial washing, which involved and denoted a profession of repentance or a thorough change of mind, both of judgment and of feeling, with respect to sin. To {cv for) remission, i. e. with a view to it or for the purpose of promoting it, not directly or efficiently, but as an indispen sable prerequisite. Remission, loosing, leaving, i. e. letting go unpun ished, which is essentially the same with pardon or forgiveness. Or sins, without the article, not the sins, i. e. some sins, or the sins of some offenders, but of sins in general. The indefinite expressions of this MARK 1, 4. 5. 5 clause {a baptism of repentance for remission of sins) are not unmean ing or fortuitous, but designed to introduce John's ministry as some thing new and previouslj'- unknown to the reader. The meaning of the verse, as thus explained, is that the ancient prophecies just quoted were fulfilled in the appearance of a preacher in the wilderness calling the people to repent, and baptizing them in token of their having done so. Mark, like Matthew (3, 1), introduces John abruptly, as demand ing notice only in connection with his public work and that of Christ ; while Luke (1, 5-28, 39-80), as a professed historian, gives a full account of his extraction, birth, and early training for his office. 5. And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. Having designated the place and described in general terms the nature and design of John's preparatory ministry, Mark now informs us how it was received and what were its effects. The statement relates only to Judea. as the province within which John began his ministrations, although in a desert part of it. The effect produced there is described as universal, the whole population going out to him from town and country. All the land of Judea or Judean district, territory, province. This was the southern portion of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It derived its name from the tribe of Judah, to which it was assigned on the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, although several smaller tribes were partially or wholly settled within its limits, namely, Dan and Simeon, while the portion of Benjamin adjoined it on the north. After the schism on the death of Solomon, this whole southern district adhered to the theocracy, and constituted the territory of the kingdom of Judah. Under the Syrian and Roman domination, it retained its old name in the Greek or Latin form of Judea, which is here used in its primary sense as an adjective agreeing with the noun land (or province). By a figure of speech common in all languages, the country is put for its population. The Jerusalemites, or people of Jerusalem, are not distinguished from the Judeans, under whom they were included, but merely rendered prominent among them as the people of the capital and holy city. All Judea, and among (or above) the rest, the people of Jerusalem. A like combination of the same names frequently occurs in the Old Tes tament. (See for instance the titles or inscriptions in Isaiah 1, 1. 2,1. 3, 1.) It was characteristic of John's ministry, that he did not seek the people but was sought by them, in which respect he was a type or emblem of the law with its restrictive and exclusive institutions, as distinguished from the catholic or ecumenical provisions of the gospel. By a natural hyperbole, this vast concourse is described as submitting to the rite which John administered, not as an empty and unmeaning form, but at the same time confessing their sins, the Greek verb being an intensive compound, which denotes the act of free and full confes- 6 M A R K 1, 5. 6. sion or acknowledgment. This, which is prescribed as a condition, although not a meritorious ground, of pardon (Prov. 28,13. 1 John 1, 9), is therefore one of the best tokens of repentance._ The river Jordan is the only considerable stream of Palestine, rising near the base of Mount Hermon, flowing southward in a double bed or valley, with a deep and rapid current, through the lakes of Merom and Tibe rias, into the Dead Sea. Recent surveys and measurements have shown that the valley of the Jordan, with its lakes, is much below the level of the Mediterranean. This famous river formed the eastern limit of the province of Judea, and was probably the nearest water to the desert tract where John had made his first appearance. It was on account of this local contiguity, and for the accommodation of the crowds attending him, that John baptized there, and not for the con venience of immersion. Even those who plead for its necessity main tain that the three thousand converts on the day of Pentecost were thus baptized at Jerusalem, where there is not only no great river but a very scant supply of water. Baptized, i. e. bathed or washed as a religious rite. Even admitting that the word originally means im mersed, and that the first converts were in fact immersed, both which are doubtful and disputed points, it no more follows that this mode of washing was essential to the rite, than that every elder must be an old man, or that the Lord's supper can be lawfully administered only in the evening. An analogous change in the familiar dialect of com mon life is furnished by an English phrase, to take (or drink) tea, which is frequently employed where no tea is consumed at all, the essential idea being that of a social evening meal, and the particular refreshment a mere incident. The extent of the effect ascribed in this verse to the ministry of John is not to be explained away as an extravagant hyperbole, but must be understood as almost if not absolutely universal. It seems to have entered into the divine plan, with respect both to Christ and his forerunner, that the whole mass of the chosen race, with few if any individual exceptions, should be brought within the sphere of their official ministry. If all Judea and Jerusalem does not mean every individual, it must at least mean something more than many, namely, the great bulk and body of the population. Matthew's account of the attendance on the ministry of John is equally emphatic, and perhaps still more so, as it adds to the two terms employed by Mark, all the country about Jordan, which would seem to include at least a portion of Perea, the Greek name of the province lying east ward of the river. Luke does not formally affirm but presupposes the vast concourse, when he tells us what John said to the crowds (or multitudes) going out to be baptized by him. (Matt. 3, 5. 6. Luke 3, 7.) 6. And John was clothed witli camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins ; and he did eat locusts and wild honey ; He who was thus honored, both by God and man, far from being MARK 1, 6. 7 "clothed in soft raiment," or "gorgeously apparelled," and "living delicately" (Luke 7, 25), was distinguished by the plainness of his food and dress. He wore the coarsest kind of sackcloth made of camel's hair, still in use among- the Arabs of the desert, fastened round him by a simple belt of skin or leather, in striking contrast with the " purple and fine linen " and " embroidered girdle" (Ex. 39, 29) of the sacerdotal dress,' and of the fashionable oriental costume (Ex. 39, 29. Luke 10, 19.) In both parts of his dress here mentioned, John re sembled Elijah, who is described as " an hairy man (i. e. clothed in hair cloth, as appears from what follows), and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins " (2 Kings 1, 8.) This is commonly explained as the official costume of an ancient prophet (compare Zech. 13, 4) ; but as Ahaziah, when he heard the description of his servants, instantly ex claimed, " It is Elijah the Tishbite ! " it would seem to have been some thing distinctive of his person and not merely of his office. Now Elijah is conspicuous in the history of Israel as a reformer, and a preacher of repentance, sent to (or raised up in) the apostate kingdom of the ten tribes, to convince them of their sin, and warn them of the wrath to come. Of this stern mission his very dress was a badge or symbol ; so was his austere and secluded life, especially his dwelling in the wilderness, when not engaged in some prophetic function else where. Now the last of the Old Testament prophets, in addition to the promise of two messengers or angels, which has been already quoted and explained (on v. 2), closes the canon with a solemn predic tion that Elijah the prophet shoulti appear again (Mai. 4, 5. 6.) This last prophetic utterance of the Hebrew Scriptures kept the national hopes upon the stretch throughout the interval of four hundred years, during which the gift of prophecy was in abeyance. In the time of Christ it was the teaching of the scribes that Elijah was to come as the forerunner of Messiah ; but our Lord taught his disciples that he had already come in the person of John the Baptist, of whom it was predicted by the Angel that he should go before the Lord in tho spirit and power of Elijah, to effect the very change foretold by Malachi. (See Matt. 17, 10-13. Luke 1, 17.) We find accordingly that John conformed to his example even in externals, as to place of residence and style of dress, not for the sake of a mere personal resemblance, but to symbolize the rigour arid austerity belonging to the system of which they were both types and representatives. This view of the matter will suffice to show that the description which the gospels give of John's dress is not superfluous embellishment, but intended to identify two distant but closely related points of sacred history. The analogy, though less precise, is no less real, in relation to the food of the two prophets. As Elijah lived in a precarious manner, sometimes dependent upon miracle for food (1 Kings 17, 6. 16. 19, 6), so John subsisted upon aliment the most remote from that in common use, at least in towns and civilized society. The attempts which have been made to explain locusts as denoting some kind of bread, or of wild fruit, are equally superfluous and unsuccessful. The Greek word is the common one for locusts, which are still eaten by the Arabs of the 8 MARK 1, 0. 7. desert. Wild honey is supposed by some to be a vegetable exudation, sometimes so called ; but there seems to be no sufficient reason lor departing from the strict sense of the name as denoting the honey made by bees, not in hives or under human care, but in the rocks and forests of the wilderness. The whole impression made by these details is that of an austere simplicity, implying separation from the ordinary habits and abodes of men. Matthew's account (3, 4) is per fectly coincident with Mark's in substance, although so far different in form, and even in grammatical construction, as to show that one did not copy from the other. 7. And preached, saying, There cometh one mightier than I after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to stoop down and unloose. While Matthew and Luke here insert John's severe denunciation and impassioned warning, addressed to both the great contending parties in the Jewish church, and Luke adds his reply to the inquiries put to him by various classes, with a beautiful description of the popular suspicion that this might be the Messiah (Matt. 3, 7—10. Luke 3, 7-15), Mark simply gives the sum and substance of his preaching, also given by the others, and almost in the same terms, though not precisely in the same order. Having said before (in v. 4) that John was (or came) preaching, he now tells how and what he preached, not by reporting all that John said, even upon any one occasion, but by summing it all up in a single sentence, which he may or may not have delivered, once or often, totidem verbis. The summary thus given is that John's whole ministry was relative, prospective, and prepara tory ; that he was not a principal but a dependent ; further removed from his superior in rank than the humblest domestic from his master ; and that the same relation existed between the ministry and acts of the two parties. That he preached repentance is implied or presup posed, as having been already stated (in v. 4) ; but even this he did as a forerunner. There cometh (or is yet to come) the mightier (or stronger one) than I, not indefinitely one mightier, but specifically, the mightier, i. e. my superior, the principal of whom I am the herald and fore runner. But as this relation might exist between two persons nearly equal, or entirely so except in this particular association, John goes further, and assures them that the difference is not merely that of first and second, but of master and servant, nay, still more distinct and distant. For the meanest slave might loose the strap which bound his master's sandals to the soles of his feet; but to stoop for such a purpose, in the presence of John's master, was too great an honour even for the man whom all Judea and Jerusalem had crowded forth to be instructed and baptized by. To an oriental audience words could hardly have expressed the idea of disparity in a stronger or a more revolting manner. That John should have made such a profes sion of his own inferiority, not once but often, in the presence of the MARK 1, 7. 8. 9 people, and in the height of from Vsitt to resemble) in precisely the same way. In its widesY sense, a parable is any illustration from analogy, including the simile and metaphor as rhetorical figures, the allegory, apologue, fable, and some forms of proverbial expression. In a _ more restricted sense,the word denotes an illustration of moral or religious truth derived from the analogy of human experience. In this respect it differs from the fable, which accomplishes the same end by employing the supposed acts of inferior animals, or even those ascribed to inani mate objects, to illustrate human character and conduct. The only fa bles found in Scripture, those of Jotham (Judg. 9, 8-15) and Joash (2 Kings 14, 9), are given on human, not divine authority. The para ble in°its more restricted sense, as just explained, is not necessarily narrative in form (see above, on 2, 18-22), much less fictitious, although this is commonly assumed in modern definitions of the term. There is s-ood reason to believe that all the parables of Christ are founded m fact, ff not entirely composed of real incidents. They are all drawn from familiar forms of human experience, and with one exception from the present life. This creates a strong presumption that the facts are true, 80 MARK 4, 2. 3. unless there be some positive reason for supposing them fictitious. Now the necessity of fiction to illustrate moral truth arises, not from the deficiency of real facts adapted to the purpose, but from the writer's limited acquaintance with them, and his consequent incapacity to frame the necessary combinations, without calling in the aid of his imagina tion. But no such necessity can exist in the case of an inspired, much less of an omniscient teacher. To resort to fiction, therefore, even ad mitting its lawfulness on moral grounds, when real life affords in such abun dance Jhe required analogies, would be a gratuitous preference, if not of the false to the true, at least of the imaginary to the real, which seems unworthy of our Lord, or which, to say the least, we haye no right to assume without necessity. In expounding the parables, inter preters have gone to very opposite extremes, but most to that of mak ing every thing significant, or giving a specific sense to every minute point of the analogy presented. This error is happily exposed by Au gustine, when he says, that the whole plough is needed in the act of ploughing, though the ploughshare alone makes the furrow, and the whole frame of an instrument is useful, though the strings alone pro duce the music. The other extreme, that of overlooking or denying the significance of some things really significant, is much less common than the first, and for the most part found in writers of severer taste and judgment. The true mean is difficult but not impossible to find, upon the principle now commonly assumed as true, at least in theory, that the. main analogy intended, like the centre of a circle, must determine the position of all points in the circumference. It may also be observed, that as the same illustration may legitimately mean more to one man than to another, in proportion to the strength of their im aginative faculties, it is highly important that, in attempting to deter mine the essential meaning of our Saviour's parables, we should not confound what they may possibly be made to mean, with what they must mean to attain their purpose. In addition to these principles, arising from the nature of the parable itself, we have the unspeakable advantage of our Saviour's own example as a self-interpreter. In his doctrine, i. e. in the act of teaching, or perhaps the meaning here may be, in this peculiar mode of teaching. (See above, on 1, 22-27.) 3. Hearken ; Behold, there went out a sower to sow. Mark has preserved one introductory ejaculation, not in Luke, and one neither in Luke nor Matthew. Hear ! implying the power and intention to communicate something particularly worthy of atten tion. This word, perhaps a part of Peter's vivid recollection, may ba said to introduce the whole succession of our Saviour's parables. Behold ! (1 Matt. 13, 3), lo, see, in one or two specific cases, but in tended, no doubt, as a model and a guide in others (see below, on vs. 10-20), both in Hebrew and Hellenistic usage, introduces something unexpecte'd and surprising. Some take it even in its primary and strict sense, look ! see there ! implying that the object indicated was in sight or actually visible ; in other words, that Christ was led to use this illus- MARK 4. 3. 4. 87 tration by the casual appearance of a sower in a neighbouring field ; and this is often represented as the usual occasion of his parabolic teachings. It seems, however, to regard them as too purely accidental, and too little the result of a deliberate predetermination, such as we cannot but assume in tho practice of a divine teacher. A safer form of the same proposition is the one already stated in a different connection (see above, on v. 1), namely, that our Saviour's parables, though not inva riably suggested by immediate sights or passing scenes, are all derived from the analogy of human experience, and in most instances of com mon life. Thus the three here given by Mark are designed not only to exhibit different aspects of the same great subject, the Messiah's kingdom, but to exhibit them by means of images derived from one mode of life or occupation, that of husbandry, with which his auditors were all familiar, and in which, most probably, the greater part of them were constantly engaged. But besides these objections to the general supposition that our Saviour's parables were all suggested casually, such an assumption is forbidden in the case before us by the form of expres sion used by all these evangelists with striking uniformity. It is not as it naturally would be on the supposition now in question, See, a sower goes (or going) out, but with the article, and in the aorist or past tense, lo, the sower went out. The sower, like the Fox and the Lion in a fable, is generic, meaning the whole class, or an ideal individual who represents it. . Went out, as we say in colloquial narrative, once upon a time, the precise date being an ideal one because the act is one of constant occur rence. As if he had said, ' a sower went out to sow, as you have often done and seen your neighbour do.' To sow, distinguishes his going out for this specific purpose from his going out on other errands. The sower went out as such, as a sower, to perform the function which the name denotes. 4. And it came to pass as he sowed, some fell by the way-side, and the fowls of the air came and devoured it up. It came to pass, or something happened, implying something not indeed uncommon, but yet not belonging as of course to the process of sowing seed. As he sowed, literally, in the (act of) sowing, and therefore in the field, not merely on the way to it. By the way must therefore mean along the path trodden by the sower himself and hard ened by his footsteps, not along the highway leading to his place of labour. This idea is distinctly expressed by Luke (8, 5), and it was trodden down, i. e. it fell upon the path where he was walking. Some is understood by every reader to mean some of the seed which he was sowing, the noun, although not previously mentioned as it is in Luke (8 4), being necessarily suggested by the kindred verb, to sow, m sow ing The principal circumstance in this part of the parable is not the treadino- of the seed, which Luke only adds to specify the place, but its Iyin"- exposed upon the trodden path, and there devoured by the birds. Fowl now confined to certain species of domesticated Dirds, is co-exten- 88 MARX 4, 4. 5. 6. sive in old English with bird itself. Of the air, literally of heaven, a. Hebrew idiom, according to which heaven (or heavens, see above on 1, 10), is applied, not only to the whole material universe, except tha earth (Gen. 1, 1) and especially to that part of it regarded as the more immediate residence of God (Gen. 19, 24), but also to the visible expanse or firmament (Gen. 1, 14), and to our atmosphere, or rather to the whole space between us and the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1. 20.) The version, therefore, is substantially correct, supposing these words (tou oipauoi) to be genuine; but the latest critics have expunged them as a probable assimilation to the text of Luke (8, 5) : nothing more is here intended by the phrase than birds in general, or the birds which his hearers well knew were accustomed to commit such depre dations. The familiarity of this occurrence, and of those which follow, must have brought the illustration home to the business and bosoms of the humblest hearers, and, at the same time, necessarily precludes the idea of a fiction, when real facts were so abundant and accessible. It is idle to object that this particular sower never did go forth, when the opposite assertion can as easily be made, and when the terms em ployed, as we have seen, may designate the whole class of sowers, including multitudes of individuals, or any of these whom any one of the hearers might select as particularly meant, perhaps himself, per haps some neighbouring husbandman. Such a use of language, when applied to incidents of every-day occurrence, is as far as possible remote from fiction. 5. And some fell on stony ground, where it had not much earth ; and immediately it sprang up, because it had no depth of earth : Another (seed, or portion of the seed sown) fell upon the stony (or rocky soil), collective singulars equivalent to Matthew's plurals (13, 5.) The reference is not to loose or scattered stones (see below, on 5, 5), but to a thin soil overspreading a stratum or layer of concealed rock. Immediately, here used by Matthew also, is emphatic, the rapid germination being a material circumstance, and seemingly ascribed to the shallowness of the soil, allowing the seed no room to strike deep root, but only to spring upwards. The same idea is suggested by the verb itself, a double compound meaning to spring up and forth. The cause assigned by Luke (8, 6), is not that of the speedy germination, but of the premature decay that followed it, as Mark describes more fully in the next verse. 6. But when the sun was up, it was scorched ; and oecause it had no root, it withered away. When the sun was up (or risen), is the literal translation of tha text adopted by the latest critics, while the common or received text, though the same in meaning, has a different construction, the sun homing risen. There is a peculiar beauty in the Greek here, which cannot be MARK 4, 6. 7. 8. 89 retained in a translation, arising from the use of the same verb (but in a less emphatic form) to signify the rising ofthe plant and of tne sun, as both are said in English to be up, when one is above the surface of the earth and the other above the horizon. Scorched (or burnt) and withered (or dried, see above, on 3, 1), are different effects ascribed to different causes. The first is the evaporation of the vital sap or vegetable juices by the solar heat ; the other their spontaneous failure from the want of a tenacious root. Together they describe, in a man ner at once accurate and simple, the natural and necessary fate of a plant without sufficient denth of soil, however quick and even prema ture its vegetation. 7. And some fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up, and choked it, and it yielded no fruit. Another, as in v. 5. Into the thorns, or in the midst of them, as it is more fully expressed by Luke (8, 7.) The thorns, which happened to be growing there, or which are usually found in such situations. Came up, appeared above the surface, an expression constantly em ployed in English to denote the same thing. Choked, stifled, or deprived of life by pressure. This word, though strictly applicable only to the suffocation of animal or human subjects (see Luke 8, 42), is here by a natural and lively figure transferred to the fatal influence on vegetable life of too close contact with a different and especially a ranker growth. Matthew (13, 7) uses a still more emphatic compound of the same verb, corresponding to our own familiar phrase choked off. And fruit did not give, though implied in all, is expressed only in Mark's account, which throughout this parable exhibits no appearance of abridgment. 8. And other fell on good ground, and did yield fruit that sprang up, and increased, and brought forth, some thirty, and some sixty, and some an hundred. Another, as in vs. 5. 7. It is a minute but striking proof that the evangelists wrote independently of each other, and that their coin cidence of language arose not from mutual imitation, but from same ness of original material, that in these three verses Matthew al ways says upon (eVi), Mark into or among (els.) Good ground, in Greek, the earth, the good, earth or soil properly so called in distinc tion from the beaten, rocky, thorny places before mentioned. Game fruit coming up and growing, the fruit or ripe grain being represented as passing through the changes which are really experienced in the earlier stages of the vegetable process. Bore, the same idea that was before expressed by gave, the latter having more explicit reference to the use and wants of men, the former to production in itself considered What the seed bore, whether reaped or not, it yielded only on tha former supposition. One, i. e. one seed, the proportion stated being that of the seed sown to the ripe grain harvested. As the Greek nu- 90 MARK 4, 8. 9. 10. meral {ev) here rendered one is distinguished from the preposition in (iv) by nothing but its accent and its aspiration, which are not given in the oldest copies, one distinguished modern critic substitutes the latter, in thirty and in sixty, i. e. in this ratio or proportion, and an other gives as the most ancient text a different preposition {els), mean ing to (i. e. to the amount of) thirty, sixty, and a hundred. The pro ductiveness ascribed to the nutritious grains in this place is by no means unexampled either in ancient or in modern times. It is indeed a moderate and modest estimate compared with some recorded by Herodotus, in which the rate of increase was double or quadruple even the highest of the three here mentioned, and the recent harvest in our western states affords examples of increase still greater. 9. And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. This idiomatic and proverbial formula, like many others of perpet ual occurrence in our Lord's discourses, is never simply pleonastic or unmeaning, as the very repetition often tempts us to imagine. On the contrary, such phrases are invariably solemn and emphatic warn ings that the things in question are of the most momentous import, and entitled to most serious attention. They appear to have been framed or adopted by the Saviour, to be used on various occasions and in the pauses of his different discourses. There is something eminently simple and expressive in the one before us, which involves rebuke as well as exhortation. ' Why should you have the sense of hearing, if you do not use it now ? To what advantage can you ever listen, if you turn a deaf ear to these admonitions ? Now, now. if ever, he who can hear must hear, or incur the penalty of inattention ! ' But besides the importance of the subject and the juncture, it is here suggested that tho very form of the communication calls for close attention, in default of which it can impart no knowledge and confer no benefit. This may be understood as having reference to the parabolic method of instruction which our Saviour now began and afterwards continued to employ so freclj'-. (See below, on v. 11.) 10. And when he was alone, they that were about him, with the twelve, asked of him the parable. Alone, not absolutely but comparatively, by himself, in private, free from the pressure of the crowd, surrounded only by disciples, not in the strict sense of apostles, but in that of friendly hearers and adherents. This is clear from Mark's description, those about him with tlie twelve, i. e. those who in addition the twelve were in habitual at tendance on his person, following him from place to place ; or those who, upon this particular occasion, still remained about him after the dispersion of the multitude. Explained in either way, the words are probably descriptive of the same class, and imply that what now fol lows was addressed neither to the vast mixed multitude, nor to the MARK 4, 10. 11. 91 twelve apostles only, but to an intermediate body, smaller than the first and larirer than the second, but composed entirely of disciples (Matt. 13, 10." Luke 8, 9) or believers in his doctrine. Asked him of the parable, in Greek, asked him the parable itself, a pregnant phrase resolved by Luke and Matthew into two distinct inquiries, first, the general one, why he taught in parables at all (Matt. 13, 10), and then, the more specific one, what this first parable was meant to teach (Luke 8, 9.) It is observable that Mark, although he gives the question in a single form, and that a vague one, gives the answers to the two inqui ries really involved in it ; a circumstance which all but hypercritical sceptics will regard not as discrepancy but agreement. The question thus interpreted shows that, the parabolic method of instruction, as applied now for the first time to the doctrine of the kingdom, was ob scure or unintelligible even to the more enlightened of our Saviour's hearers ; a deficiency which furnished the occasion of his own author itative exposition, making known not only the precise sense of the parable to which it was immediately applied, but also the more gen eral principles and laws which are to govern the interpretation of all others. 11. And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God : but unto them that are without, all (these) things are done in parables : We have here the answer to the first inquiry really involved in that which Mark records (in v. 10) and more distinctly stated else where (Matt. 13, 10), namely, why he spake in parables at all. In answer to this question, he informs them that a sifting, separating pro cess had begun already and must be continued, with the unavoidable effect of throwing all his hearers into two great classes , those within and those without the magic circle of his enlightening and saving in fluence. The difference between these classes was not one of personal intrinsic merit, but of divine favour. To you it has been given, the perfect passive form, implying au authoritative predetermination, being common to all three accounts, as in our Lord's assurance to the para lytic, Thy sins have been forgiven thee (see above, on 2, 5.) Given, not conceded as a right, but granted as a favour. lb know, i. e. di rectly, by explicit statement, either without the veil of parable, or with the aid of an infallible interpretation. Mysteries, in the usual sense of that word as employed in scripture to denote, not the intrinsic nature of the things so called, but merely their concealment from the human mind until disclosed by revelation. The mystery in this sense here particularly meant is that of the kingdom of God, to be erected by Messiah in the heart of man and of society, and to receive its final consummation in a future state of glory. The use of this expression (of the kingdom), common to all three accounts (see Matt. 13,11. Luke 8, 10), is not without importance, as evincing that the parables of Christ had reference, not merely to personal duty and improve ment, but to the nature of his kingdom and the mode of its establish- 92 MARK 4, 11. 12. ment, a reference too often overlooked or sacrificed to mere individual edification. To those without the sphere or scope of this illuminating influence. All things (these is omitted by the latest critics), l. e. all things of the kind in question, namely, all communications and in structions in relation to Messiah's kingdom. Are done, take place, happen, an expression also used by Herodotus in reference to dis course or teaching. In parables, obviously implying that this mode of exhibition might be used to veil and to obscure as well as to eluci date the same things, but to different hearers or spectators. This darkening influence of parabolic teaching is assumed in this place, as a fact sufficiently implied in the inquiry which our Lord was answering, and not explained till afterwards. (See below, on vs. 24. 25.) 12. That seeing they may see, and not perceive ; and hearing they may hear, and not understand ; lest at any time they should be converted, and (their) sins should he forgiven them. Thus far it might have seemed that this obtuseness of the masses to divine instruction was a mere misfortune, having no connection with their moral .character and state. But now the Saviour represents it as the consequence of sin, left by God in his righteousness to operate unchecked in one class, but gratuitously counteracted in another. The expressions here are borrowed from that fearful picture of judicial blindness in Isaiah 6, 10. Matthew's quotation (13, 14. 15) is more full and formal. Luke's (8, 10) even more concise than that of Mark. Common to all, and therefore to be reckoned the essential part of the quotation, are the words, that seeing they might see, and hearing might not understand. To see and not see, hear and not hear-, was a para doxical Greek proverb, used by Demosthenes and iEschylus to signify a mere external sensuous perception without intellectual or moral con viction. Luke gives it nearly in its classical form, while Mark retains the Hebrew idiom of using two forms of the same verb for intensity or more precise specification. Seeing indeed, or seeing still, continu ing to see, or seeing clearly, so far as concerns the outward object. And not perceive, with the mind or heart. The Greek verbs might be also rendered look and see. Hearing might hear, i. e. distinctly, con stantly, again, or still. And not understand (or apprehend) the things heard in their spiritual import. Mark adds from Isaiah the judicial end or purpose of their being thus abandoned, lest at any time (or some time) they should turn (to God, or, as it is passively expressed, be converted), a familiar scriptural expression for that total change of character and conduct, heart and life, which is essential to salvation, And the sins (of which they have been guilty) be remitted (left un punished, pardoned), is the sense but not the form of the original ex pression, here retained by Matthew (13, 15), and representing sin as a disease, of which God heals men by forgiving them. (Compare Ps. 41, 4. Jer. 3, 22. Hos. 14, 4. 1 Pet. 2, 24/) The clause here quoted is derived, with little variation, from the Septuagint version of Isaiah. MARK 4, 13. 14. 93 13. And he said unto them, Know ye not this para ble ? and how then will ye know all parables ? And he says to them, a common form, especially in Mark (see above, on 3, 25. 27), to indicate a change of subject in the same discourse, or at least a transition from one part of the same topic to another. So in this case, having answered the first question latent in the statement that they asked him (of) the parable, to wit, the question why he spoke in parables at all (see Matt. 13, 10), he proceeds to answer the other, namely, what he meant to teach by this one in particular (see Luke 8, 9.) Before explaining it, however, he propounds a preliminary ques tion, which has been differently understood. Some make it an expres sion of displeasure and surprise that they should need his explanation of so clear a matter. But as this is inconsistent with his own ascrip tion of an obscuring power to this method of instruction (see above, on v. 11), the words are rather to be taken as a concession ofthe fact that they could not be expected to understand this or other parables, with out at least some general idea of the principles on which they were to be expounded. As if he had said, ' you find that you cannot understand this parable without assistance? how then will you understand the rest unaided ? ' The necessity suggested is not that of a particular elucidation to be added to each parable as it was uttered, although this was often actually given (see below, on v. 34), but of a general and comprehensive key to the whole series of his parabolic teachings. Such a key might be furnished in either of two ways, by a series of general and abstract rules applying to all parables, or by a few examples set ting forth the same laws in a concrete, practical, experimental manner. While the former might have met the wants or gratified the wishes of a body of philosophers; the latter was undoubtedly best suited to the actual condition and necessities of Christ's immediate hearers ; and we find accordingly that he adopts it, by expounding two of his first para bles (the Sower and the Tares) upon the same day that he uttered them and in the presence of his own disciples (see above, on v. 10.) Matthew has preserved both these invaluable expositions (13, 18-23. 36-50), Mark and Luke (8, 11-15) only that ofthe Sower, which is suf ficient of itself to teach the fundamental principles of parabolical inter pretation. It is impossible to overrate the value of this clew to guide us through the labyrinth of various and discordant expositions, or its actual effect, when faithfully employed, in guarding the interpreter against the opposite extremes of meagre generality and fanciful mi nuteness. It was not only placed here in the history, bnt uttered when it was, that it might serve as an example and a model in inter preting those parables which Christ has not explained himself. Some of the errors thus forbidden and condemned, if not prevented, will be noticed in expounding the ensuing verses. 14. The sower soweth the word. Human expounders, unchecked by our Lord's example and author ity, would no doubt have begun with something more specific and 94 MARK 4, 14. 15. 16. minute, such as the quantity and kind of seed, the place and mode of sowing, the significance belonging to the act of going forth, &c. But the Saviour teaches us to strike at once at the essential likeness or analogy which governs and determines all the minor correspondences. The sower (or one sowing) sows the word, i. e. the word of God (Luke 8 11) or more specifically still, the word (or doctrine, ofthe kingdom (see above, on v. 11.) This expression shows that our Lord's primary design in these instructions was not merely a generic one, including all the cases that can possibly arise in the*experience of men, but a specific one, relating to the wants and dangers of his own immediate hearers, the contemporary generation, among whom the advent of Messiah and his kingdom had been lately preached, and the kingdom itself was to be founded. 1 5. And these are they by the way-side, where the word is sown ; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. These are those along the way, i. e. the characters about to be de scribed are those whose case is represented by the falling of the seed upon the path. The incongruity, alleged by some, of making the seed represent the man, and not the word as just explained (v. 14), is a mere rhetorical punctilio, and presents no difficulty to the mind of any unbiassed reader. The parable has answered its design for ages, not withstanding this alleged flaw in its imagery, which probably occurs to none but hypercritics. Where, i. e. on the path and iu the ears of those whose case is represented by it. The word is sown, a mixture of the sign and the thing signified, producing no confusion, and objection able only on the ground of rhetorical preciseness. When they (the persons represented in this portion of the parable) hear (or have heard) the, word (just represented as seed sown), immediately comes Satan (or the adversary), elsewhere called the Devil (Luke 8, 12), and the Evil One (Matt. 13, 19.) Takes up and away, in reference to the pick ing up of grain by birds (see above, on v. 4.) Sown in their hearts, another mixture of the sign and the thing signified, as harmless as the other, because after the equivalents have been determined, they become convertible without confusion. The influence here ascribed to Satan must be strictly understood as really exerted by him in the case of those who hear the word, but only as a persuasive, not a coercive power, and therefore exercised by turning the attention from the word as soon as uttered, and diverting it to other objects. 16. And these are they likewise which are sown ori stony ground ; who, when they have heard the word, im mediately receive it with gladness. He now identifies the second class of fruitless and unprofitable hear ers, those represented in the parable by the falling ofthe seed on stony MARK 4, 16. 17. 95 places. Here again he seems to make the seed the emblem of the man himself, and not of the word preached to him, but with as little disad vantage to the force and clearness of the illustration as before, and in the exercise of that discretionary license which distinguishes original and independent thinkers, even among mere men, from the grammari ans and rhetoricians. Every ordinary reader understands without in struction that those sown upon the rocky {places) means those whose character and state are represented by the falling of the seed upon the rock, and not that the seed itself specifically represents the persons. Likewise, in the same way as before, this portion of the parable, like -that preceding it, exhibits a distinct class of hearers, and the influence exerted on them by the doctrine of the kingdom. The difference between the cases is that these go further, and not only hear the word, or passively receive it, but accept it as the word of God, and that not merely with a cold assent or forced submission, but with joy, as some thing addressed to the affections, no less than the reason and the con science, and received accordingly, at once, immediately, which, though a favourite of Mark, as we have seen above (on 1, 10. 18, 31. 40. 2, 2. 3, 6). is here attested as a genuine expression, not by his report alone, which would have been sufficient for the purpose, but by that of Mat thew (13, 20.) The obvious gradation in the parable not only renders it more perfect in a literary point of view, but increases its discrimi nating power as applied to individual and general experience, so that every class of hearers, even now, and still more in the time of Christ, might see itself as in a mirror. Indeed, nothing shows the wisdom of our Lord's instructions more impressively than the fact, confirmed by all experience for 1800 years, and receiving further confirmation every day, that all varieties of human and religious character may be reduced to some one or more of his simple but divine descriptions. 17. And have no root in themselves, and so endure but for a time : afterward, when affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately they are offended. While the first seed was not even buried, but removed while on the surface, the second was not only sown, but came up prematurely and without a root, which same expression our Lord now applies to the class here represented, namely, those who have no root in themselves, i. e. what in our religious phraseology (here founded upon Job 19, 28) is called " the root of the matter," i. e. a principle of true religion, in cluding or implying faith, repentance, and the love of God, producing an analogous external life. This shows in what sense Luke describes them (8, 13) as believing for a while, i. e. professing or appearing to believe while really without the root of true conviction and conversion. Mark expresses the same thing more concisely in a single word, tem porary, made up of the noun and preposition here employed by Luke, and elsewhere rendered temporal (2 Cor. 4, 18, as opposed to eternal), or paraphrased, for a season (Heb. 11, 25.) Then, afterwards, or after this ostensible conversion. Distress or persecution, kindred but dis- 96 MARK 4, 17. 18. 19. tinct terms, one originally signifying pressure, and the other pursuit, the former comprehending providential chastisements, the other de noting more specifically evils inflicted by the hands of human enemies. For (because or on account of) the word, the doctrine of Christ's king dom, which they had so joyfully embraced, and for a time so openly maintained. Ariseth is in Greek an absolute construction, being, be ginning to be, coming to pass, happening. Immediately again, both in Mark and Matthew (13, 21), but with a difference of form (ei6us and evZias), the repetition showing that the real change for the worse is as sudden and as easy as the apparent change for the better. Of fended, not in the ordinary modern sense of being displeased or alien ated in affection, but in the Latin and old English sense of stumbling or being made to stumble. The nearest root or theme to which it can be traced in classic Greek, denotes a trap or snare, but in the Hellen istic dialect a stumbling-block or any hindrance in the path, over which one may fall. In like manner the derivative verb means to make one fall or stumble, a natural figure both for sin and error, and often repre-. senting both as commonly connected in experience. Another explar nation of the usage, leading to the same result, gives offend its modem sense, but in reference to God, to offend whom is to sin, and then takes the verb here in a causative sense, they are made to sin, or betrayed into sinning against God. As the sin here meant is not such as even true believers may commit, but one arising from the absence of a root in the experience, Luke (8, 13) describes it by the stronger term, apostatize (or fall away), not from a previous state of grace or true conversion, which would imply the very thing explicitly denied in the preceding clause, to wit, the possessiou of a root, but from their osten sible and false profession. 18. And these are they which are sown among thorns; such as hear the word, 19. And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful. And others (or another class of fruitless hearers represented in this parable) are those sown among the thorns, i. e. those whose case is symbolized or emblematically set forth by the falling of a portion of the seed among thorns. The form of expression is the same as in vs. 15. 16, and is uniform in all the gospels, a sufficient proof that it is not an inadvertence or mistake of the historian, but at least in sub stance a deliberate expression of our Lord himself. Common to this with the other classes here described is the hearing of the word, be cause the very purpose of the parable is to exhibit different ways in which it may be heard with the effect upon the hearer. Some suppose the climax or gradation to be here continued, and this third class of hearers to be represented as going further than the second. But it seems more natural to make the two co-ordinate as different division'? MARK 4, 19. 20. 97 of the same class, i. e. of temporary converts or believers, the differ ence between them being not that one continues longer than the other, but that one is scandalized by violence, the other by allurement or seduction. While the former yield to distress and persecution, these are rendered fruitless by the cares and pleasures of the world. Cares, undue solicitudes, anxieties, and fears, as to the interests of this life. The corresponding verb (translated in our Bible by the old English phrase to take thought, i. e. to be over anxious) is applied by our Lord elsewhere in the same way (Matt. 6, 25-34. Luke 10, 41.) Of this world (or, according to the critics, the world), the same Greek word that was explained above (on 3, 29), as meaning properly dura tion or continued existence, either definite or indefinite, finite or infi nite, according to the context. Some suppose it here to mean the old economy or dispensation, to which secular anxieties were more appro priate, and even necessarily incident, than to the new. But it is more natural to understand it of the present life, with its temporary inter ests and pleasures, as opposed to the future and eternal state. Besides the cares or anxious fears belonging to this mixed and in a certain. sense probationary state, and relating chiefly to the means of subsist ence, our Lord specifies another danger, the deceit of wealth, including both delusive hope and fanciful enjoyment, and applying therefore both to those who make haste to be rich, as being the true source of happi ness, and those who reckon themselves actually happy because rich already. To these specifications Mark adds a comprehensive clause including all other worldly distractions, the desires about (relating to) the other (or remaining things), i. e. whatever else, belonging only to the present life, can be an object of such overweening covetous desire as to interfere with the legitimate effect of the instruction which has been received in reference to higher and more enduring interests. The comprehensive or residuary character of this clause is adverse to the distinction which might otherwise be recognized between the cares (or anxious fears) and the desires (or carnal hopes) of this life, as the rest (or other things) implies diversity of objects rather than of feelings towards them. Entering in, i. e. after the reception of the truth, or as intrusive strangers who have no right to admission, but ought to have been shut out. Choke the word, as in the parable itself (v. 7) the thorns choked the seed, another mixture of the sign and the thing signified, but still less confusing than in vs. 14. 15. 17, because even in the parable to choke is a strong figure as applied to plants, requiring little modification to adapt it to spiritual subjects. The same thing substantially is true of the remaining clause, and it becomes unfruitful, i. e. the word or truth considered as a seed, because intended to produce beneficial effects upon the life and character of those who hear it, in default ef which the same thing may be said of it as was before said of the seed which represents it, that it yielded not fruit (see above, on 7.) 20. And these are they which are sown on good ground ; such as hear the word, and receive (it), and bring 5 98 MARK 4, 20. 21. forth fruit, some thirty fold, some sixty, and some an hundred. Having thus applied the three ideal cases of unfruitful sowing to three well-known forms of human experience, our Lord concludes his exposition of the parable, by doing the same thing with respect tp the one favourable case which it presented, but which really includes a vast variety, at least in the measure or degree of fruitfulness, denoted by the ratio or proportion of the fruit or ripe grain to the seed or sown grain. These are those sown, &c, as in v. 18, i. e. those whose case is represented \>y the sowing upon good ground. These, like all the others, hear the word, receive instruction in the doctrine of the kingdom, and like two of the preceding classes, actively accept it, with assent and approbation, but unlike them all, escaping or resisting the occasions of unfruitfulness before described, retain it (Luke 8, 15) and ¦ bear fruit, not merely for a time, but in continuance, with perseverance and yet with great diversity of actual attainment, corresponding to the different proportions which the crop bears to the literal seed sown, which Luke omits, but Mark and Matthew here repeat, though not in, the same order (Matt. 13, 23, a hundred, sixty, thirty.) Even the most unreflecting reader cannot need to be reminded that the numbers thus selected are intended to convey the general idea of pro portional diversity, and not to limit that diversity to three specific rates. Hence our Lord, in expounding this part of the parable, simply repeats what he had said in the parable itself, without attaching a specific import to the several amounts, a lesson and example to inferior expounders, not only here but in -all analogous cases. The same thing may be said in substance of the three cases of unfruitfulness, except that there is reason to believe that they are not given merely as selected samples, but as comprehensive heads to which all particular occasions of unfruitfulness in spiritual husbandry may be reduced. (See above, on v. 16.) 21. And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed ? and not to be set on a candlestick ? To the exposition of the parable Mark adds a most important and significant appendix, perhaps uttered on the same occasion, although Matthew gives it elsewhere, as a portion of the Sermon on the Mount. (Matt. 5, 15. 7, 2.) But this is easily explained upon the obvious and probable assumption, that these sentences belonged to those aphoristic formulas which Christ appears to have thrown out on various occasions, and with some diversity of application, by neglecting which interpret ers have sometimes thrown the history into confusion. If, as is cer tainly conceivable, these wrords were uttered more than once, Matthew having given them in one place, would be likely to omit them in the other, while Mark, who does not give the Sermon on the Mount at all, would be just as likely to insert them here. The charge of incoherence MARK 4, 21. 22. 99 and irrelevance in this connection rests upon the false assumption that these brief proverbial maxims, forming one of the most characteristic features of our Saviour's (SiSu^r)) method of instruction, could be uttered only once or in a single application ; whereas their very use and purpose was to be repeatedly thrown out in various connections. Those before us, therefore, are to be explained, not from Matthew's context, but from Mark's, to which they are perfectly appropriate, whether actually uttered at the same time with the parable or not. He said to them, might mean upon a different occasion, but according to Mark's usage (see above, on vs. 9, 11, 13), rather on the same. One design is to preclude the notion of an esoteric doctrine, like that of the heathen mysteries and priesthoods, to be shared only by a chosen few. This heathenish idea might have seemed to be countenanced by the distinction which he made between the multitude and his disciples, and the additional instruction given to the latter as a sort of favoured class. In opposition to this natural but dangerous mistake, he tells them here that the ultimate design of all his teachings was the general diffusion of religious knowledge ; that whatever exceptions or reserves there might be, they were only temporary interruptions of his customary course, and would eventually answer the same purpose. This impor tant caution is conveyed by the familiar figure of a domestic light, i. e. a candle, lamp, or lantern, which may be momentarily concealed, or its light shaded, but cannot without folly and absurdity be perma nently put beneath a vessel or a couch. The proper place for such a light is the candlestick, or lamp-stand, and it cannot be rationally- put in any other; except for some transient accidental reason. The form of the question is the same as in 3, 19, presupposing a negative answer (it is not so, .... is it ?) A light does not come .... does it ? Is brought, literally comes, a personification perfectly familiar in the dialect of common life, and in reference to the very same subject. The size or capacity of the Roman modius (about one peck of our meas ure) is of no more importance to the meaning of the passage than the dimensions of the couch or bed. It is mentioned not as a specific measure, but as a utensil with which they were familiar in their houses. The same idea might be now conveyed by speaking of a box or basket. The verb is to be tacitly repeated in the last clause. Does it not come (is it not brought, for the very purpose) that it may be put upon the candlestick or lamp-stand ? a derivative form of the word meaning light, and to be rendered in accordance with it. The nexus between this verse and the one before it is obscured by the omission of the intervening thought, that a domestic light may now and then be thus concealed, but only for a moment and for some necessary purpose. So, too, the light of his instructions, though occasionally veiled in parable or otherwise obstructed, was intended to diffuse itself, and even when confined for the present to a few, was so confined in order to be more effectually shed abroad. 22. For there is nothing hid, which shall not be mani- 100 MARK 4, 22. 23. fested ; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad. What he had just expressed by lively figures he now says in literal or plain terms, the connection being indicated by the for. As if he had said, these figures drawn from your domestic habits, are appro priate to your spiritual duties and advantage, because, &c. There is not any thing hid which may not be revealed, the construction in Greek being highly idiomatic, so that a literal version (whatsoever may be not revealed) would be unmeaning or convey a wrong idea. The last clause is not a mere reiteration of the same thought in other words, but adds a strong expression of design or purpose. Not only shall what is now concealed be made known, but it is now concealed in order to be made known. The common word for hidden, secret, is exchanged for a cog nate but more emphatic compound, which is itself the source of our word apocrypha, as primarily meaning something hid away or brought out from concealment. Nor has any thing become (or been made) secret, but that it might come into open (view), or be made public. The very form of this clause shows that neither it nor that before it can be here (whatever it may mean in Matthew) understood as a threatening of detection and exposure to concealed iniquity ; for how can this be said to have become (or been made secret) in order that it might be brought to light, unless we understand the first words as denoting God's permission or endurance of the secrecy, or attenuate the meaning of the particle (in order that), both which are gratuitous and violent constructions, not to be assumed without necessity. The obvious reference in this connection, which is thereby cleared of inco herence and abruptness, is to the partial transient obscuration of the light of Christ's own teachings, by the use of parables or otherwise, not as preventive but eventually promotive of its full diffusion. 23. If any man have ears to hear, let him hear. If these, words had been given only here by Mark, as they are given earlier by Matthew (13, 9), it might be made a question which evange list has put them into their exact place. But as Mark records them twice, and the words themselves belong to that class of our Lord's expres sions which were most apt to be repeated often (see above, on v. 9), there can be no doubt that they were so repeated upon this occasion, though the fact has been preserved by Mark alone. Such repetition is' the less improbable because the solemn admonition which precedes was very liable to misconstruction, as appears from the incongruous sense often put upon it still, and then made a pretext for accusing the historian of incoherence. To put the disciples on their guard against such miscon ception, was a purpose which might well excuse a still more irksome repetition of our Lord's proverbial warning, that whoever had the fac ulty of hearing ought to use it now if ever, as a safeguard against error \n relation to a most important privilege and duty. MARK 4, 24. 25. 101 24. And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear. With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to yon, and unto you that hear, shall more be given. And he said to them, perhaps upon a different occasion, and record ed just here only to. complete Mark's statement ofthe Saviour's teach ings upon this important subject. Here again, however, as in v. 21, it is more probable that it was uttered at the same time with the language which precedes it in the context. Nevertheless, let it be observed that this assumption is by no means requisite to vindicate the writer, who makes no assertion either way, and whose purpose in recording these words is as perfectly accomplished on the one hypothesis as on the other. The only difference is that between the phrase, ; he then went on to say,' and the phrase, ' at another time he said,' &c. Take heed, literally, see, i. e. see to. it, look out. be circumspect or cautious (see above, on 2, 44, where a different but synonymous verb is used.) What ye hear, i. e. from me, on this and other like occasions, which implies or necessarily suggests the caution, how ye hear (Luke 8, 18), as their manner of receiving his instructions must depend upon their views as to what those instructions were. Then follows another of the Saviour's gnomes or maxims, which, though always meaning the same thing essentially, were adapted and intended to be variously applied. The specific application here must be determined, not by the connec tion of the same words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7, 2. Luke 6. 37), where they have reference to censorious judgments, but by their connection here, where they can only be referred to the same subject with the words preceding, i. e. Christ's peculiar method of. instruction and the way to profit by it. The essential meaning of the maxim in both cases is, that giving and receiving are reciprocal, like action and reaction as a law of physics. The specific application here is, that he who would receive instruction must give something in return, to wit, intelligent attention, a desire to be instructed, and a proper use of what he knows already. In this sense, as in many others, might our Lord, without a change in the essential meaning of his language, say to them,m what measure ye measure shall be measured to you, i. e. I will treat you as learners just as you treat me as your instructor, this spe cific application being not only suggested by the context, but distinctly intimated in the next clause, unto you that hear shall more be given, a correct paraphrase, but not a literal translation, which is, there shall be added (or addition shall bo made) to you hearing (or to you that hear.) This last word shows that the law of reciprocity is here ap plied, not to the act of judging, but to that of hearing, i. e. hearing Christ's instructions. 25. For he that hath, to him shall be given ; and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath. The idea suggested in v. 24 is here expressed in still another form, 102 MARK 4, 25. 26. 27. which Matthew introduces earlier in this discourse (13, 12), but Luke (8, 18) agrees with Mark in placing at the close of this important ad monition. The question of arrangement is of less importance, as our Lord appears to have pursued the subject both before and after he ex plained the parable of the sower, and the only difference is in this rela tive position of tho sentence. We may either suppose therefore (as in v. 23) that he uttered tho words twice, or regard it as a matter of indifference whether they preceded or followed his infallible interpre tation ofthe Sower. Applying -the same rule of exposition as before, to wit, that the specific application of such maxims is to be determined by the context in every given case of their occurrence, we shall find that the one here uttered has respect not to grace or spiritual influence in general, but to illuminating grace or spiritual knowledge in particu lar. Our Lord exhorts them to attend to what he says, and lays it down as the foundation of ulterior attainments ; for in this sense too it may be said, Whoever has, to him shall be given, i. e. whoever takes, keeps, and uses, what I tell hiin now, shall know still more hereafter. And the converse is of course true, he who has not (in possession and in use what I have previously taught him), even what he has (of previ ous knowledge and attainment, or even of this, as a mere speculative intellectual, possession) shall be taken from him. This involves a threatening of divine retribution, but is strictly and directly the an nouncement of a general law, both intellectual and moral, namely, that the only choice is between loss and gain, advancement and recession; that there can be no stagnation or repose; that the only method of se curing what we have is by improving it, the failure to do which is tan tamount to losing it or throwing it away. It is only another aspect of the same important lesson, no doubt uttered by our Lord in some dis course upon this subject, and most probably in that before us, that we find in Luke's report of it (8, 18), namely, that the value of previous attainments in religious knowledge, unless thus improved and advanced upon, is only specious and apparent, and that even this, in case of fail ure to increase and grow, will be withdrawn, or seen in its true colours, for whoever has not (in possession and in use what I have taught him, but imagines that he can retain it as it is without its growing either more or less), even what he (thus) seems to have (or thinks he has, of spiritual knowledge) shall be taken from him, not as an arbitrary pun ishment inflicted by authority, but as the necessary intellectual and moral product of his own neglect. 26. And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground ; 27. And should sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and grow up, he knoweth not how. Passing over the parable of the Tares, which Matthew here gives (13, 24-30) with our Lord's interpretation of it (36-50), an omission not easily explained on the hypothesis of mere compilation or abridg- MARK 4, 27. 28." 103 ment, Mark records a parable not given by the others, although ut tered at the same time with the Sower, or at least intended to illus trate the same subject, by analogies derived from the same source, to wit, the processes of husbandry. Having shown the different reception of the word by different classes, exploded the idea of all mystery or esoteric doctrine, and exhorted them to caution as to what and how they heard, he now proceeds to teach them in the same way, that the ultimate effect is wholly independent of man's industry and care, how ever necessary these may be. The idea is essentially the same with that expressed by Paul in 1 Cor. 3, 6. 7. Here as there, too, the ex ternal form is that of a parable, not a narrative indeed (see above, on v. 2), but still an illustration drawn from tho analogy of human expe rience and the usages of common life. The main fact thus alleged is that although man must sow and reap, all that lies between these two extremes is not only independent of his power but beyond his observa tion. And he said, in pursuance of the same design, and probably, but not necessarily, upon the same occasion (see above, on vs. 9. 13. 21. 24.) So is the kingdom of God. i. e. such is its growth and progress in the world and in the hearts of men. As if a man (not the specific term opposed to woman, but the generic term, equivalent to human being. person, and here meaning any one) cast seed (hypothetically stated al though one of the most common facts of every-day experience) upon the earth (as if to indicate a careless superficial sowing as the whole that man can do until the harvest) and (then) sleep and wake (as usual) night and day (according to his ordinary habit) without using any other means to make it germinate, or even thinking of it, till the time of its maturity approaches. But notwithstanding his neglect or ina bility to aid its germination, it does germinate and grow (literally lengthen or prolong itself) how, knows not he, the pronoun being placed emphatically at the end, as much as to say, whoever else may know it, it is all unknown to him, by whom, and for whose benefit, the seed was sown. The form of the verbs sprout and grow is still subjunctive or expressive of contingency, because although such cases are of every day occurrence, the particular one mentioned is ideal or imaginary (see above, on v. 3.) 28. For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself; first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear. Of herself, in Greek an adjective which means spontaneous or self- moving, and the neuter form of which {automaton) is used in English to denote a self-moving machine, particularly one which imitates the actions of the human body. It is here to be relatively understood with reference to man and his exertions. So far asthese are concerned, the earth is independent and self-acting, in the growth of plants, but not as respects God, whose agency, so far from being here excluded, is im pliedly opposed to that of man. What is here affirmed is true not only of the first germination, but of all tho later stages and developments. First the blade, literally, grass, or that period of growth in which 104 MARK 4, 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. grains and grasses are alike. Then the ear, the same word that occurs above in v. 23. Then the full (or full-grown, ripe, mature) corn (i. e. grain, as in the passage first referred to.) 29. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he putteth in the sickle, because the haivest is come. Is brought forth, literally, gives up, yields (i. e. itself) to him who sowed it and is to enjoy it. Immediately, as soon as it is ready for his use, he putteth in (literally, sendeth out) the sickle, i. e. reaps or causes to be reaped by others, because the harvest stands near (is at hand), and it is therefore time again for man to work. The main point here is not the act of reaping but the agent, or the fact that now man's agency begins again, after having been suspended since the sowing. In other words, man sows and reaps, but cannot make the seed grow or the harvest ripen. So the word or truth of God must be diffused by human agency, and acts on human interests for good or evil ; but its whole efficiency is in itself, i. e. in God who gave it and who renders it effectual to men's salvation. 30. And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the king dom of God ? or with what comparison shall we com pare it ? "31. (It is) like a grain of mustard-seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth. 32. But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches ; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. And he said, as in v. 26, in pursuance of the same subject, and most probably in direct continuation of the same discourse. This for mula here introduces a third parable or illustration, drawn from the analogies of husbandry, and recorded also by Matthew (13, 31. 32) im mediately after that of the Sower. The truth taught is the expansive and diffusive nature of the true religion and the necessary growth of the Messiah's kingdom, both in society at large and in the hearts of individuals, from the most infinitesimal beginnings to the most im mense results. This idea is expressed, in a parabolic or proverbial manner, by the growth of the sinapi or oriental mustard, from a seed unusually small, not merely to a bush or shrub, but to a tree with spreading boughs, affording shade and shelter to the birds of heaven (or the air, see above, on v. 4.) Less, or lesser, an English form which, although different in origin, may serve to represent the double com parative in Greek. Less than all seeds, in proportion to the size which it attains at its maturity. Herbs, i.e. garden plants or vegetables. """ -,or more exactly, can, are able. Lodge, literally, camp or pitch MARK 4, 32. 33. 34. 35. 105 tent, tabernacle ; then more generally, find shelter, and still more so, dwell or sojourn. This last clause is added to show that the boughs or branches previously mentioned are not merely apparent but sub stantial and like those of trees, sufficient to sustain the weight of birds alighting and remaining on them. 33. And with many such parables spake he the word unto them, as they were able to hear (it.) These are mere samples of the parables by which our Lord eluci dated or disguised the doctrine of his kingdom to the different classes of his hearers in proportion to their previous knowledge and their present receptivity of such instruction (see above, on vs. 24. 25.) As they were able to hear, i. e. as some understand it, to hear intelligently or with patience. It may however have the stricter and more simple sense, as they had opportunity and leisure to attend on his instruc tions. 34. But without a parable spake he not unto them ; and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples. This cannot mean that he never taught them in any other form, which would be contradicted by the whole course of the history, but only that whatever he did teach in parables he did not also teach in other forms, but, as the last clause more explicitly asserts, reserved the explanation for a private interview with his disciples. This closes Mark's account of our Lord's parables, including, as we have now seen, a full report of one with its author's own interpretation (vs. 1—20), an explanation of his purpose in employing this mode of instruction and direction to his followers how to profit by it (21-25) ; two additional parables, without a formal explanation (26-32) ; and a general state ment of his practice in relation to this matter (33-34.) 35. And the same day, when the even was come, he saith unto them, Let us pass over unto the other side. Having finished his account of our Lord's parables, Jlark now re sumes that of his miracles, selecting one wholly different from any pre viously recorded, and evincing the same power over the elements which he had already proved himself to possess over evil spirits and diseases. The same day, literally, that day, which might possibly refer to some day previously spoken of but not in the immediate context. But the only natural construction is the strict one, which makes that day mean the day on which the previous discourse was uttered. The supposed inconsistency with Matthew (13, 18) who connects this incident with the healing of Peter's wife's mother at Capernaum, proceeds upon the false assumption that the connection in both gospels is a strictly chro nological one. But Matthew's text gives no such intimation, and his 5* 108 MARK 4, 41. other languages, ana nere gratuitously weakened by translating it exceedingly. Another needless variation from the form of the origi nal is what manner of man instead of who then (or therefore), a logi cal formula, introducing a conclusion or deduction from the facts already stated. Some understand this as the language of the crew or boatmen, and not of the disciples, who could scarcely have in quired, after all that they had witnessed, who or what he was. But although such an expression on the part of others seems to be pre served by Matthew (8, 27), the words in Mark are naturally those of the disciples, and can easily be explained, not as expressing any ignorance or doubt as to the person of their master, but unfeigned astonishment at this new proof of his control, not only over demons and diseases, but also over winds and waves,, which they had seen, like human slaves, obey him at a word. Thus understood, the last of this verse suggests the reason of Mark's adding this particular mirac ulous performance, namely, that he might complete his series of exam ples, not promiscuously taken but selected out of many, for the purpose of presenting in a new light Christ's dominion over every form of evil, as well natural as moral. CHAPTER V. Continuing the narrative of the Saviour's miracles, resumed near the close of the preceding chapter, Mark records three more, not promis cuously taken from the mass or accidentally remembered, but deliber ately chosen, as intrinsically wonderful, and also on account of their dissimilarity to one another and to any that had gone before ; thus showing a definite intention in the writer to illustrate his great subject, the prophetic ministry of Christ, not by an indiscriminate array of facts, however striking in themselves, but by distinct examples of the various powers which he claimed and exercised. The first of the miracles here given belongs to the class of demoniacal possessions, but presents a case not only of peculiar aggravation but of great impor tance in its bearing on the evidence of Christ's Messiahship (1-21.) The other two are complicated together, not through any fault of the historians, but from their fidelity in reproducing what occurred pre cisely as it did occur, one miracle having been performed while Christ was on his way to work another. The former was the healing of the woman with the issue of blood, affording a clear proof of Christ's om niscience and compassion, and a striking illustration of the various modes in which his cures were wrought. For while in this case the disease was checked by contact with his garment, in the one that follows, he had gone to a considerable distance for the purpose, and performed the miracle with more than usual formality. This was a MARK 5, 1. 2. 109 miracle of resuscitation, the first of that class upon record, and there fore carrying vastly further than before the demonstration of our Lord's divine legation and extraordinary powers (21-43.) The obvious indications of selection and design in these three narratives not only binds them to each other in one context, but confirms our previous conclusions with respect to the unity and plan of the whole history. 1. And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. The next miracle, recorded by tfie three evangelists, and represented by them all as immediately subsequent to the stilling of the storm upon the sea of Galilee, is the dispossession of a multitude of demons and their entrance into lower animals, with Christ's permission or at his command. The scene of this transaction was on the east side of the lake, called by Mark and Luke (8, 26) the land or district of the Gadarenes, so named from Qadara, a strong and wealthy city of Perea, not named in Scripture but described by Josephus as a Greek town, i. e. probably inhabited by Gentiles. It was attached to Herod's jurisdiction by Augustus, but annexed to Syria both before and after wards. The highest modern geographical authorities identify it with ¦ extensive ruins at a place called Umkeis, on a mountainous range east of Jordan, near the southern end of the lake and overlooking it. The district appears to have had other names, derived from towns or tribes, one of which has been preserved by Matthew (8, 28). though the reading there is doubtful. There is no doubt as to the essential fact that what is here recorded took place on the east side of the lake and opposite to Galilee (Luke 8, 26.) Beyond this the details of the to pography are unimportant. 2. And when he was come out of the ship, immedi ately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, To him coming out, i. e. as he landed (Luke 8, 27), not merely after he had done so, which would admit of an indefinite interval, whereas the landing and the meeting were simultaneous or immediately succes sive. Met him, or came to meet him, possibly with some unfriendly purpose. Out of the tombs, a Greek word originally meaning memo rials, then monuments, then tombs or sepulchres. As these were usually in the shape of houses, or of chambers hewn in the rock (see below, on 15, 46), they would easily afford a haunt and refuge in such cases as the one here mentioned. A man, originally from the city (Luke 8, 27), probably of Gadara, but now driven from his home by an aggra vated demoniacal possession. There were really two men who now appeared in this condition (Matt. 8, 28) ; but Mark mentions only one, perhaps the more alarming and distressing case, as sufficient for his purpose (compare Luke 8, 27.) In an unclean spirit, not merely in jompany. but in intimate aud mysterious union, with a demon (see 110 MARK 5, 2. 3. 4. above, on 1, 23. 32. 3, 22.) Thus far the case resembled multitudes of others which our Lord had previously dealt with, excepting m the circumstance suggested by the words, out of the tombs, and more dis tinctly stated in the next verse. 3. Who had (his) dwelling among the tombs ; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains : Here we begin to see a fearful singularity in this case, as compared with all the other demoniacal possessions previously mentioned, and accounting in some measure for its , being singled out and separately stated. Hitherto such cases have been spoken of as aggravated forms of disease, preternaturally caused but under the control and cure of others. (See above, on 1, 23. 32. 34, and compare Matt. 12, 22.) Here, on the contrary, the sufferer is a voluntary outcast from society, who had the residence (or dwelling) in (not merely among) the tombs, a kindred and synonymous expression with the one employed in v. 2. Could bind, literally, could not bind, a double negative in Greek en forcing the negation. (See above, on 2, 44.) With bonds, whether chains or cords, the original expression, according to its usual deriva tion, only signifying strength and close confinement. It appears to be implied that such coercion was the ordinary practice, which indeed had been tried in this case at an earlier stage, as stated in the next verse. 4. Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces : neither could any (man) tame him. It was not a mere conjecture or gratuitous assumption, that the usual coercive measures were impossible in this case, but a matter ot experience. It was so regarded/or (or on account of) his having been often bound with fetters, a word derived from feet both in Greek and English, and denoting any thing by which the feet are fastened, whether chain or cord. It is implied in this account and expressed in Luke's (8, 27), that the case was one of ancient standing, and had been grow ing worse, as the confinement which had once been practised was no longer possible ; unless we understand the negative expression in v. 3 to mean that he could not be confined for any length of time, but always sooner or later broke his bonds. Plucked asunder, torn apart, or' pulled in different directions, with the preternatural strength some times caused by ordinary madness, but in this case obviously owing to the presence of the demon, who was suffered to influence both mind and body but with absolute dominion over neither. (See above, on 1, 23-32). The other passive verb here used is properly the opposite or converse of the first, meaning rubbed together, i. e. with great violence and thereby crushed or broken. This does not necessarily imply a difference in the structure or material of the chains and fetters, both rerbs by a common Hebrew idiom, not unknown in other languages, MARK 5, 4. 5. 6. • 111 referring to both nouns, as if it had been said that the chains and fetters were either torn apart or crushed together by the frantic violence and strength of the demoniac. It is only a more general expression of the same fact, that no one {man is supplied by the translators, see above, on 2, 21,) could tame him. Could is neither an auxiliary nor the verb used in the last clause of v. 3, but another still more clearly significant of strength or power; no one was strong (enough) to tame him. This last verb properly denotes the subjugation of the lower animals by man, but is also applied to moral influence on human subjects. (For examples of both senses, compare James 3, 7. 8.) It may here express a complex notion, comprehending moral suasion and physical coercion ; but the latter having been already mentioned, the former is probably the main idea. As no one could confine his limbs, so no one could sub due his will ; it was equally impossible to bind and tame him. 5. And always, night and day, he was in the moun tains, and in the tombs, crying, and cutting himself with stones. Having stated negatively his indomitable fierceness, Mark completes the melancholy picture by describing positively how he spent his time. Always, literally, through all (time), i. e. continually, which is thus expressed in more specific terms. Night and day, suggesting the idea of insomnia, or sleeplessness, one of the most distressing incidents and symptoms of insanity in some of its familiar forms, but in this case no doubt aggravated by the ceaseless stimulation of the evil spirits. In the hills (or mountains), agrees well with the localities of this transac tion, as the district south-east of the lake is hilly, and the ancient Gadara appears to have been situated near the summit of the range of highlands upon that side of the Jordan. Crying, either with pain or from unnatural excitement, an effect which seems to have been common in the case of demoniacal possessions (see above, on 1, 20. 3, 11, and below, on v. 7.) Cutting is in Greek an intensive compound corres ponding to cut down, cut up, in English, and denoting here not mere occasional incisions but a general laceration of the body in the wretched sufferer's frantic war upon himself, or with the demon who possessed him. With stones, the sharp flints scattered on the surface of desert tracts in Palestine, and several times mentioned elsewhere. (See Matt. 3, 9. 4, 3.) To this fearful picture nothing can be added but the cir cumstances mentioned in the parallel accounts, that he would wear no clothes (Luke, 8, 27), and that he (with his companion) was the terror of the country, so that no one dared to pass that way (Matt. 8, 28.) 6. But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and wor shipped him. ' Thus far the evangelist has been describing the habitual condition of this terrible demoniac ; now he describes his conduct upon this occasion. Seeing Jesus from afar he ran, the local adverb qualifying 112 MARK 5, 6. 7. either verb or both, and not the first exclusively, as in the version This act of running from a distance may have looked to the spectators like a violent attack, and may at first have been so intended, winch would make the change more striking when, instead of flying at the stranger, as he had been wont to do as long as any came that way, he suddenly fell down to him (Luke 8, 28), i. e. before him, and wor shipped, i. e. did him reverence or homage, in the customary oriental method by prostration, or by kissing his feet, or the ground beneath them, or his own hand, the primary meaning of the Greek verb being that of kissing, or in the compound form hero used, kissing (the hand) to (or at) one, in the way of reverential salutation. The English verb (to worship) also has a wider meaning in the older writers than the one to which it is confined by later usage, that of adoring, reverencing as a divine being. It is not impossible, however, that this stronger sense is here intended, since the demons recognized our Lord, not merely as the Son of man, or the Messiah (see above, on 2, 10), but as the Son of God. (See below, upon the next verse.) 7. And cried with a loud voice, and said, "What have I to do with thee, Jesus, (thou) Son of the Most High God ? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not. The description of his acts is followed by a record of his words. And crying with a great voice, seems to mean not merely that he spoke loud, or even that his voice was prematurely strong, but also that before he uttered the words here recorded, he gave vent to one of those unearthly shrieks, which have been already mentioned (on v. 5), as symptomatic of possession, a distinction rendered still more clear in Luke (8, 28), by the arrangement of the sentence. The words them selves seem to have been a sort of formula adopted by the demons or demoniacs, when brought into contact with the great exorcist. This is at least the case with the preliminary question, which is identical with that recorded in 1, 24, and there explained, except that fhe contempt uous name (Nazarene) is here exchanged for the divine one {Son of God.) It is true that even then the evil spirits formally owned him as the Holy One of God ; but this, as there explained (on 1, 24), relates not so much to his essential nature as to his mediatorial work and office ; whereas Son of God denotes community of nature or identity of essence with the Father, from whom he derives the title. (See above, on 1, 1. 3, 11.) . But although this is the meaning of the title in its highest application, it admits of others (as in Matt. 5, 9-45), and perhaps in Mark 15, 39. Luke 3, 38), and therefore cannot of itself prove that the demons knew our Lord to be a divine person, although this is certainly the obvious and natural presumption from the usage of the words, confirmed by the additional epithet Most High (or Highest), which distinguishes the true God from all false gods, and would seem to be employed here for the purpose of determining the nature of the Son by indicating that of the Father. The recognition and expostula tion are succeeded by an earnest and importunate petition. / adjure MARK 5, 7. 8. 113 thee by God, a much stronger expression than those used by Luke (8, 28) and Matthew (8, 29.) To adjure is properly to make swear or administer an oath, i. e. to exhort one in the name of God to tell the truth, in which sense a compounded form of the same Greek verb is employed in Matt. 26, 63 ; and by a wider application the uncom- pounded verb itself denotes any solemn charge or exhortation in the name of God (as in 1 Thess. 5, 27), particularly such a call addressed to evil spirits, and requiring them to leave their victim (as in Acts 19, 13), whence the verb exorcise and its cognate terms {exorcism and exor cist), found their way through the later ecclesiastical Greek and Latin into our own and other modern languages. The simple verb, as here used, denotes urgent entreaty in the name of God, or with express appeal to his authority as sanctioning the prayer. It is equivalent to saying, 'I implore thee to do that which God himself approves or would approve in this case.' This appeal to God was not a mere auda cious blasphemy, but a plausible deduction from his having really deferred the full infliction of their sentence, so that Christ's interfer ence with them might be speciously described as an anticipation of their final doom, or tormenting them before the time. (Matt. 8, 29.) From the Greek word {fiao-avos) for a touchstone (called in Latin lapis lydius) upon which the ancients rubbed the precious metals as a test of purity and genuineness, comes a verb (flao-avi£a>) expressive ofthat operation ; then of any proof or trial ; then of torture as a test of truth and falsehood, or a means of discovering the former ; then of torture or torment, as the severest form of punishment, in which sense it is used here. ' We implore thee to deal with us as God himself does, that is, not to precipitate our final doom, but to prolong the respite which we now enjoy.' This petition, and the reason indirectly used for it, corroborates the previous presumption, though it falls short of a perfect demonstration that the demons recognized our Lord as being, in the strict and highest sense, the Son of God. 8. (For he said unto him, Come out of the man, (thou) unclean spirit.) As this adjuration, or importunate petition, might have seemed to be entirely without pretext or occasion, and therefore historically doubtful or improbable, Mark here goes back a single step to introduce a circumstance before omitted, and supplying the required link of connection. It was not without cause that he thus adjured him, for lie (Jesus) said to him (the demon), i. e. said to him before the adjuration just recorded, which is equivalent in fact, though not in form, to the pluperfect {he had said), which we should naturally use in English. What he had said is then distinctly stated. The leading or essential word is, Gome out ! The remaining words are » description of the person thus addressed, the first generically, as the spirit, i. e. the one in possession, then specifically, as the unclean (or impure one), an em phatic collocation, only partially imitated in the English version, tmclean spirit. 114 MARK 5, 9. 9. And he asked him, What (is) thy name ? And he answered, saying, My name (is) Legion : for we are many. The connectioii here is a little doubtful, though the sense is plain. These words may either be included in the supplementary and paren thetical statement of what Christ had said before the adjuration in v. 7 (for he said, .... and asked him), or may be the resumption of the main narrative thus momentarily interrupted (for before they thus adjured him he had said, .... and after they adjured him, he in quired), which last, on the whole, appears to be the natural construc tion. Asked is not the simple verb so rendered in 4, 10, but a com pound form corresponding rather to our questioned or examined, perhaps implying a judicial rather than a curious or indifferent interro gation. What is thy name ? literally, what name to thee (belongs) ? So too in the answer, Legion (is) a name to me, i. e. My name is Legion. The meaning of this answer is immediately explained by him who gave it. (I call myself so) because many are we. The name itself, borrowed from the organization of the Roman army, was no doubt proverbial wherever the Roman arms prevailed. The precise number of a legion (varying in different times and circumstances from three to above six thousand) is of no more importance to the meaning here than that of the modius or Roman bushel in 4, 21. The idea meant to be con veyed is not that of a definite number, but the complex one of multi tude and military organization, just as troop, regiment, and host are used in English, even when there is no reference to an army proper, but to something more organic, although not necessarily more numer ous, than would be expressed by mob and rabble, or even by multitude and crowd. My name is Legion is equivalent to saying, in more modern phrase, I am myself (or in myself) a host, not however as a metaphor for strength, but as denoting literal plurality of persons. It may be more fully paraphrased as follows : ' I am one, yet more than one, nay many, an embattled host, a legion, sworn to the same cause and serv ing under one commander.' But besides this explanation of the name, afforded by contemporary usage and association, there are still two questions to be answered in elucidation of the verse before us. The first is, to whom did our Lord address his question, and by whom was it responded to ? This point is of less real than apparent moment, as it relates to something quite beyond the reach of human scrutiny, and all that was perceptible would be the same on any supposition, i. e. whether we suppose that the inquiry was propounded to the man in reference to his real name, but answered madly under the direction of the demons as relating to themselves ; or whether we explain it as addressed directly to the latter, and intended to call forth the an swer which was actually given. The only remaining supposition, that our Lord desired to know the individual or personal designation of the demon as such, is exceedingly improbable, partly because he did not need the information for himself, and it could uot be of any use to others ; partly because the question would then presuppose a single spirit, when the answer and the subsequent narrative show tliat there MARK 5, 9. 10. 115 were many. This leads to the other doubtful point, to wit, in what sense the possessors of this man are represented both as one and many. The difficulty is not in relation to the actions of the man pos sessed, whose individuality was not destroyed by this intrusive occu pation of his person, but to the express distinction made between him and an unclean spirit (v. 2), the unclean spirit (v. 8), who possessed him, but who afterwards describes himself as being many (v. 9), and is always mentioned subsequently in the plural or collective form (vs. 10. 12. 13. 15.) There are three ways of explaining this apparent inconsistency, either of which is far more rational and easy than the hypothesis of real contradiction, which could hardly have escaped the evangelists themselves and their original or ancient readers, some of whom were on the watch for every symptom of bad faith or error. The first solution is by taking unclean spirit (vs. 1. 8) as a collective signifying personal but not individual agency, it being the established form of speech to call the unseen power by which the demoniac was possessed an evil spirit, whether it were one or many. This is not forbidden by the general laws or usages of language, in which nothing is more common than the use of such collectives ; but it is without positive example or analogy in the New Testament itself. A second method of solution is to understand the singular term (spirit) of the fiend in actual possession, but the plural and collective of his comrades and allies, whom he summons, as it were, to his assistance, and who with him take possession of the swine. But this, if not forbidden ab solutely, is at least discountenanced and made to seem less natural, by the express statement, found in all three gospels, that the unclean spirits, which went into the swine, went out of the demoniac, and Luke says expressly (8, 30), many demons had gone into him. Free from all these objections, and positively recommended by its agreement with the military figure of a legion* is a third solution, which supposes a plurality of fiends in actual possession, but with one superior to the rest, as the commander of the legion, and therefore called, by way of eminence, the unclean spirit, just as Satan or Beelzebub is elsewhere called the arahon cf the demons (see above, on 3, 22.), Whether Satan is himself the evil spirit of this passage, or some intermediate " spirit ual wickedness " (Eph. 6, 12) belonging to the hierarchy of hell, is a question of no moment to the exposition. While the first hypothesis 'is simpler and requires least to be assumed without express authority, the last is recommended by the fact that Satan is not named, even in answer to our Lord's direct interrogation. 10. And he besought him much that he would not send them away out of the country. Finding their first expostulation against any interference with them fruitless (see above, on v. 7), they now prefer a less extravagant peti tion that if driven from their present stronghold in the bodies of demoniacs, they might at least continue in the country where they had been long perhaps allowed to exercise their baleful power. He 116 MARK 5, 10. 11. besought him might be also rendered they besought him, as the Greek verb, although singular in form, may have a plural subject of the neuter gender. But as this construction is not common where the neuters denote personal agents, the common version is approved by the highest philological authorities. The subject may be either the unclean spirit of vs. 2. 8, or the demoniac possessed by it and not yet free from its obtrusive presence. Much, literally many {things), the version many (spirits), or many (of them), being forbidden by the usage just explained. Besought, not so strong a word as that in v. 7, but one originally meaning to call to (or for) one, whether in the sense of invitation (as in Acts 28, 20), or of exhortation (as in Acts 15, 32), or of invocation and entreaty (as in 1, 40 above, and in v. 17 below.) The additional sense of consolation, although common in the Greek of the New Testament (e. g. Matt. 2, 18. 5, 4), is altogether secondary, and would here be wholly inappropriate. Away out is a correct transla tion of the double preposition, prefixed both to the verb and to the noun. The verb is the same that is applied above (in 3, 14) to the sending forth of the apostles, and from which the word apostle is itself derived. (For other applications of it, literal and figurative, see above, on 1,2. 3,31. 4,29.) The country, not the Holy Land or Palestine, but that division of it where they now were, and to which the Greek word is applied above in v. 1, as it is in 1, 5 to the province of Judea, but never to the whole land of Israel as such, not even in Acts 8, 1. 10, 39. 26, 20, where it still has a provincial meaning. The district here meant is no doubt that of the Gadarenes, where these events took place (see above, on v. 1.) The request itself is not to be ex plained by any Jewish superstition as to the residence of fiends in deserts, supposed by some to be referred to elsewhere (Matt. 12, 43. Luke 11, 24), but either as a simple wish to continue undisturbed and where they were, or as a cunning pretext for the seizure and destruc tion of the swine. 11. Now there was there nigh unto the mountains a great herd of swine feeding. To the plural (mountains) the critics now prefer the singular form (mountain), meaning however (as in 3, 13), not a detached peak or, eminence, but the whole range of highlands east of Jordan. Nigh unto, or more exactly, at, next, adjoining (as in 1, 33. 2, 2. 4, 11), i. e. feeding on the slopes or at the foot of the mountains. But even if the sense of nigh (or near) be preferred there is no contradiction between this account and Matthew's (8, 30), because far and near are relative expressions, and the same distance which is called far in a room would be considered nothing in a landscape or a journey. If the herd was beyond reach, it was far off ; if in sight, it was near ; and both ex pressions might be naturally used by the same witness in succession, much more by two independent witnesses. Nor would such a varia tion, when susceptible of such an explanation, be considered contradic tory in any Anglo-Saxon court of justice, although so esteemed in MARK 5, 11. 12. 117 many a German lecture-room and study. According to our rules of evidence, it might even serve to strengthen both accounts as really though not ostensibly harmonious. Feeding, or being fed. as the form may be either middle or passive, and we know from v. 14 that there Were persons tending them. As swine's flesh was forbidden and the swine an unclean beast according to the law of Moses (Lev. 11,7. 8. Deut. 14, 8) ; as the law in general, and especially its ceremonial dis tinctions, were punctually observed at this time ; as the use of swine's flesh is eschewed by all Jews at the present day, and there is no trace of any other practice in the interval : it is highly improbable that these swine were the property of Jews, unless their consciences allowed them to provide forbidden food for Gentiles, and it is simpler to assume that the Gentiles provided it for themselves, which agrees well with the statement of Josephus that Gadara, the chief town of this district, was a Greek city (see above, on v. 1.) The question would be one of little moment if it had not been connected by some writers with their vindication of our Saviour's conduct upon this occasion (see below, on v. 20.) 12. And all the devils besought him, saying, Send us into the swine, that we may enter into them. It is remarkable that till we reach the tenth verse, the demon, or unclean spirit, is not only spoken of, but speaks as a single individual (what have I to do with thee ? I adjure thee that thou torment me not My name is legion.) In the tenth verse there is a transition from the one form to the other, both of which occur there (he besought him not to send them.) After the tenth verse, the singular is wholly superseded by the plural, and the remaining words and acts are all ascribed to a plurality of agents. This might seem to be because the spirits, being now expelled from the demoniac, no longer derived even an apparent unity from their alliance with his personality, but spoke and acted for themselves ; but they were not yet driven out, as appears from v. 13 (compare Matt. 8, 31.) Some of the critics omit all in this verse, others all the demons, leaving only the verb, they be sought him, which is found in all the copies. The verb is the same with that in v. 10, but has here the plural form, so that no such ambiguity exists as in that case. Devils, i. e. demons, as explained above (on 3, 22.) How they communicated with our Lord is not revealed, but can create no more difficulty than the similar communication between him and Satan as the tempter (see above, on 1, 13.) As they were not yet driven out when this request was made, they may still have made use of the man's vocal organs, though they spoke no longer in his name but in their own. Mark records the very words, and not the substance only, of this strange request. Matthew also makes it a direct address (8, 31), while Luke gives it indirectly (8, 32), like the classical histo rians in reporting very short discourses. Send us seems a peremptory demand, but involves a recognition of his power to dispose of them, which Matthew and Luke express by using the verb permit, and Mat- 118 MARK 5, 12. 13. thew by recording the conditional expression, if thou cast us out. Send us into them, according to Greek usage, might mean nothing more than send us in among them, to remove which ambiguity the words are added, that we may go into than, and take possesion of their bodies just as they had entered into the demoniac (Luke 8, 30.) Those who laugh at this request as mere absurdity, and therefore never uttered, only show their incapacity to estimate the craft and cunning which sug gested it. Having begged to be left undisturbed and been refused, they now apparently relinquish their pretensions to the human victim, and content themselves with leave to take possession of inferior natures. But this mock humility is only a disguise for their malignant wish to bring reproach and danger on their conqueror and judge: If it be asked, in what sense, and to what extent, could evil spirits take posses sion of a herd of swine, the answer is, precisely so and so far as the na ture of the swine permitted. As that nature was not rational or moral, no intellectual or spiritual influence could be exerted ; but the body with its organs and sensations, the animal soul with its desires and appetites, could just as easily be wrought upon by demons as the corre sponding parts of the human -constitution. The difficulty lies in ad mitting demoniacal influence at all, and not in extending it to lower animals, so far as they have any thing in common with the higher. 13. And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine : and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand) and were choked in the sea. It is not improbable that they expected this request, like the first, to be refused, as they could scarcely hope to conceal from Christ the motive, whether mockery or malice, which had prompted it. But in the exercise of that divine discretion which so often brought good out of evil, making the wrath of men (and devils) to praise him, and re straining the remainder which would not have that effect (Ps. 76, 10), he immediately permitted them, and no doubt actively coerced them into doing what they had themselves proposed. And going out (from the demoniac, or having gone out), the unclean spirits (the plural form of the words used above in vs. 2. 8) entered into the swine, the very phrase applied by Luke (8, 30) to their possession of the human subject. The reality of this transition was evinced by a violent and suddeu move ment ofthe swine in the most dangerous direction, from which instinct, uncontrolled, would have preserved them. The herd rushed down the precipice (or overhanging bank, as the Greek word means according to its etymology) into the sea (or lake), between which and the hills (or highlands) they were feeding. Of all neological absurdities the silliest is the notion that this verse is a poetical description of a madman run ning through a herd of swine and driving them into the water ' To destroy one thus would have been hard enough ; but the evangelist de scribes a simultaneous movement of about two thousand, the number MARK 5, 13. 14. 15. 119 being introduced just here to shut out all perversion or unfounded ex planation of the fact recorded. The approximative formula {about, in Greek, as if) does not imply uncertainty, much less entire ignorance of the exact number, but its perfect unimportance except as the sugges tion of too great a number to be thus impelled by any natural or ordi nary cause. It is, therefore, no less foolish than irreverent to inquire how Mark (or even Peter) ascertained the number ; as if an experi enced eye, though without supernatural assistance, would be under the necessity of counting every one in order to discover that there were about two thousand. Another circumstance of some importance is that they all without exception perished, an additional proof of supernatural agency in their destruction. Choked in the sea, i. e. drowned, the verb denoting any kind of strangling or suffocation, the precise mode being suggested by the added words. The Greek verb is the primitive or simple form ofthe compounded one metaphorically used in 4, 7. 19, as another compound of the same is by Matthew (13, 7) in a diff'erent connection, and by Luke (8, 33) in this, where Matthew less specifi cally says (8, 32) that they died (or perished) in the waters. 14. And they that fed the swine fled, and told (it) in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done. And those feeding them fled, astonished and alarmed at the sudden loss of their whole charge, and reported, carried back word to the place from which they came, i. e. into the town (or city), where the owners of the swine resided (compare Luke 15, 15), and into the fields (or coun try) through which they passed on their way thither ; and they (the owners, or the people generally, Matt. 8, 34, both in town and country) came out (to the lake-shore, where these strange occurrences had taken place) to see (for themselves) what is the (thing) done (or happened.) 15. And they come to Jesus, and see him that was possessed with the devil, and had the legion, sitting, and clothed, and in his right mind : and they were afraid. And they come (at once and no doubt in a crowd) to Jesus (to whom the loss had been ascribed by the report), but here their wonder at the strange death of the swine is lost for the moment in a sight still more surprising. And they see (or as the Greek verb more emphati cally signifies, behold, survey, contemplate as a spectacle) the possessed (literally demonized one, see above, on 1, 32.) Sitting, not as a matter of course or unimportant circumstance, but sitting still like others, instead of raving and roving as he did before (v. 3); one ofthe strongest proofs that could be given of his restoration. Clothed (or dressed), not naked or in rags (Luke 8,27), another clear proof of the same great change, the reality of which is then asserted in a single word, equivalent to four in English. Sober, sane, sound-minded, as op- 120 MARK 5, 15. 16. 17. posed to all forms of insanity (compare Rom. 12, 3. 2 Cor. 5. 13. Tit. 2, 6. 1 Pet. 4, 7.) The verbal form of the original in all these places cannot be expressed without periphrasis in the translation. This sight was the more astonishing because they recognized at once in this calm, decently dressed, well-behaved man, the famous maniac who had so long been a terror to the country (Matt. 8, 28), tlie {one) having had (or 'who had had) the legion (or the host of demons), i. e. had them in him and united with him while they had him in possession and in bondage (see above, on 3, 22.) And they were frightened, terrified, not merely filled with dread of further loss, or of bodily damage to themselves, but awe-struck, seized with that religious terror which arises even in the irreligious, upon any striking indication of a super human power or the presence of superior beings. 16. And they that saw (it) told them how it befell to him that was possessed with the devil, and (also) concern ing the swine. In addition to the first report by which they had been brought to gether, they now receive upon the spot a more detailed account from those who were eye-witnesses of the transaction. This is more natural, as well as more grammatical, than to explain the aorists as pluperfects (and they had told), which is at once a needless repetition and a vio lent construction. Those seeing (or who saw) may be either the swine herds mentioned in v. 14, who must then be supposed to have returned with their employers and the multitude; or other spectators of the miracle, of whom there is no mention in the context, unless the more detailed account here mentioned be referred to the disciples or the boat men (Matt. 8, 27), by whom Jesus was accompanied, across the lake. Told, an entirely different verb from that in v. 14, which means to report, or carry back, whereas this means to go through with, to re count completely, as distinguished from the hurried and confused report which would be given by the swineherds in their first amazement and alarm. This more accurate account included both parts ofthe strange transaction. They related how it happened (not merely what had taken place, but by what agency it was effected) to the demonized (man), the possessed (one), the demoniac. They also related all about (or concerning) the swine. 17. And they began to pray him to depart out of their coasts. The effect upon the multitude of what they saw and heard is now recorded. They began (i. e. at once, without deliberation or delay) to entreat (exhort, invite) him, the same verb that is employed above, in vs. 10. 12, and above in 1, 40. To go away from their coasts, in the old English sense of borders, bounds, or confines, often put for all that is contained within them. This is so unlike the usual effect of our Lord's miracles and teachings that it seems to call for explanation, which may MABJK 5, 17. 18. 19. 121 be derived from two considerations. The first is, that the miracle, al though a signal miracle of mercy to the demoniac himself, was one of injury and loss to the owners of the swine; so that the whole mass of the population (Luke 8, 37) was not only filled with awe, but appre hensive of some more extensive damage. The other is that Gadara was a Gentile city (see above on v. 1), and the great mass ofthe Gadarenes throughout the district ' either wholly heathen or extensively mixed with them. Now, although the influence exercised by Christ was not necessarily confined to Jews, yet as his mission was to them (see be low, on 7, 24, and compare Matt. 15, 24), and they alone could fully understand his claims as the Messiah, it is not surprising that a Gentile population should have been less favourably impressed by this one mir acle, the benefits of which extended only to a single individual, or at most to the circle of his friends, whereas the incidental evils, either ac tual or apprehended, were more general. 18. And when he was come into the ship, he that had been possessed with the devil prayed him that he might be with him. And he entering (or embarking), i. e. as he did so, in the boat (which brought him, and was no doubt waiting for him), thus com plying instantly with the inhospitable and impolite request of the in habitants, and showing how far he was from wishing to obtrude his pres ence or his ministry, in either of its great essential functions, upon those who were unwilling to receive them. The possessed (or demonized) one, i. e. he who had been so, a nice distinction clearly indicated by the form of the Greek participle, although not expressible without circumlocution in a modern version. Prayed him, the same verb that is employed in the preceding verse, that he might be with him, a fine stroke in this most interesting picture, and susceptible of several explanations, not exclusive of each other. That he feared a relapse or repossession, and depended wholly on his great deliverer to save him from it, is a most natural and probable assumption (compare Matt. 12, 45. Luke 11, 26.) But if this were all, it would hardly have been so expressed (that he might be with him.) The words used necessarily suggest a higher mo tive, though by no means unconnected with the one first mentioned. This was the desire to be with Christ from personal attachment, springing out of gratitude for what he had experienced, and that saving faith which seems to have so commonly accompanied his miracles of healing (see above, on 2, 5. 10.) There is certainly nothing to forbid, and much to recommend the supposition of this twofold cure, corporeal and spirit ual, wherever it is not excluded in express terms or by necessary im plication. A third motive, not to be neglected, is the seeming wish to disavow the act of his compatriots, by requesting that, as they would not receive the Lord, the Lord would receive him, and separate him from them. 19. Howbeit Jesus suffered him not, but saith unto 6 122 MARK 5, 19. 20. him, Go home to thy friends, and tell them how great things the Lord hath done for thee, and hath had compas sion on thee. And (or but) he did not permit him, give him leave, or let him go, the same use of the Greek verb as in 1, 34, elsewhere meaning simply to leave (1, 18. 20. 31), to send away (4, 36), or in a figurative sense and moral application, to remit punishment or pardon sin (2, 5-10. 3, 28. 4, 12.) The ground of this refusal is implied in the command which follows. But (instead of allowing him to do so) he says to him, Go (go away, depart, as in 1, 44. 2, 11) into thy house (so long forsaken by himself but not by others, for he adds) to thine, thy own, those be longing to thee. This might be understood as being the whole circle of his friends and kindred, if the preceding phrase be rendered go home, as the English version gives it here, though not in 2, 1. 3, 19, where it is the true sense of the indefinite expression, while in this place the specific form (the house of the) requires a corresponding definiteness of translation. And announce according to the common text, the same verb that occurs above in v. 14, but according to the latest critics, a different compound, all three being rendered by the one verb tell. How great things, perhaps referring both to bodily and spiritual mercies. The Lord, an ambiguous expression, really describing Christ himself, but which the hearers may have understood more vaguely, as denoting God, perhaps with special reference to his covenant relations with his people, as expressed by the Hebrew name Jehovah, for which the con stant equivalent or rather substitute both in the Septuagint and the New Testament, is (6 kvoios) the Lord. And had mercy on thee, a suggestion of his own unworthiness and the freeness of the favour which he had experienced. The Greek verb is different from that in 1, 41, which properly denotes the feeling of pity or compassion. 20. And he departed, and began to publish in Decap- olis how great things Jesus had done for him. And all (men) did marvel. The departure in this case from our Lord's usual practice of invit ing or permitting men to follow him, not only as apostles (1, 17. 18.20. 2, 14), but also as disciples (Matt. 8, 19. 22), must have had its reasons, two of which may be conjectured. The first is, that the nature of the case required it ; the demoniac having been so long an outcast from sO- ciet}', it was important that he should return to his old associations, as a proof of real and complete recovery. The other reason is suggested by the verse before us, namely, that our Lord availed himself of this man's agency to spread the knowledge of his miracles throughout that region, the inhabitants of which refused to tolerate his presence. How ever this may be, he did in fact go away, proclaiming what had taken place and thereby exciting universal wonder. This he did, not only in his own city and its territory, but throughout the whole adjacent re gion to the south-east of the lake and east of Jordan, here called Decap- MARK 5, 20. 21. 123 olis (or Ten Towns), which seems to be rather a popular than a polit ical designation. Hence the lists of these ten cities given by Pliny, and Ptolemy, differ as to two, but agree in eight, Scythopolis (accord ing to Josephus the largest), Gadara (see above, on v. 1), Gerasa (sup posed to be referred to in Matthew 8, 28), Pella (to which the Chris tians fled at the destruction of Jerusalem), Hippos, Dion, Philadelphia, Canatha. Of these Scythopolis alone was on the west side of the lake and river. The generic title may have had its origin in temporary civil or municipal arrangements, but more probably arose as a convenient designation of a district otherwise without a common name. The question is of no exegetical importance, as the only thing essential to the meaning of the passage is the undisputed fact, that this new proc lamation of the gospel took place in a certain part of Palestine where Christ himself had not proclaimed it, nay, in which he was forbidden by the people so to do. Thus the miracle in question, while it led di rectly to his exclusion from this province, incidentally supplied his place by a zealous and devoted substitute, who would also have it in his power to counteract, if necessary, any false impressions with re spect to the destruction of the swine. Our Saviour's agency in this de struction is not to be vindicated on the ground that Jews had no right to keep swine and were therefore justly punished by the loss of them. Even admitting that these men were Jews, their violation of the law would hardly have been punished so circuitously and without the slightest intimation of their crime. The act was one of sovereign au thority, attested by the miracle itself, and so far as we can learn, not disputed even by the persons injured, however much they might lament their loss and wish to avoid its repetition. There is no more need of any special vindication here than in the case of far more serious inflictions of the same kind by disease or accident. The personal presence of the Saviour could not detract from his divine right to dispose of his own creatures for his own ends, even if these ends were utterly unknown to us, much less when they are partially perceptible. For, however scio lists and sceptics may deride this occurrence as absurd and unworthy of the Saviour, it answered an important purpose, that of showing his dominion over every class of objects (see above, on v. 12), and of prov ing the reality of personal possessions, by exhibiting a case, in which the demons, abandoning the human subject whom they had so long tormented, and leaving him entirely free from all unnatural excitement, instantaneously betrayed their presence and their power in a multitude of lower animals, impelling them, against their own instinctive disposi tions, to a sudden simultaneous movement ending in their own destruc tion. Admitting the external facts to be as Mark describes them, they are wholly unaccountable except upon the supposition of a real dispos session such as he affirms, and the extraordinary novelty of which, without discrediting his narrative, explains his having given a conspic uous place in it to this signal proof of superhuman power. 21. And when Jesus was passed over again by ship 124 MARK 5, 21. 22. unto the other side, much people gathered unto him: and he was nigh unto the sea. From this brief visit to the Gadarenes, intended for a special pur pose just explained, our Lord returns to Galilee and to his own city (Matt. 9, 1), where great numbers were expecting him (Luke b, 40.) Jesus having crossed {ov passed over), a verb derived from the adverb (across, beyond), commonly employed to designate the east side of the lake and river (as in 3,8. 4,35. 5, 1), but here the western side to which, as a relative expression, it is equally appropriate. By ship, literally, in the boat, i. e. the one in which he had departed, and on which he is said (in v. 18) to have embarked on his return. Again, in reference to the transit mentioned in the close of the last chapter and the opening of this (4, 25. 5, 1.) To the other side, or to fhe {part) beyond, i. e. the west side of the lake from which he had set out. There was gathered a great crowd to him, or rather upon him, implying not mere numbers but close pressure (see above, on 2, 2. 3, 9. 10. 4, 1.) And he was by (or along) the sea (the lake of Galilee), on which Ca pernaum was situated (see above, on 1, 21.) 22. And behold, there cometh one of the rulers of the synagogue, Jairus by name ; and when he saw him, he fell at his feet, And behold (or lo), an interjection used to introduce something new and unexpected (see above, on 1, 2. 3, 32. 4, 3), which is here the nar rative of two great miracles, woven together in the history as they were in fact, the one having been performed by Christ while on his way to work the other. In the mean time, as we learn from Matthew (9, 17) the discourse to John's disciples about fasting took place, which by Mark is given earlier (2, 18-22), not from any disagreement as to dates, but in order to complete his account of Christ's relation to the various classes, both of friends and foes, with whom he came in contact. Com pared with this design the mere chronology was unimportant, though preserved by Matthew who had no such purpose. There comes, in the present tense, more graphic than the form employed by Luke (8, 41) and Matthew (9, 18.) One of the archi-synagogues (or rulers of the synagogue), i. e. one of the national hereditary elders of the Jews, among whose functions was the local conduct of religious discipline and worship (see above, on 1, 21. 39. 3, 1.) The idea of a separate organi zation and a distinct class of officei's appears to have arisen after the destruction of Jerusalem, and could not therefore be the model of tha Christian Church which had its pattern not in later Jewish institutions, but in the permanent essential part of the old theocracy, including its primeval patriarchal eldership, one primarily founded upon natural rela tions or the family government and thence transferred not only to the Jewish but to the Christian church-organization. Of such rulers there was always a plurality in every neighborhood, but not a bench or council of elective officers, uniform in number, as in the later syna- MARK 5, 22. 23. 125 gogues, when the dispersion of the people had destroyed the ancient constitution and the present synagogue arrangement had been substi tuted for it. But as this arrangement is without divine authority, nothing is gained but something lost by tracing the New Testament church polity to this source, instead of tracing it back further to the presbyterial forms of the theocracy itself. The elders, who were ex officio rulers of the synagogue, i. e. directors of its discipline and wor ship, had, both by birth and office, the highest rank and social posi tion. This application for assistance therefore came from the most respectable and influential quarter. By name Jairus (Jaeiros), the old Hebrew name Jair (Num. 32, 41. Deut. 3, 14. Judg. 10, 3. 1 Chr. 2, 22. 20, 5. Esth. 2, 5), with a Greek and La«h termination. This particular has been preserved by Mark and Luke (8, 41) but not by Matthew (9, 18), showing how far the others are from merely abridg ing or transcribing him. And seeing him, i. e. as soon as he came in sight of Jesus, or as soon as he was pointed out to him, which would of course imply that he had never before seen him, not a probable assumption in the case of a religious ruler at the very centre of our Saviour's operations, who had many opportunities of seeing him both in the synagogue (1, 21. 39. 3, 1) and elsewhere. Intermediate be tween these explanations is a third perhaps more natural than either, namely, that though Jairus knew our Lord by sight, tbe crowd pre vented him for some time from distinguishing his person. Falls at his feet, still in the present tense, as though the scene were actually pass ing. This is not to be explained as an act of adoration, or religious worship properly so called, but as a natural gesture of importunate en treaty. See above, on v. 6, where the expression is still stronger, as it is here in Matthew (9, 18.) 23. And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death : (I pray thee,) come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed ; and she shall live. And besought him much, literally many {things), i. e. in many words, or perhaps with many arguments, the very phrase employed above in v. 10. Saying that, a peculiar Greek use of the particle in di rect quotations altogether foreign from our idiom, and therefore neces sarily omitted in the version here, and in 1, 15. 37, 40. 2, 12. 3, 11. 21. 22. 28, in all which cases it is equivalent to then, as follows, or the like, in English. Little daughter is in Greek one word, a beautiful diminutive, formed on a regular analogy, but only found in Athenseus, and applied here, as a term of fond affection, to an only daughter, if not to an only child (Luke 8, 42.) Lieth at the point of death, a highly idiomatic English paraphrase of two Greek words which if closely rendered {lastly or extremely has) would be unmeaning.- The adverb is equivalent to the Latin in extremis, and the English in ex tremity, and some regard the whole phrase as a Latinism {in ex tremis est) ; but half of it {has for is) is purely Greek, and all of it 126 MARK 5, 23. 24. 25. is found in Diodorus Siculus, and with another verb both in that writer and Polybius. The sense is clearly that expressed in our translation. Between this clause and the next, an intermediate thought may be supplied. (I tell thee this, or come to thee) that thou mayest come, &c. This is better than I pray thee, in the English Bible, which attenuates the meaning of the particle {tva, not merely that, but so that or in order that) and changes the subjunctive into an imperative. That coming thou mayest lay (impose) on her the hands, implying a belief that personal presence and corporeal contact were essential to the cure; an error which our Saviour seems in this case to have overlooked, though he rebuked it and corrected it in others. (Compare John 4, 46-54.) So that (or in order that), a different conjunction from the one in the preceding clause, but here substantially equivalent in meaning. She may (or might) be saved, i. e. from death, which seemed so imminent, that, unless miraculously rescued, she was dying (Luke 8, 42), or might even be described as just dead (Matt. 9, 18.) And she shall live is not superfluous, but expresses both the sense in which he wished her to be saved, and his confidence that such would be the issue, if the Lord would come and lay his hands upon her. 24. And (Jesus) went with him ; and much people followed him, and thronged him. And he (Jesus being found in no Greek manuscript, and needlessly supplied in the translation) went away (from the place where he had landed, or was standing with the multitude) with him (i. e. Jairus, which might just as well have been supplied as Jesus), and much peo ple (literally, crowd or rabble) as denoting not mere numbers but pro miscuous gathering, and throng or pressure (see above, on y. 21, &c.) The idea is, that many crowded after him, an instance of the way in which our Lord was constantly surrounded and accompanied in all his movements, and explaining why he now and then escaped into the desert, not for mere repose, but for devotional retirement (see above on 1, 35.) The crowd not only followed him, but thronged (or squeezed) him, which devotes no gentle pressure but that they were suffocating, stifling him (Luke 8, 42.) This circumstance is mentioned to explain another afterwards recorded (in v. 31 below), while Mat thew omits both, and only speaks of the disciples following (9, 19), which may however mean the large class of his hearers, probably a vast majority, who came to learn of him and believed his doctrines. (See above, on 2, 15-18. 3, 7. 9. 4, 34.) 25. And a certain woman which had an issue of blood twelve years, While on his way to the house of Jairus he performs a miracle, the history of which is here inserted into that of the other by the three evangelists, precisely as it happened, a strong proof of authenticity and vivid recollection on the part of the eye-witnesses. A certain woman whose name, as usual, is not recorded (see above, 1, 23. 30. 40. 2, 3. MARK 5, 25. 26. 27. 127 3, 1. 5, 2), that of Jairus being mentioned (not his daughter's), on ac count of his official character and pubhc station. Being in a flow of blood, or hemorrhage, the verbal root of which term in a participial form is here employed by Matthew (9, 30.) The precise nature of the malady, beyond this general description, is of no importance, even to physicians, much less to the mass of readers and interpreters. In stead of dwelling upon this point, the evangelists direct attention to its long continuance (twelve years) and hopeless state, as represented in the next verse. 26. And had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, And having suffered (i. e. who had suffered) many {things), not only from the malady itself, but from many physicians, which implies the existence of a medical profession, and of numerous practitioners, whose failure to relieve this sufferer no more argues a low condition of the healing art than similar results at this day in the hospitals or private practice of the most eminent physicians and surgeons both of Europe and America. And liaving spent the (things) belonging to her, literally, (coming or proceeding) from her, a peculiar phrase applied to persons in 3, 21 above and there explained. All has peculiar emphasis because not prefixed as an ordinary epithet, but added as a kind of supple ment or afterthought, a species of construction both common and effec tive in Greek composition (see above, on 4, 5. 15. 16. 17. 29 ), although seldom reproducible in any version. She had spent her substance, yes the whole of it, in this way. Such a price she might have been content to pay for a restoration, but it seems to have been thrown away. Noth ing bettered, literally benefited, profited, i. e. in this connection, not improved in health. But even this was not the worst of her deplora ble condition. Besides expending all that she possessed, which seems to have been no contemptible estate, without receiving any advantage in return, she had actually lost in health' as well as purse. But having rather come into a worse (condition), i. e. of body, as appears from the antithesis with nothing bettered in the clause preceding. Here again, the case described not only bears self-evident credentials of its truth and origin in real life, but meets a melancholy echo in the every-day experience of modern times, showing not only the substantial sameness of the ills which flesh is heir to, but the wise and gracious adapta tion of the remedies, both moral and physical, which God prescribes not to imaginary or ideal cases, but to those under which the race has groaned in every country and in every age. 27. When she had heard of Jesus, came in the press behind, and touched his garment : Hearing (now) or having heard (before) of (about, concerning) Jesus, either as having wrought extraordinay cures, or as being now 128 MARK 5, 27. 28. 29. again at hand or in the neighbourhood. Coming in the press (i. e. the crowd or throng) behind, or more exactly from behind, i. e. approach ing him in that direction, not by chance or from necessity, but for the purpose of escaping observation. She touched his garment, not his clothes in general, which is the meaning of the plural in the next verse, but the robe or gown, which forms the outer garment in an oriental dress, and which the Greek word in the singular denotes. What she touched was not only this external garment, but its very edge or bor der (Luke 8, 44), showing that her object was mere contact, so that the slightest and most superficial touch would be sufficient. It is im portant, though it may be difficult, to realize the situation of this woman, once possessed of health and wealth, and no doubt moving in respectable society, now beggared and diseased, without a hope of hu man help, and secretly believing in the power of the Christ, and him alone, to heal her, yet deterred by some natural misgiving and by shame, perhaps connected with the nature of her malady, from coming with the rest to be publicly recognized and then relieved. However common-place the case may seem to many, there are some in whose experience, when clearly seen and seriously attended to, it touches a mysterious chord of painful sympathy. 28. Por she said, If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole. That she was not actuated merely by a sort of desperate curiosity, as might have been suspected from her previous history and present conduct, but by real confidence in Christ's ability to heal her, we are expressly taught by being made acquainted with her inmost thoughts before her purpose was accomplished. For she said (or was saying, as she made her way with difficulty through the crowd), i. e. not to others and aloud, but to or in herself (Matt. 9, 21) {on, that, superfluous in English, see above, on v. 23.) If I touch, not may touch, which sug gests too strongly the idea of permission or of lawfulness, whereas the Greek expresses that of mere contingency. But, i. e. only, even, an expressive compound particle in Greek which occurs again below (6, 56.) His clothes, the plural of the word explained above (on v. 27), and denoting the whole dress or any part of it. It is a slight but touching stroke in this inimitable picture, that she did not even choose the hem of his outer garment as the part which she would touch, but came in contact with it as it were by chance, desiring only to touch any of his clothes, no matter which or what. I shall be whole, literally saved, i. e. from thisdisease and this condition. The Greek verb is the one translated healed in v. 23, a needless variation, and indeed injurious to the beauty of the passage, as it mars the correspondence of these two expressions of reliance upon Christ, uttered almost simultaneously by persons probably entire strangers to each other. _ 29. And straightway the fountain of her blood was dried up ; and she felt in (her) body that she was healed n? that T>lat>Tie. MARK 5, 29. 30. 129 And immediately, Mark's favourite expression (see above, on 4 5. 15. 16. 17. 29), but as usual denoting an important fact, to wit, the instantaneous effect of that believing but almost despairing touch. It is strikingly described both by Matthew (9, 22) and by Luke (8, 44), and by the latter as some think with professional or technical precision, but by neither with such fulness and minuteness as by Mark, who has perhaps preserved to us the vivid recollection of Peter, whom we know to have been close at hand (see below, on v. 31.) Dried up (or out, exhausted) was the fountain of her blood, the hidden source of her long sufferings, which all the skill of her " many physicians " had not availed to discover, much less to arrest. And she knew in the body, by her bodily sensations, not by mere conjecture or assurances from others, that she is healed (or healing, being healed), another beautiful allusion to the scene as actually passing. From the plague (or scourge), a figure used above in 3, 10, and there explained 30. And Jesus, immediately knowing in himself that virtue had gone out of him, turned him about in the press, and said, Who touched my clothes ? And immediately, as promptly as the touch had acted on the woman's body, or perhaps at the same moment. Knowing (or per ceiving) in himself, without external indication or suggestion, not by bodily sensation but by intuition. That virtue had gone out of him, or rather, knowing in himself the power (or influence) proceeding from him, not the bare fact that it had gone out, as the version seems to mean, but what it was that had gone out ; and knowing it, not after wards but at the moment. The idea of some writers that he knew by an unusual sensation that a magical virtue had gone forth from him without his previous knowledge or volition, may be founded partly on the use of the word virtue in the common version to translate the ordi- nary^term for power, and the construction of the participle so as to refer it too exclusively to what was past ; but it is also founded on a false and mystical conception of the healing power exercised by Christ as something magical or any thing beyond a mere act of his will, im plying perfect knowledge and deliberate design in every such exertion of divine prerogative. Turning or being turned, in Greek a passive form, but with an active or deponent sense. In the press (or crowd), by which he was completely hemmed in and urged onward, so that the act here described was difficult, and to any other would perhaps have been impossible. He said, who touched my clothes (or garments?) There are two false views of this proceeding entertained both by ordi nary readers and by learned writers. The first is that the question necessarily implies a want of knowledge or is tantamount to saying, 'I know not, and I wish to know, who touched me. ' The absurdity of this rule of construction may be tested by applying it to other cases, for example to judicial or to catechetical interrogation. If the principle be sound, every question put to a witness on a trial, or to a pupil in examination, is an acknowledgment of ignorance in him who asks it. 6* 130 MARK 5, 30. 31. 32. The other false view is that if our Saviour knew who touched him, then his question lays him open to the worse charge of deception or dissimu lation, since his asking it implies that he was ignorant. Ihe same reductio ad absurdum as before may be applied to this ethical objection, which proceeds upon the false interpretation of the question above given, and is easily disposed of by a simple substitution of the true analysis or paraphrase which is, ' I know it, but I wish you to confess it, for your own sake, and as due to me by whom the cure has been effected.' 31. And his disciples said unto him, Thou seest the multitude thronging thee, and sayest thou, Who touched me ? His disciples, either in the wide or narrow sense, but probably the latter, as the former would include a large part of the multitude itself. The reference may here be to that body intermediate between this multitude and the twelve apostles, which we find distinguished from both elsewhere. (See above on 4, 10.) It will then mean his usual attendants who were nearest to his person even when surrounded by the multitude. Thou seest the crowd thronging thee, the same verb that is used above in v. 24, and there explained. And thou sayest (or sayest thou) the only difference is that between a question and an exclamation, both expressive of surprise or wonder. Nothing could be more natural than this speech of Peter (Luke 8, 45) and the rest, or of Peter as the spokesman of the rest (see above, on 3, 16), on hearing what appeared to be a most unreasonable question, without any means of knowing what it meant or why it had been asked. The effect would have been very different if they had known at that time what they doubtless knew soon afterwards, that when their Master said, Who touched me ? he meant ' who touched me just now in the hope and con fidence that it would cure an inveterate disease pronounced incurable by all physicians ? ' 32. And he looked round about to see her that had done this thing. And he looked round {about is a mere adjunct of the English adverb, to which nothing separately corresponds in Greek) to see the one, or the woman (as the article is feminine) having done (or who had done this) i. e. who had touched his garment for the purpose before men tioned. Here again it is not said that he looked round to see (i. e. dis cover) who had done it, but to see her who (he knew) had done it ; for the very gender of the article and participle (ttju woxx)o-ao-av) shows that he looked round not in doubt but at a definite and certain object. This distinction is by no means unimportant, as it sweeps away the ground of the assertion that our Lord is here described as merely feeling that some influence had gone forth from him, and then trying to dis- MARK 5, 32. 33. 34. 131 cover what it was or who had been affected by it ; an interpretation equally irreverent and ungrammatical. 33. But the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what was done in her, came and fell down before him, and told him all the truth. However strange the question and the searching look may have ap peared to others, there was one who understood them perfectly, because they were addressed to her alone, and intended not to ascertain her person but to make her show herself with due acknowledgments of what she had experienced. Fearing, or more exactly, frightened, ter rified, or rather awed (see above, on 4, 41), one of the participles being passive and the other active. Trembling, as the outward indication of the inward feeling just described, as if he had said, trembling with fear, or shuddering with awe. This fear was not the dread of punish ment or injury, but awful reverence combined with consciousness of unworthiness and some sense of misconduct in endeavouring as it were to steal what the Saviour would so freely have bestowed. Know ing (not by information but by conscious ease and felt relief) what had happened (or been done) to or for her (according to the common text, upon her, or according to the common version, in her.) The reading now preferred expresses the idea of advantage, benefit, not mere locality. Came and fell before him (down is introduced by the translators, as required by our idiom to express the full sense), literally, to, at, or against him, which may either be descriptive of a violent ungovernable movement (compare Matt. 7, 25), or an ellipsis for the fuller phrases elsewhere used oi falling at the feet (J, 25) or at the knees (Luke 5, 8) of any one. The shorter form occurs above (3. 11) and no doubt in the same sense, though the falling here expressed is rather that of deep humiliation and compunction joined with fervent gratitude and love. And told him all tlie truth, i. e. publicly acknowledged why she touched him and with what effect (Luke 8, 47.) This no more implies that he did not previously know it, than our ordinary peniteDt confes sions of sin are intended to inform the omniscient God of our offences. 34 And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole ; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague. We have here an eminent example of our Saviour's divine wisdom and goodness. As he had not asked for information, but to make the subject of the miracle come forward and disclose herself; so even this exposure was intended, not to punish or deprive her of the benefit which she had sought to gain in secret, but by one consummate stroke of justice and of mercy, to reprove her fault and yet reward her faith ; requiring her to give God the glory and to come to Christ as others came, but at the same time to assure her of a permanent deliverance from her former sufferings, if not from sin. Daughter, not a mere 132 MARK 5, 34. 35. term of endearment, but a recognition of the new relation which she now sustained to him as one of his own spiritual seed (Isai. 53, 10. Heb. 2, 10.) That this is the true meaning of the term here, may be argued from the general fact that he employs such language elsewhere not as an expression of mere human sympathy but always in relation to those bound to him by spiritual ties (see below, on 10, 24, and com pare John 21, 5), and also from the special case of the paralytic at Capernaum, in which the word child is connected with the solemn declaration that his sins were pardoned (see above, on 2, 5.) This will enable us to put the right sense on the next clause, which might otherwise be inadequately understood. Thy faith hath saved thee, thy reliance on my healing power, although marred by the belief that even contact was required, and still more by the false shame which tempted thee to steal instead of asking, has delivered thee from thy disease ; and this deliverance is but a pledge and symbol of a greater salvation wrought by faith in him who came to save his people from their sins (Matt. 1, 21.) Go inpeaee,_ literally, depart (or go away) into peace, i. e. into a permanent condition of repose and freedom from thy former sufferings, both bodily and spiritual. And be whole (sound, healthy) from thy plague (or scourge, as in v. 29), i. e. be hereafter or forever, as thou now art, well in soul and body, free from thy disease and from the wrath of God, of which it was the whip or rod wherewith he scourged thee for thy sins.- 35. While he yet spake, there came from the ruler of the synagogue's (house certain) which said, Thy daughter is dead ; why troublest thou the Master any further ? Mark now resumes his history of the other miracle, into which this was inserted as a sort of episode, but in its true chronological connection, as appears from this verse. While he yet spake, literally, he yet speaking, the most certain indication of immediate succession ever used by the evangelists. (See above on v. 22, and compare Matt. 9, 18.) There came certain (i. e. some), or more simply and exactly, they come, either in the same indefinite sense, or with more specific reference to his servants or the members of his family. From the ruler of the synagogue, i. e. from his house, as correctly supplied in the translation, the ruler himself being present already (compare the next verse with verse 24 above.) Thy daughter is dead, or, as the Greek form strictly means, thy daughter died, some time ago, or just now, as had been expected. Why troublest (or annoyest) thou, the question being really equivalent to a prohibition or dissuasion, trouble not (Luke 8, 49.) The master, i. e. teacher (magister), which is the specific meaning of the Greek word here used, and appears to have become a customary designation of our Lord, implying that the people never lost sight of his claim to be a '; teacher come from God," of which his miracles were the credentials (John 3, 2.) MARK 5, 36. 37. 133 36. As soon as Jesus heard the word that was spoken, he saith unto the ruler of the synagogue, Be not afraid, only believe. . Another beautiful example of the Saviour's kindness. Notwith standing the deficiency of faith which the ruler had betrayed by in sisting on his presence as an indispensable condition of the miracle (see above, on v. 23), he does -not even leave him in suspense but hastens to console and reassure him. Immediately hearing is in some of the oldest copies overhearing, a Greek verb used by Plato in that sense, but by Polybius in that of pretending not to hear, or refusing to listen, disregarding, disobeying, which appears to be its meaning in Matt. 18, 17, but would be wholly inappropriate here, where if genuine it can only mean that Jesus overheard what was privately addressed to Jairus, and without waiting to be told of it, immediately dispelled his fears. The word tliat was spoken, or more exactly, the word spoken, not only what was said, but as (or when) they said it, another slight but pleasing indication of the promptness with which he interposed for the relief of the afflicted father. Be not afraid (alarmed or fright ened), as he no doubt was at this distressing news, i. e. apprehensive that he had applied too late, and that the case was now beyond the reach, not only of all human help, but even of the wonder-working teacher's power. Only believe, i. e. continue to believe, as you have done thus far, in my capacity to help you. Or the sense may be, only believe, as you have not yet done, that I can raise the dead as well as heal the sick. But this, although it might be latent in the Saviour's words, would not be readily suggested by them to the ruler, until afterwards interpreted by the event. 37. And he suffered no man to follow him, save Peter, and James, and John the brother of James. And he suffered, let, permitted, the verb used above in v. 19, and there explained. No man, literally, no one, which is not only more exact but appropriate wherever the Greek word occurs, whereas the other is in some connections most incongruous, for example in Matt. 11, 27. 1 Cor. 2, 11, where it is applied to God. (See above, on 2, 21. 3, 27.) To follow him, literally, to follow with him, which might here be strictly understood as meaning to follow Jairus with him (see Matt. 9, 19); but the original construction rather indicates the sense, to follow (so as to be) with him, i. e. to accompany, but still as a dependant or inferior, which meaning is appropriate in the only other place where it occurs in the New Testament (Luke 23,49), as well as sanctioned by Thucydides and Xenophon. The three apostles are here named in the order of their first or rather second vocation (see above, on 1, 16-20), and of their final nomination to the apostolic office (see above, on 3, 16. 17.) John is also here described as the brother of James (compare 3, 17). whereas in Acts 12, 2, James is called the brother of John. The three thus honoured formed a kind of inner circle of adherents, still 134 MARK 5, 37. 38. 39. more close and confidential than that of the twelve in which it was in cluded. That it was not a fortuitous selection, or occasioned by some special circumstance in this case, is apparent from its repetition in two other interesting junctures ofthe Saviour's history, his Transfiguration (see below, on Mark 9, 2) and his Agony (see below, on 14, 33.) In all these cases he desired as much privacy as was consistent with the presence of witnesses (see below, on v. 43.) 38. And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue, and seeth the tumult, and them that wept and wailed greatly. And he comes, or as the oldest copies read, and they come, which, from the collocation here, would seem to mean Jesus and Jairus with the three apostles only. But from Luke's account (8, 51) it appears more probable that the selection ofthe three was made after their arri val at the house, which is entirely consistent with Mark's statement although not so readily suggested by it. Matthew omits the message from the ruler's house and the selection of the three apostles, while Mark and Luke give both, a striking proof that Matthew did not fur nish their materials. And he sees, beholds, as something strange and unexpected (see above, on v. 15) a tumult, uproar, clamour, such as commonly attend an oriental funeral, although the child was scarcely dead. Early burial was usual among the ancient Jews, because it was not properly interment, but a deposit of the body, frequently uncof- fined, in tombs erected above ground, or lateral excavations in the rock, where the risk of death by premature burial was much less than it is among ourselves. Compare Acts 5, 6. 10, where an additional security against such a mistake existed in the certain knowledge which the apostles had, that Ananias and Sapphira were completely dead. And (people) weeping and wailing (or howling), a verb derived from alala, the ancient war-cry, and employed by Euripides and Xenophon to sig nify the act of raising it, but by the former also in the sense of crying out for pain, from which the transition is an easy one to the cries of mourners, and especially of the mourning women hired in the east to attend funerals. Greatly, literally, many (things),!, e. much, perhaps with some allusion to the variety of sounds as well as the amount of noise. (See above, on vs. 10. 23, and compare 3, 12.) Besides these cries there was funeral music, as usual on such occasions (Matt. 9, 23.) 39. And when he was come in, he saith unto them, Why make ye this ado, and weep ? the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth. And coming in, or as he came in ; when he was come in suggests an interval, whereas the entrance and the speech appear to have been si multaneous. He says to tfiem, the mourners thus employed in noisy lamentation. Why make ye this ado, a nearly obsolete word meaning MARK 5, 39. 40. 135 bustle, trouble, here employed to render one which rather means dis turbance, noise and tumult, being the cognate verbal form of the noun rendered tumult in the verse preceding. The question, as usual in such connections, implies censure, or at least expostulation, as if he had said, ' what right or reason have you to make this disturbance, which would only be appropriate in a case of real death, but this child,' &c. Thus understood, the question virtually included or was really accom panied or followed by an exhortation not to weep (Luke, 8, 52) and a peremptory order to withdraw (Matt. 9,24.) Damsel is in Greek of neuter form and common gender, being strictly a diminutive of one which means both boy and girl, and therefore nearly equivalent to child, though not the one employed 2, 6 above, and there explained. The connection, not the form, determines it in this place to denote a little girl. Is not dead, or did not die (when ye supposed), the same form that is used above in v. 35. But sleeps, is sleeping, or asleep, the present tense denoting actual condition, as the aorist before it, strictly understood, denotes a previous occurrence. She did not die but sleeps. These words admit of two interpretations, each of which has had its advocates. The first assigns to them their strictest and most obvious sense, to wit that this was merely an apparent death, but really a case of stupor, trance, or syncope, which might, almost without a figure, be described as a deep protracted slumber. The other gives a figurative sense to both expressions, understanding by the first that she really was dead but only for a time and therefore not dead in the ordinary acceptation of the term; and by the second that her death, though real, being transient, might be naturally called a sleep, which differs from death chiefly in this very fact and the effects which flow from it. This last is now very commonly agreed upon by all classes of interpreters, German and English, neological and Christian, as the only meaning which the words will fairly bear. In favour of this sense is the fact that Jesus used the same expression with respect to Lazarus and ex pressly declared that in that case sleep meant death (John 11, 11-14), to which may be added that Mark is here recording signal miracles as proofs of Christ's extraordinary power, and that a mere restoration from apparent death would not have been appropriate to his present purpose. One of the best German philological authorities has para phrased our Saviour's words as meaning, ' Do not regard the child as dead, but think of her as merely sleeping, since she is so soon to come to life again.' 40. And they laughed him to scorn. But, when he had put them all out, he taketh the father and the mother ofthe damsel, and them that were with him, andentereth in where the damsel was lying. And they (i. e. the company, or those whem he had thus addressed) laughed at him (or against him), i. e. at his expense, or in derision of him. This idea is expressed in the English version by the added words, 136 MARK 5, 40. 41. to scorn, which though not expressed in the original are not italicized because supposed to be included in the meaning of the compound Greek verb which, according to another usage ofthe particle with which it is compounded, might be understood to mean, they laughed him down, or silenced him by their derision. Luke adds (8, 53), knowing that she was dead (or did die), an expression which the writer would not have employed if they had been mistaken in so thinking. But he, homing cast out (i. e. forcibly excluded, or at least peremptorily dismissed) all (the mourners, those who were the authors of the uproar), takes along (with him. or in his company, compare the same verb as em ployed above, 4, 36, and below, 9, 2. 10, 32. 14, 33.) Those with him (when he came), i. e. the three apostles named in v. 37. He goes in (graphically represented as an act now passing) where the child was (already) at the time of his arrival. Lying is omitted by the latest critics, as an unauthorized addition to the text, supposed by some transcriber to be needed to complete the sense. The entrance here described is different from that in vs. 38. 39, which was into the house, whereas this is into some inner apartment, probably the large upper room near the roof (imepmov), which seems to have been used on such occasions (compare Acts 9, 37. 39.) 41. And he took the damsel by the hand, and unto her, Talitha-cumi ; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, (I say unto thee,) arise. And seizing, laying hold, originally mastering, exercising strength or power, in the Greek of the New Testament applied both to friendly and to hostile seizures. (See above, 1, 31. 3, 21, and below, 6, 17. 9, 27. 12, 12. 14, 1. 44-51.) In condescension to the weakness of the father's faith, our Lord establishes a visible communication between his own person and that of the subject upon whom the miracle was to he wrought. For the same reason he made use of audible expressions serving to identify himself as the performer. These expressions, in the present case, have been preserved, not only in a Greek translation, but in their Hebrew or Aramaic form as originally uttered. This is one of the characteristic features of Mark's Gospel, commonly referred to tbe vivid impression made by certain words of Christ upon the memory of Peter, by whom, according to the old tradition, they were made known to the evangelist. Though not historically certain, this hypothesis accounts for the otherwise extraordinary fact, that these ipsissima verba of the Saviour, in his native tongue and that which he employed in his instructions, are recorded for the most part, not by an apostle and eye-witness, such as John or Matthew, but by one who, although gifted with an equal inspiration, personally holds a secondary place among the sacred writers. It is also worthy of remark that these original expressions are most frequent in a book primarily writ ten for the use of Gentile and particularly Roman readers, which may be the reason of its many latinisms both of diction and construction, its still more numerous explanations of localities and Jewish customs and MARK 5, 41. 42. 43. 137 its careful Greek translations of the Aramaic formulas in question, of which we have an-instance in the verse before us. Talitha, an Aramaic noun of Hebrew origin, in the feminine emphatic form. Koumi, a cor responding verbal form, the feminine imperative kal, which is the same in both Semitic dialects. These two words must have long rung in the ears and dwelt upon the memory of those who witnessed this first recorded miracle of resuscitation. For the benefit of those who did not understand the eastern tongue, the words are accurately rendered into Greek. Damsel, not the word so rendered in v. 39, though like it a diminutive of (xopr;) girl, as that is of the common noun (nais), mean ing either boy or girl. The former is confined in the older classics to the dialect of common life, as a familiar term of fondness and endear ment; butthe later writers use it in the more serious and elevated style. / say to thee forms no part of the text, though it may be an expression actually used upon the same occasion but recorded here in Greek alone. Or it may be inserted simply to give emphasis and point to the address as uttered in a tone of authority and in his own name as entitled to command. Arise, or rouse {thyself), the middle voice (or reciprocal form) of a verb which strictly means to awaken out of sleep. It might even be translated here awake, which makes it still more striking and appropriate as addressed to one whom Christ him self had just before described as being not dead but sleeping. 42. And straightway the damsel arose, and walked ; for she was (of the age) of twelve years. And they were astonished with a great astonishment. And immediately, Mark's favourite adverb, doubled here by several of the oldest manuscripts, which have it in the last clause also. It marks the important fact that in this, as in all other cases except those whore a gradual process is expressly mentioned, the recovery of health was instantaneous without any interval of convalescence ; while this essential fact remains the same, there is a beautiful distinction in the acts by which it was attested. While Peter's wife's mother, as the mistress of a household, showed her perfect restoration by immediately resuming her domestic duties, so the young girl, in the case before us, proved the same thing when she simply walked about the house or chamber where she had been lying dead. From the previous narrative, as found in Mark, it might have been supposed that she was a mere infant, to correct which error and account for her walking, Mark inserts at this point what was stated by Luke earlier (8, 42), to wit, that she was twelve years old. And they, the witnesses, especially her parents (Luke 8, 56), were amazed with great amazement, the verb used above in 2, 12. 3, 21, and there explained. 43. And he charged them straitly that no man should know it ; and commanded that something should be given her to eat. 138 MARK 5, 43. Mark here describes our Lord as exercising that divine discretion which in every case determined whether the publication of his miracles required to be stimulated or retarded, though the grounds of the dis tinction may be now, and may have been at first, inscrutable to human wisdom. The very verb translated charged, by its etymology, suggests the idea of distinction or discrimination, and may be employed here for the purpose of reminding us that this discouragement of public rumours rested upon no fixed law or general rule but on the wisdom and authority of him who uttered it. Matthew's omission of this circum stance, and substituted statement, that his fame went out into all that land, might have seemed contradictory to that of Mark and Luke (8, 56), as some interpreters do really affect to think it, if we had not had already (see above, on 1, 45) both these statements made by two evangelists in reference to one and the same case. The last stroke in Mark's picture of this beautiful domestic scene is not to be neglected. He commanded (literally said or told) to be given (i. e. something to be given) her to eat. While this shows, upon one hand, his benignant reeollection of the wants of this resuscitated child, which her very mother seems to have forgotten, or the order would have been super fluous ; it answers, on the other hand, the still more interesting purpose of exemplifying the important general fact that when a miracle of heal ing or resuscitation had been wrought, its effect was not only instanta neous and complete in restoring health or life, but left the subject as dependent as he was before upon the ordinary means and sources of subsistence, instead of feeding him, as some might have expected, upon angels' food, or raising him above the vulgar need of being fed at all. CHAPTEE VI. The historian here pauses, in his glowing account of Christ's triumph ant manifestation as the true Messiah, to contrast with it a singular exception to the general enthusiasm, namely, his rejection by his earliest acquaintances and neighbours in the synagogue at Nazareth (1-6.) With this rejection he contrasts again the indefatigable labours of the Saviour elsewhere, both in person and by proxy, that is, through the twelve apostles, whose actual going forth is here recorded, with a sum mary account of his instructions and of their success (7-13.) Among the effects of this multiplied and wide-spread agency, Mark specially describes that produced upon the ruler of Galilee, the murderer of John the Baptist, an event which the historian here goes back to relate (14- 29.) Then, resuming his account of our Lord's ministry, he mentions the return of the apostles, their report of their proceedings, and their withdrawing with their master to the desert for the sake of rest (30-32.) But even here they are followed or preceded by an eager crowd, whose MARK 6, 1. 139 physical and moral wants excite the Saviour's pity and afford occasion for a signal miracle, wholly unlike those previously mentioned, and affording a new proof of his almighty power (33-44.) This was imme diately succeeded by another, no less new and demonstrative of his dominion over nature (45-52.) To this series of selected and decisive miracles, Mark adds, as if to show that they are merely samples, chosen and presented for a special purpose, a more general account -of his miraculous healings in the district of Gennesaret, and of the general attention thus continually re-awakened throughout all that part of Palestine, in which, according to the prophecies, the light of the Mes siah's advent was to shine most brightly (53—56.) 1. And he went out from thence, and came into his own country ; and his disciples follow him. Not the least striking and affecting part of Christ's humiliation was the treatment which he met with from his nearest friends, or those who might have been supposed to be such, either from natural relationship or from long association and acquaintance. We have already met with several indications of imperfect faith and narrow views upon the part of such (see above, on 3, 21. 31) ; but the history of his mission would have been defective without a more detailed account of one extraordinary scene, in which the same thing took place on a larger scale and still more publicly. This was his reception on returning to the place where he had spent his childhood, and from which he came to be baptized in Jordan (see above, on 1, 9.) The precise chronology of this transaction is of little moment except as involved in the question of its identity with that recorded in a different connection by Luke (4, 16-31.) As the scene of both is Nazareth, and the principal incident in both our Lord's rejection by his old ac quaintances and neighbours there, the first presumption is of course in favour of their sameness. Even the difference in particulars, especially Mark's silence as to Christ's interpretation of Isaiah, the resentment of the people, and their violent attempt upon his life, might be ex plained, at least upon the sceptical hypothesis of two incongruous tra ditions as to one event. But all necessity and pretext for resorting to such explanations, and indeed the whole presumption of identity, are happily removed by Matthew, who affords a parallel to both accounts in very different connections, thus establishing the fact of their diversity. Luke's account of the affair at Nazareth closes (4, 31) with a state ment that he went thence to Capernaum, another town of Galilee, which formal and particular description shows that he is speaking of our Lord's removal to that place as the appointed centre of his future operations. Now this same removal i§ recorded with more brevity by Matthew, in immediate connection with our Lord's withdrawing from Judea into Galilee on John's imprisonment (Matt. 4, 12. 13.) But the same evangelist, much later in his narrative, records a visit and rejection of our Lord at Nazareth, in terms almost identical with those of Mark (Matt. 13, 54-58.) It was therefore a second occurrence 140 MARK 6, 1. 2. of the same kind, which is so far from being in itself improbable, that it would have been strange and out of keeping with the whole tenor of the Saviour's conduct, if in the course of his perpetual circuits through all Galilee, he never had revisited his old home and renewed the invitations which the people there had once rejected. Luke's silence in relation to this second visit is explained by his particular account of the first, whereas Matthew, having merely noted the re moval, without any indication of the reasons, could describe the second visit without irksome repetition. The different connection in which Mark and Matthew introduce this narrative is unimportant, as the mere chronology was nothing to their purpose of exemplifying the re ception and effect of our Lord's ministry in various cases. There is no inconsisteney, however, Matthew (13, 54) merely saying that he came into his own country, without adding when or whence, while Mark prefixes to these words the statement that he went out (or de parted) thence, which can only mean from Capernaum or its neighbour hood, where he had performed the two miracles last recorded (see above, on 5, 21, and compare Matt. 9, 1.) His country (fatherland, irarpis from warnp), not in the wide sense now attached to this term, but in that of native place, ancestral residence. This description ap plied elsewhere (John 4. 46) to all Galilee, as distinguished from Judea, is here used, with equal propriety, to distinguish one town of Galilee from another. In the same sense that Galilee was his native province, Nazareth was his native town ; for though not actually born in either, his parents (Luke 2. 27. 41) had resided there before his birth (Luke 1, 26. 27/ 2, 4), and he had been brought up there from his infancy (Matt. 2, 23. Luke 2, 51. 52), so that he was universally regarded as a Galilean and a Nazarene (see above, on 1, 24.) His dis ciples, either in the strict sense of his twelve apostles (see above, on 3, 14), or the wider sense of his believing hearers and habitual attend ants (see above, on 4, 10.) Follow him, the graphic present tense, which represents the scene as actually passing. 2. And when the sabbath-day was. come, he began to teach in the synagogue : and many hearing (him) were astonished, saying, Prom whence hath this (man) these things ? and what wisdom (is) this whicli is given unto him, that even such mighty works are wrought by his hands ? And it being sabbath (or the sabbath having come), the Greek verb being not the mere verb of existence, but one meaning strictly to be come or to begin to be, and therefore often rendered by the English verbs to happen, come to pass, &c. (see above, on 1, 4. 2, 15. 4, 4. 5, 14. 16. 33. and as to the observance of the sabbath, on 1, 21. 2, 23. 3, 2.) He began, not pleonastic but implying interruption, or that he was still employed in this way when the subsequent occurrences took place. (See above, on 1, 45. 2, 23. 4,1. 5, 17. 20.) In the synagogue, MARK 6, 2. 3. 141 or stated meeting for religious worship, the Greek word, like its English equivalent and several others, such as church, court, school, being sometimes, but not necessarily or always, transferred to the place and even to the building. For a clear view of this natural transition, compare Luke 7, 5, where it could not be the meeting that was built, with Acts 13, 43, where it could not be the building that was broken up. We find here exemplified two of our Lord's habits, that of personal attendance on the synagogue worship, and that of official or authoritative teaching upon such occasions (see above, on 1, 21. 39. 3, 1.) This was allowed partly in accordance with a customary license of instruction, not entirely unknown among the modern Jews, but chiefly on account of Christ's miraculous credentials as a teacher come from God and recognized as such by other teachers even of the highest rank when free from party-spirit and malignant prepossession. (See above, on 1, 22, and compare John 3, 2. 10. 7, 50.) Many (or as some old copies read, the many, i. e. the majority, the mass) hearing were struck (with wonder or amazement), the same phrase and descriptive of the same effect as that recorded in 1, 22, but very different as to the conclusion drawn from it. For in the former case it led the hearers at Capernaum to contrast him as a teacher with the scribes very much to his advantage, while in this his old acquaintances com pare his miracles and teachings with his humble origin and early resi dence among themselves, as a pretext for disparaging if not rejecting his pretensions. This unfriendly prepossession is expressed indirectly by their sneering questions. Whence to this (one) these (things) ? i. e. how has he obtained them ? What (is) the wisdom, the (wisdom) given to him, i. e. imparted from above, thereby acknowledging his inspiration, but not without a sneer at his wisdom as belonging to another rather than himself. That (or, according to the latest critics, and) such (or so great) powers (i. e. proofs of superhuman power) by (or through) his hands (or instrumental agency) are done (or come to pass, the same verb that is used in the first clause and there explained.) They do not venture to deny his wisdom or his miracles, but by wondering at them really bear witness to them. This is only one of many proofs that the reality of Christ's miraculous performances was never called in question either by his unbelieving friends or by his most malignant enemies (see above, on 3, 22.) That this admission left them inexcusable both intellectually and morally for not receiving Jesus as the true Mes siah, far from proving that they could not thus have spoken, only shows that their affections, envy, jealousy, and malice, were too strong for their rational convictions, so that in the very act of wondering at the proofs of his divine legation, they rejected and denied it. This incon sistency, instead of being '• unpsychological " or contradicted by the laws of human nature, is continually verified in every day's experi ence, contributing with many other proofs to show the irrationality of unbelief and sin in general. 3. Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, of Joses, and of Judas, and Simon ? 142 MARK 6, 3. and are not his sisters here with us ? And they were offended at him. The general expression of contemptuous incredulity is followed by a still more invidious allusion to his connections and associations, equivalent to saying, ' we know all about this boasted wonder-worker and instructor, who and what he is, and whence he drew his origin, that is, among ourselves, to whom he now assumes such vast superi ority.' This is the language not of reason but of passion, since the circumstances mentioned only served to enhance the proof of that superiority which they repined at, though they could not question or deny it. Is not this the carpenter ? The Greek word sometimes means an artisan or artificer in general, which some lexicographers consider its original import as indicated by its etymology (connecting it with Texv1x art), and by its combination with the names of certain metals to denote those who are constantly employed about them. Others explain this as a mere occasional extension of the usual and strict sense, which is that of any workman in wood, and still more specifically, a carpenter or joiner, which an uniform tradition represents as Joseph's occupation. It is not here spoken of as even a comparatively mean employment, that of building having always been regarded as among the most respectable and even intellectual of manual occupa tions. There was no intention, on the part of those here speaking, to put Jesus lower than themselves, but simply on a level with them. What they tacitly repudiate is not his claim to be their equal, but their better or superior in an infinite degree. This pretension, though attested by acknowledged miracle and inspiration, they endeavour, in a natural but foolish manner, to invalidate by urging his original equality in rank and occupation with themselves. Or rather it is not an argumentative objection, but a mere expression of surprise, like that which would be felt, though in a less degree, in any obscure neigh bourhood, at the appearance of an old acquaintance in the new condi tion of a rich man or a nobleman. This clause has been unduly pressed . by some as proving that our Lord did actually work at the trade of his reputed father. However probable this may be in itself, and however little it may derogate from the Redeemer's honour, it cannot be cer tainly inferred from these words, and for several reasons. In the first place, they are not tho words of the evangelist himself, but of the people in the synagogue of Nazareth, uttered under great excitement, and directly prompted by their jealousy and envy, which would naturally lead them to exaggerate rather than extenuate the humbling facts of Christ's original condition. In the next place, the words themselves, when uttered hastily and carelessly, might simply mean the son of Joseph, who was well known as a carpenter among them, just as the sons of foreigners among ourselves, though natives of the soil, are often spoken of as Irishmen or Dutchmen. In the third place, this is actu ally given as the meaning of the question, if not as its very form, by Matthew (13, 55.) Is not this the carpenter's son ? And lastly, though the question is not to be settled upon any sentimental ground or false MARK 6, 3. 143 assumption that the Son of God would have been any more degraded by this kind of labour than by taking upon him the form of a servant, which includes all possible humiliation free from sin. yet every reader feels that there were other more appropriate employments even in his years of preparation for the work that followed. All this is intended, not to disprove the fact alleged by these unfriendly Nazarenes, but simply to deny that their alleging it, or interrogatively presupposing it, is any demonstration of the fact itself, which may be therefore left to be determined by each reader at his own discretion. The son of Mary, added here to discriminate the person of the carpenter referred to, cor responds to a separate demand in Matthew, Is not his mother called Mary ? And (or but) the brother of James, &c. The immemorial dispute as to the brothers of the Lord has been already mentioned (see above, on 3, 31.) Those who interpret that expression as denoting brothers in the strict sense, i. e. sons of the same mother (fratres uterinos), lay great stress upon the passage now before us and its par allel in Matthew (13, 55.) But even taken in the strictest sense it only proves that these were sons of Joseph, not necessarily by Mary, but perhaps by a former marriage, a traditional interpretation running back into remote antiquity. Others insist upon the wide use of brother, in the oriental idiom and in Scripture, to denote almost any near relation, whether natural or moral, such as that of fellow-men, otherwise called neighbours (Matt. 5, 22), that of friends and associates (Matt. 5, 47), that of fellow- Jews (Acts 2, 29), that of fellow-Christians (Acts 1, 16), that of fellow-ministers (1 Cor. 1, 1.) A word admitting of such various applications cannot of itself determine which is meant in any given case. Nor is there any principle or general law of language which forbids our giving to the term as here used the same meaning that it obviously has in Gen. 14, 14. 16, that of a near relative or kinsman. The presump tion, however, here and elsewhere, is in favour of the strict construction ; nor would any have doubted that the brothers of Christ were the sons of Mary, but for certain adventitious and collateral objections to that obvious interpretation. These are chiefly two, the one of great an tiquity, the other of more recent date. The first is a repugnance to admit that Mary was the mother of any but of Christ himself. This repugnance, although found in connection with many superstitious notions in the Church of Rome, is not confined to it. Not only do the symbols or standards of the Lutheran and of some Reformed churches teach the perpetual virginity of Mary as an article of faith, but multi tudes of Protestant divines and others, independently of all creeds and confessions, have believed, or rather felt, that the selection of a woman to be the mother of the Lord carries with it as a necessary implication that no others could sustain the same relation to her ; and that the selection of a virgin still more necessarily implied that she was to con tinuo so ; for if there be nothing in the birth of younger children incon sistent with her maternal relation to the Saviour, why should there be any such repugnance in the birth of older children likewise ? If for any reason, whether known to us or not, it was necessary that the mother of our Lord should be a virgin when she bore him, what is 144 MARK 6, 3. there absurd or superstitious in assuming as a part of the divine plan that she should remain a virgin till her death ? If, on the other hand, there be no real incongruity in holding that the mother of our Lord was afterwards an ordinary wife and parent, what incongruity would there have been in putting this extraordinary honour on the married state, by choosing one who was already in the ordinary sense a wife and mother ? The question is not why it did not please God thus to order it, with which we have no right to intermeddle, but why the same minds which regard the perpetual virginity of Mary as a super stition, shrink with equal superstition from the bare suggestion that Christ might have been born of any but a virgin. The same feeling which revolts from one hypothesis in some revolts from both hypothe ses in others, and the difference between them, as to this repugnance, is reduced to that of one and two, before and after, or at most to that of a consistent uniformity and arbitrary variation. After all it is not so much a matter of reason or of faith as of taste and sensibility ; but these exert a potent influence on all interpretation, and the same repugnance, whether rational or merely sentimental, which led fathers and reformers to deny that Christ had brothers in the ordinary sense, is likely to produce the same effect on multitudes forever, or until the question has received some new and unequivocal solution. The collateral arguments in this dispute derived from Matt. 1, 25, and John 7, 5, belong to the interpretation of those gospels. The other and more recent ground of opposition to the strict sense of brother in the case before us is the theory, by some connected with it, of extraordinary- honours paid to one of these uterine brethren as such though not one of the twelve apostles, i. e. James the brother of the Lord, whom Paul groups with John and Peter as a pillar of the church, and even names him first in the enumeration, which is natural enough if he was one of the apostles and the one who specially presided in the church at Jeru salem ; but if (as many now maintain) he was one of the Saviour's unbelieving brethren (John 7, 5), converted by our Lord's appearance to him after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15, 7), and then placed upon a level with the twelve an account of his relationship to Christ, the apos tolical prerogative is sensibly impaired, and the door thrown open for an endless license of conjecture as to the men who were apostles although not so dignified by Christ himself. An unwillingness to come to this conclusion has undoubtedly confirmed some in the old belief, that the brother of the Lord, of whom Paul speaks, was James the Less or James the son of Alpheus, at once an apostle and a relative of Christ, whether he were such as a nephew of the Virgin Mary, or of Joseph, or a son of Joseph by a former marriage. The additional hypothesis, that James and his brothers lived with Joseph after the decease of their own father, is not a necessary consequence of what has been already said, but merely an ingenious explanation of the fact that these brothers of Christ appear in attendance on his mother as members of her household. (See above, on 3, 31, and compare John 2, 12. Acts 1, 14.) In favour oi identifying James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1, 19) with James the son of Alpheus (see above, on 3, 18), is the singular coincidence of MARK 6, 3. 4.5. 145 names between the lists of the apostles and the passage now before us. In all we find a James and a Simon near together, and in Luke's two catalogues a Jude or Judas (not Iscariot), making three names com mon to the list of the apostles and of Christ's brothers. This may no doubt be fortuitous, the rather as the names were common, and the fourth here mentioned, which was less so, does not appear in any list of the apostles. Still on most minds the coincidence will have some influence, in spite of the objection that in John 7, 5, we are expressly told that his brethren did not believe on him. But if brethren means his near relations, surely some of them might be apostles, while-the rest were unbelievers, even granting, what may well be questioned, that by unbelief in John 7, 5, we are to understand an absolute rejection of his claims and doctrines, rather than a weak contracted faith, with which he seems to charge his mother upon one occasion (John 2, 4), and the twelve on many. , (See above, on 4, 40, and compare Matt. 6. 30. 8, 26. 14, 31. 16, 8.) His sisters is of course to be interpreted according to his brothers, the wide and narrow senses being applicable equally to either sex. Here with us (literally at us, close to us), i. e. still resident at Nazareth, which probably remained the permanent home even of his mother. Offended in him, i. e. made to stumble or without a figure led into sin and error with respect to him. For the origin and meaning of the Greek term see above, on 4, 17. 4. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. Instead of resenting this reception as a personal offence and in sult, which it certainly was, our Lord treats it msrely as a single in stance of a general and familiar fact, that God's most highly honoured instruments and agents are not only liable to be dishonoured by their fellow-men, but to be least respected on the part of those who know them best, and who would seem to be particularly bound to do them honour. The implied reason is that strangers judge of such a person only by his public acts or his official conduct, while his friends and neighbours, even the most friendly, have their minds so occupied with minor matters, that the greater are obscured if not distorted to their view. It is like looking at some noble structure from a distance where itself alone is visible, and near at hand, where the adjoining houses both distract the eye and lower the main object ; so that ha- who sees the most in one sense sees the least in another. This familiar lesson of experience, and as such reduced to a proverbial form, is here applied especially to prophets, eithep because it had been actually verified in their experience more than that of others, or because it was our Lord's prophetic ministry and offlce which had been so contemptuously treated by his countrymen. 5. And he could there do no mighty work, save that 7 146 M A R K 6, 5. 6. he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed (them.) The sad effect of this reception was the paucity of miracles at Naza reth, compared with those at other towns of Galilee, particularly at Capernaum(see above, on 1, 32. 3, 10.) He was not able there to do any miracle (literally, no power, as in v. 2. ) This cannot literally mean that he had lost the power of working miracles in consequence of their rejecting him, but must be taken either in a moral sense, that he could not do so in consistency with the design and purpose of his mission, or more strictly that he could not for the want of opportunity, because the people, having no faith in his healing power, or disdaining to re ceive the favours of one whom they knew so well and were so unwilling to acknowledge as superior, did not present themselves as in other places. This is certainly more probable and pleasing than the suppo sition that our Lord, in this case, refused what he seems to have granted in all others. 6. And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages teaching. The extraordinary conduct of the Nazarenes is now presented in the strongest manner possible by saying that our Lord himself won dered at (or on account of) their unbelief. To reconcile omniscience with surprise is no part of our privilege or duty. All such seeming contradictions are parts of the great mystery of godliness, God mani fest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3,16), the union of humanity and deity in one theanthropic person. However incomprehensible to our finite facul ties may be the coexistence in one person of the divine logos and a hu man soul, the possession of the latter, if conceded, carries with it all the attributes and acts of which a perfect human soul is capable. While to Christ's divinity or eternal spirit there could be nothing new or strange, to his humanity surprise and wonder were familiar, and on no occasion had he seen more to call forth those affections of mind, than when he saw the unbelief of his own countrymen at Nazareth. But far from suffering their strange behaviour to divert him from his purpose, he resumed his missionary circuit or continued it ; for he had probably returned to Nazareth, not upon any special errand, but be cause it came next in his systematic scheme of labour. There is a sig nificant simplicity in Mark's combination of these two things, more expressive than the most elaborate description. It presents to us the Saviour pausing for a moment as it were to wonder at the incredulity of Nazareth, then calmly passing on to his next scene of labour. He went about, literally led about (1 Cor. 9, 5), a compound form of the verb used in the same way in 1, 38, but never probably (except in Acts 13, 11) without some reference to the leading of others, as in Christ's itinerant surveys of Galilee, to which it is applied not only here but in Matt. 7,23. 9,35. The villages, here put for towns in general (see above, on 1, 38, and compare Matt. 9, 35.) In a circle, or a circuit, that MARK 6, 6. 7. 8. 147 ' is, not merely round about (as in 3, 34 above), but on a regular con certed plan of periodical revisitation. These occasional glimpses of the method upon which our Lord conducted his official work are worthy of particular attention, as evincing that he did not work at random or leave any part of Galilee, so far as we can learn, unvisited. 7. And he called (unto him) the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two, and gave them power over unclean spirits. Besides continuing his own itinerant ministry, our Lord now takes another step of great importance, by actually sending out the twelve whom he had previously chosen for the twofold purpose of being with him as disciples and going forth from him as apostles (see above, on 3, 14.) It should be observed, however, that the mission here recorded was not the permanent and proper apostolic work, for which they were not qualified until the day of Pentecost (see below, on 16, 20, and com pare Luke 24, 49. Acts 1, 41), but a temporary and preliminar3r mis sion, to diffuse still more extensively the news of the Messiah's advent and the doctrine of his kingdom, attested by the same credentials which he bore himself. Began what he had not yet done, but only prepared the way for. Two (and) two, in pairs or couples, for mutual counsel and assistance, in accordance with the maxim of Solomon (Ecc. 4, 9.) This interesting circumstance has been preserved by Mark alone, perhaps on the authority of Peter (see above, on 5, 29). but at all events under a divine direction. Power, i. e. derivative or delegated power, authority, conferred by a superior, not to be employed promis cuously or at random, but so as to promote the end for which it was bestowed. Power of unclean spirits, i. e. relating to them, and by ne cessary implication, over them, which is not expressed however but suggested by the context. The spirits, the unclean (ones), is the form of the original, in which the adjective is added as a qualifying term, because the noun includes all spirits, good and evil, whereas they were to have power only over fallen angels. Here, as elsewhere (see above, on 1,34. 3, 11), Mark gives special prominence to such dispossessions as the most extraordinary miracles of healing, and as such representing all the rest which -were equally included in this apostolical commission (Matt. 10, 1. Luke 9, 2.) 8. And commanded them that they should take nothing for (their) journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in (their) purse : To this general account of their commission Mark adds a special charge in reference to two points, their equipment for the journey, and their conduct towards the people with whom they came in contact. Luke's account is still more brief (9, 3-5), while Matthew (10, 5-42) seems to put togetlier all the similar directions given to the twelve at any time, in reference not only to this temporary mission, but to their later apos- 148 MARK 6." 8. 9. 10. tolic journeys. Commanded is in Greek a verb originally meaning to announce or pass the word, with special reference to military watch words, then to any charge or order, but according to the lexicons not in the strongest or most peremptory sense, which is otherwise expressed. Take, literally, take up, but with special reference to taking away, and then to carrying (see above, on 2, 3. 9. 11. 12. 21. 4, 15. 28.) For their journey, literally, into the road (or way.) Save, except, literally, if not. A staff, or walking-stick, as used in journeys upon foot to support and ease the traveller. No scrip, &c, literally, not a scrip, not bread, not money. Scrip, an old word answering to bag, sack, or wallet. Money, literally, brass, or rather copper, said to be the first ore that was wrought, whence the name is sometimes used for metal in general, and sometimes for bronze, or the alloy of copper and tin, but not for what is now called brass, or the alloy of copper and zinc, which is said to have been unknown to the ancients. Copper having been early used for money, the word has sometimes that generic meaning, as it has in this place, with specific reference no doubt to coin of the lowest value, like the plural (coppers) among us. In their purse, literally. into the girdle, the construction implying previous insertion, and the whole phrase a custom, still prevailing in the east, of using the belt, which keeps the flowing dress together, as a purse or pocket. Horace and Livy speak of money in the girdle, and Plutarch connects the very two Greek words employed by Mark. 9. But (be) shod with sandals ; and not put on two coats. But (introducing a concession) shod (literally, underbound, bound under with) sandals, soles of wood or skin covering the bottom of the feet and fastened with leather straps or thongs. Not put on, an unusual variation of the older English form, put not on, both equiva lent in meaning to our modern phrase, do not put on, or clothe yourself with, wear. Coats, tunics, shirts, the inner garment of the ancient oriental dress, worn next the skin and reaching to the knees (see above, on 2, 21. 5, 27, and below, on 14, 63.) These particulars, intended to convey the general idea that they -were to go without encumbrance and to rely for their subsistence on the public hospitality, are substan tially the same in all the evangelists, except that Luke, includes the staff among the things prohibited. As this, however, is neither a tech nical description nor a business inventory, but a proverbial enumera tion, all unbiassed readers feel that the very same original expression might be rendered not even a staff, or at most a staff, the staff being as it were the boundary between what was forbidden and allowed, and it making practically no odds whether it were left or taken. 10. And he said unto them, In what place soever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart from that place. MARK 6, 10. 11. 149 And he said to them (further) on the same subject, or the same occa sion, one of Mark's favourite transitions (see above, on 4, 13. 21. 24. 26. 30.) What is here said is explanatory of the charge immediately preced ing. They had no need of luggage or provisions because they would be hospitably entertained at every stopping place. Wherever, in whatever town or neighbourhood, ye go into a house (or dwelling), i. e. as invited guests, there (in that same house) remain until ye go out thence, i. e. from that vicinity. The apparent incongruity of telling them to stay till they departed, as if they could do otherwise, arises wholly from the reference of the local particles, wherever, where, and thence, to different objects not distinguished in the text, but pointed out in the foregoing paraphrase. The meaning of this charge is that although they would be cheerfully received and entertained wherever they might come in Christ's name, they must give no unnecessary trouble and attract no unnecessary notice, by removals from one dwelling to another in the same place (compare Luke 10, 7.) They were not to be received as visitors but messengers or heralds, and must be content with what was absolutely necessary. 11. And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Go morrah in the day of judgment, than for that city. The foregoing directions presupposed that they would everywhere be well received ; but they are now prepared to meet with marked ex ceptions, not in families or houses merely, but in towns and whole communities (Matt. 10, 14. Luke 9, 5.) This we know was the ex perience of our Lord himself (see above, on 5, 17, and compare Luke 9, 53), and he instructs the twelve how to act in all such cases. Who soever (or as many as) shall not receive you, not as guests merely but as teachers, neither hear you, speaking in my name, by my authority, and of my kingdom. When ye depart, or more exactly, going out thence, i. e. immediately when thus rejected. Shake off, the expression used by Luke (9, 5), whereas that of Mark and Matthew (10, 14) strict!}' means to shake out, though descriptive of the same act. Dust is also the expression used by Luke and Matthew, while the one em ployed by Mark means strictly earth thrown up from an}' excavation, but appears to have acquired in the later Greek the sense of loose earth or flying dust. Under your feet, a supplementary specification, not expressed as such in English, which might be rendered more exactly, the dust (namely) that beneath your feet, meaning that which adheres to the feet in walking. For a testimony to them (as in 1, 44) or as Luke more precisely phrases it, against them (Luke 9, 5.) The act enjoined is a symbolical one, meaning that they would not even let the dust ofthe places where these people, lived adhere to them, much less consent to come in contact with them 150 MARK 6, 11. 12. 13. selves, in other words, that they renounced all intercourse with them forever. The same essential meaning was expressed by the kindred act of shaking the garments. That both were practised by the apostles, even after Christ's ascension, we may learn from Paul's ex ample at Antioch and Corinth (Acts 13, 51. 18, 6.) The ancient Jews are said to have adopted the same method on returning to the Holy Land from foreign countries, to denote that they desired to abjure and leave behind all that cleaved to them of heathenism. In the case before us. it was a reciprocal rejection of those by whom they were themselves rejected. The last clause in the common text and version is not found here in the oldest copies, and is regarded by the latest critics as a mere assimilation of Mark's text to Matthew's (9, 15.) The meaning of the clause is that the guilt of those who thus deliberately rejected Christ when offered to them was incomparably greater than the most atrocious sins of those who had enjoyed no such advantage. The case of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18, 20. 19, 24. 25) is a stand ing type in Scripture, both of aggravated sin and fearful retribution (Deut. 29, 23. Isai. 13, 19. Jer. 49, 18. 50, 40. Amos 4, 11.) The threatening here implied, if not expressed, has reference to the last appeal which Christ was now about to make, the farewell offer of himself and his salvation, by the aid of the apostles to the whole pop ulation of the country, or at least of Galilee, before the days of his assumption should be filled and his face set for the last time towards Jerusalem (Luke 9, 51.) 12. And they went out, and preached that men should repent. To this account of the commission now received by the apostles Mark adds a statement of its execution. Going out, from the Lord's presence or the place where he delivered these instructions, they pro ceeded to fulfil them, not at random or confusedly, but on a syste matic method (see above, on v. 6), going about or through the country and among the villages or from town to town (Luke 9, 6.) Preached, announced, proclaimed it as a privilege and duty (see above, on 1, 4. 3, 14), that they (who heard the proclamation) should repent, the same message which had been already brought by John the Baptist (1, 4) and by Christ himself (1, 15.) The repentance thus preached was not simply sorrow or compunction, as a part of individual experience, but that great moral revolution, which was to precede as well as follow the Messiah's advent, as predicted by the ancient prophets (see above, on 1,2. 3.) 13. And they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed (them). As in the case of Christ himself, the teaching of the twelve was authenticated and attested by miraculous credentials. Mark, as usual, makes prominent the case of dispossession, and they cast out many de- MARK 6. 13. 14. 151 mons (see above, on 1, 34. 39. 3, 15. 22) but then expressly mentions other miracles of healing, with a specific method of performing them hot mentioned in the other gospels. And they anointed with oil many sick (literally, strengthless, weak, infirm) and cured (them), the verb used above in 1, 34, and there explained (compare 3, 2. 10. 15. 6, 5.) This particular method of effecting cures, although not mentioned in our Lord's farewell instructions (see below, on 16, 18), seems to have been practised in the apostolic church long after (compare James 5, 14), not as a medical appliance, but as one of those external signs, by which the object and the performer of the miracle were brought into a visi ble connection. Thus in few words, but with great distinctness, Mark describes the execution, by the twelve, of their renewed commission, or rather of the charge with which, for the first time, they were actu ally sent out as apostles, and which Luke (9, 6) sums up in four words, preaching and liealing everywhere. 14. And king Herod heard (of him), for his name was spread abroad, and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him. Leaving the general effect of this new agency to be inferred or taken for granted, the evangelist describes with some particularity the singu lar impression which it made upon a public character of high rank and some historical celebrity. This was Herod Antipas, the second son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2, 1. Luke 1, 5), and bearing the abbreviated name of his grandfather, Antipater the Edomite or Idumean (see above, on 3, 8), who had been the minister or confidential counsellor of Hyrcanus IL, the last of the Maccabees or Hasmonean Kings, under whom, or rather through whom, Pompey the Great obtained posses sion of the Holy Land, and virtually although not ostensibly reduced it to a Roman province. Antipater, however, still continued to enjoy the favour of the conquerors, and his son Herod, after fleeing from the country to escape a sentence of the Sanhedrim, returned in triumph, having been acknowledged by the Senate and crowned in the Capitol as king of the Jews. After reigning many years as a vassal of the em pire, he bequeathed his kingdom to his three sons Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip, the first of whom was soon displaced by Roman governors, while both the others reigned much longer, as tributary sovereigns, but without the royal title, for which Augustus substituted that of tetrarch, which originally signified the ruler of a fourth part, or one of four associated rulers, as in ancient Galatia, but was afterwards applied in a generic sense to any ruler and especially to tributary kings, imme diately dependent on the Roman emperor. Hence Antipas, though usually called the tetrarch (Matt. 14, 1. Luke 3, 1. 19. 9, 7. Acts 13, 1), is by Mark repeatedly described as king, which, though it seems at first sight an inaccuracy, really evinces his exact acquaintance with the titular rank of Herod, both in common parlance and in the actual arrangements of the empire. This prince, whose dominions comprised 152 MARK 6, 14. Galilee, Samaria, and Perea, resided usually at Tiberias, a placefrom which the sea, of Galilee derived one of its names (see above, on 1, 16), but which is not itself named in the New Testament, perhaps because our Saviour did not visit it, in order to avoid precipitating the catas trophe or crisis of his history, by being brought into collision with the court or person of this wicked ruler. But although they had not met, Herod, as might have been expected, heard (of him), for his name had become manifest (or famous), first by means of his own words and, deeds incessantly reported far and wide by those who witnessed them, although this process was in some degree retarded by occasional in junctions not to make him known, and then by the preaching and the miracles of the twelve apostles who were sent forth for the very pur pose. That the history has reference to this last mode of diffusion, is not only natural and likely in itself but rendered more so by the read iness with which it accounts for the insertion of the following story just at this point, after the commissioning and going forth of the apos tles. The effect produced by this increasing fame of Jesus on the mind of Herod, although strange, is not incredible, but true to nature and experience. His conclusion was that this was John the Baptist (lit erally, the one baptizing), who was indeed dead, but as the conscience- stricken king imagined, had been raised (aroused, awakened, see above, on I, 31. 5, 41) from the dead (from among them, their condition and society), not from death as an abstraction or a mere condition without reference to persons. The doctrine of a resurrection, although veiled or only partially disclosed in the Old Testament, was now an article of faith with all the Jews except the Sadducees, who seem to have rejected it on philosophical rather than scriptural grounds. Even Herod, who seems elsewhere to be called a Sadducee (see below, on 8, 15), was either less incredulous on this point, or was scared out of his unbelief by guilty fear. This idea was the more strange because John performed no miracle (John 10, 41), and therefore miracles could be no proof of his resuscitation. But even as to this point the evangelist sug gests without developing an explanation. Therefore, literally, for (or on account of) this, i. e. because he has appeared again, with some new message or authority, perhaps to punish those who would not hear him or who slew him when he came before. Such an imagination was not wholly destitute of colour, since the prophecy of Malachi respecting John suggests the idea of successive advents, which might well be misconceived by Herod as relating to distinct appearances of one and the same person. (See above, on 1, 2, 3.) , The expressions of the last clause are particularly strong in the original. For this (cause) energize the pjowers in him, i. e. miraculous or superhuman powers, not only show forth themselves (which conveys too little and is neither the exact idea nor the form of the original) but are busy, active, eneraetic, which last is a word of kindred origin with that here used. The English version gives to powers the secondary meaning which it sometimes has of miracles, or mighty works, as the effects and proofs of superhuman power (see above, on v. 5, and below, on 9, 39) ; but the primary mean ing is entitled to the preference as such and on account of its conjunct MARK 0, 14. 15. 10. 153 tion with a verb requiring it, as may be seen from the change which the translators have been forced to make in it, in order to retain their customary version of the noun, since a miracle cannot be said to act oi to be active, which can be asserted only of the power that produces it. All that need be added as to this point is that, out of twenty places where the same Greek verb occurs in the New Testament, this is the only one in which it is not strictly rendered as expressive of efficient action. Thus explained the phrase before us is still more significant of Herod's guilty fears, occasioned by the very rumour of our Saviour's miracles, the source or ground of which fears is explained in the ensuing context. 15. Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets. But before proceeding to this explanation, Mark informs us that these speculations as to our Lord's identity were not confined to Herod, but were made the subject of solicitous discussion at his court and else where. Others said, not on any one occasion, but as the imperfect tense denotes, were saying or were wont to say. It seems to refer therefore not to discourses held in Herod's presence or addressed di- . rectly to him. but to the common talk or popular discussions of the day. While Herod entertained this strange idea, it was very generally thought and said by others, that (see above, on 1, 15. 37. 40) it is Elias, the Greek form of Elijah, who was really foretold as the forerunner of Messiah (Mai. 4.5), and who in a certain sense did reappear in John the Baptist. (See above, on 1, 2. 3, and below, on 9, 11-13.) This was therefore a correct interpretation, but too definite for some, who were contented to believe that Jesus was a prophet, not in any modern or attenuated sense, but as one of the prophets properly so called and perfectly familiar as a well-defined class of persons in the sacred history. This qualification was the more important, as the gift of prophecy had been suspended for four centuries, and therefore to assert that a prophet of the old school had arisen was to say that a new dispensation had begun or was approaching. We have thus condensed in this verse, not mere incoherent gossip, but the principal opinions entertained among the Jews as to the person of the Saviour. 16. But when Herod heard (thereof), he said, It is John, whom I beheaded : he is risen from the dead. But Herod hearing, either these expressions of opinion, or the ru mours which occasioned them, more probably the latter, as the verse preceding relates not to what passed in his presence, but to what was passing all through his dominions. The meaning then is, not that in reply to these suggestions Herod said what is recorded in this verse, but that among the various opinions then afloat in the community, whether known to him or not, this was his. While others were proposing this or that solution of the wonderful phenomena in question, Herod had a theory or explanation of his own distinct from all the rest, and sug- 154 MARK 6, 16. 17. gested by his own guilty memory and conscience. This view of the matter not only agrees better with the terms of the narrative expounded strictly, but enables us to understand the king as saying these things to himself or to his confidential servants (Matt. 14, 2), which is cer tainly more natural than to suppose a public agitation of the question in the court or palace, and a public avowal of his fear that this would prove to be the very man whom he had put to death. There is peculiar force in the original arrangement, of the sentence, only partially retained in the translation. {He) whom I beheaded — John — this is — he (even he) has arisen, (or been raised) from (among) the dead. 17. For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife : for he had married her. One ofthe characteristics of a well-ordered history, as distinguished from mere chronicles or annals, is the way in which the writer inter weaves his materials instead of simply throwing them together, going back to take up what has been allowed to drop, and introducing topics, even out of their precise chronological arrangement, when required to complete or to illustrate the main narrative. The best historians in every language are remarkable for this constructive skill, which is rather natural than artificial, and is therefore often greatest where it shows the least. Some of the best samples of this quality are furnished by the sacred writers, whose simplicity is not, as some imagine, the effect of ignorance and inexperience, but of perfect skill ; their artlessness is not opposed to art but to artifice, and often where the condescending critic pities the deficiency of purpose and coherent plan, it is the perfectness of both which has deceived him. Many instances of this kind are af forded by the gospels, one of which is now before us, in the different but equally artistic mode in which the writers introduce the narrative of John's imprisonment. Matthew and Mark defer it till they come to speak of Herod's terror when he heard of Jesus, where they are natu rally led to give the causes of that strange impression by relating the whole story in connection. Luke relates the perplexity of Herod in the same way, but had no occasion to recount his previous treatment of the Baptist, having recorded it already in his narrative of John's appear ance and official ministry. Now as both these methods are entirely natural and in accordance with the theory and practice of the best his torians, and while the difference may serve to show the independence of the writers who exhibit it, the charge of incoherence against either is as groundless as against the best digested portions of Polybius or Gibbon. The for at the beginning of this verse refers to the phrase whom I beheaded in the one preceding. To one unacquainted with the previous facts this expression would need explanation, and Mark now proceeds to give it. Sending out (or away), the verb from which apostle is derived (see above, on 1, 2. 3, 14. 6, 7), but here applied to the commission of a soldier or an officer of justice (see below, on v. 27.) 'Seized, arrested, the verb explained above (on 1, 31. 3, 21. 5,41) as MARK 6, 17. 18. 19. 155 denoting either violent, or friendly seizure. Bound, either in the strict sense of fastened, chained, or in the wide one of confined, imprisoned, which the Greek sometimes seems to have. In prison, literally guard or ward, which may either mean the place or the condition of confine ment. For (on account of) Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus, son of Herod the Great, was married by her grandfather to his son Philip, not the tetrarch mentioned in Luke 3, 1, but another who appears to have occupied no public station. Leaving him she married, in direct violation of the law, her uncle and brother-in-law Herod Antipas, who had divorced his own wife the daughter of Aretas an Arabian king, sup posed to be the same of whom Paul speaks in one of his epistles (2 Cor. 11, 32.) This divorce involved him in a war from which he could be extricated only by the Roman arms. Enough has now been said to show the character not only of Herodias and of Antipas but also of the whole Herodian race, whose history is stained with many odious impu tations of adultery and even incest under the pretence of marriage. 18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. It is not without reason that Mark speaks of John as being thrown into prison because Herod married Herodias ; for John said to Herod, it is not lawful (or permitted) either by the law of nature or the law of Moses, to have (or hold in thy possession) the wife of thy (own) brother. There is something very pleasing in this incidental glimpse of John's consistency and faithfulness in reproving sin without respect of persons, to which Christ himself seems to refer when he describes John as neither a reed shaken by the wind nor a courtier in soft rai ment (Matt. 11, 7. 8. Luke 7, 24 25.) This description is emphatically verified by John's appearance in the scene before us, where the austere preacher of the wilderness, who so severely scourged both Pharisees and Sadducees, though enemies and rivals, as alike belonging to the ' seed of the serpent (Gen. 3, 15) or generation of vipers (Matt. 3, 7), appears reproving Herod on his throne for his incestuous connection with his brother's" wife and all his other sins, of which this was the most flagrant and notorious, until he crowned all by his treatment of John himself (Luke 3, 19. 20.) •*• 19. Therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him ; but she could not. This boldness and fidelity of course provoked the enmity of her who had occasioned it. Had a quarrel implies open strife, whereas the true sense is that given in the margin of our Bible, had an inward grudge. The original expression is as idiomatic as the English and not easily translated. The Greek verb strictly means had in, i. e. had within her ; the object is to be supplied from the context or from usage. Now Herodotus twice uses tho same verb with a noun origi nally meaning bile, then wrath or bitter anger, and the modern philo- 156 MARK 6, 19. 20. logical interpreters agree with the old Greek lexicographers in mak ing Mark's phrase an elliptical contraction of the one just given. Herodias had in (her, i. e. cherished, harboured, secret anger, spite) against him. Would have is not a mere auxiliary verb or compound tense, but a distinct proposition, wished to kill him (see above, on 1, 40.) The same is true of the next clause, and she was not able, for the reason given in the next verse. 20, For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and a holy, and observed him ; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. We have here disclosed to us the interesting fact, that John the Baptist made a powerful impression upon Herod when brought into contact with him. This statement must at least include the time of John's imprisonment, for if it had reference exclusively to an earlier time, a different tense would have been used. Most probably the meaning is, that the impression previously made on Herod was con firmed by nearer intercourse or closer observation. The firs in the original is simply, the (things) of God, the (things) of man, i. e. their respective interests, affairs, or claims. The meaning of the sen tence seems to be, ' you look only at the human side of these transac- 10* 226 MARKS, 33. 34. 35. tions, and regard my death as a mere instance of mortality like that of other men. to be averted as a great calamity, whereas it is the means which God has chosen and appointed for the satisfaction of his broken law and the salvation of his elect people.' 34. And when he had called the people (unto him) with his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. And having called the crowd to (him) with his disciples (who were previously near him), so that also is improperly supplied by the trans lators. Some affect to find a contradiction in this mention of a crowd, when he had previously been speaking privately to his disciples, and according to Luke (9, 18), praying with them by themselves. But this objection overlooks the fact, which we have had occasion more than once to mention, that the mul titude was never very far off, even when our Lord was most retired ; that his most confidential conversations with the twelve were held in sight though not in hearing of the people ; and that nothing is more characteristic of his teaching than the way in which he used to turn in quick succession from a larger to a smaller or from a smaller to a larger circle. The reason of his doing so on this occasion is, that what he had to say was universally appropriate and binding, having reference to no official rights or duties, but to the very terms on which he would admit men to his service. The connection with what goes before is, that although the disciples were surprised to hear that he must suffer, they must now prepare to suffer too, the members with the head. Whosoever (without any exception or reserve) will (i. e. wishes or desires to) come after (i. e. follow) me (as my dependent and adherent), not in public station merely but among the humblest classes of my people. Let him deny (i. e. renounce, abjure) himself (as the great object of regard), and let him take up his cross, not merely a pros pective or prophetic allusion to the mode of his own death, but a refer ence to the common practice of compelling malefactors to convey their own cross to the place of execution. Crucifixion being commonly re garded as at once the most painful and disgraceful way of dying, is here put for the worst form of suffering, and carrying the cross for humble, patient submission to it. And let him follow me, not merely in the general sense of service or the special sense of imitation, but in that of suffering with and like another. As if he had said, ' let him follow me to Golgotha.' 35. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it ; but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it. This requisition is so utterly repugnant to the natural love of life that it might seem like exhorting men to self-destruction. In reality MARK 8, 35. 36. 37. 227 however it is only calling them to sacrifice a lesser for a greater good, Lose is a much stronger word in Greek and means destroy, the true antithesis to save in this connection. The form of the sentence is pro verbial and, as in many other cases of the same kind, uses the same word in two senses, or rather in a higher and a lower application of the same sense. Life is the correct translation in both clauses, but the Ufe referred to very different. Whosoever will (is willing, wishes to) save his life (i. e. his natural life, or the life of his body, for its own sake, as the highest good to be secured or sought) will (by that very act not only lose but) destroy it. He cannot perpetuate his life on earth, and by refusing to look higher, forfeits life in heaven. The con verse is then stated as no less true and important. Whosoever loses or destroys (i. e. allows to be destroyed if needful) his life (in the lower sense before explained) for my sake (in my service and at my com mand), not only now while I am present upon earth, but even after my departure, for the sake of the gospel, the diffusion of the truth and the erection of my kingdom, he shall save his life in losing it, or only lose it in a lower sense to save it in the highest sense conceivable. The dif ficulty of distinguishing precisely between life and life in this extraor dinary dictum only shows that the difference is rather of degree than kind, and instead of weakening strengthens the impression. 36. For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul ? The loss in the case supposed is therefore no loss, as the gain in the other case is no gain. The terms are chosen from the dialect of ordi nary secular business. What will it profit a man, what will he gain, on ordinary principles of value or exchange, if he gain, acquire, in the usual commercial sense, the whole world, that is, all that it can offer as an object of attraction or desire, the aggregate, sum total, of enjoyment, whether sensual, ambitious, intellectual, pecuniary, and lose (a most emphatic passive form, be made to lose, be injured, ruined, with respect to) his own soul, the word before translated life, but here denoting rather that which lives, enjoys and suffers. What are enjoyments if there is no one to enjoy them, if the man himself is lost, i. e. lost to happiness forever ? 37. Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? He pursues the awful ¦ supposition further, to the verge of paradox and contradiction, but with terrible advantage to the force of this transcendent argument. Suppose a man to lose his soul, his life, him self, in the sense before explained, how shall he recover it, redeem it, buy it back again, by giving an equivalent in value 1 There is some thing unspeakably impressive in this method of suggesting the impor tance of eternal interests, by supposing the very life or soul itself to be lost to the possessor and an effort made to buy it backhand then pro- 228 MARK 8, 37. 38. pounding the question, where is the equivalent, or how shall it be ren dered 1 It is true that when the soul, or its eternal life, is lost, there is no one to attempt its restoration, for the subject or possessor is lost with it. But this is only stating in another form the very truth which Christ is here propounding, that a man may lose his present life and yet live on and have a better life in lieu of it; but when he loses his eternal life, he is himself lost, lost forever, and the thought of compen sation or recovery involves a contradiction. 38. Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he com eth in the. glory of his Father with the holy angels. Therefore seems to introduce an inference or consequence from what had just been said ; but this is neither the true version nor the true connection. For assigns the reason of something previously mentioned or suggested, which is here a thought to be supplied from the preceding context, although not expressed, to wit, that this appalling dispropor tion of loss and gain, far from being a chimera or a vain imagination, was one which all the hearers of our Lord were liable to realize or verify in their own experience. For whosoever (without any distinc tion as to class or person) shall be (or rather is, referring not to future cases merely but including them) ashamed of me (i. e. unwilling from regard to men's opinions and authority to own me as his Lord and master) and my words (doctrines, precepts, and discourses, as his own belief, as true and certain), also the Son of Man (he who now appears in the form of a servant, and of whom on that account he is ashamed) will-be ashamed of him (i. e. will treat him in like manner, will disown, reject him) when he comes in glory (with a majesty the opposite of what you now behold, not his own glory merely but) the glory of his Father with the holy angels (as distinguished from the fallen) whose reflected glory will enhance that from which it is derived (Luke 9,26.) In other words, the day is coming when our relative positions are to be reversed, when the glory will be mine and the shame theirs who once despised me ; when the question will no longer be whether they shall be ashamed of me, but whether I will be ashamed of them. CHAPTEK IX. After a sentence which belongs to the preceding context (1), Mark continues his account of the way in which our Lord prepared his fol lowers for the great catastrophe now drawing near. Having announced his death and resurrection, with a solemn warning against certain fatal MARK 9, I. 229 errors, he encourages and animates three of their number by a momen tary glimpse of the glory in reserve for him, to which they are admitted as witnesses from the earth, as Moses and Elijah are from heaven (2-8.) This Transfiguration, which may be regarded as the culminating point of Christ's prophetic ministry on earth, affords occasion for an impor tant conversation on the predicted advent of Elijah (9-13.) On their return from this stupendous spectacle, our Lord performs a miracle which Mark records, not merely on account of its intrinsic greatness, but because the nine apostles, in the absence of their master, had in vain endeavoured to expel the demon, which affords occasion for some new and extraordinary teachings (14-29.) This failure, at a time when they were soon to be deprived of his visible presence and assistance, naturally leads him to predict anew that great event, but with no im mediate effect except to frighten and perplex them (30—32.) That their mental state was still a darkened and debased one, the historian now further shows by the humiliating record of their strife for the pre eminence, and of their master's tenderness and wisdom in appeasing it (33-37.) In the same conversation, he instructs them as to the rela tion borne to him and them by other true believers, and the danger of offending such (38-42.) By a natural and obvious association, he ex pands this warning into one against all causes of temptation or offence, which he winds up with au enigmatical but solemn exhortation first to purity and then to peace (43-50.) This synopsis of the chapter will suffice to show that its topics are not thrown together at random, or as desultory anecdotes and reminiscences, but linked by a natural as sociation, which in this case, as in many others, by a happy concurrence, is both logical and chronological ; that is to say, by simply following the order of events, the writer accomplishes his main design of charac terizing Christ's peculiar method of preparing his disciples for ap proaching changes. As compared with the parallel accounts, Mark's narrative is here distinguished by its usual vividness and fulness of detail, and by the striking but harmonious contrast in which he ex hibits our Lord's goodness and severity, especially the sternness of his warnings against all unnecessary rigour on the part of his disciples. 1. And he said unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. It is a curious instance of the careless or arbitrary way in which the text has been divided (see the Introduction), that this verse, which is the conclusion of the previous discourse and in Matthew ends a chap ter (16, 28), here begins one, while in Luke it is almost exactly in the middle (9, 27), though in all three cases the connection is identical. The verse itself is one of the most difficult and disputed in the whole book, though the question is rather one of application than essential meaning. Amen, verily, assuredly (see above, on 3, 28. 6, 11. 8, 12), 230 MARK 9, 1, 2. I say unto you, with emphasis on both the pronouns, i" (the _ Son of Man) to you (my confidential followers.) There be, not a subjunctive but an old indicative form equivalent precisely to the modern are. Some of those here standing, i. e. of the twelve then present and imme diately addressed, or of the crowd referred to in 8, 34. Which, applied in old English both to things and persons, but confined to the former in modern usage, which would here require who. Shall not, a pecu liarly strong negative in Greek, the aorist subjunctive with the particle (prj) suggesting the idea, that they neither could, would, nor should do what the verb expresses. Taste of death, i. e. experience or partake of it, considered as a portion or a draught administered by God to man (see below, on 10, 38. 14, 36.) Though the form of expression here is highly metaphorical, it can be referred to nothing but the literal de cease of persons actually present. This restricts the meaning of what follows to a single generation or a single life-time, though it may have been a long one. Till they have seen (or see, behold, or witness) the kingdom of God, i. e. of the Messiah as a divine person, or at least as a divine commissioner and representative. (See above, on 1, 14. 15. 4, 11. 26. 30.) Come, not, as the English words may seem to mean, in the act of coming (till they see it come), but actually or already come, the only sense that can be put upon the perfect participle here em ployed. The idea that they should see it coming, i. e. when or as it came, is rather excluded, in accordance with our Lord's words else where (Luke 17, 20), and not at variance with the present participle here employed by Matthew (16,28), which relates not to the kingdom but to Christ himself. In power, an expression here preserved by Mark alone, i. e. with accompanying manifestation of omnipotent au thority. The essential meaning, as to which there can be no dispute, is that before all then present should be dead, there would be some convincing proof that the Messiah's kingdom had been actually set up, as predicted by the prophets and by Christ himself. . The only doubt or difference of opinion is in reference to the nature of this evidence, or the particular event by which it was to be afforded. The solutions of this question which have been proposed are objectionable, chiefly because too exclusive and restrictive of the promise to a single point of time, whereas it really has reference to a gradual or progressive change, the institution of Christ's kingdom in the hearts of men and in society at large, of which protracted process the two salient points are the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and the destruction of Jerusalem more than a quarter of a century later, between which points, as those of its inception and its consummation, lies the lingering death of the Mosaic dispensation, and the gradual erection of Messiah's kingdom. 2. And after six days, Jesus taketh (with him) Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves ; and he was transfigured before them. MARK 9, 2. 231 The preceding verse, although unduly severed from its previous con text, is really in place here, as a transition or a link of connection be tween Christ's remarkable discourse as to his coming, and the history of his transfiguration. The critical character of this occurrence, and the rapid progress of events succeeding it, are here apparent on the sur face of the narrative. After the solemn recognition of our Lord by his disciples as the true Messiah (8, 29), and the solemn announcement that he was to suffer in that character (8, 31), something further of the same kind might almost have been expected a priori, i. e. some ex traordinary manifestation of our Lord as the Messiah, if not to the multitude, at least to his disciples, or if not to all these, to the twelve apostles,- or if not to all these, to a chosen few, who were admitted to a more intimate and confidential intercourse. Such a disclosure would in some sense correspond to the manifestations and solemn recognitions in his infancy, preserved by Luke (2, 25-32. 38) and Matthew (2, 1. 11), but not included in the scope of Mark's biography (see above, on 1, 1.) In accordance with this antecedent probability, we find such a manifes tation here recorded by the three evangelists, with more precision as to time than place. The apparent disagreement between the eight days of Luke (9, 28) and the six days of Mark and Matthew (17, 1), may be reconciled in either of two ways ; first, by understanding one or both expressions as an idiomatic designation of a week, corresponding to the French and German use of eight and fifteen days to signify a week and fortnight, an idiom of which there is a clear trace in the English phrase, an eight days (Luke 9. 28). meaning not merely so many de tached days, but a definite and well-known period. The other solu tion is that neither of the numbers is exclusive of the other, since eight days, even in the strict sense, would be after six days, and six days, in the strict sense, might be popularly spoken of as about (or almost) eight days. Either of these solutions is more natural and simple than the silly supposition of a glaring contradiction, unobserved by ancient readers, whether friends or foes, and handed down without correction or detection for a course of ages, to be finally discovered by the micro scopic criticism of some modern sceptical interpreter. In all such cases, we should look not only at the difficulties charged upon the narrative itself, but also upon those by which the supposition of a blunder or a discrepancy is encumbered. Takes, the same verb used by all the three evangelists, and strictly meaning takes along, or with him, as companions or associates (see above, on 4, 36. 5. 40.) Peter, James, and John, his brother (Matt. 17, 1), who formed a sort of inner circle even within the sphere of the apostleship. They were among our Sa viour's first acquaintances after his public appearance, among the first cal led to his special service, all Galileans and all fishermen, the same three who were admitted to the house of Jairus (see above, on 5, 37), and who afterwards were with him in Gethsemane (see below, on 14, 33.) This distinguishing honour, by elating them unduly, may have led to the ambitious errors into which they jointly or severally fell (see below, on 10, 35.) But this, though certainly foreseen, did not deter our Lord from making use of them in this way, any more 232 MARK 9, 2. than his perfect knowledge of Iscariot prevented his admission for a time into the apostolic body. Indeed it is characteristic of the sacred history, from Genesis to Acts, that its object is to glorify not man bui. God, by showing his sovereign independence in the choice of his own instruments, and even in the case of the most honoured, such as Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Hezekiah, and Josiah, lifting the veil from their infirmities and showing how their very sins were overruled by God for the promotion of his own ends, without any imputation on his holiness or the least extenuation of their guilt, which was commonly attended by unquestionable providential retributions. Leadeth, brings, conducts, into a high mountain, which agreeably to usage (see above, on 3, 13. 5, 11. 6, 46), might be understood to mean the highlands as distinguished from the plains of the interior or the sea-coast, but is here most generally understood to mean a particular eminence or mountain in the proper sense, which seems indeed to be required by the indefinite expression, a high mountain, not the mountain, as in the places just referred to. The mountain is not named or otherwise de scribed, and is therefore now unknown. Ecclesiastical tradition has identified it with Mount Tabor (Josh. 19, 22. Judg. 4, 6. 8, 18. Ps. 89, 13. Jer. 46, 18. Hos. 5, 1), as the highest peak in Galilee, while some modern writers place it in the neighbourhood of Cesarea Philippi, the last locality previously mentioned (8, 27.) But it is not likely that . the intervening six or eight days were all spent at one place, and if not, a whole week's travel might have carried him entirely away from that vicinity. The precise place therefore must be left unsettled, though the local tradition, when intrinsically credible, and not contravened from any other quarter, may be rested in as giving more precision to the narrative. Apart, in private, by themselves (as in 6, 31. 32. 7, 33, above), which expression is then made still stronger by the added word, alone, as if to intimate that this was not one of the many in stances in which our Lord was only partially secluded, with a multi tude in sight or near at hand, but one of literal seclusion from all com pany except that of the three apostles. Transfigured, transformed, a Greek verb only found in later writers, such as Arrian and Athenaeus. The cognate noun (metamorphosis) is used in the title of Ovid's famous poem, where it means a literal (though not a real) change of shape. As the primitive noun, however, is employed by the best Greek writers, not merely in the sense of shape or figure, but in that of general ap pearance, the verb may be so taken in the case before us. i. e. as denot ing not a change of person, such as to destroy his visible identity, but merely a transcendant dignity and splendour, as described more fully in the next verse. Before them, properly, in front of them, and then by necessary implication, in their sight, implying that they saw, not only the effect, but the process which produced it, so that there was no room for illusion or mistake. It is also suggested by this phrase that they were not chance-witnesses of this great spectacle, but taken with him for the purpose ; that he went up to the mountain-top, not only to be there transfigured, but to be transfigured before them. Luke to whom we chiefly owe the notices which we possess of our Lord's MARK 9, 2. 3. 233 devotional habits (see Luke 3, 21. 5, 16. 6, 12. 9, 18. 28. 11, 1), adds here the interesting fact that he was praying when this change took place, as he was praying when the previous attestation came from heaven at his baptism, as recorded by the same evangelist, 3. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them. This verse describes the metamorphosis or transfiguration, as it ap peared to the disciples. Mark confines his formal description to the garments, without expressly mentioning the change in his countenance spoken of by Matthew -(17, 2) and Luke (9, 29), which, however, is in cluded in the general idea of effulgence overspreading and surrounding the whole person. It is very remarkable, indeed, that these descrip tions should be all so strong, so various, yet so harmonious, as if each of the eye-witnesses had furnished an account of his own impressions of the same glorious object at the same eventful moment. Raiment, in Greek a plural form corresponding to our clothes, but in the singular denoting the outer garment of the oriental dress (see above, on 5, 28.) Became, the true sense of the Greek verb, which is often con founded with the verb to be. Shining, a still more expressive term in the original, applied by Homer to the glistening of polished surfaces and to the glittering of arms, by Aristotle to the twinkling of the stars, and by Euripides to the flashing of lightning, which last idea Luke (9, 29) expresses by a different verb. White exceedingly as snow, a poeti cal expression, even in its form, and even in translation, when the order of the words is left unchanged. The comparative phrase (as snow) is not found, however, in the Vatican and several other very ancient manuscripts, though some of the same class contain it. The word translated white means originally clear and bright, as applied by Homer to pure water, the sense of colour being secondary and indefinite, com prehending a variety of shades from gray to pure white. Here the word no doubt expresses more than tho mere neutral sense of white ness, namely, that of an effulgent white light without shade or spot; but that the notion of colour was meant to be conveyed at the same time, is clear from the comparison that follows. So as (or. retaining the strict sense of the original, such as, i. e. such garments as) a fuller, i. e. any fuller, cloth-dresser, literally, carder, one who cleansed woollen cloth by carding or combing it. On the earth may either be a strong universal expression, meaning in the world, in the universe, in exist ence, or contain a more specific reference to the heavenly source from which alone such brightness could proceed. Cannot, is not able, to white (or whiten, i. e. to produce such whiteness) ; the addition of the pronoun (them) is not only needless but enfeebling by gratuitous restric tion of the meaning. What is said is not merely that no fuller upon earth could whiten those clothes so, but that no one could produce such whiteness. This comparison, though drawn from a familiar process of a homely art (see above, on 3, 21), is intelligible and expressive, espe cially if we suppose it to include the operation of bleaching, which was 234 MARK 9, 3. 4. probably performed by the same persons. It was no doubt the analogy which came into the mind of Peter, as he gazed upon his master's ves ture, and was afterwards employed by him in telling what he saw. when at liberty to do so (see below, on v. 9, and compare 2 Pet. 1, 16-18.) 4. And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses and they were talking with Jesus. Besides this dazzling change in Christ's appearance, the disciples were permitted to behold what might be called a glorious apparition. did not the usage of that term necessarily suggest the idea of something unreal, an appearance without substance ; whereas the one here men tioned is described as no less real- than that of the disciples or their master. Elias, the Greek name of Elijah (see above, on 6, 15. 8, 28.) The form of expression used by Mark here is unusual and different from that of both the others, though it may not be easy to define the differ ence of meaning. While Matthew (17, 8) says that Moses and Elijah appeared to them (or were seen by them, in the plural number), and Luke (9, 30) merely amplifies the same expression, Mark differs both in order and construction. There appeared to (or was seen by) them Elias with Moses. Elijah is not only first named, and alone connected with the verb, but is said to have had Moses with him, which at least appears to give the former the precedence. There are two ways of explaining this remarkable expression, each of which may commend itself to some minds as entitled to the preference. The first is by re garding the whole clause as an exact description of the original impres sion made upon the mind of Peter, and supposing that he saw Elijah first and Moses afterwards, though equally conspicuous in all that fol lowed. The other explanation is that Elijah was really more prominent in this majestic scene than Moses, riot as his superior either in person or in office, but as nearer to our Lord in the prophetical succession, and expressly predicted at the close ofthe Old Testament as his forerunner (see above, on 1, 2.) Another possible but less intelligible difference between them is that Moses was buried (Deut. 34, 6) and Elijah trans lated (2 Kings 2, 11), unless the former statement be regarded as a figure for translation also, or the latter as a figure for triumphant death, neither of which impressions would be naturally made on any unsophis ticated reader. Whether Moses, therefore, was provided with a tem porary or apparent body, like the angels who descended to the earth in patriarchal times ; or whether, by an anticipation of the final resurrec tion, he was clothed already with the body which he is to wear for ever ; there is still a difference between his case and that of Elijah, who had never died, but now appeared in the same body as of old, however changed and glorified (Luke 9, 31.) The reappearance of these two men, on a mountain-top, in such society, before such witnesses, and at such a crisis in the history of redemption, even if it were a fiction, would be one of the subliinest upon record, and astonishing indeed as • the original conception of illiterate enthusiasts, who have nowhere else MARK 9, 4. 5. 235 exhibited either the power or the disposition to indulge in such crea tions, and who certainly have nowhere else presented any counterpart to this transcendant scene. , But besides the grandeur of the whole conception, there is a singular minute propriety about it, no less indi cative of skill (if an invention) than the general idea is of genius, in selecting just these two, the founder of the ceremonial law and the theocracy, on one hand ; on the other, its restorer in the kingdom of the ten tribes in the days of its apostasy, who also was to re-appear before its final abrogation at the advent of the Messiah. This histori cal position of the two men gives them a priority, not otherwise be longing to them, over all the other prophets of the old economy, even such illustrious names as those of Samuel, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel not excepted. It can hardly be regarded as a sepa rate reason for this choice, but is rather a symbolical premonition of it in the history, that even in externals these three persons had partaken of the same experience, as for instance in the singular coincidence that all of them had fasted forty days and forty nights in the wilderness (see above, on 1, 13, and compare Ex. 21, 18. 1 Kings 19, 8.) But their interview, as here described, was not a silent one. And they (Moses and Elijah) were talking with him, not merely talked, or did talk, but were talking, i. e. when the disciples first beheld them, or as long as they continued visible. The subject of their conversation might almost have been conjectured, as prospective rather than historical, as relating not to Moses and Elias but to Jesus, or to them only as his types and his forerunners. But it might have been less easy to deter mine a priori the specific theme of their discourse if Luke (9, 31) had not expressed it in a single word, his exodus, the exit or departure which he was about to accomplish at Jerusalem, and which had in a certain sense been typified ages before by the exodes of the two men who now stood again upon the earth and talked with him, the exode of Moses at the head of Israel from the land of Egypt (Ex. 12, 41), and the exode of Elijah from the head of Elisha (2 Kings 2, 3), with :ta chariot of fire and horses of fire," " by a whirlwind into heaven " (2 Kings 2, 11.) Surely such a combination of sublime historical asso ciations must be either the creation of transcendant genius, or the faith ful record of supernatural but actual occurrences. 5. And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here ; and let us make three taber nacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. The effect of this august and awful scene, which seemed to bring to gether and embody the beginning and the middle and the end of his tory, on the three disciples who had been selected as its earthly wit nesses, is at the same time natural and preternatural. The spokesman, even here, is Peter, who sustains of course the same relation to his two companions that he did to the whole body when assembled (see above, on 3,16.) And answering, not a mere unmeaning pleonasm, which would be sadly out of place in such a narrative as this, but a 236 MARK 9, 5. most significant expression, serving to connect what follows with what goes before. Responding, not to any thing addressed directly to him self or his companions, but to all that he had heard of that celestial conversation, or to the whole unearthly scene as vocal to his spiritual senses. He says to Jesus, a particular preserved in all the narratives, and therefore probably implying some expressive look or gesture une quivocally pointing out the object of address, as being at once the most exalted and the most familiar. Rabbi, not the honorary title of a Jew ish scribe or doctor of the law, as some absurdly fancy, but the same expression that is here preserved by Luke (9, 33) and Matthew (17, 4) only in its native Aramaic form, which Mark delights to treasure up whenever Peter's recollection or some other source had happily pre served it (see above, on 5, 41. 7, 11.) It is one of the most strikingand instructive instances of the sameness in variety, by which the gospels are distinguished, that while all three evangelists agree verbatim in the words addressed to Christ by Peter, they all differ in the title prefixed to it, and that not at random or as if by chance but characteristically, i. e. in accordance with their usage elsewhere ; for while Matthew has the ordinary Hellenistic term for Lord or Master (mpie), and Luke a more elegant and classic synonyme denoting any overseer or prefect (imo-rdra), Mark has preserved to us the very word originally uttered (paPfii), and of which the others are mere Greek translations, but which Mark himself does not think it necessary to interpret, because so fa miliar even to the Gentiles and still more to every Jew, whether Hel lenist or Hebrew, who would instantly recognize it both as a formula in common use and as an uncorrupted sample of the sacred language (is'n). Good (i. e. in every sense, both natural and moral, right and happy, useful and agreeable) is it (for) us here to be, the order in which all the evangelists record this speech of Peter, which could never have been feigned by a fictitious writer, but demonstrates its own genuine ness by being at the same time so natural and so unusual. The feel ing expressed is that of perfect satisfaction and reluctance to go else where, mingled with a vague recollection that they were upon a soli tary mountain-top without the least accommodation or even shelter. It is this odd but natural confusion of'habitual associations with extra ordinary actual impressions that no forger would have thought of, and which therefore stamps the record as authentic. Let us make three tabernacles, i. e. tents, booths, sheds, or any other light and temporary shelter, as distinguished from a permanent and solid dwelling. Though the version tabernacles may be too restricted and awaken in the Eng lish reader only the idea of a sacred edifice, to which it is commonly applied in the Old Testament, it is not incorrect, as that idea would be unavoidably suggested even to an ancient reader from the correspond ing use of the Greek word in the Septuagint version. Peter himself may have intended an allusion to the sacred tent of the Mosaic law or to the booths used at the Feast of Tabernacles ; but the primary essen tial meaning was no doubt that of shelter and accommodation. That this was no selfish proposition is apparent from the fact that he ap propriates the three proposed tents to the three majestic persons then MARK 9, 5. 6. 7. 237 before him, without any allusion to himself or his companions, except as those by whom the tents were to be made ; for there is no proba bility in the opinion that he means to include Jesus when he says, let us make. Whether, as some one has ingeniously imagined, he intended to propose that each of the disciples should erect a tent for one of the illustrious trio and then wait upon him in it, is a subtle question nei ther easy nor necessary to be answered. Another dubious but unes sential point is the idea that this proposition was unconsciously sug gested by the overwhelming brightness and effulgence of the scene before him, from which he instinctively seeks refuge in the tents which he proposes to erect. This is certainly not obvious or necessary ; nor upon the other hand is it at variance with the main idea, which is evi dently that of prolonging the delightful scene by furnishing at least a temporary home and shelter for the august actors. In all the accounts of this untimely but affectionate proposal, Peter names his master first, then Moses, then Elijah, which would seem to militate against the sup position that Mark intended (in v. 4) to represent the third as in any sense superior to the second. 6. For he wist not what to say, for they were sore afraid. Far from concealing or denying that Peter's proposition was a strange one, the historian offers an apology or explanation of its strange ness. For he wist (in modern English knew) not what to say (or what he should say.) It is characteristic of Peter, that he thought he must say something, even then and even there. Equally natural and true is the statement made by Luke (9, 33), that he knew not what he did say or was saying. The cause of both effects was fear, not mere alarm or dread, but also a religious awe, occasioned by the presence of celes tial visitants and by the supernatural character of the whole transac tion. This effect was common to the three disciples, although intended to explain the words of Peter only, an additional indication that he spoke in their behalf as well as in his own. 7. .And there was a cloud that overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my be loved Son, hear him. And there was (became, or came) a cloud, a luminous or bright cloud (Matt. 17, 5), overshadowing them, partly as a sign of the divine presence, partly as a veil or screen, beneath the cover of which Moses and Elijah disappeared. And there came (not the verb before used, but the ordinary word for coming) a voice out cf the cloud, in which the speaker seemed to be hidden, saying (omitted in the oldest manu scripts, but easily supplied by every reader), This is my Son, the Be loved, the very attestation uttered at his baptism (see above, on 1, 11), but without the words, in whom I am well pleased, which however are supplied by Matthew (17, 5.) This may therefore ^e regarded as a 238 MARK 9, 7. 8. 9. sort of second baptism, to prepare him for his passion as the first did for his ministry, a baptism not with water but with light, not in the stream but " in the cloud " (1 Cor. 10, 2), not by John but (as it were) by Moses and Elijah, not in the presence of the people but in that of the three chosen witnesses. The essential meaning of the voice from heaven is, that Jesus was precisely what he claimed to be, the Son of God as well as Man, divinely sent forth and commissioned as the great prophetic teacher. Hence to the voice uttered at his baptism all the three accounts add two important words, him hear ! i. e. receive his instructions and obey them as divinely authorized. The impression made by this celestial oracle on Peter was recorded by himself long after, and may still be read in one of his epistles (2 Pet. 1, 17. 18.) 8. And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with them selves. The termination of this grand scene was as sudden and abrupt as its beginning. Looking (or having looked) around, in search of those who had been standing near them when the cloud passed over them. they no longer saw any one, literally, no one, the idiomatic double nega tive of which we have already had examples. Save, except, but (which is the literal translation) Jesus only (or alone) with themselves. Ac cording to Mark's narrative, here less minute and graphic than the others although perfectly harmonious, it was while the bright cloud overshadowed the whole party, dazzling and blinding the disciples' eyes and making their ears tingle with those solemn words, that Moses and Elijah silently withdrew. 9. And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead. And they descending (i. e. while or as they did so) from the moun tain (see above, on v. 2), he charged them, the verb used above in 5, 43. 7, 36. 8, 15, and originally meaning to distinguish or discriminate, but employed as here by Diodorus Siculus. Tell, relate, detail, origin ally meaning to go through with or to lead through (see above, on 5, 16.) No man, no one, nobody, without regard to sex or any other personal distinction (see above, on v. 8, and on 2, 21. 22), what (things), or (the things) which they had seen (or more exactly, saw, while on the mount.) Till, literally, if not (i. e. unless or except), when (or after that.) The Son of Man, not merely a periphrasis for the pronoun (I), but in its full significancy, as before explained (on 2, 10. 28. 8, 31. 38.) I, who now appear as a mere man and yet am the Messiah so de scribed "by Daniel (7,13.) From the dead (i. e. from among them) should arise, or be resuscitated (as in 5, 42. 8, 21.) MARK 9, 10. 11. 239 10. And they kept that saying with themselves, ques tioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean. That saying, literally! the word (or speech), which may either mean the whole of this command, or the particular expression which they did not understand. In the former case, the verb may denote strict ob servance and obedience, as the Jews are said to have held (or held fast) their traditions (7, 3. 4. 8), where the Greek verb is the same. The meaning of the whole verse then is, that the three obeyed their Lord's injunction to conceal what they had seen until a certain time, although they did not clearly understand what time he meant. On the other supposition, the verb may mean to seize, lay hold of (as in 1, 31. 3, 21. 5, 41. 6, 17), and the whole clause, that they caught at this mysterious expression and discussed among themselves its import. Either of these constructions yields a good sense, but the latter a more striking one, although the former is preferred by most interpreters. Questioning, inquiring jointly or together, in the way of conversational discussion (see above, on 1, 27. 8, 11.) Should mean (literally, is) the rising from the dead. The obscurity of this phrase is not to be measured by our own familiar knowledge of it. drawn from the event itself, but by its enigmatical and dubious import when our Lord first used it in foretell ing his own passion. To us it may well seem that the words can have but one sense, while to those who originally heard them they might just as well appear equivocal and doubtful. 11. And they asked him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come ? While they did not venture to demand an explanation of this diffi cult expression, probably deterred by a foreboding that it veiled some terrible catastrophe approaching, they evinced their interest in what they had just seen by asking an appropriate question in relation to the promised coming of Elijah. Why, how is it, that, (what is the reason) that the scribes, the professional expounders of the law and prophets (see above, on 1, 22), say (in that capacity or in their teaching) that Elias (Elijah) must first come, or that it is necessary for Elias to come first, i. e. before the advent of Messiah himself. Their difficulty seems to have been this, that according to the prophecies, as commonly ex pounded ex cathedra, the Messiah was not to appear until Elijah had come first ; but this advent had just taken place, while Jesus had been previously recognized as the Messiah, at least by his apostles (see above; on 8, 29.) They seem to have looked upon the glorious appear ance of Elijah which they had just witnessed as the coming prophesied in Malachi, and therefore were perplexed by what appeared to be a preposterous inversion of events, the principal preceding his forerunner. There is something in this question altogether natural, and showing some degree of earnest and intelligent solicitude upon a most important subject, yet entirely consistent with their clouded and imperfect appre- 240 MARK 9, 11. 12. hension of their master's meaning when he spoke of his own death and resurrection. 12. And he answered and told them, Elias _ verily cometh first, and restoreth all things ; and how it is writ ten of the Son of Man, that he must suffer many things, and be set at nought. Our Lord's reply determines two important points, the meaning of the prophecy and its fulfilment. In the first place, he confirms the ex position given by the scribes of the prediction found in Malachi. Verily, not amen, which is so translated in the first verse of this chap ter (and in 3, 18. 6, 11. 8, 12), but the usual Greek particle (yxiv), ex pressive of concession, corresponding to indeed, or it is true, in English. (It is true, as the scribes say, that) Elijah coming first, restoreth all (things), i. e. by announcing the Messiah's advent, and preaching re pentance as a preparation for it, brings the people, so far as his influ ence extends, back to the'r old theocratical position, which their spir itual leaders had long since forsaken. This appears to be the meaning which our Lord here tacitly attaches to the words of Malachi in speak ing of Elijah's reappearance, " he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers " (Mai. 4. 6), which can hardly refer to mere domestic or contemporary reconcilia tions, the very opposite of which is represented elsewhere as the effect of his own coming (Matt. 10, 34-36), but must rather be descriptive of an ideal compromise or reconciliation between different generations, by bringing back the later to the principles and practice of the earlier, so far as these were good and in accordance with the true design and spirit of the system under which they lived. What is here taught in directly and by implication had been long before explicitly propounded by the angel who announced the birth of John the Baptist when he said, reciting and applying the prophetic words of Malachi: "And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord" (Luke 1, 16. 17.) The office of restorer, thus assigned to the forerunner, may ac count for the selection of Elijah among all the prophets of the old economy to be his type and representative (see above, on v. 4), and also for our Saviour's application of the verb restore, in this place, to Elijah's agency. The next clause is obscure both in grammatical construction and in its connection with the first clause. How is prop erly and commonly a particle of direct interrogation (as in 3, 23. 4, 13. 40. 8, 21), but sometimes, in both languages, is construed indirectly (as in 2, 26. 5, 16.) If the former usage be adopted here, this clause will be a question interposed between the two parts of our Saviour's answer to the question in the foregoing verse. How has it been written ofthe Son of Man, &c. ? But as such a question would be here mis-- placed, if not unmeaning, the preference seems due to the other construe? MARK 9, 12. 13. 241 tion, which makes how and the words following dependent on the verb at the beginning of the verse (he said to them, or told them) how it has been written of tlie Son of Man. The clause is then a parenthetical comment on the one before it, involving an argument a fortiori. ' It is true as the scribes say that the appearance of Elijah is predicted by the prophets ; and remember that the sufferings of the Messiah are pre dicted likewise, so that if the one prediction has been verified, you may look for the fulfilment of the other also.' This construction, like the former, is a harsh one, but cannot, like it, be described as unmeaning, since it represents the Saviour as availing himself of the disciples' ques tion to suggest another of still more importance in relation to himself, and thus perhaps to lessen their bewilderment and wonder at the very thought of his approaching passion. For what had thus been written of him, or upon him, as the object upon which the prophecy, though long deferred, was finally to terminate, was the very fact which so be wildered them, that he should suffer, and particularly suffer death, a preg nant sense of the verb even when absolutely used in the New Testa- mtnt (see above, on 8, 31, and compare Luke 22, 15. 24, 46. Acts 1, 3. 3, 18. 17, 3. 1 Pet. 2, 21. 3, 18. 4, 1), and in so suffering, both before and at the time of his decease, should be set at nought, reduced to noth ing, treated as such, a verb not used in classic Greek, but explained by its obvious derivation from the common word for nothing. The idio matic English phrase to set at nought may mean to set down, charge, or estimate an object at that value, i. e. to regard and treat it as worth nothing, which is certainly a strong expression of contemptuous re jection. 13. Bat I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him. Having removed one part of their difficulty as to the sense of the prediction which perplexed them, he removes the other, as to its fulfil ment. It was true that according to the scriptures Elijah was to come as a forerunner, and according to the nature of things and the very definition of the term, a forerunner must precede his principal. But so he did in this case. I say unto you, I am about to tell you where your error lies, and what it is that occasions your embarrassment. You take for granted that Elijah did not come till now, i. e, long after I had claimed to be tho Messiah. But I tell you (what you do not as yet understand), that Elijah is indeed come, or has also come, has not only been predicted but has also (actually) come, i. e. came at the proper time before me, and not after me as you imagine. This implies of course that Malachi's prediction was fulfilled, not in the glorious ap pearance of Elijah which they had just witnessed, but in a previous appearance of that prophet. But when was this'? or what had now become of him 1 This tacit question is replied to in the last clause. And they have done to him (or rather did, when he appeared) what soever they listed or whatever (things) they chose (or wished.) They 242 MARK 9, 13. 14. refers to the unbelieving Jews in general, but with special reference to the scribes, already mentioned as their spiritual leaders and expounders of the scripture. Instead of recognizing the Elijah, whose coming as the herald of Messiah they correctly held to be predicted in the last words of the last prophet in their sacred canon, they treated him pre cisely as they might have treated any other man according to their own capricious will and arbitrary judgment. But even this was compre hended in the prophecy, to wit, in the concluding words of Malachi im plying that the mission of Elijah would be either a blessing or a curse to those whom it concerned (Mai. 4, 6.) Even of this rejection, there fore, it might well be added, as it has been written of him (ov upon him.) The perfect passive in both verses, like the same form in 7, 6, suggests not merely, that the words were written centuries ago, nor merely that they were now extant, but that they had been on record and awaiting their fulfilment through the whole of this long interval. Then, as we learn from Matthew (17, 13), although Mark has not re corded it, they understood that the Elijah thus predicted was no other than that John whose disciples some of them had been, and by whom they may all have been baptized. 14. And when he came to (his) disciples, he saw a great multitude about them, and the scribes questioning with them. And coming (or having come) to the disciples, i. e. to the nine apostles whom he left behind when he withdrew to be transfigured (v. 2), and perhaps some others who were not apostles (see above, on 4, 10.) It is not said where he left them, probably at the foot of the mountain where he was transfigured. A great multitude, ov more exactly, much crowd, implying not mere numbers, but pressure and confusion. About them, surrounding the disciples, who would of course be objects of curiosity, if not of worse affections, when the crowd was no longer checked or awed by the presence of the master. And scribes, not the scribes, as referring to certain individuals of that class; but among the crowd, as might have been expected, he saw scribes, taking the lead in the attack upon the poor defenceless group, who as yet were far from being ready either to defend themselves or to vindicate their master. Questioning, disputing in the way of catechising or in terrogation, an unequal contest, so far as external advantages were con cerned, between the illiterate and partially enlightened followers. of Christ on one hand, and the highly educated and experienced scribes upon the other. The subject of inquiry and dispute is now unknown, except so far as it may be inferred from what is stated in the following verses. 15. And straightway all the people, when they beheld him, were greatly amazed, and running to (him), saluted ])im. MARK 9, 15. 16. 243 f Straightway, immediately, as soon as he was visible descending from the mountain. All the people, the word translated multitude in v. 14, but corresponding more exactly in both places to our crowd or throng. Seeing him were amazed, the qualifying adverb (greatly) an swering to no distinct Greek word but only to the compound and em phatic form of the verb. Some infer from their amazement that there was still some remnant of the supernatural effulgence which had re cently enveloped him, and which attracted the attention of the people even at a distance. But this, though countenanced by the analogy of Moses' face shining when he came down from the mount (Ex. 37, 29- 35), is not a necessary supposition in the case before us, where so sur prising an appearance would no doubt have been distinctly mentioned, and the verb, although a strong one, does not necessarily denote more than the natural effect produced upon a restless and excited crowd by the sudden appearance of a person whom they had been vainly looking for. Running to him, not the whole mass but large numbers, while at least as many may have waited for him where they were. This differ ence, not only natural but almost unavoidable in all such cases, and suggested here by a comparison of Mark's words, as just given, with Matthew's (coming to the crowd) and Luke's (the crowd met him), is gravely represented by distinguished writers as a discrepancy which it is dishonest to deny, explain away, or try to reconcile ! To most American and English readers such objeotions rather serve to strengthen than to injure the defences of the Gospel, as evincing that they can be shown to contradict each other only by devices which even the most impudent and mercenary advocate would be ashamed to use in any of our courts of justice. Saluted him, or as the Greek word primarily signifies, welcomed him, implying or expressing joy at his arrival. This shows that as yet there was no ebb in the tide of our Lord's favour with the masses, whatever may have been the evil dispositions of their leaders towards him. 16. And he asked the scribes, What question ye with them? He asked, interrogated, questioned with authority (see above, on 5, 9. 8, 5. 23.) The scribes, or, according to the latest crities, simply them, whicli means the same thing, as it was the scribes who were be fore said (v. 14) to have been disputing with them. What question ye with them, or according to the margin of the English Bible, among yourselves, a version resting on a slight difference of text contained in some old copies, and only affecting a single letter or perhaps an aspira tion, not expressed in the most ancient manuscripts and therefore law ful subject of conjecture. According to this reading, the address is to the crowd collectively, including both the scribes and the disciples. According to the other, which is regarded as the true one by the best authorities, the words were spoken to the scribes alone, and were in tended to transfer their opposition from the disciples to our Lord him self. What question ye, i. e. what is the subject of your disputatious 244 MARK 9, 16. 17. and litigious questions, or, as the words may also be translated, why question ye, implying that there was no proper or sufficient ground for their proceedings. With them, a Greek phrase not denoting mere con junction or association, but rather opposition, either indirect (at them) or direct (against them.) 17. And one of the multitude answered and said, Mas ter, I have brought unto thee my son, which hath a dumb spirit. Unless this be regarded as a sheer interruption which pre vented his inquiry being answered at all, it would appear from this verse that the subject of dispute had been the right or the power of dispossessing demons, which the scribes may have reproached the nine for not possessing or untruly claiming ; or they may perhaps have gone so far as to deny the same thing with respect to Christ himself, or to renew the odious accusation of collusion with the evil one (see above. on 3, 22.) That their disputations were in some way connected with the case of demoniacal possession here described, appears to follow from the natural and obvious meaning of the participle answering (i. e. reply ing to the question in v. 16), which, although not always necessarily suggested by the verb to answer (see above, on vs. 5. 12), is undoubt edly entitled to the preference when other things are equal. One of the multitude, or rather, one out of the crowd, the construction being not that of a simple genitive, but of a preposition meaning from or out of. The meaning then is, not that this man was one among the many present, but that he spoke from the midst of the assembled multitude in answer to the Saviour's question. I have brought, or rather, as the verb is not a perfect but an aorist, I brought (i. e. a little while ago) my son to thee, expressing the intention of his coming though he found Christ absent. The remainder of the verse describes the cause of his son's sufferings. Having (in him or united with him, see above, on 3, 30. 7, 25) a dumb (or speechless) spirit (see above, on 7, 37.) This may mean a demon by whose presence and possession the demoniac was silenced, or deterred from using his powers of speech, either by physi cal or moral interference. Or it may mean, as some interpreters sup pose, that the spirit was a silent one compared with those so frequently described as crying out. The former meaning is more obvious and pertinent, as this is evidently a description, not of the evil spirit's habits as to speech or silence, but of the morbid influence exerted by him on his victim, and from which he might himself, without absurdity or even violation of usage, be described as dumb or speechless. IS. And wheresoever he taketh him, he teareth him ; and he foameth and gnasheth with his teeth, and pinetl" away ; and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out, and they could not. MARK 9, 18. 245 Here again, as in the case of the transfiguration (see above, on v. 3), the three accounts are remarkably full and strongly expressed, yet very different, the only satisfactory solution of which is, that each has preserved some of the expressions used by the afflicted father, an ec lectic process which is so far from being artificial or unnatural, as some unfriendly critics and their humble imitators have alleged, that it is constantly occurring both in formal trials and in common conversation, wherever a plurality of witnesses relate the same thing, if it compre hend a number of particulars, all which are not essential to the pur pose of the narrative or statement. Leaving out of view, therefore, the peculiar symptoms here described by Luke (9, 39) and Matthew (17, 39), and confining our attention to those given by Mark, we find that they make up a fearful but consistent and intelligible picture of severe and, as we learn from the context, preternatural disease. Wheresoever (or in modern phrase wherever), in whatever place, it taketh him, not carries or transports but simply seizes him, a verb elsewhere meta phorically used (except in John 8, 3. 4), but always in the same essen tial sense of grasping, apprehending, either with the mind or body. It is, to say the least, a curious coincidence that this verb is the root or theme ofthe medical terms catalepsy, cataleptic, though the symptoms here described are more like those of the disease distinguished by the kindred terms epilepsy, epileptic, which are from the same verb but compounded with another preposition. Wherever it (the demon) taketh him, implies that he was liable to violent and sudden seizures, which could not be certainly foreseen. Teareth (margin, dasheth) him, or as the Greek word properly and commonly means, breaketh him (in pieces), which appears to be a lively figure for convulsions, as a mo mentary dislocation of the whole frame. Thus far the subject of the verbs, implied though not expressed, is the demon. By an almost in sensible transition, showing how complete the union was supposed to be, the verbs that follow must be construed with the human subject, as controlled and tortured by the evil spirit. Gnashes with (or retain ing the original construction, grinds) his teeth, as an expression both of rage and pain. And pinelh away, or rather, as the effect described is not a gradual or lasting but a sudden and a temporary one, is parched (or dried), not permanently withered (as in 3, 1. 3, compare 4, 6. 5, 29). the transient nature ofthe symptom being indicated by the others mentioned with it. I spake to thy disciples (when he could not find the Lord himself), i. e. asked them, requested them, as appears from what immediately follows, that, in order that, denoting strictly the design or object of his speaking, but by necessary implication also what he spoke (see above, on vs. 9. 12) they should (or would) cast it out (expel or dispossess it), and they could not, not a mere auxiliary tense, nor even the common verb meaning to be able, but a more emphatic one denoting that they were not powerful or strong enough to do it, and suggesting more distinctly the idea that he looked upon it as a case re quiring more than ordinary power, either natural or superhuman, of which power he found the nine disciples destitute. (Compare tho use of the same yerb in 5, 4.) 246 MARK 9, 19. 19. He answereth him, and saith, 0 faithless genera tion, how long shall I be with you? how long shall I suffer you ? Bring him unto me. And answering him, or, according to the oldest copies and fhe latest critics, them. Faithless, i. e. without faith, in either of its senses, namely, faithfulness, fidelity (as in our phrases, good faith, bad faith), belief, trust, especially in God or Christ. The word here used has the former meaning in the classics and the latter in the scriptures (see John 20, 27. 1 Cor. 7, 12-15, and compare the cognate noun in 6, 6 above and v. 24 below.) The same word is given by Matthew (17, 17) and Luke (9, 41), but with the addition of another, meaning twisted, distorted, and in a moral sense perverted or perverse (compare Acts 13, 8. 10. 20, 30.) The epithet is therefore expressive of strong moral cen sure or disapprobation, as is also the reproachful question which now follows. How long, literally, until when, implying either that the time was short, or that their perverseness was no longer endurable. With you is the exact sense of the phrase used by Matthew (xic(i vfimv) ; that of Mark and Luke (irpos i^as) is more expressive, meaning strictly close to, at you, implying the most intimate proximity or nearness (as in John 1, 1.2.) Bear you, or bear with you, a Greek verb originally meaning to hold up, and in the middle voice to hold one's self up under any burden, i. e. to support, to bear, especially, to bear with patience what is trying and vexatious (compare Acts 18. 14. 2 Cor. 11, 1. 4. 19. 20. Eph. 4, 2.) Here again the question (how long ?) is equivalent to saying positively, not long or not much longer, and ihe sentence thus far is a strong expression of impatience and displeasure at the unbelief of those to whom it is addressed. The only doubt is, who are here addressed, and of whose unbelief our Lord so bitterly complains. Some have referred it to the father of the child, who had just spoken, and to whom our Lord replied according to the common text (to him.) But even if this bo the correct reading, the reproach could not be meant for him alone ; not only because it is unduly severe, but because it is ex pressly applied to a whole generation, not to any individual, except as belonging to and representing it. Another explanation is, that it re lates to the disciples, who had failed to work the miracle through want of faith (Matt. 17, 20.) The meaning of the question then may be, ' how long do you expect me to be constantly at hand, to supply your lack of faith or service ? and how long do you expect me to endure this culpable deficiency on your part 1 ' The objection to this still is, that the term generation is too strong for a small company, or even for the larger body of disciples in the wide sense, though it may include them. On the whole, therefore, it is best to understand the words of the con temporary race, with whom our Lord had como in contact, and of whose unbelief and perverseness particular examples were afforded in this in stance by the malignant opposition of the scribes, as well as by the weakness or deficiency of faith in the disciples, and perhaps in the per son who applied to them for healing (see below, on v. 24.) This almost passionate expostulation is succeeded by an order to present the de- MARK 9, 19. 20. 21. 247 inoniac once more. Bring him to me, with emphasis upon the pro noun : as you have already tried the healing power of my followers now try mine. 20. And they brought him unto him ; and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tare him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming. The plural form (they brought) may be" indefinitely understood as simply meaning that he was brought in obedience to the order, but more probably implies that he was carried, and that the combined strength of several was rendered necessary by his weight and his re sistance. The struggle of the patient with his friends or bearers brought on a distressing paroxysm, here ascribed expressly to the de mon who possessed him. Seeing him, i. e. when the demoniac saw Jesus, the participle being masculine in form, while spirit (the noun following) is neuter. This irregular construction corresponds to the real complication of two personal agencies in all cases of possession. Tare him, tore or rent him, not the same verb that is used above in v. 18, but meaning the same thing, and applied by Hippocrates to spas modic retching or attempts to vomit. Falling on the ground (or earth), he (the demoniac) wallowed, rolled himself, a verb applied by Homer to a voluntary rolling in the dust as a customary sign of grief. Foam ing, a symptom still observed in epileptic fits, and mentioned in the previous description of the case before us (see above, v. 18.) 21. And he asked his father, How long is it ago since this came unto him ? And he said, Of a child. And he asked, interrogated, questioned, the intensive compound used above in vs. 11. 16, and often elsewhere, always implying more than an indifferent or curious asking. How long is it ago, literally, liow much time, a combination also used by Sophocles and other Attic writers. Since, literally, that or as, which might also be construed with the next word as a particle of likeness or comparison, as this, like this, thus ; but the other construction is more natural, and some connective is required between how long and what follows. This came unto him (came to pass or happened to him, see above, on vs. 3. 7.) Of a child, in modern English, from a child-, i. e. from childhood, a relative expres sion which determines nothing as to his exact age. The original ex pression is a single word, not found in the classics, but obviously formed by adding to the noun child (the one used above in 5, 39-41. 7, 28), a syllable (fcv) employed in Greek to form a local adverb meaning from a place (e. g. oipavoSev, from heaven, Acts 14, 17. 26, 13.) The Vatican and other ancient copies prefix a preposition (from) which, though apparently superfluous, may be designed to strengthen the ex pression (even from, or ever since, his childhood.) 248 MARK 9, 22. 23. 22. And oft-times it hath cast him into the fire, and into the waters fo destroy him. But if thou canst do any thing, have compassion on us, and help us. Besides answering the question, which was no doubt intended to convince the lookers-on that this was no recent, much less an imag inary affection, but a case of long standing, the father naturally adds a few particulars, preserved by Mark alone. Oft-times, a poetical ex pression, at least not used in modern prose by good writers, and here employed to represent a single word exactly answering to often. It (the evil spirit) hath cast, ov more exactly, did cast, i. e. while he was at home, before he came here. Waters, in classical Greek a poetical plural, but in Hellenistic usage answering to the Hebrew word which, like the one for heaven (see above on 1, 10. 11), has no singular. To destroy him, literally, that it (the demon) might destroy him (the demoniac.) But (though the case is so severe and so inveterate), (/ any (thing) thou canst (art able to perform), help (succour) us, a most expressive Greek verb, which according to its etymology originally means to run (8ia) at the war- cry or a cry for help (tfor)), then in a more general sense to help or rescue in emergency, to succour, a word of kin dred origin in Latin, although less expressive, meaning simply to run up (succurro), without suggesting the occasion as the Greek does. Having compassion, or retaining the passive form ofthe original, moved with pity, the peculiar Hellenistic or New Testament expression used above in 1, 41. 6, 34, and there explained. The change of collocation in the version is not only not required by the difference of idiom, but detracts from the force of the original, if any thing thou canst (do), help us, yearning over us (or moved with pity towards us.) Importu nate and earnest as this prayer appears, and in itself expressive of a strong faith, it is to be qualified by the conditional phrase which pre cedes it, if thou canst, implying some doubt of our Lord's ability to- grant what he desired, perhaps occasioned by his previous disappoint ment and the failure of the nine disciples (see above, on v. 18.) 23. Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things (are) possible to him that believeth. And Jesus said to him, not overlooking this indication of defective faith, If thou canst believe, that is the true condition, not my power but thy faith, the one being infinite, the other finite and defective. The difficulty is not upon my side but thy own ; ask not what is pos sible to me, but what is possible to thee, for all things are possible to the (one) believing (the believer.) This most interesting sentence varies considerably in the copies and editions, but with more effect upon the form than the essential meaning. Several of the oldest man uscripts and versions omit believe in the first clause and read simply, if thou canst. This may be taken as an abbreviation of the common text and meaning the same thing, if thou canst (do thy part) i. e. believe, as suggested in the last clause. There is however one striking MARK 9, 23. 24. 249 feature in the Greek text, which does not appear in the translation though contained in all the manuscripts, and which may seem to indi cate a diff'erent construction. This is the neuter article (ro, the) pre fixed to the words if thou canst, and accOrdmg to Greek usage mark ing them as a quotation, which can only be reproduced in English by approximation, ' the (or this) expression, If thou canst.' This would seem to make the words a repetition by our Lord himself of what the man had first said, and accordingly the Arabic and Coptic versions paraphrase it, ' what is this thou sayest. If thou canst 1 ' The modern critics, who exclude believe (mo-reio-ax) from the text, treat what re mains as a question or an exclamation. If thou, canst ? or If thou canst ! But one of the m'ost learned and ingenious gives the same sense without any omission by construing believe as an imperative. If thou canst 1 believe ! i. e. instead of questioning my power, do your own part by believing. But besides the harshness of thus separating the two verbs, the imperative meaning of the form (irio-Teuo-ai), though according to analog}-, is not sufficiently sustained by usage. On the" whole, the choice lies between the common text in its obvious sense, if thou canst believe, as the condition of the healing, and the Vatican or shorter reading, if thou canst ! as an indignant repetition of the man's own words, considered as betraying a deficiency of faith. The ultimate question is one of criticism rather than interpretation, and although the evidence in favour of the shorter is very strong, it hardly seems sufficient to outweigh the other, with its far more natural and easy though less pointed syntax and interpretation. 24. And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe ; help thou mine un belief. Straightway, immediately, at once, without delay, as soon as he heard this most gracious declaration. Crying (out), not weeping, but calling aloud, speaking with a loud voice. The child may possibly be nothing more than a correlative to the father, as we constantly speak of a man's children even though they may be far advanced in age. But as this relation would have been sufficiently expressed by father, and as the other Greek word always elsewhere means a child in age as well as in relation, it is better to explain it as determining in this case that tho patient was a boy and not a man (see above, on v. 20.) With tears is another phrase excluded by the latest critics, because not found in the oldest manuscripts. Though not certainly spurious, its omission detracts nothing from the narrative, except a single graphic circum stance of no importance although interesting and affecting. Another omission, on the same authority, is that of Lord, which though it may not be sufficiently attested, rather strengthens than enfeebles the reply by reducing it in compass. The reply itself is one of the most beauti ful on record, even in the Gospels. / believe, I do believe, as thou re- quirest, although not in the degree which I now see to be incumbent, and for which I am no less dependent upon thee than for the miracle 11* 250 MARK 9, 24. 25. itself. Help, succour, therefore, first my unbelief (i. e. my insufficiency of faith), and then my wretched child whose cure depends upon it. There is singular beauty in the repetition of the same expressive verb which he had used before in praying for his son's relief. On hearing that the only requisite is faith, and feeling that his own was .weaker than it should be, he withdraws, as it were for a moment, his original petition, to implore another kind of help or succour, in default of which the first was unattainable. As if he had said, 'I cried for help or succour, in the name of my afflicted child ; but finding that my faith is the condi tion, and that although I believe my faith is still defective, I now cry for help and succour in my own name, that my weak faith may be strengthened, and that thus my child may* be relieved at last.' The episode contained in these four verses (21-24), which is one of the most exquisite in scripture or in history, authentic or fictitious, is pre served to us exclusively by Jlark, and commonly regarded as among the vivid reminiscences of Peter, under whose authority an old tradi tion represents this evangelist as having written. In this, as in the case of the paralytic at Capernaum (2, 5), the daughter of the Syro phenician woman (7, 29), and no doubt a multitude of others not re corded in detail, it was the faith of the friends or parents that secured the miracle, that of the immediate subject being in abeyance, although no doubt retrospectively exerted afterwards. This furnishes a beauti ful analogy, though not a formal argument, in favour of accepting the vicarious faith of parents or their nearest representatives, as being a sufficient warrant for the baptism and reception into Christ's flock or household, even of such as cannot as yet profess their own faith, al though bound by the act of those who take their place, to believe here after for themselves, and to assume the vows which others have made for them. 25. When Jesus saw that the people came running togetlier, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, (Thou) dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And (or but) Jesus seeing that the crowd runs together (or is run ning together) upon (him, or the place where he was standing as the point of chief attraction.) The present tense as usual calls up the scene as actually passing. The Greek verb, although found only here, is evidently formed by prefixing to a verb (run together) very common in the classics and occasionally found in the New Testament (see above, 6, 33, and compare Acts 3, 11. 1 Pet. 4, 4), a particle which gives it the specific sense of running together to, at, or upon a given place or object, which is here of course the spot where Christ was standing over the unhappy demoniac as he wallowed foaming on the ground before him. This circumstance is mentioned here, not only as a vivid trait impressed upon the memory of those who saw it, but as furnishing a motive for our Lord's healing him at once, without pursuing, as he might have MARK 9, 25. 26. 251 done, the interesting conversation with his father. Rebuked, checked with authority, but also with implied disapprobation, censure, of his presence and his conduct (see above, on 1, 25. 4, 39. 8, 32. 33, and for another application of the same verb, 3, 12. 8, 30.) Foul, the word in variably rendered unclean both in this book (e. g. 1, 23. 3, 11. 5, 2. 6, 7. 7,.25) and in other parts ofthe New Testament, except in Rev. 18. 2, and in the case before us, where there can be ground for a variation, since it means here as elsewhere morally impure, and is applied in that sense to the demon as a fallen angel. Thou, though not expressed in Greek, is more agreeable to our idiom in this connection than the article (the dumb and deaf.) By thus describing or addressing him, our Lord connects the morbid state of the demoniac, in the clearest manner, with the presence of the demon, to the utter exclusion of all oriental metaphors or strong personification of diseases. / charge thee, not the word so rendered in 3, 12. 8, 30, which is the one here trans lated rebuked, nor that so rendered in 5, 43. 7, 36. 8, 15. 9, 9 ; but the one rendered by command in 1, 27. 6, 27. 39, and there explained as a military term implying high authority and prompt obedience. And no more enter into him, a merciful provision for the future, not invariably added (compare Matt. 12, 43-45. Luke 11, 24-26), and therefore men tioned here by Mark as a peculiar or at least a striking feature of this interesting miracle. 26. And (the spirit) cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him, and he was as one dead ; insomuch that many said, He is dead. Crying and tearing (or convulsing) him, the same verbs that are used above in vs. 20. 24, and there explained. According to the com mon text the participial forms are neuter, agreeing with spirit under stood, which is accordingly supplied in the translation. But the Vatican and several other ancient copies, followed by the latest critics, have the masculine in either case, a variation purely formal, as spirit is only grammatically neuter, and the unclean spirit here in question was as really a person as the man (or boy) whom he possessed. Cry ing, not being followed by the verb said or the words spoken, as in v. 24, denotes an inarticulate cry of rage or pain, and is therefore not at variance with the previous description of the spirit as a deaf and dumb one (see above, on vs. 17. 25.) Sore, i. e. much or very much, a literal translation of the Greek word (see above, on 6, 51.) This convulsion was the last expression of malignant rage upon the part of the retiring demon. He became as dead, or as if (he were) a dead (man), the long continued preternatural excitement being succeeded by exhaustion (see above, on 7, 30.) Insomuch that is in Greek a single word correspond ing to our common phrase so that, both forms being used convertibly by our translators (compare 1,27.45. 2,2.12. 3, 10 with 3,20. 4,1. 32. 37.) Many, ov according to the latest text, the many (the accusa tive of a phrase now almost Anglicised, oi iroWoi), i. e. the majority, the most of those present and beholding. Said, He is dead, seems to 252 MARK 9, 26. 27. 28. give the very words, whereas in Greek the form is that of indirect ci tation, said that he was dead. This is another slight but vivid recol lection, giving an air of life and truthfulness to the entire narrative, and furnishing an admirable subject for the pencil, in the eager crowd surrounding the inanimate form of the demoniac, with the anxious face of the rejoicing father, and the august person of the Saviour in the centre of the living circle. 27. But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up, and he arose. But (or and) Jesus taking (seizing, laying hold of) him by the hand (or according to the critics, his hand), raised (or roused, awak ened) him, and he arose (or stood up.) This may be regarded as a sort of supplementary or secondary miracle, by which the youth, forsaken by the fiend but left to all appearance dead, was instantaneously re stored to health and strength. It may have been to mark this twofold wonder and prevent the second being overlooked in admiration of the first, that Christ, instead of making him recover by degrees or at a word, employed the usual external act by which the person of the healer was visibly connected with the subject of the miracle. For the usage of the verbs in this verse, see above, on v. 10. 1, 31. 5. 41.42. 28. And when he was come into the house, his disci ples asked him privately, Why could not we cast him out? We now learn that the failure of the nine to dispossess this demon was not merely a refusal to attempt it, but an actual attempt without success, so that the father of the patient spoke advisedly and truly when he said they were not strong enough (or had not power) to expel it (see above, on v. 18.) This implies that their commission to work miracles, and more particularly miracles of this kind (see above, on 6, 7), still continued, and that this was not a mere unauthorized attempt to do what lay entirely beyond their province, but a mysterious and mortifying failure to accomplish what they had before done (see above, on 6, 30) and considered themselves still authorized and empowered to do. It is not surprising, therefore, that it had provoked the scorn and captious curiosity of the scribes (see above, on vs. 14. 16), nor that the disciples took the first opportunity of private conversation with their master, to inquire into the occasion of this unexpected failure in the most remarkable if not the most important of their apostolic functions. The original construction of the first clause is peculiar. Him, having flone into the house, his disciples questioned. Into the house seems to point out some particular dwelling well known either to the reader or ihe writer, or at least to mean the house near which the miracle had been performed. But the original expression (into house, without the article) means simply in-doors as opposed to out-of-doors, a sense in MARK 9, 28. 29. 253 which we have already met with it. (See above, on 3, 19. 7, 17, and for the meaning home, on 2, 1. 5, 19. 8, 3. 26.) Asked him, earnestly and anxiously questioned him (see above, on vs. 11. 16. 21.) Pri vately, apart, alone, or in a private place (see above, on v. 2, and on 6, 31. 7,33.) Why, literally, that, the same elliptical expression (for why is it that) which occurs above in v. 11, and is there explained. Could not we, were we not able to expel it, the spirit, here again gram matically neuter, though the version has the masculine form (him), a needless variation from that used in v. 22, where the neuter pronoun is not expressed as it is here. This question again presupposes, first, that they had thought themselves able to perform the miracle, and then, that they had found themselves unable upon trial. It was not therefore a habitual or constant inability, but one which took themselves and others by surprise, aud gave occasion to this very question. 29. And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. The answer of our Lord to such a question still excites the strongest curiosity and interest, and none the less so from its brevity and doubt ful meaning. This kind, genus, species, as the same word (yivos) means in Matt. 13, 47. 1 Cor. 12,' 10. 28. 14, 10. The sense may then be, this peculiar kind of suffering or infliction cannot be removed or put an end to, without prayer and fasting. But as this construction takes the verb (igeXSeiv) in a somewhat unusual and forced sense, it is better to give the noun its primary (or secondary) meaning of a race or nation, elsewhere used of human races (see above, on 7, 26, and compare Acts 4, 36. 7, 13. 13, 26. 18, 2. 24. Gal. 1, 14. 1 Pet. 2, 9), but here' applied, without a change of meaning, to another race or order of beings, but one closely connected with the history and destiny of mankind (see above, on 3, 32.) This race (of demons, evil spirits, fallen angels) can (is able) to go out (i. e. to leave the men whom they possess) in noth ing (i. e. in the use of no means) but (if not, except) in (i. e. in the use or exercise of) prayer and fasting. It is worthy of attention that he does not say it cannot be expelled or cast out, but that it cannot go or come out, in any other way or in the use of any other means. Whether this is to be strictly understood, as meaning that the demons who possessed men could not, even if they would, forsake them with out prayer and fasting, or to be taken as a less emphatic mode of saying that they cannot be expelled or cast out save in -this way, is a question not determined by the text or context. If decided by the general laws of language and interpretation, one of which is that the strict sense is entitled to the preference when other things are equal, then the Saviour must be understood as saying, that the evil spirit once in occupation of a man could not, even of its own accord, forsake him without prayer and fasting. Most interpreters, however, and probably most readers understand him as declaring these to be indispensable means of exor cism, that is for the forcible expulsion of the foul fiend from the persons of the men whom he possesses. But the question still arises, who are 254 MARK 9, 29. 30. to employ these means ? Of course not the demon to be dispossessed,, but either the demoniac or the exorcist. But the former ex.hypothesi was not in a condition to make use of any means, and least of all such spiritual means as prayer and fasting, for his own deliverance ; nor do we find a single instance of a person thus possessed, so long as the pos session lasted, asking or even consenting to be freed from it, but always acting as tho organ of the demon in resisting every attempt at dispos session, even on the part of Christ himself (see above, on 1, 24. 5, 7.) The only remaining supposition therefore is, that they who undertook this solemn office must employ the means here mentioned. There is nothing, either in the words themselves or the connection, to require or sanction any other than the usual and proper sense of prayer and fasting, not as stated and still less as ceremonial observances, but as special or extraordinary means and modes of spiritual discipline, not independent of each other, but the abstinence from food giving energy and life to the devotions. This simple discipline is here prescribed, not as the causa qua, but simply as a causa sine qua non, oi all effectual exorcism. The idea that by prayer and fasting men can cast out devils or work other wonders now, is not only fanatical but foolish, since the precept is addressed to men on whom the power of performing such extraordinary cures had been conferred expressly (see above, on 6, 7), but whose exercise of this extraordinary power had been hindered by neglecting their own spiritual discipline, which they are here taught to renew, as something indispensable to their success. As well might one who heard a surgical instructor tell his pupils that they could not operate successfully without a due regard to their own diet, sleep, and exercise, presume to act as surgeons in the most important cases, with out any preparation but these dietetic counsels. It is not easy to de termine whether this reply, preserved by Mark and Matthew (Luke omitting the whole conversation), is entirely distinct from that prefixed to it by Matthew (17, 20). or related to it as a means to an end ; i. e. whether the failure of the nine disciples sprang from want of faith as one cause and from neglect of prayer and fasting as another, or from debility of faith occasioned by neglect of prayer and fasting. The lat ter is more probable as Mark omits the other altogether, which he would hardly have done, if he had undertaken to assign the cause at all, and this had been an independent part of it. The most probable conclusion, on the whole, is that the disciples, relying on their extraor dinary powers, had neglected the spiritual discipline essential to their exercise, because essential to faith or confidence in Christ's right and power to commission them as wonder-workers, and to sustain them in their practice as such, a deficiency of which faith is the other reason for their present failure here assigned by Matthew (17, 20.) 30. And they departed thence, and passed through Galilee ; and he would not that any man should know (it). And thence, from that place where the miracle last mentioned had been wrought, and of which we only know that it must have been near MARK 9, 30. 31. 255 the scene of the transfiguration (see above, on vs. 2, 14.) Going out, departing, or more specifically going forth, upon their journey to Caper naum (v. 33), or their circuit which had been interrupted for a short time. They passed, or more exactly passed by, or travelled along, the object being understood or latent in the next phrase, not .suggested dis tinctly by the context as it is in 11, 20 (where it is the fig-tree), and in 10, 29 (where it is the cross), but more like the use of the same verb in 2, 23, where also it is followed by the same preposition. They travelled along (the high road, or their own appointed course) through Galilee, performing still another circuit or itinerant mission through that province (see above, on 1, 9. 14. 28. 39.) Would not, wished not, was unwilling (see above, on v. 13, and on 7, 24. 9, 30.) Any man, i. e. any one, any body (see above, on v. 8, and on 2, 2L 3, 27. 5, 3. 37. 7, 24.) Know (it), i. e. the fact that he was there or journeying in this way ; but more probably it means know (him), i. e. recognize him as he journeyed or before he reached the points where he was pleased to manifest himself. This is the same precaution which we have so often met with to escape, as far as possible, the pressure of the crowd, and to prevent all dangerous excitement and tumultuous assemblies of the people. But in this case there was an additional reason for his caution, which is stated in the next verse. 31. For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill him ; and after that he is killed, he shall rise the third day. For assigns a special reason of the secrecy just mentioned, namely, that he taught his disciples, i. e. he was teaching them, not at any one time but throughout this visitation, the sad lesson of his now approach ing passion. This implies that he was now engaged in a new course of instruction, different from that which he had previously given, and intended to prepare them for approaching changes. And said to them, Mark's favourite expression to denote a change of subject. (See above, on 4, 13. 21. 24. 26. 30.) That necessarily omitted iu the version but here employed to introduce the substance of his new instruction. The Son of Man, the Messiah, whom you recognize as such, though clothed in the form of a servant. Is delivered, a prophetic present, represent ing the event, because so certain, as already taking place ; or a literal present, but referring to the plan or purpose rather than its execution. The delivery here spoken of is not that by Judas to the Jews, or by the Jews to the Gentiles, but by God to men, abandoning him to their will (compare Acts, 2, 23), and that for a particular end perfectly fore seen. And they, i. e. men, as yet not further specified, shall kill him, and being killed (or having been killed), on the third day he shall rise (or be resuscitated.) The reading substituted by the latest critics, after three days, means precisely the same thing according to the Jewish method of computing time. This is the third distinct prediction of his 256 MARK 9, 31. 32. passion since his recognition by the twelve disciples as the true Mes siah. (See above, on 8, 31. 9, 12.) 32. But they understood not that saying, and were afraid to ask him. But they (the disciples) understood not, in Greek a negative verb meaning not to know, perceive, or understand, according to the context. That (literally the) saying, namely that which they had just heard in relation to his death and resurrection. This can seem incredible only to such as are unable to divest themselves of subsequent associations, and distinguish between what we now see clearly and what we should have seen if we had lived before the death of Christ. Precisely the same difference existed and exists between all fulfilled and unfulfilled prophecy. Predictions in the book of Revelation, and in many other parts of scripture, which are now most variously understood, will seem to those who witness or live after the event, too clear to be mistaken, too distinct and unequivocal to bear more than one interpretation. It is easy now to say that the disciples must have understood him when he said he was to die and rise again, and therefore that his words could not have been so plain as the evangelists report them. But how could the interpreter himself have known whether Christ's predicted cruci fixion was to be more literal than that which he enjoined upon his followers (see above, on 8, 34), or whether his garments were to be divided, and his thirst assuaged with vinegar and gall, in a literal or figur ative sense ? Because we know now how these things were to come to pass, it does not follow that we could have known before they did so come to pass. The mere simplicity and definiteness of the language matters not, so long as there is any doubt as to the principle on which we are to understand it. Nay, the more direct and unequivocal the terms may seem, the more uncertain will the meaning be, until this previous question is determined. There is therefore nothing in the least improbable, much less incredible, in what we read of the disciples' doubts and difficulties, as to what appears to us so perfectly explicit and intelligible. The only wonder is that, having both the author and the subject of these prophecies before them, they did not obtain from him a full solution of the riddles which perplexed them. But of this Mark gives the explanation in the last clause of the verse before us, they were afraid to ask (or feared to question) him. Here again the narrative is far more " psychological " and true to nature than the frivo lous objection urged against it. However easy it may be to lay down rules a priori, as to what men will or will not do in certain situations, we all know by experience that such rules are continually falsified in prac tice, that men do hesitate to ask the most important questions of their nearest relatives and dearest friends, under the influence of motives which they cannot analyze themselves, much less interpret to the minds of others. But if such reserves and reticencies, often most dis astrous to the interests of those who practice them, are things of daily observation and experience, in cases where no motive can be traced at MARK 9, 32. 33. 257 all, who will venture to deny their possibility when generated or enforced by awful reverence for Christ as personally present, and per haps by vague forebodings that his presence was to cease, and an accompanying aversion to know more distinctly when or how. Such feelings have in multitudes of cases sealed the lips of wives and hus bands, parents and children, brothers and sisters, nay of mere acquain tances and friends, when death was apprehended but its time and cir cumstances willingly unknown, and even banished from the thoughts of those whom interest and duty should alike have led to look it in the face and to prepare for it. But if such things as these are natural and possible in every-day experience, who will deny the possibility or aggra vate the guilt of the reserve here practised by the twelve in all the weakness and darkness of their pupillary state, when they knew not what their master meant by these distressing premonitions of his death, and were afraid to ask him ? 33. And he came to Capernaum ; and being in the house, he asked them, What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way ? And he came into Capernaum, which had long been the centre of his operation^ and where all his missionary journeys terminated. Passing over a remarkable occurrence introduced just here by Matthew (17, 24-27), Mark relates, in harmony with that evangelist (17, 28) and Luke (9, 46). an intd-esfifig^conversation which appears to have been held soon after thet arrival, and which serves to illustrate Christ's omniscience and his/wisdom, and the still contracted views of his dis ciples in relation to his kingdom, thus elucidating further their misap prehension of his prophecies respecting his own passion. In the house, a definite expression meaning in his own house or the house where he resided, possibly the house of Peter. (See above, on 1, 29.) Being, not the mere verb of existence, but the one denoting change and fre quently equivalent to our becoming, i. e. beginning to be. Here it necessarily suggests without expressing the idea of his previous arrival, having got to the house, as wo might say in more familiar English. He asked them, questioned them, the same emphatic compound that occurs so often in this book, and never in the simple sense of asking. Here it evidently means to catechize, examine, in a searching and authoritative manner. What (or why) in the way (along the road, upon the journey to Capernaum) did ye dispute, a Greek verb hitherto translated reason in this book (see above, on 2, 6. 8. 8, 16. 17), here meaning to discuss or canvass a disputed question. Among yourselves, or to yourselves, i. e. apart from me, and as you thought without my knowledge. The idea of reciprocal or mutual communication is other wise expressed in the ensuing verse. 34. But they held their peace : for by the way they had disputed among themselves who (should be) the greatest. 258 MARK 9, 34. 35. But (or and) they held their peace, were silent, a verb which has no exact equivalent in English, one of those unaccountable deficiencies which constitute so striking a diversity in languages, such as the absence of the verb to have in all Semitic dialects, of stand in French, &o. They were silent, no doubt both with wonder and confusion at this startling question, which at once recalled their own disgraceful conflict and eviiiced their master's perfect knowledge of it, notwithstanding the precautions which had probably been used to hide it from his obser vation. If so, we have here accumulated proof of their contracted views and still debased condition both of judgment and affection with respect to the Messiah's kingdom. This they still regarded as an earthly state, in which they were to occupy distinguished places as compared with other men ; but not content with this collective eminence, they now disputed as to rank among themselves. Disputed, not the word so rendered in v. 33, though ultimately from the same root ; but in that the prominent idea is calculation, while in this it is discourse, the Greek verb being the etymon of dialogue, dialect, and dialectics. Among themselves, a wholly different expression from the one in the preceding verse, and meaning strictly to (or with) fetch other. Who (should be) the greatest, or more exactly, which (oi them) was greater (than the rest.) It is not improbable that such disputes, if not begun by Peter, James, and John, were at least occasioned .fiy the real promi nence which Christ assigned them in the college of apostles, and which could hardly fail to rouse the jealousy and envy of the rest, especially if urged unduly and unwisely by themselves^ (Set. above, on v. 2.) 35. And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, (the same) shall be last of all, and servant of all. And having sat (or sitting) down, i. e. when he had sat down on coming in, which seems to imply that this conversation took place at the very time of their arrival (Matt. 18, 1.) Called the twelve, not them, as in vs. 33. 34, which may perhaps imply that what is there said relates to a still greater number. If any (one) desire, the verb so often rendered will and would. First in rank and dignity compared with others. The same, which seems to be emphatic, is supplied by the translators, the subject of the verb being not expressed at all but indicated by the form of the verb itself, which simply means he shall be. This appears to include both a threatening and a precept, according to the motive which leads any one to wish for the pre eminence. If actuated by a selfish pride, he shall, as a righteous retri bution, be defeated in his plans of self-aggrandizement ; instead of being arst, he shall be last of all, the least regarded and esteemed. If, on the other hand, he wishes to be truly first, in usefulness and goodness, he must be voluntarily the last of all, not only as to rank but as to ac tive service, an idea separately expressed in the concluding words, and servant of all. The Greek noun is not that which means a slave (SoiXos), but one which properly denotes a waiter or attendant on the MARK 9, 35. 36, 259 table, one who waits upon the person and supplies the wants of his employer or his master. Hence it was afterwards applied, not only to the Christian ministry in general, as stewards, providers, and attend ants on the people of the Lord (l Cor. 3, 5. 2 Cor. 3, 6. 6, 4. 11, 23. Eph. 3, 7. Col. 1, 7. 23. 25. 4, 7. 1 Th. 3, 2. 1 Tim. 4, 6), but more distinctively to the lowest permanent church-office recognized in scrip ture, that whose primary function is to relieve want, and which is therefore designated by this very word, in Greek Siukovos, in English deacon (Phil. 1, 1. 1 Tim. 3. 8. 12.) In the case before us it is used in its generic sense of servant or attendant as opposed to master, but with special reference no doubt to the specific kind of service which the word (or its equivalent) would necessarily suggest, to wit, that of caring for the welfare and supplying the necessities of others. If any one wishes to be truly first, he must become so, not by caring for himself, but by ministering to the wants of others. It is impossible to overlook the fact that no allusion is here made to the priority of Peter, which must therefore have been temporary and conventional. For if he was in any other sense the first of the apostles, how could this dispute arise, or how could Christ avoid replying that the question, as to one of them at least, was already settled ? There is not the slightest hint, however, that Peter was not equally involved with all the rest in this dispute about pre-eminence, nor any reason to except him from the operation of the rule here laid down, whether considered as a promise or a threatening. It may be said indeed that Peter's pri macy is here provided for by showing how he must maintain it, and that in compliance with this rule his successor in the primacy is still called servus servorum Dei. But besides the later date and well-known origin of this arrogant humility in the contest for pre-eminence between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople at the close of the sixth century, the sense thus put upon our Saviour's precept is forbidden by its very terms, which are conditional but personally unre stricted. He does not say, If Peter wishes to be first, or to remain so, but if any (one) so wishes, thus throwing open the distinction equally to all who chose to use the necessary means of acquisition. On the other hand, considered as a warning, it was no less true of Peter than of Judas, that if he wished to be the first in any selfish or ambitious sense, he should be treated as last of all and servant of all. 36. And he took a child, and set him in the midst of them ; and when he had taken him in his arms, he said unto them : What he had thus taught in words he now illustrates by an em blematic action, not only admirably suited to his purpose, but afford ing a delightful glimpse of his personal habits and relations. Taking a child, the word so rendered in v. 24, which, although a diminutive in form, determines nothing as to age or size, which may however be conjectured from what follows. Set, or rather stood up, caused to stand. Him, literally it, the pronoun like its antecedent being of the 260 MARK 9, 36. 37. neuter form and common gender. In the midst of them, among them, aud surrounded by them. Taking in his arms, the true sense of a single word in Greek, derived from a noun denoting the bent arm, and itself moaning to encircle or embrace therewith. This lovely trait, found only in Mark's picture, is a proof not only of our Lord's benig nity in general, but of his love for children, here expressed in act as if elsewhere is in words (Matt . 19, 14. ) By a harmless though dubious conjecture this pleasing incident may be invested with a still more personal and lifelike interest. As what is here recorded took place, not only in a house, but in the house, i. e. the one whore he resided in Capernaum (see above, on v. 28); and as we have some ground for supposing this to be the house of Simon and Andrew (see above, on 1, 29) ; as the child here mentioned is not said to have been brought in from abroad, but appears to have been casually present as a member of the household; it is not impossible, or even improbable, that the little one, thus honoured by our Lord's caresses, was the child of one of his apostles. 37. Whosoever shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me ; and whosoever receiveth me, re- ceiveth not me, but him that sent me. Having sej; the child before them as an emblematic model, he pro ceeds to give an oral explanation of its meaning. Whosoever (meaning nothing more nor less than the familiar form whoever) shall receive, in Greek a more contingent and conditional expression, for which we have no exact equivalent, but which may be correctly though inadequately rendered either shall, may, or does receive. One, emphatically, even one, no more, as if to state the minimum or lowest case supposable, in number no less than in quality. Of such children as the one before you, so young, so weak, so inexperienced, so insignificant to all appear ance. In my name, or rather, on my name, an expression foreign to our idiom, but suggesting an important additional idea, over and above that of mere representation, namely, that of confidence, reliance, trust. 1 Whoever receives such a child as sent by me, and with unwavering reli ance on me, as entitled so to send him and to require his appropriate reception.' Receiveth me, i. e. in the person of the child and as repre sented by him. ' If I send even such a child to represent me, its re ception will be estimated by me just as if it were my own.' The meaning and the ground of this are obvious enough ; but the connection with what goes before is not so plain. It seems designed, however, to dispose of an objection which would naturally rise up in the minds of the disciples. ' We are willing,' they might well have said, ' to renounce all personal distinction and pre-eminence ; but what will then become of our official influence anil representative authority ¦ as thy apostles 1 If each of us is trying to be last of all and servant of all, who will regard us or obey us as ambassadors for Christ 1 ' To this our Lord replies in substance, that their authority and influence in that capacity depended not upon their personal pretensions or as- MARK 9, 37. 38. 261 sumptions, but upon the power which commissioned them and which they represented, so that not only unpretending men, but an unpretending child, if duly accredited as his commissioner, must be received (in some sort) as himself, or if rejected by those to whom ho came, must be reject ed at their peril. Not me but the (one) sending me, the further applica tion of the principle just laid down to himself and his commission from the Father. As if he had said, 'this is not peculiar to your ministry but equally appropriate to mine. As the suitable reception of my representatives is virtually just such a reception of myself, so a suit able reception of myself is virtually just such a reception of my Father.' Peculiar to this clause, however, is the strong negative, receiveth not me, which admits of two interpretations, or rather is suggestive of two harmonious but distinct ideas. The first is, he who receives me receives not only me but him who sent me. The other is, he who receives me receives me not as he now sees me, in appearance a mere man, but in my real character and nature, as co equal and coessential with the Father who commissioned me. Far from militating therefore against Christ's divinity, this clause contains a real though not obvious allusion to it. 38. And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us ; and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. John answered him, i. e. continued the conversation, not by a direct reply to what had just been said, but by suggesting a topic closely con nected with it, and belonging to the same great subject. (The Vatican and two other uncial manuscripts, together with the Syriac and Coptic versions, have simply, said to him.) Master, i. e. teacher, as opposed to learner or disciple, not to servant. We, the whole body of apostles, or perhaps John and James, when they jvere sent forth two and two. Saw, when or where is not recorded, but most probably when absent from their master, on their first apostolical mission. One, not a nu meral, much less an emphatic one, as in the verse preceding, but an indefinite pronoun meaning some (one), and perhaps implying that his name was unknown or forgotten or of no importance to the end for which the fact was stated. Casting out devils, dispossessing demons, in the exercise of similar authority and power to that conferred by Christ upon the twelve themselves. In thy name, i. e. claiming so to do by thy authority, and probably by actual invocation of the name of Jesus. And he (or according to the latest critics, who) followeth not us, by which he does not seem to signify dependence or inferiority, but mere association with the twelve in following Christ himself, as ex pressed in Luke's report (he followeth not with us.) The repetition in the last clause is rejected by the latest critics, but on very insufficient grounds, and is more likely, even on their own rules, to have been omitted than inserted by the copyists of later date. We have here an instance of the natural but erroneous disposition to infer from the existence of a divinely instituted order, that its author can or will do 262 MARK 9, 38. 39. nothing to promote the same end independently of it. A much earlier example is that of Joshua in Num. 11, 28, and a similar mistake appears to have been permitted in the apostolic body for the purpose of pro viding a corrective, to be afterwards applied to all like cases, which are constantly occurring, even in relation to arrangements and institutions wholly human in their origin and destitute of all divine authority. But even where this does exist and constitute the general rule of human action, God reserves the right of acting independently of that rule, as asserted or explained in the ensuing verses. 39. But Jesus said, Forbid him not ; for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. Forbid him not, as if the case were still an open one or not yet settled, which may seem to imply that the occurrence was not only recent but in progress. As it is not probable, however, that the twelve, or any of them, would have ventured upon such a prohibition in their master's presence or vicinity, it seems best, as before suggested, to refer this incident to the time when the apostles were sent forth upon their first official mission, and to understand our Lord's injunc tion here as simply calling up the past and speaking of it as the present, or still more simply as a general direction to be acted on in future, upon which hypothesis the pronoun (him) refers to any one performing the same acts or occupying the same position. The reason of the rule laid down is given in the other clause, as indicated by the for. No man (literally, no one) shall (or will) do, and by parity of reasoning has done or is doing now. A miracle, literally, & power, i. e. an effect of superhuman power as a proof of divine agency and appro bation. In my name, upon my name, precisely as in v. 37 above. That can, literally, and can, i. e. there is no one who can do both. Can, or, more emphatically, shall (or will) be able, an independent verb in the future tense, which still includes all imaginable cases of the kind in question. Lightly, quickly, hastily, or readily, an instance of the figure called meiosis or litotes, as the meaning evidently is, not that he could perform the act, .though reluctantly and after hesitation, but that he could not perform it at all. Speak evil of me, the same verb that is rendered curse in 7, 10, but more exactly here, as it includes all degrees of evil speaking from the direst imprecation to the mildest censure, and is here used to denote all oral expression of hostility, however gentle or however fierce. The essential idea is, he cannot be opposed to me, the act of speaking being mentioned only as the natural and usual expression of the inward dispositions and affections. Di vested then of its peculiar form, the reason which the Saviour gives for not allowing his disciples to forbid the casting out of demons, or other miraculous performances of which they are a chosen specimen or repre sentative, is that the miracles themselves were a more conclusive proof of a divine commission than mere association with the twelve could be. Although the age of miracles is past, and therefore no such case can MARK 9, 39. 40. 41. 263 now arise, the principle involved is evidently pertinent to many other cases, and especially to that of spiritual influences visibly attending cer tain ministrations, and affording a more certain test of their validity than any mere ecclesiastical connection or commission. It is no objection to this application or extension of the principle here laid down, that apparent spiritual attestations may be spurious ; for so might the miraculous 'appearances of old, and as the rule originally laid down was to be applied to none but genuine performances of that kind, so the rule as here extended is to be applied to none but genuine and valid proofs of the divine approval, to determine which is no part of our present task, though easily deducible from scripture and experience. 40. For he that is not against us is on our part. There is a singular variety of text in this verse, many copies reading against you and for you, some against you and for us, some against us and for you. The two last readings (those which have both the first and second person) change the sense entirely or rather convert it into nonsense, the distinction between you and us being perfectly irrelevant if not unmeaning. The one first mentioned (you and you) is supported by the greatest number of uncial manuscripts, but the common text (us and us) by those of most age and authority (including B and 0, the famous Vatican and Paris copies.) There is, however, little choice between them as the sentence is proverbial, and the pronouns, whether of the first or second person, are descriptive not of certain classes, but of men in general, or of any parties who sustain or may sustain the mutual relations here supposed, On our part (or side), though a cor rect translation as to sense, impairs the beautiful antithesis of form in the original (against us, for us.) Like other proverbs, this exhibits only one phase or aspect of the truth expressed, to wit, that in a cer tain sense and to a certain length, the absence of hostility may be suf ficient evidence of frieudship. It is no less true, however, and therefore perfectly consistent with this saying, that in another sense, or under other circumstances, the neglect of positive co-operation is itself a proof of enmity, So far are these two aphorisms from being contradictory, that both may be exemplified in the experience of the very same per sons. - For example, Nicodemus, by refusing to take part with the Sanhedrim against our Lord, although he did not venture to espouse his cause, proved himself to be upon his side; but if he had continued the same course when the crisis had arrived, he would equally have proved himself to be against him. The pretence of inconsistency be tween the words qf this verse and the saying recorded in Luke (9, 50), is therefore as absurd as such a charge would be against Solomon's twin maxims (Prov. 26, 4. 5.) The meaning of the words before us evidently is, that the case proposed by John was one in which the maxim quoted would apply, however numerous the instances in which the very opposite might be affirmed. 41. For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to 264 MARK 9, 41. 42. drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward. Instead of overlooking or ignoring such conclusive evidence of union with the Saviour as that furnished by the working of a miracle ex pressly in his name and in avowed reliance upon him, they ought rather to appreciate the slightest tokens of regard to him, even the most tri fling acts of kindness to themselves on his account, as he himself would note, and as it were acknowledge, every such expression of attachment, even the most humble and intrinsically worthless. For whosoever shall (whoever may) give to drink, a single word in Greek, analogous to our verb to water, but derived from the noun drink, and applied both to plants (by Xenophon) and to men (by Plato.) From the same root comes the following noun, cup, or any drinking vessel, the same word that is used above in 7, 4. 8, and there explained. A cup (or bowl) of water is here mentioned as the cheapest of all bodily re freshments, and therefore suitable to represent the smallest acts of kindness done by man to man. In my name, or, according to the critics, in name, i. e. for the avowed reason, or expressly on the ground, that ye are Christ's, the phrase employed in the translation of 1 Cor. 3, 23, and at once more exact and more expressive than the one here given, though correct in sense, because ye belong to Christ. Verily (Amen) I say unto you, implying that what follows is a certain and a solemn truth. He shall not, a particularly strong form of negation, being that employed above in v. 1 and there explained. His reward, i. e. the benefit of such regard to Christ, proved by kindness to his fol lowers. The doctrine of legal merit is no more involved in this expres sion than in the many passages which teach that men are to be dealt with in proportion to their works, although salvation is entirely gratu itous. The connection of this verse with that before it seems to be, that as Christ himself took notice of the slightest proofs of love to him, his followers ought not to overlook the greatest. 42. And whosoever shall offend one of (these) little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. Having answered John, the Saviour now resumes the thread of his discourse where John had broken it, and carries out still further the idea of v. 37, that they who represented him must be received as he would be received in person. This rule he had already there laid down in reference to his apostles, and by parity of reasoning to all his faithful ministers, so far as they officially do represent him. But he now pro ceeds in this direction to a greater and an almost startling length, by declaring the same thing to be true of all believers, even the weakest and the most despised. Reverting to the case before suggested of a little child, perhaps reminded of it by the real child still in his presence or his arms, he now declares the rights and the prerogatives belonging MARK 9, 42. 265 to the humblest of his people. Whosoever shall (whoever may) offend, literally scandalize, the verb employed above in 4, 17. 6, 3, and there explained as primarily meaning to obstruct a person's path by snares or stumbling blocks, and then in a moral application to betray another into sin or error, either by precept or example, or in any other way. conceivable. One, even one, the same emphatic usage of the numeral of which we have already had an instance in v. 37. Of these (literally, the) little (ones), the (ones) believing in me, i. e. confiding in me as a Saviour. This may refer to children in the proper sense, but only as believers, and the weakest and most defenceless class of believers, who might therefore appear liable to be maltreated with impunity. But Christ himself is their protector, and denounces the severest doom on such as take advantage of their weakness to betray them into sin and error. As children, if referred to here, are only specified as being the most feeble and defenceless of believers, what is said of them is no less true of all who in these respects resemble them, whatever be their age ; and thus we reach the same conclusion to which others come by understanding little (ones) in this verse, not of children, but of weak and humble Christians, who are certainly referred to, either indirectly or directly. The guilt and danger of scandalizing such, in the peculiar sense before explained, is here expressed with fearful emphasis, by saying of the person who commits this aggravated sin, that it is better for him (literally, good for him rather) not that a millstone were hanged, but if a millstone hangs (literally, lies around) his neck and (not he were cast, as a supposed case, but) lie has been cast (as an ac complished fact) into the sea. The sense is clear, although the form of expression is exceedingly unusual, presenting two contingencies, or rather actual experiences, in the case of one and the same person, and comparing them ; supposing on the one hand that he has offended, scandalized, a weak believer ; on the other, that a millstone is around his neck and he already cast into the sea ; and then declaring that of these two possibilities the latter is the better for him, i. e. for his in terest or welfare, even if he is to perish. The moral or judicial sense of more just, more deserved, is equally consistent with the usage of the word, but not with its connection here ; for with what is it com pared, or in comparison with what is such an end pronounced to be more just or worthy ? A millstone, either put for any heavy weight or as the very weight of old attached to convicts who were to undergo the punishment of catapontism or submersion in the sea. The suppo sition that our Lord alludes directly to this practice, though intrinsi cally probable, is not essential to the force and beauty of this terrible denunciation, which is equally impressive and significant if understood of an imaginary case, or of a single real instance of such punishment. As to the connection with v. 37, this appears to be a wide step in ad vance of what is there affirmed, to wit, that he who refused to acknow ledge even a mere child, sufficiently accredited as sent by Christ to represent him, will be punished as he would be for rejecting Christ himself. But more than this, he who even leads the weakest of be- 12 266 MARK 9, 42. 43. lievers, though without authority or office, into sin, would better have been lying at the bottom of the sea. 43. And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched. By a perfectly natural and even obvious association of ideas, the Redeemer now proceeds still further in the same direction. Having warned his hearers, and especially the twelve, against the sin of scandal izing others, even fhe weakest and most helpless of believers, he now warns them no less solemnly against the risk of being scandalized them selves and by themselves, i. e. of being tempted and betrayed into sin by any thing belonging to themselves, however highly valued and how ever fondly cherished. This idea he expresses in a manner which may be described as characteristic of his teaching, i. e. by assuming an ex treme case and supposing that a man's own members, even those which he particularly prizes, and to lose which would be little less than death itself, are incurable, incorrigible causes or occasions of transgression against God. The case is not presented as a real one, or one which there is reason to anticipate in actual experience ; but if it should occur, if the only alternative presented to a man were deliberate habitual transgression or the loss of his most valuable members, what would be his choice ? If he prefer his bodily integrity and purchase it at such a price, he has reason to believe himself a reprobate. But if in the ex treme case here supposed, he would be ready to choose mutilation rather than a life of sin, that choice includes all minor cases, as the whole includes the part, and as the greater comprehends the less. This important lesson is conveyed by a series of ideal cases, differing chiefly in the member which the man is called to sacrifice in order to secure salvation, but in other respects gaining the same end by solemn repeti tion, so that each succeeding verse is like the chorus or burden of a funeral dirge. In the one before us, the antithesis presented is between the loss of one hand with salvation or admission into heaven, and the use of two hands with perdition or the everlasting pains of hell. This last idea is expressed by a Greek word made up of two Hebrew ones, originally meaning the valley of Hinnom. As a local designation, it described the valley on the south side of Jerusalem, famous of old as a favourite place of idolatrous worship, and especially of the horrid ser vice paid to Moloch by causing children to pass through the fire (Lev. 18, 21. 20, 2. 2 Kings 23, 10. 2 Chr. 33, 6. Jer. 19, 2. 32, 35.) Hence in times of reformation, and especially under Josiah, the last good king of Judah, this valley was defiled, probably by being made a place of deposit for the refuse and offal of the city (2 Kings 23, 10.) It is often added that to consume this refuse fires were kept perpetually burning ; but there is no sufficient evidence of this fact, and the latest writers suppose the sacrificial fires of Moloch to have given rise to the peculiar usage of the word Gehenna, to denote the place of future torment, or MARK 9, 43-47. 267 what in modern English is called hell. The fire, the unquenchable, or unextinguished, a description borrowed from the fires already men tioned, but employed to represent the everlasting torments of the damned. 44. Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. The terrific description is continued with a sort of fearful repetition, adding greatly to its solemn grandeur. Where (referring to Gehenna, as already mentioned in the verse preceding) their worm (i. e. the car cass-worm which preys upon the bodies of those burning there) dieth not, literally, ends not, ceases not to live, the same verb that is used above, in 7, 10, and there explained, but here suggesting the additional idea that the worm not only never dies, but never ends or interrupts its decomposing and devouring process. This terrific figure of an end less dissolution, an eternal putrefaction, is directly borrowed from Isaiah (66, 24), but more remotely from the fires of Tophet. And the Are is not quenched, a sort of poetical variation of the fire unquenched (a cognate form) in the preceding verse. 45. 46. And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. The same supposition is then made as to the foot, and the same comparison or contrast between going lame or maimed into life (i. e. a state of future blessedness), or retaining both feet to be thrown or cast (a stronger term than that before used, and suggesting forcible not voluntary entrance) into hell (Gehenna), the fire unquenched or un quenchable, an epithet applied by Homer to undying fame, exhaustless strength, and by .rEschylus (who strangely but sublimely confounds fire and water) to the ceaseless flow of ocean. Then follows without any change (in v. 46) the burden of Isaiah's melancholy song, the repe tition of which gives it a new pathos, as applied still more explicitly by Christ to the eternal pains of human sufferers and sinners. 47. 48, And if tbine eye offend thee, pluck it out ; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. The only change in this third strophe is the substitution of the eye in the first clause, of the corresponding terms, one-eyed, having two eyes, in what follows, and of the phrase kingdom of heaven for eternal life, here described as the final and eternal consummation of that very king- 268 MARK 9, 48. 49. dom, which our Lord was now erecting in the hearts of his disciples, and was soon to organize by their means, under the direction of his Spirit, in society and on the ruins or rather the unchangeable founda tion of the ancient church. These changes, while they multiply the real yet ideal cases in which the alternative may be presented, also serve to render more impressive the reiteration of the phrases which remain unaltered, thus imparting to the passage a strophical or rhyth mical form, which is essentially poetical, though free from the conven tional restraint of rhyme or even of prosodial measure. This peculiar structure is among the oldest forms of composition extant, being found in the first cosmogony of Moses (Gen. 1, 1-2, 3), which, for this and other reasons, has been thought by some to be a relic of primeval com position, handed down perhaps from Adam through a few intervening links to Moses, and incorporated by him in his history, or placed before it as a still more ancient text or theme, but under the divine direction and the same unerring seal of inspiration. However this may be, there is something most impressive in our Lord's adoption of this measured prose, which unlike ordinary poetry, may live through any number of translations, and was possibly intended in the present case, as in the older one just mentioned, to impress these solemn warnings on the mem ory of those who heard but never read them. If this may be assumed, the passage furnishes an interesting glimpse of his peculiar didache or mode of teaching, in addition to the others which have been already noticed. 49. For every one shall be salted with fire, and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt. This is one of the most difficult passages in the whole book, both the meaning of the terms and the connection with what goes before being doubtful and obscure. Among the various interpretations which have been proposed, one or two points seem to be agreed upon, which may therefore be first stated as a basis for determining the other ques tions. It is commonly admitted that the last clause of this verse is an allusion to, if not a direct quotation from the law of sacrifice in Lev. 2, 13, from the Septuagint version of which it differs only by the change of gift to sacrifice, a term used in the older classics to denote the sacrificial act or service, but in later Greek extended to the sacrificial victims, or the animals admitted to the altar. It is also agreed that there is allusion to the antiseptic and conservative effects of salt, and that these are figuratively transferred to fire. But what fire is meant, and in what sense it is conservative, and how the whole verse is related to what goes before and follows, these are questions as to which there is a great diversity of judgment. The different hypotheses entitled to attention may, however, be reduced to two, essentially distinguished by the fact that one of them regards this as a promise, and the other as a threatening or a warning. According to the former view, oui Lord, referring to the well known requisition of the law already men tioned, that every sacrificial victim must be salted, that is, rubbed or MARK 9, 49. 50. 269 sprinkled with salt, and also to the universal association between salt and soundness or purity of meats, avails himself of these associations to assure his hearers, that every one whom God approves, or towards whom he has purposes of mercy, though he may pass through the fire of persecution and affliction, including the painful self-denial recom mended in the previous context, will be purified and saved thereby, or as an offering to God, salted with such fire, just as the literal sacrifice was salted at the altar. This is certainly a good sense in itself, and favoured by the strong analogy ofthe fiery trial which Peter mentions in his first epistle (4, 12.) The objections to it are, that it gives to fire a sense entirely different from that in the preceding context, and that it does not explain the logical connection indicated by the for. The other explanation supposes the connection to be this. Our Lord had six times spoken of eternal torments as unquenchable fire, from which no man could escape without self-denial and the mortification of sin. The immediately preceding verse concludes with the solemn repe tition of that fearful saying, where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched, i. e. their sufferings are endless and unceasing. But how can the subject of such sufferings escape annihilation 1 By being kept in existence for the very purpose of enduring them. This awful fact he clothes in a figurative form derived from the sacrificial ritual of Moses. Every victim must be rubbed with salt, the symbol of incor ruption and preservation. So these victims shall be salted, not with salt but fire. The divine wrath that consumes them will preserve them, i. e. from annihilation, not from suffering, but for suffering. It is no objection to this view of the passage that it takes salt in a sense not justified by usage, which requires it to mean preservation for a good end or salvation. This is a mere assumption just as easy to deny as to affirm. The essential idea of the figure is preservation from de struction, or continued existence, and may just as well be used both in a good and a bad sense, as leaven (which the law excluded from all offerings no less strictly than it required salt) is used in both (see above, on 8, 15), and just as we might say that the lost sinner will be saved from annihilation, although not from ruin. On the other hand, this interpretation has the advantage of continuing the train of thought unbroken, taking fire in the same sense as throughout the previous context, and concluding this terrific warning in a manner far more appropriate than a promise of salvation by the fire of suffering, how- over pleasing and delightful in itself. 50. Salt (is) good, but if the salt have lost his salti ness, wherewith will ye season it ? Have salt in your selves, and have peace one with another. According to the first interpretation given of v. 49, this must be taken as a sudden change of figure or in the meaning of the figure there used. Salt, which there denotes the conservative or purifying virtue of affliction, now means heavenly grace or wisdom which the disciples are enjoined to cherish in their own hearts. This is certainly 270 MARK 9, 50. a violent transition, not to be assumed without necessity, and furnish ing a strong ground of preference for any exegetical hypothesis by which it is dispensed with. This is effected by the other explanation, which supposes this to be an answer to the very difflculty raised before as to the use of salt in an unusual and unfavourable sense. He had said that every victim to the wrath of God would be salted by the fire of that wrath, i. e. preserved in existence for the purpose of enduring it. But salt, they might have said, as some say now, can only signify a salutary preservation, as in the sacrificial law referred to, it denotes something good, not evil. With his usual method of converting objec tions into arguments or motives, he concedes the truth ofthe premises involved in this one. Salt is good, not only in itself, but as a figure for moral purity and conservation ; that is the true salt, which every one should have within him, namely, moral purity and right affections. But if the salt becomes unsalted, a most lively and intelligible figure for the loss of moral goodness and descriptive of men's natural condi tion since the fall, wherewith, literally, in what, i. e. in the use of what means (see above, on v. 29) will you season it, a Greek word always implying management, contrivance, art, and in the later classics used as a culinary term, exactly answering to season. ' How will you manage or contrive to restore its sapidity or saltness 1 ' It is implied that such a process is impossible, i. e. to man himself or any other finite power. The salt of moral goodness is a fine thing where- it is possessed ; but when it is corrupted, it is worse than useless, and the man who has thus lost it has but one alternative. He must either be salted with the fire of divine wrath and his own eternal torments, or with the renewed salt of divine grace and his own regeneration. Im mortality, without the hope of blessedness, which gives it all its value, can be only an eternity of wretchedness. Here then the bright or cheering side of the whole subject is presented, not by violent transi tion but by natural association, introducing easily the following exhor tation. Have salt in yourselves, i. e. take heed that the principle of conservation, which is to secure your endless being, is not that of wrath and justice and punishment ab extra, but that of grace and goodness in yourselves. It is not the method of salvation that is here presented, but the bare fact that in order to secure it men must have a principle of life within them, and the scriptures abundantly teach elsewhere, that this principle can only be implanted by divine grace, through the operation of the Holy Spirit. By a perfectly natural but masterly recoil, he then reverts in conclusion to the circumstance which led to this remarkable discourse, their strife for the pre-eminence, and exhorts them to demonstrate their possession of this spiritual salt, which is to save them from the salt of everlasting fire, by cher ishing that peace among themselves (literally, in one another) which is elsewhere so expressly represented as among the invariable " fruits of the Spirit." (Gal. 5, 22. Eph. 5, 9.) MARK 10, 1. 271 CHAPTEE X. Mark now records, in chronological order, a series of incidents belong ing to a journey of our Saviour in Perea, or beyond the Jordan, which we have reason, drawn from other sources, to regard as his last jour ney to Jerusalem. In reply to an insidious question of the Pharisees, he lays down the Christian law of marriage and divorce (1-12.) On the same or a subsequent occasion, he declares the rights of children and pronounces a blessing on them (13-16.) To one who seeks eternal life, but in his own right, Christ applies a double test, thereby expos ing his true character (17-22.) This leads him to enlarge upon the dangers incident to wealth, and the obstructions to salvation thence arising (23-27.) As a counterpart to this, and in immediate applica tion to his first disciples, he declares the recompense of those renounc ing all for his sake (28-31.) Continuing his journey to Jerusalem, he again foretells his betrayal to the Jews and Gentiles, and his maltreat ment by them, ending in his death and resurrection (32-34.) He is still so far from being understood, that James and John request con spicuous positions under his temporal reign which they believe to be approaching (35-40.) This ambitious prayer excites the jealous in dignation of the rest, which he allays by declaring the true nature of his kingdom, and by holding up to them his own example (41-45.) In the last stage of his journey to Jerusalem, he heals a blind man with accompanying circumstances of a novel and affecting kind, on ac count of which it is recorded in detail (46-52.) Here again we find the narrative not only flowing and coherent but progressive, that is, visibly tending to the crisis or catastrophe of this whole history, and marked by regular advances, both of time and place. 1. And he arose from thence, and cometh into the coasts of Judea by the farther side of Jordan ; and the people resort unto hiin again ; and, as he was wont, he taught them again. This verse is descriptive, not of an ordinary removal from one place to another (as in 9, 30), but of our Lord's final departure from Galilee to close his ministry and hfe in Judea. And thence, i. e. from Caper naum, the last place mentioned (see above, on 9, 33), and here referred to as the centre of his Galilean ministry, now about to terminate. Arising, starting, setting out (as in 7, 24), but here peculiarly signifi cant, because denoting the commencement of his last official journey. Coasts, borders, frontiers, often put for the whole territory bounded by them (see above, on 5, 17. 7, 31.) By the farther side, literally, through the Beyond- Jordan, that phrase having acquired the force of a proper name equivalent to the Perea of the Greek geographers. The natural meaning of the clause is that he travelled to Judea, not directly through Samaria, but circuitously through Perea, possibly for 272 MARK 10, 1. 2. greater safety, but more probably because that region had been hith erto less favoured with his presence and instructions. It may even be that on this final departure from his accustomed field of labour, he deliberately took an irregular or winding course on both sides of the river, so as to touch as many points as possible. (Compare Luke 9, 51, the precise chronological relations of which passage belong to the exposition of that gospel.) 2. And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away (his) wife? tempting him. Mark now resumes the history of the systematic opposition of the dominant party, not by mere reiteration of facts absolutely similar to those before related, but by exhibiting a new phase or aspect of the anti-christian movement. The tactics of the enemy had hitherto consisted in objecting to his conduct, or to that of his disciples, with respect to the alleged violations of the law. But now, instructed by experience, or advised by wiser leaders, they adopt the more insidi ous method of demanding his opinion upon doubtful and vexed ques tions, which were then the subject of exciting controversy, and which it seemed impossible to answer either way, without giving offence and incurring danger in some influential quarter. This new mode of oppo sition was" continued until near the close of our Lord's history, and affords many striking illustrations of the cunning of his enemies and of his own consummate wisdom. The first of these attacks was on the difficult and much disputed question of divorce. The Pharisees, ov according to the latest critics, Pharisees, without the article, denoting members of that wide-spread party, who encountered him on this last journey from Galilee and east of Jordan. Coming to him, for the purpose, not in private but in public, as he taught the people (v. 1.) Asked, interrogated, questioned him. Is it lawful, literally, if(ov whether) it is lawful, expressed in Greek by an impersonal verb, the root or theme of (e'foucri'a) the noun meaning authority or delegated power. The verb here means, permitted by divine authority, or in accordance with the law of Moses (see above, on 2, 24. 26. 3, 4. 6, 18.) His wife, literally, a woman, corresponding to a man, the only words in common use for wife and husband, a remarkable and perhaps a characteristic difference, distinguishing the Greek and French from the Latin and English idiom. The specific sense is here determined by the context. To put away, dismiss, or let go, a verb which has repeatedly occurred before in other applications (see above, on 6,36. 45. 8, 3. 9.) Tempt ing, i. e. trying him, putting him to the test. According to the Jewish traditions, it was even then a controverted question, between the schools of Hillel and Shammai, whether the obscure phrase in Deut. 24, 1, translated some uncleanness, but literally meaning nakedness of word (or thing), was to be taken in a moral sense as signifying lewd ness, or in the vague sense of something disagreeable. The latter doctrine (that of Hillel) is said to have been afterwards carried by the famous Rabbi Akiba so far as to allow a man to put away his wife on MARK 10, 2-5. 273 finding one who pleased him better. The question here proposed to Jesus was a trying one, because an affirmative answer might subject him to the charge of lax morality, and a negative one to that of disre spect for the authority of Moses. 3. And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you ? But he answering, responding promptly to their cunning and malig nant question ; for the notion that they merely asked for information, or from curiosity to know how the new and famous teacher would decide such points, is utterly at variance with the tenor of the history, in which we have already seen the traces of a systematic and pro gressive opposition, one of the marked gradations being found just here. Instead of entering into their vexed questions and minute distinctions, he appeals at once to the law and the testimony, and requires them to recite the provision made by Moses for such cases, not as settling the difficulty, but as presenting the true status qums- tionis, which was not what the Scribes taught or the Pharisees prac tised, but what Moses meant and God permitted. 4. And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put (her) away. In reply to this question they correctly state the substance of the law still extant in Deut. 24, 1-3. Suffered, a verb originally meaning to turn over upon, then to turn over to, commit, intrust, and lastly to permit, which is its usual sense in the Greek of the New Testament. A bill, book, or writing, of whatever size, the Greek word properly denoting the material (the inner bark of the papyrus), as the corre sponding Hebrew one (employed by Moses) does the act of writing, or the fact that it was written on. The meaning here is evidently that of a certificate or testimonial, either of the bare fact of repudiation, or of her having been repudiated for some lesser cause than conjugal infidelity. This last may seem at variance with the phrase used by Moses and already mentioned (see above, on v. 3), which is commonly understood to mean unchaste behaviour. But in that case the law inflicted severe punishment (Num. 5. 31), which would exclude the peaceable divorce provided for in Deuteronomy. 5. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart, he wrote you this precept. Having brought them back from their own subtle reasonings and nice distinctions to the letter of the law, he now interprets it, " as one having authority, and not as the scribes " (1, 22.) Of this interpre tation two views have been taken, each of which admits of being plausibly defended. The first is that Christ here represents this law 12* 274 MARK 10, 5-8. of Moses as a temporary relaxation of the original divine law of marriage, in concession to the obstinate resistance (or hardlieartedness) of the chosen people. This is perhaps the more obvious construction, as it seems to have prevailed so commonly. The objection to it is the very serious one that it represents the law of Moses as expressly war ranting what was wrong and offensive in the sight of God, and for the very reason that seems to call for stringent prohibition. (Compare the words of Paul in 1 Tim. 1, 9.) This difficulty is diminished, if not wholly done away, by explaining hardlieartedness, not of the general opposition of the people to the will of God, but of their harshness and unkindness to their wives when they divorced them, either as actually practised or as certainly foreseen at the giving of the law in question, which is therefore here described as given, not for but to (i. e. adapted to) the hardness of their hearts, and intended to restrain or mitigate its bad effects. The difference between the two interpretations is the difference between a law legitimating such divorces as the Jews had practised from the earliest times, and one requiring them in all such cases to provide the repudiated wife with a certificate of character. Wrote, in the literal sense, recorded, which implies a previous enact ment, or in the secondary sense, prescribed, enjoined, denoting the enactment itself. This precept, or particular command, as distinguished from the law or aggregate of all such precepts. 6. But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. According to the first view above given of our Saviour's meaning (in v. 5), this verse distinguishes the primary or original law of mar riage from its modification in the law of Moses. According to the other, it simply states the law of marriage as it was from the beginning and still remained unmodified and unrepealed. From the beginning of the creation, not in reference to the order ¦ of the creation itself, for that of man was last not first, but in reference to every thing of later date, from the beginning of the (world, i. c. its) creation. Or the same sense may be gained by limiting creation to the origin of man himself, from the beginning of the human race, or when man was created. God made them male and female, i. e. he created one pair, and united them in marriage, thereby excluding all polygamy, and at the same time giving this relation the precedence over every other, not except ing the parental and filial, as expressly stated in the next verse. 7. S. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh ; so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. These are the words of Adam as recorded in Gen. 2, 24, and are therefore not a precept but a prophecy or a statement of what would be the natural and necessary consequence of marriage, namely, that it MARK 10, 8-12. 275 would of course supersede the filial and all other previous relations. For this cause, not because God made them male and female, but referring to the context in Genesis, because Eve was taken out of Adam and was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, therefore (or for this cause) shall a man leave his father and mother, not as a necessary duty in all cases even of marriage, but as the natural and usual result, and shall cleave unto his wife, or be incorporated and identified with her, _ so that they are no more two but one flesh, not united merely in affection or in spirit, but in body or in the whole person. 9. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. Thus far our Lord might seem to have been arguing against poly gamy and not divorce ; but he now makes such an application of his previous statements as completely meets the present case by declaring it unlawful for man to separate (or violently sever) that which God himself has joined together. In other words, marriage being not a human but a divine institution, and coeval with the race itself, cannot be nullified or even modified by any authority inferior to that which first created it. 10. And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same (matter). In the house, or according to the latest text, into the house, a preg nant or elliptical construction, more distinctly suggestive of their previous entrance than the common reading. Again has reference to the previous question of the Pharisees (in v. 2.) The same (thing or matter), i. e. the lawfulness of divorce. This renewal of the question by his own disciples shows how much they were surprised by his absolute unqualified denunciation of a practice so familiar and so confidently founded on the law of Moses. 11. 12. And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adul tery against her ; and if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adul tery. He says to them, his disciples, what he had said before to his, opponents, but in terms still stronger because more explicit and direct. They are indeed so clear as neither to require nor admit of explana tion. They are also carefully repeated in relation to both sexes, though the Jewish law and usage recognized no right of divorce except upon the husband's side. Put away, therefore, in v. 12 must either be explained to mean desertion by the wife (compare 1 Cor. 7, 12. 13), which only differs from divorce in the absence of the legal 276 MARK 10, 12. 13. 14. form, or understood as a prospective regulation, not confined, in form or substance, to the Jewish practice. This absolute prohibition of divorce is still maintained in the Church of Rome, while the Protes tant and Oriental churches qualify it by the exceptions recorded in Matt. 19, 9. 1 Cor. 7, 15, which some consider as involved in Mark's account, because the violation of the marriage vow by either party is itself a dissolution of the marriage relation, which ought not to be regarded as still binding on the other. Even in Matthew, the case of fornication or adultery is mentioned rather as a matter of course, which every one would take for granted, than as a formal exception needing to be separately stated. 13. And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them ; and (his) disciples rebuked those that brought (them.) Tliey, indefinitely, some persons otherwise unknown, or more spe cifically, the parents or friends of the children (see above, on 8, 22). Young is not expressed in the original, unless it be by the diminutive form of the noun (¦naih'xa), which however is elsewhere rendered simply children (e. g. 7, 28. 9, 27.) The translation may have reference to the stronger term (xSpicprj) employed by Luke (18, 15), and correctly ren dered infants. The imposition of hands, a natural sign of transfer, and often used in miraculous healings to connect the source and object of the gift, is here employed to express the general idea of blessing. There is no need of supposing any superstitious notion of a magical efficacy in the touch, although such errors may have been indulged by some. It is probable, however, that the greater number, in making this re quest, had reference to the use of the same form in sacrifice and bene diction from the patriarchal times (Gen. 48, 14. Lev. 1, 4. 16, 21.) Re buked those bringing them, an explanation of the more ambiguous terms employed by Matthew (19, 13) and Luke (18, 15), which might seem to mean that they -rebuked the children themselves. This prohibition need not be ascribed to envy or moroseness on the part ofthe disciples, but was rather owing to a mistaken though sincere regard for their master's honour or convenience, and an officious sense of their own im portance as his friends and followers. 14. But when Jesus saw (it), he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the king-dom of God. But Jesus seeing it was much displeased, a verb which, according to its etymology, as commonly explained, denotes great pain of mind or body, but especially the former, and may here be considered as includ ing the ideas of grief and indignation (see below, on 14, 4, and compare Matt. 20 24. 26, 8. Luke 13, 14.) To them, the disciples, who had un- MARK 10, 14. 15. 16. 277 dertaken to exclude the children. Suffer, permit, strictly, let alone (see above, on 1, 34. 5, 19. 37. 7, 12. 27.) Little children, the same word that is rendered young children in the verse preceding. Forbid, by word or act, the Greek verb meaning to deter, hinder, or prevent in any way. Of such may either mean of children, or of those resembling children. Some, adhering to the strict sense of this word, and under standing the phrase kingdom of God as denoting heaven or a state of future blessedness, understand the clause as meaning that the most of those who shall be saved are children, because the greater portion of the human race dies in infancy, and all such are redeemed. But this sense is far from being either obvious or relevant in this connection, where the reference seems not so much to numbers as to character. Accordingly some understand the clause as meaning that the kingdom of God, or the enjoyment of his favour, here and hereafter, belongs to children (who believe) no less than to adult believers (see above, on 9, 42.) A third interpretation explains such as meaning such-like, those resembling them in character, i. e. in freedom from those sins of which children, though depraved by nature, are incapable from inexperience or from undeveloped intellect and passion, which the same interpreters suppose to be the meaning of our Lord in Matt. 18, 3. 4 (see above, on 9, 36. 42.) More satisfactory than any one of these hypotheses, because combining what is true in all of them, is Calvin's explanation of the sentence as referring both to children (i. e. to believing children) and to those who are like them in their childlike qualities, or as Paul expresses it, children not in understanding but in malice (1 Cor. 14, 20.) 15. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. This appears to have been one of our Lord's gnomes or maxims which he threw out upon different occasions, and which are therefore found in different connections in the history. This aphoristic character is indicated partly by the Amen (or Verily) I say to you, prefixed to it. Shall not (may not, does not) receive (i. e. accept, consent to enter or belong to) the kingdom of God, or the relation of subjects to God in Christ as their immediate sovereign, as a child, i. e. with the simplicity and docility natural to children, and with childlike freedom from am bition, avarice, and other sins peculiar to mature age. Shall (may or can) not enter into it (the kingdom before mentioned), and as a neces sary consequence, or rather an equivalent expression, cannot be saved. 16. And he took them up in his arms, put (his) hands upon them, and blessed them. And embracing them, or folding them in his arms, the same affec tionate gesture that is mentioned in 9, 36, and denoted by the same Greek word, though otherwise expressed in English. Putting the hands upon them, thereby showing that the request for him to do so 278 MARK 10, 16. 17.18. was not superstitious or absurd (see above, on v. 13.) Blessed tliem,'m the twofold sense of praying for them as a man, and of answering his own prayers as a divine person (see above, on 6, 41. 8, 7.) The appli cation of this passage to infant-baptism, although scornfully rejected as absurd by its opponents, is entirely legitimate, not as an argument, but as an illustration of the spirit of the Christian system with respect to children. Every reader must determine for himself whether those who sneer at "baby-sprinkling," and repudiate as folly the bare thought of a child's partaking of that sacrament, are more like the disciples who rebuked the children or their friends on this occasion, or like him who said, Forbid them not ! 17. And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And he travelling forth into the way, i. e. setting out afresh upon his journey, showing that this is a connected narrative, and not a series of detached incidents thrown together at random, or because of their mutual affinity, without regard to chronological order. Running up or to (him), as a sign of eagerness and haste. One, not the indefinite pronoun (hi) sometimes so translated, but the numeral adjective (els) properly so rendered, and here used emphatically to denote a single person, not forming part of the surrounding multitude, perhaps with some allusion to his rank, which was that of a ruler (Luke 18, 18.) Kneeling, as a token of profound respect and earnest supplication, probably sincere, as he is not accused of tempting Christ like the Phari sees (in v. 2), and what follows shows him to have been an honest though erroneous and self-righteous seeker after truth and life. Good master (i. e. teacher), what shall I do ? the question afterwards pro pounded by those who were converted on the day of .Pentecost (Acts 2, 31), but here materially qualified by what is added. That I may inherit, i. e. possess in my own right, eternal life, salvation, everlasting happiness. 18. And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good ? (there is) none good but one, (that is) God. The translators have here happily dispensed with their favourite expression, no man (see above, on 9, 35. 39), and thereby avoided a gross solecism, np man except God. The Greek word exactly corre sponds to no one, being compounded of the negative particle (oi) and the numeral (els), which occurs in the preceding verse and in the last clause of this. But a very important question here arises in rela tion to the meaning of our Saviour's language. The question (why callest thou me good ?) implies reproof, and by itself might seem to be a mere correction of the light and thoughtless way in which such MARK 10, 18. 19. 279 titles of respect are given. But this construction is precluded by. the other clause, which would in that case be entirely irrelevant if not un meaning. Some of the fathers, followed by many modern interpreters, explain it as an intimation of our Lord's divinity. Why call me good, unless you own me to be God, for none is good but God 1 But this would be not only an obscure and indirect mode of announcing that great truth, but quite irrelevant and unconnected with the previous context. It would also imply what is not true, to wit, that the epithet good, though absolutely applicable only to the Most High, may not, in a lower sense, be lawfully applied to others (as it is in Matt. 12, 35. 25, 21. Luke 23, 50. Acts 11, 24. Rom. 5, 7.) The only way in which these objections can be met is by supposing an allusion in the word good, twice employed by Christ himself, to the same word twice occur ring in the ruler's question, as preserved by Matthew (19, 16), Good master, what good shall I do ? The meaning of the answer then may be as follows : ' You ask what good you are to do, and come to me as a teacher of good, able to inform you ; but on that ground, why not go to God at once? He alone is absolutely good, and his will is the rule of good to all his creatures ; and that will is expressed in his com mandments,' which he then refers to more expressly in the next verse. The goodness of our Lord himself, and his divinity, are then not at all in question, and are consequently neither affirmed nor denied. 19. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false wit ness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother. Tlie commandments thou knowest, i. e. the written precepts which make up the law as the revealed will of God. This is a direct continua tion of the answer in the other verse, and is equivalent to saying, 'Why come to me as a teacher or revealer of good, to ask what you are to do, when God's commandments are already upon record for the very purpose V He then recites, hot all the ten commandments, but those belonging to the second table and prescribing the duty of man to man. Those of the first table, or the duties of man to God, are omitted, not, as some suppose, because included in the declaration that God alone is good, but because they would no,t furnish so decisive a test for self-examina tion, since a man may imagine that he fears and loves God, but he can not imagine that he loves his neighbour if he robs or murders him, or bears false witness against him. The order of the decalogue is disre garded either by Christ himself or the evangelist, as unimportant to his present purpose, the seventh commandment standing first, then the sixth, then the eighth, ninth, and tenth, and last of all the fifth, because, as some suppose, the ruler was deficient in this duty, but more prob ably, as others think, because it is a positive commandment and the others are all negative. Defraud not (or deprive not) is by some re garded as a separate citation from Lev. 19, 13, but is far more probably a summary abbreviation of the tenth commandment, which alone is 280 MARK 10, 20. 21. wanting to complete the second table, and is here immediately preceded by the eighth and ninth. 20. And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth. This is not to be regarded as a hypocritical profession, but an honest expression of the man's belief that he had actually kept the law, and wanted something more to do in order to inherit (or secure a rightful claim to) everlasting life or blessedness. This does not argue any dis position to deceive, but only an extremely superficial and inadequate conception of the meaning and extent of the divine law, as requiring perfect and perpetual obedience, and extending to the thoughts, dispo sitions, and affections, no less than the outward actions. Observed, literally, watched or guarded, which is the prim ary mailing of our English verb to keep, applied in the same manner. From my youth, a relative expression which, like that in 9, 21, proves nothing as to the precise age of the ruler, who is called a young man or a youth by Matthew (19, 22.) 21. Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest ; go thy way, sell what soever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come, take up the cross, and follow me. Then, literally, and or but (hi), beholding, looking at or on him. It has been much disputed what could be the object of the Saviour's love to this self-righteous ruler. Some say his sincerity and earnest wish to know his duty ; some his real rectitude and innocence of life, without which he could not have been so far deceived. Most probably, however, love, as in many other places, here denotes not moral appro bation, nor affection founded upon any thing belonging to the object, but a sovereign and gratuitous compassion, such as leads to every act of mercy upon God's part (compare John 3, 16. Gal. 2. 20. Eph. 2, 4. 1 John 4, 10. 19.) The sense will then be, not that Jesus loved him on account of what he said, or what he was, or what he did, but that having purposes of mercy towards him, he proceeded to unmask him to himself, and to show him how entirely groundless although probably sincere, was his claim to have habitually kept the law. The Saviour's love is then mentioned, not as the effect of what precedes, but as the ground or motive of what follows. One thing thou lackest, literally, one thing is behindhand (wanting or deficient) to thee. What this one thing is, he then informs him by the exhortation or command that follows. Go thy way (in modern English go away), i. e. at once, and do what I shall now enjoin upon thee. Thou shalt have treasure in heaven may seem out of place in this practical direction and severe re quisition ; but it is equivalent to saying, sell and distribute what thou MARK 10, 21. 281 hast, expecting no return or compensation in the present life, but only in the future ; so that instead of lessening it exaggerates the rigour of the requisition. Come, literally, hither (see above, on 4, 19), follow mc (become my follower or personal attendant), taking up the cross (of suffering and self-denial.) This has been misunderstood by thousands and for ages, as a general command to Christians, or an evangelical ad vice to such as wish to gain a supererogatory merit by doing more than the law requires, directing them to give up their possessions as the one thing necessary to perfection. This is the foundation of the vow of poverty common to almost all monastic institutions, and of the disposition to regard wealth as sinful which is sometimes found in other quarters.- This opinion, plausible as it may seem, and efficacious as it has been, really involves three fallacies, each fatal to its truth. The first is, that our Lord admits the fact that thisjnan had done all that was commanded, and proceeds to tell him one thing more required to make him perfect ; the second, that this one thing was the mere re nunciation of his property ; the third, that the requisition to renounce it was a universal one intended for all wishing to inherit everlasting life. The sacrifice required was not the one thing lacking, but the proof of it. The one thing lacking was not something to be superadded to the keeping of the law, but something the defect of which showed that he had not kept the law at all. It was willingness to give up all for God, when its possession became inconsistent with his service. Without this, the observance of the law was worthless, or rather it had no existence. The reserve or deficiency in this case had respect to the advantages of wealth, which this man perhaps honestly expected to combine, not only with the keeping of the law, but with the per formance of some extra-meritorious act which would secure to him the heritage or portion of eternal life. Instead of naming any such condi tion, Christ requires him to abandon what he knew to be his idol, and the man at once perceives the deficiency of his obedience. Had his ruling passion been the love of pleasure or of power, a corresponding test would have been chosen. Multitudes would give up wealth, if suf fered to retain some other object of supreme affection. Multitudes have actually done so, by monastic vows or otherwise, whose hearts were still enslaved by some other selfish unsubdued affection. In op position to the errors which have now been mentioned, three points may be stated : 1. Our Lord, far from conceding this man's claim to have kept the law all his life, here shows him that his boasted obe dience had been destitute of something which was absolutely necessary, not to its perfection merely, but to its having any worth at all. 2. In stead of stating this deficiency in general terms, as the want of that supreme devotion and entire submission to the will of God which will dispose men to abandon any thing for his sake, he simply and at once re quires him to abandon what he knew to be his idol, thus convincing him, not merely of a theoretical or doctrinal proposition, but of his own practical deficiency and destitution of the one thing needful to a full and meritorious obedience. 3. This requisition was a personal test, and not a general rule of duty, being applicable only where the object 282 MARK 10, 21. 22. of idolatrous attachment is the same, but taking other forms in refer ence to other objects. Here again we have a fine example of our Sav iour's paradoxical method of instruction, by presenting extreme cases and determining by what men are prepared to do in such cases, though they may never occur in actual experience, what they will do in others of a more ordinary and familiar nature. This effect would be destroyed by converting the extreme case into a constant universal rule, which is just as unreasonable as it would be to convert the proposition, that every true believer must be ready to endure the pains of martyrdom rather than deny Christ, into a, specific precept that every Christian must become a martyr, as an indispensable condition of salvation, or that by so doing any Christian may attain a supererogatory merit, even above that of obeying the divine law. It is one of the most strik ing facts in the history of the church, that this delusion as to martyr dom did really prevail in the age of persecution, and was followed by the other, as to voluntary poverty, in what may be described as the age of wealth and luxury. 22. And he was sad at that saj'ing, and went away grieved ; for he had great possessions. Whether the ruler fully understood the reasoning involved in our Lord's reply or not, he seems at least to have felt its application to himself, i. e. he felt that he could not do what Christ required, and could not therefore maintain his boast of perfect submission to the will of God. For though he may not have admitted the right of this (:good teacher " to exact of him so terrible a sacrifice, he must have felt that even if he had the right, his own heart was incapable of such obedience, So completely was he silenced by this consciousness, and by the fear ful probing which produced it, that he seems to have withdrawn with out attempting any self-defence or refutation of the Saviour's doctrine. And he, being (or becoming) sad, an expressive Greek term elsewhere applied to the gloomy aspect of a lowering day (Matt. 16, 3.) At (or for, on account of) the word (ov saying), i. e. what the Saviour had just said in answer to his own demand, and which he therefore could not decently complain of though unable to receive it. He went away grieved, because his proud (though earnest and sincere) hope of inherit ing eternal life was crushed by this most unexpected and impossible condition, for he had, literally was having, an expression foreign from our idiom but suggesting the idea of continued or habitual as well as actual possession. Though a young man (Matt. 19, 22), he was not a mere expectant but had come into possession of his property, which may perhaps throw light upon the form of his inquiry, how he could inherit everlasting life. Many possessions, may simply mean much property, or more specifically various kinds of wealth. Upon the fur ther history and final destiny of this young man the Scriptures, as in many other cases, drop the veil, and the question of his fate is left to the conjectures of interpreters, which vary with their tempers, or per haps from accidental causes. Calvin thinks it more probable that he MARK 10, 22. 23. 24. 283 continued as he was. The modern Germans lean the other way, as some of them have hopes, not only for Simon Magus, but for Judas Iscariot. The mere silence of the history proves nothing, as the Bible contains few biographical details that have not a historical or public interest. Even the patriarchs withdraw from view as soon as they cease to be actors in the scene, though long before the end of life. As Adam and Eve, the guilty source of our apostasy, are almost universally believed to have been saved, notwithstanding the silence of the sacred record, so the same presumption may be warrantably raised in other less conspicuous and noted cases. In the one before us, there is a positive though slight hint of a favourable issue, in the statement made by Mark alone, that Jesus loved him, which, as we have seen, most probably denotes that he had purposes of mercy towards him, and in this conclusion it is pleasing, since it is allowable, to rest. 23. And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly -shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God ! Looking round, a gesture elsewhere noted in this gospel (see above, on 3, 5. 34. 5, 32), here designed to call attention to the painful but salutary lesson taught by the example of the man who had just left them. How hardly, with what difficulty, i. e. in the face of what ob structions and impediments. The phrase has reference, not to the sufficiency of God's grace, which is equal in all cases because infinite, but to the hinderances with which the man himself must struggle, and which nothing but that grace can overcome. Those having riches, a Greek noun originally meaning what is used or needed, but commonly employed iu the plural (Acts 4, 37 is an exception) to denote property, and particularly money. (Compare funds and means in modern Eng lish.) This usage gives our Lord's words a wider application than if limited to those possessing wealth or riches, although these are no doubt especially intended, as peculiarly in danger. Into the kingdom of God shall enter, i. e. become his faithful subjects here, and enjoy his royal favour hereafter, all which is summed up in the usual expres sion, ' shall be saved.' 24. And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God ! Astonished, filled with consternation and amazement. But Jesus again answering, not merely saying, which is never the full meaning of this verb, but either continuing, resuming, saying further, or more strictly still, responding to their thoughts though not expressed in words. Children, an affectionate expression indicating an intention to relieve and comfort rather than alarm them. How hard, the adjective 284 MARK 10, 24. 25. 26. from which the adverb in v. 23 is formed and corresponding to it also in its sense as there explained. Those trusting in (relying on) posses sions, the word used in the preceding verse and there explained. This second exclamation, which has been preserved by Mark alone, was evi dently given to explain and qualify the one before it, by informing them that not the mere possession of the good things of this life, but overweening confidence in them, as sources or securities of happiness, would hinder men's salvation ; yet implying that as this false reliance is almost inseparable from the possession, the latter, although not necessarily, is almost invariably attended by the greatest moral and spiritual danger. 25. It is easier for a camel to go through tlie eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. That the qualifying comment in v. 24 was not intended to retract or cancel the original assertion in v. 23, but merely to explain it, or to state the principle which it involves, is now shown by its repetition in a still more emphatic and it might appear exaggerated form, if it were not so clearly a proverbial one. It is easier, more practicable, less laborious, the idea suggested by the derivation of the Greek word being that of good (or easy) labour. Eye, literally hole, puncture, perfora tion. The supposed extravagance of this comparison led to the early substitution of a Greek word differing from camel only in a single letter, and supposed to mean a rope or cable, or to the explanation of camel itself in this unusual sense. For the latter no authority whatever is adduced, and for the former only that of a Greek lexicographer and scholiast, who appears to have invented it for the express purpose of relieving an imaginary difficulty in the case before us. The device, however, does not answer the intended purpose, as a cable can no more pass through a needle's eye than a camel. As to the congruity of the comparison, that is a question of taste and usage, and we find in the Talmud the same similitude in the still stronger form of an elephant, the largest of known quadrupeds. Our Saviour also has the camel elsewhere, as a proverbial similitude for something great. (See Matt. 23, 34.) To the more plausible objection that it represents the salva tion of the rich as not merely difficult but impossible, the answer is that Christ intended so to represent it in the sense explained below (in 26. And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved ? This emphatic repetition of the startling proposition, in what seemed to be an exaggerated form, only served to increase the amaze ment of our Lord's disciples. And (or but) they were excessively aston ished, not the verb so rendered in v. 24, but that employed in 1, 22. 6, 2. 7, 37, and originally meaning struck or driven from their usual or nor- MARK 10, 26. 27. 285 mal state of mind by great surprise or wonder. This they expressed by saying to themselves, or with themselves, i. e. to one another, who then (literally, and who, which in Greek is an equivalent expression) can (is able to) be saved, i. e. attain to everlasting blessedness (see above, on v. 17. 24. 25.) This does not mean merely what rich man, which would be an unmeaning echo of our Lord's own words, but what mam, who of any class 1 The logical connection has been vari ously understood, but seems to be most naturally this, that if the rich, or the more highly favoured class, are thus impeded and endan gered by the very advantages which they enjoy, how can others be expected to attain salvation 1 Some of the best interpreters, however, deny any reference to the case of others as still worse than that of rich men, and understand the disciples as simply asking, who then can escape these fearful difficulties and obstructions'? This implies that they looked upon the peril not as a peculiar but a common one; either because they all expected to be rich and prosperous in Messiah's kingdom ; or because all except the very poorest have their worldly interests and goods, to hinder their salvation, in the same way, although not in the same measure ; or because they saw the principle involved to admit of a much wider application, just as the test to which the Saviour brought the rich young ruler might be modified to suit a thousand other cases besides that of an idolatrous regard to wealth or money. According to this view of the passage, the disci ples' question may be paraphrased as follows. 'If then, as we have just heard, property or wealth, with all its advantages both natural and moral, is attended by such snares as to make the salvation of its owners impossible without a miracle ; and if this is only one out of many situations and conditions, each of which has its own peculiar snares and stumbling-blocks, equally adverse to men's salvation ; how is this end to be attained at all in any case ? ' 27. And Jesus looking upon them, saith, With men (it is) impossible, but not with God ; for with God all things are possible. Looking upon (or at) them, to secure attention (as in v. 23), and perhaps at the same time to express a tender and affectionate regard to them, as he did by the use of the word children (in v. 24.) With men, with God, i. e. on man's part and on God's respectively, or so far as the question concerns man and God. Impossible, not merely diffi cult, which would have required a very different example or. similitude from that in v. 25, since the passage of a camel (or even of a cable) through the eye of a needle is not merely hard, or rather is not hard at all, the idea of difficulty being swallowed up in that of sheer impossi bility. The disciples understood this more correctly than some learned critics and interpreters, who try to explain our Lord's proverbial illus tration as denoting merely something very hard. The true solution is afforded, not by such extenuation of his language, but by his own restriction of its import in the words with men. His answer to the 286 MARK 10, 27. 28. 29. question, who then can be saved? is, 'No one, if salvation were depend ent upon human power ; neither rich nor poor would then be saved, any more than a needle can be threaded with a camel (or a cable) ; but of God's power there is no such limitation, for to him even such impossibilities are possible as the salvation of the chief of sinners, or of those whose circumstances seem to shut them out forever from his kingdom.' 28. Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. Then, literally, and, according to the common text, but the latest editors have neither. Began to say, not merely said, but said at once, immediately rejoined, perhaps implying also that he did not finish, but was interrupted by our Lord's reply. Lo, behold, see here, or look at this case. We, the disciples, and most probably the twelve, who were his constant personal attendants, here contrasted with the ruler and with others who preferred something to Christ's special service. Left, let go, abandoned, given up all (things), i. e. our worldly occupations and substance. This expression shows that Peter and Andrew, James and John, did not, as some think, still continue fishermen, any more than Matthew still remained a publican. Even John 21, 3. may and must be otherwise explained. Followed thee, not merely in a figura tive spiritual sense, but in the strict one of personal attendance. This is not to be understood as a mere boastful and self-righteous claim to some reward for their meritorious self-denial and devotion to their master, although something of this spirit may have mingled with the motives of the speaker and of those in whose behalf he spoke ; but, in part at least, as a solicitous in'quiry whether they could stand the test applied to the young ruler, whether they had proved their readiness to give up all, be it little or much, for their master's sake and service. 29. And Jesus answered and said, Verily, I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's — - And Jesus answering said, Verily (amen) I say to you, a common formula of solemn affirmation, suited both to fix attention and com mand belief. No man, no one, no person, nobody, without regard to difference of age or sex. Left, the same verb, with the same sense, as in v. 28. What follows is an enumeration of the ties most likely to be broken, and the interests most likely to be sacrificed, by those who personally followed Christ as his attendants and disciples. The latest critics put mother before father, and omit wife altogether', because not found in the Vatican and Cambridge copies. As the list is not exhaus-' tive but illustrative, and might be therefore closed with an etcetera, the omission or insertion of particular items can have no effect upon the meaning of the sentence. Lands, literally, fields, i. e. cultivated MARK 10, 29. 30. 287 grounds. For the sake (or on account) of me and (in the oldest copies with an emphatic repetition) for the sake cf the gospel, i. e. not only to attend me personally while on earth, which might be thought an object of ambition, but to spread the tidings of my wisdom and salva tion, even when separated from me. 30. But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions ; and in the world to come, eternal life. But he shall receive, or unless he receive, an idiom of peculiar form but unambiguous meaning, namely, that it will not be found true of any one that he -has thus forsaken all, without its being also true that he receives, &c. The two things will and must go together, and the one is just as certain as the other. An hundredfold is not an arithmetical formula, but a rhetorical and popular expression for a vast proportion (see above, on 4, 8. 20.) In this time, not merely in the present life, which would be otherwise expressed (as in 4,19), but at this critical juncture, the period immediately preceding the erection of his kingdom, during which the trials of his followers were greatest, and themselves least able to endure them. House and brethren, &c, i. e. full equivalents for such of these advantages as any one has sacrificed for my sake. The precise form of the compensation is not stated, be cause indefinitely various, approaching nearer in some cases than iu others to a literal restitution on a larger scale, as Bengel beautifully hints that Paul had many mothers, for he could say of Rufus (Rom. 16, 13), " his mother and mine." Whether wife in the preceding verse be genuine or not, no ancient copy has the plural wives in this verse ; nor is there any reason to believe that there was ever even this poor pre text for the sneer of Julian the Apostate, that believers had the promise of a hundred wives. With persecutions seems so much at variance with the tone of this encouraging assurance, that some writers have explained it to mean after persecution ; but although the Greek preposition is so used, it is only when followed by a different case. The true solution seems to be, that this clause is not an additional specifi cation of what Christ's followers should experience, but a reference to what had been implied or presupposed throughout the passage. The meaning then is, not that they shall have all these compensations or equivalents for what they have abandoned, and at the same time perse cutions ; but that with the persecutions which they must expect at all events, they shall have these gracious compensations and equivalents. In the world to come, or in the coming age (or dispensation), i. e. after the erection of Christ's kingdom, but without excluding heaven or a future state of blessedness. Life everlasting, i. e. a holy and happy state of being, as secured in time and enjoyed to all eternity. 31. But many (that are) first shall be last, and the last first. 288 MARK 10, 31. 32. But many shall be first last and last first, a proverbial expression which our Lord probably employed on various occasions, and the sense of which is clear notwithstanding its peculiar form as exhibited abovo in an exact translation. The essential meaning of the phrase, when ever used and however modified, is that of alternation and vicissitude, or revolution in the relative position of those to whom it is applied. In this place it would seem to be employed as a caution against trust ing to appearances or to the permanence of present circumstances and conditions. The exhilarating promise of abundant recompense to those who had forsaken all for Christ, was in danger of being misap plied to some whose self-denial and devotion were apparent only. Of such cases the familiar type to us is that of Judas, then perhaps still unsuspected by his brethren, but soon to be degraded by his own act from the first rank as not only a disciple but an apostle, charged with special functions in the apostolic body (John 12, 6. 13, 29), to the last and lowest rank as the betrayer and the murderer of his Lord and Master. But besides this unique case, there were no doubt multitudes of others, less flagitious and important, in which high profession and pretension was to be succeeded by a proportionally deep debasement, so that many who then seemed first would become last, and on the other hand, many of the most degraded and abandoned would become first, both in divine and human estimation. 32. And they were in the way, going up to Jerusalem ; and Jesus went before them, and they were amazed ; and as they followed, they were afraid. And he took again the twelve, and began to tell them what things should happen unto him, And they were in the way (or on the road) ascending to Jerusalem, i. e. they were still upon their journey when the following discourse was uttered. This is another intimation that we have before us a connected narrative (see above, on v. 17.) And Jesus was going be fore them (or leading them forward), which seems to imply some unusual activity or energy of movement, as if he was outstripping them, in token of his eagerness to reach the scene of suffering. This may throw some light upon the next clause, and they were amazed, or struck with awe, the same verb that is used above in v. 24, here denot ing probably some dark foreboding of the scenes which were before them in Jerusalem, a feeling which would naturally make them slow to follow in that dangerous direction, and dispose them to wonder at his own alacrity in rushing, as it were, upon destruction (John 11, 8.) And following they feared (or were alarmed), i. e. although they fol lowed him, it was not willingly, but with a painful apprehension of danger both to him and to themselves. There is something very striking in the picture here presented of the Saviour hastening to death, and the apostles scarcely venturing to follow him. This back wardness would not be diminished by his taking again the twelve, i. e. MARK 10, 32. 33. 34. 289 taking them aside from the others who accompanied him on his jour ney (see above, on 9, 2.) He began (anew what he had done more than once before) to tell them the (things) about to happen to him. This is commonly reckoned our Lord's third prediction of his passion to the twelve apostles (see above, on 8, 31. 9, 31) ; but including the less formal intimation in 9, 12, it may be counted as the fourth. 33. (Saying), Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of Man shall be delivered unto the chief priests, and unto the scribes ; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him to the Gentiles. Behold invites attention and prepares them for something strange and surprising, as the intimation of his death still was to them, al though so frequently repeated. We are ascending to Jerusalem, the form of expression always used in speaking of the Holy City, on account both of its physical and moral elevation. (Compare Luke 2, 42. John 2, 13. 5, 1. 7, 8. 10. 14. 11, 55. Acts 11, 2. 15, 2. 18, 22. 21, 4. 12. 15. 24, 11. 25, 1. 9. Gal. 2, 1. 2.) The prediction is the same as in' the former cases, but with a more distinct intimation that he was to suffer by judicial process, or by form of law. They (the Sanhedrim, the national council or representatives) shall condemn him to death, and deliver him to the Gentiles (literally, nations, meaning all nations but the Jews) for the execution of the sentence, all which was literally fulfilled, as we shall see below. 34. And they shall mock him, and shall scourge him, and shall spit upon him, and shall kill him ; and the third day he shall rise again. This verse describes the part to be taken by the Gentiles in the sufferings of Christ, every particular of which has its correspond ing facts in the subsequent narrative ; the mocking (see below, on 15, 16-20) ; the scourging (see below, on 15, 15) ; the spitting (see below, on 15, 19) ; the killing (see below, on 15, 25) ; and the rising (see be low, on 16, 6. 9.) Here again the terms of the prediction may appear to us too plain to be mistaken ; but, as we have seen already, the cor rect understanding does not depend upon the plainness of the lan guage, but upon the principle of interpretation. If they attached a mystical or figurative meaning to the terms, it mattered not how plain they might be in themselves or in their literal acceptation, which they probably supposed to be precluded by the certainty that he was. to reign and to possess a kingdom. (See above, on 9, 32.) 35. 36. And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou 6houldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And 13 290 MARK 10, 35-37. he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? How deeply rooted in the minds of the disciples was this notion of a secular and outward reign, Mark now shows by relating an extraor dinary movement on the part of two of them, among the first who had been called to be disciples and apostles (see above, on 1, 19.) He omits the circumstance preserved by Matthew (20, 20), that they offered this petition through their mother, or perhaps united with her in it. They begin, as if ashamed of their request, or conscious that it might be properfy refused, by desiring Christ to grant it without hear ing it. We would (or rather will), i. e. we wish, desire, that whatever we may ask thou do for us. The same unreasonable and circuitous form of application may be seen in Bathsheba's request to Solomon for Adonijah (1 Kings 2, 20.) But instead of promising beforehand like Solomon and Herod (see above on 6, 23) to grant the request, whatever it might be, our Lord, though perfectly aware of it, requires it to be plainly stated, not for his own information, but for their con viction and reproof. (See above, on 5, 30-33.) What would ye that I should, or more simply and exactly, what do ye wish (ov desire) me to do for you ? 37. They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory. On thy right hand, on thy left hand, literally, from thy rights, from thy lefts, i. e. the parts or places on thy right and left, the Greek idiom employing from where we say on or at, in speaking of direction or .relative position. The two places here described are those of honour everywhere, not only in the east or in ancient times, but at any public dinner no less than in royal courts. The desire to be near him was not wrong in itself, but only as involving an unwillingness that others should enjoy the same advantage. This desire may have been nurtured by the honour which he had already put upon these two with Peter, and by the place which John appears to have occupied at table next to Christ, and therefore leaning or reclining on his bosom (see above on 5, 37. 9, 2, and compare John 13, 23.) The expression of it may have been called forth at this time by the recent promise that in the regeneration or reorganization of the church, the twelve should sit upon as many thrones judging the tribes of Israel (Matt. 19, 28. Luke 22, 30.) Re ferring to this promise, they seem here to ask that they may fill the nearest seats to that of Christ himself. In thy glory, not that of his second advent or his reign in heaven, but of his regal state or mani fested royalty on earth, which they no doubt believed to be immedi ately at hand. 38. But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye MARK 10, 38. 39. 291 ask : can ye drink of the cup that I drink of, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with ? Ye know not what ye ask, i. e. you think that you are asking only »or honour and distinction, when in fact you are asking for distress and suffering, as that which must necessarily precede it, and in which those nearest to me must expect to be the largest sharers. Can ye (are ye able to) drink the cup (not of the cup, which weakens the expres sion, but the very cup or draught) which I drink (of or from is a partitive expression, not in the original.) This is the more important as the cup itself is a scriptural figure for one's providential portion or the lot assigned to him by God, whether this be good or evil (see below, on 14, 36, and compare Ps. 11, 6. 16, 5. Isai. 51, 17. Jer. 25, 15. Ez. 23, 31.) The same thought is then clothed in another figure, that of baptism or purifying washing (see above, on 7, 4. 8.) . (Can ye, are ye able, i. e. have ye fortitude and power of endurance) to be baptized, i. e. Uathed, but with specific reference to the ceremonial washings of the law, (with) the baptism wherewith I am baptized. The original derives inimitable strength and beauty from the simple collocation (wherewith I am baptized to be baptized), and especially from the juxtaposition of these two forms of the same verb (ftaisrL^o- pai (Sairrio-Sf/Kai.) 39. And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Te shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of, and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized. It is certainly creditable both to the fidelity and courage of these two disciples, that they do not shrink from this demand, or seek to be exempted from participation in the sufferings of their master, though they may have had obscure and confused notions as to what those suf ferings were. It is not impossible that they expected to be under the necessity of fighting for the cause which they espoused, a prospect not necessarily appalling to these Sons of Thunder, however shocking to the modern sentimental and effeminate idea of the " gentle John." We can, we are able, is a resolute and brave but rash self-confident assur ance, showing plainly that they had no sense of their own weakness, or correct idea of the dangers which awaited them. Their Lord how ever takes them at their word, and promises that so far and in this sense they shall hold a high place and one near himself by sharing in his sufferings. This prediction was fulfilled in both the brothers, but in a very different manner. James was the first apostolical martyr (Acts 12, 2) ; Tohn was the last survivor of the twelve, making up, as has been well said, by the variety and length of his distresses, for the absence of the bloody crown. Even admitting that the legend of the poison and the boiling oil has no historical foundation, it is still true that John, as well as James, pre-eminently shared his master's cup and baptism. 292 MARK 10, 40. 41. 42. 40. But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand, is not mine to give ; but (it shall be given to them) for whom it is prepared. This verse has been the subject of dispute for ages, some employing it to disprove the divinity of Christ because irreconcilable with his omniscience. Others, granting that he here disclaims the power in question, understand it merely of his present errand or commission, into which the distribution of rewards and honours did not enter. A third very ancient and most usual interpretation takes but in the sense of unless or except, and understands the sentence merely as determin ing the objects. The construction thus assumed, though not sustained by general usage, is sufficiently sanctioned by comparing Matt. 17, 8 with Mark 9, 8. The real difficulty in the way of this interpretation is, that it assigns no reason for our Lord's denial of their prayer, which all the explanations take for granted. But what if it was not refused, but only veiled, in order to divert their attention from the honours to the hardships of his service ? What if they were indeed to be pre eminent, not only as partakers of his sufferings, but also of his glory, yet were not to be immediately apprised of this distinction ? How could this have been more wisely represented than it is in this verse 1 ' Yes, you shall be near me and like me in my sufferings, and as to what you are to be besides, leave that to me ; the whole thing is arranged and set tled, and I neither will nor can disturb it. What you ask is to he given to those for whom the Father has prepared it (Matt. 20, 23), and I would not if I could bestow it upon others.' 41. And when the ten heard (it), they began to be much displeased with James and John. When the ten heard it seems to mean when they afterwards heard of it ; but the strict sense of the Greek words is, the ten hearing, i. e. at the time, being present at the whole transaction. Began, but did not long continue, their displeasure being soon allayed by their mas ter's wise and gracious interference. To be much displeased, or grieved and indignant, the same verb that is used above in v. 14 and there ex plained. With, literally, about, concerning, i. e. on account of the re quest which they had made. 42. But Jesus called them (to him), and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise lordship over them ; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. Calling to them, or calling them lo (him), as they were quarrelling among themselves. (For the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 3,13.23. 6,7. 7,14. 8,1.34.) Those appearing (or supposed by them selves and others) to rule the nations, literally, to take the lead or be MARK 10, 42-45. 293 the first among them. (See above, on 3, 22, where the participle of the same verb means a prince or ruler, and compare Luke 18, 18, where it is applied .to the rich man mentioned in vs. 17-22 of this chapter.) Accounted to rule is understood by some as referring to the unsubstan tial nature of all human principalities and powers. But as the tyranny ascribed to them is any thing but unsubstantial, others with more probability explain the phrase as simply meaning, those who are re cognized as chiefs and generally known to be so. Lord it over them, oppress them, a verb elsewhere rendered overcome (Acts 19, 16) and being lords over (1 Pet. 5, 3), and even in the parallel part of Matthew (20, 25) exercise dominion, a variation altogether arbitrary, as the mean ing is identical in all these cases. Great ones, grandees, a synonymous expression added to complete the description by combining greatness with priority of rank and power. Exercise authority, a similar parallel to the verb in the first clause, both resembling one another, not in meaning only but in form, being compounded with the same preposi tion ((card) which is either an intensive significant of downward motion or oppression from above, as if he had said, exercising power down upon their subjects. The essential idea here expressed is, that in worldly governments superiority of rank -can only be maintained by force and by coercing or restraining those below. Gentiles in this verse should be nations, there being no allusion to religious differences, unless he be understood as intimating that the theocracy was necessarily ex clusive of all tyranny in theory if not in practice. 43. 44. But so shall it not be among you ; but whoso ever will be great among you, shall be your minister, and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be ser vant of all. Not so, however, shall it be (or according to the latest critics, is it) among you, literally, in you, i. e. in my kingdom, of which you are to be ministers and rulers. In opposition to this secular or worldly domi nation, he repeats the maxim uttered on a previous occasion (see above, on 9, 35), but in a fuller and a more expanded form. Whoever wishes (or desires) to become great (or pre-eminent in dignity) among you, shall be your servant (or attendant), the word afterwards used in the official sense of minister and deacon. In v. 44, he uses a still stronger term for servant, to wit, that which strictly means a slave. For the twofold application of the words, as a promise and a threaten ing, see above, on 9, 35. 45. For even the Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. They had no right to regard this as a hard saying, for their master's precept was enforced by his example. Even the Son of Man, the Mes siah in his humiliation, came not, did not come into the world, to be ministered unto, waited upon, personally served by others, but to minister to serve or wait on others. This was true as to the whole 294 MARK 10. 45. 46. course of his public life, but most emphatically true of the great sacri fice which was to end it, and of which he had as yet said little, though it was the great end of his mission and his incarnation, to give his life, or soul, i. e. himself, his person, as a ransom, that by which one is set free, and more especially, the price paid to redeem (buy back again) a slave or captive out of bondage. This was the purchase which the Son of Man had come to make by the payment of himself, his very soul or life, as a satisfaction to the divine justice. For, not merely for the bene fit, but in the place of, as their substitute, the only meaning which the particle here used will bear in this connection. Many, distinguished both from one and all, and here applied to true believers, or the elect of God, for whom Christ came to suffer. This great doctrine, so abun dantly taught elsewhere, is incidentally used here to show the great ness of the Saviour's condescension and self-sacrificing love as mani fested to his enemies, and thus affording a constraining motive for an infinitely less degree of self-denial on the part of his followers to wards one another. 46. And they came to Jericho; and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples, and a great number of people, blind Bartimeus, the son of Timeus, sat by the highway side begging. And they come to Jericho, pursuing the same journey which has been the subject of the narrative since the beginning of this chapter. Having passed through Perea, i. e. east of Jordan, till he reached the latitude of Jerusalem, he now turned westward, crossing the river, and stopping at Jericho, the first important station on the great road to the Holy City. This ancient town, situated five miles west of Jordan and twenty east of Jerusalem, was destroyed in the conquest of Canaan un der Joshua (6, 26), but afterwards rebuilt (1 Kings 16, 34), and men tioned in the history of Elijah and Elisha (2 Kings 2, 5. 15.) It was famous for its palm-trees (Deut. 34, 3) and its balsam, a most profit able article of trade. The city is described by Josephus as in his day populous and flourishing, but now exists only as a wretched hamlet still called Riha, a slight modification of the Hebrew name. And he ..going (setting out, journeying) from Jericho, either on his way to Jeru- . "salem, or on some excursion to the neighbourhood. And his disciples, i. e. the apostles, perhaps with others who habitually followed him. And a great crowd, literally, crowd enough, an idiom not unlike the use of the French assez before adjectives denoting quantity or number. This crowd was probably composed of people going up to keep the pass- over, and had been swollen by continual accessions from the towns and neighbourhoods through which they passed. The son of Timeus stands first in the original though not in the translation. Timeus is a common name in Greek, but is usually here regarded as an Aramaic one. Bar timeus is the same name with the Aramaic word for son prefixed, a very common form in that age, as appears from the occurrence of so many instances in the New Testament (Bartholomew, Barabbas, Bar- MARK 10, 46-49. 295 jonas, Barjesus, Barnabas, Barsabas, &c.) Blind Bartimeus, or more exactly, Bartimeus the blind, implying that he was a well-known character at Jericho, which may account for his being named exclu sively by Mark (compare Luke 18, 35), while Matthew (20, 30) in forms us that there was another (see above, on 5,2.) By the way, along the road, most probably that leading to Jerusalem. 47. And when he neard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to cry out, and say, Jesus, (thou) son of David, have mercy on me. It was Jesus of Nazareth, literally, Jesus the Nazarene is (the one passing by.) This was the familiar and indeed contemptuous appellation by which our Lord was generally known, and in the use of which Matthew (2, 23) represents the prophecies of his humiliation as fulfilled (see above, on 1, 24.) He began, immediately, as soon as he had heard this, and continued so to do until he gained his end. To cry and say, i. e. to say aloud or with a loud voice. Son of David, his descendant and successor on the throne of Israel, a remarkable acknowledgment of his Messiahship (see below, on 12, 35), preserved in all the three ac counts, and strikingly contrasted with the other designation in the first clause. ' Tou call him familiarly, if not disrespectfully, the Nazarene, but I address him as the son of David.' Have mercy on me, an acknowledgment of misery, unworthiness, and helplessness, as well as of strong confidence in Christ's ability and willingness to help him. 48. And many charged him that he should hold his peace ; but he cried the more a great deal, (Thou) son of David, have mercy on me. Charged him, the verb rendered rebuked in v. 13 and often elso- where (1, 25. 4, 39. 8, 32. 33. 9, 25), but here (as in 3, 12. 8, 30) mean ing to command in a threatening or reproving manner. Hold his peace, be silent, or say nothing (see above, on 3, 4. 4, 39. 9, 34.) There is no need of supposing a malignant motive for this interference, which was evidently prompted by a natural desire to prevent disturbance, and pre serve the Prophet from annoyance, even the highest private interests, in all such cases, being looked upon as unimportant. The more a great deal, literally, much more, i. e. than he did at first, thus showing both the strength of his desire for healing and of his faith in Christ's ability to grant it. 49. And Jesus stood still, and commanded him to be called ; and they call the blind man, saying unto him, Be of good comfort, rise, he calleth thee. Stood still, literally, standing, stopping, as he journeyed, at the sound of that importunate petition, and perhaps of the reproofs and 296 MARK 10, 49-52. threats which mingled with it. Commanded him to be called, or, ac cording to the latest critics, said, Call him ! This was a virtual re proof of the reprovers, as it ordered them, instead of keeping him away, to bring him into Jesus' presence. In obedience to this command, they call him, i. e. no doubt the same persons who had tried to silence him, a change of tone so natural and common in such cases that it is not necessary, if it is admissible, to put these words into the mouth of other speakers. Be of good comfort, cheer up, or take courage, the verb used above in 0, 50, and there explained. He calls thee, summons thee,.re- quires thee to approach him. This is evidently spoken of as something strange and unexpected to themselves, if not to Bartimeus. 50. And he, casting away his garment, rose and came to Jesus. His garment, upper garment, cloak or mantle (see above, on 2, 21. 5. 27. 6, 56. 9, 3), thrown aside to facilitate his motions at the risk per haps of losing it. Rising, standing up, from his seat at the wayside (see above on v. 46.) 51. And Jesus answered and said unto him, What wilt thou that I should do unto thee ? The blind man said unto him, Lord, that I might receive my sight. . Answering, responding to the reiterated prayer for mercy which noth ing had been able to suppress, and which therefore seemed to indicate a more than usual intensity of faith as well as of desire. What wilt thou (dost thou wish, desire) I shall do to thee, ovfor thee, i. e. for thy benefit or service. Lord, in the original, Rabboni or Rabbouni, the identical Aramaic word which Bartimeus uttered, and which Mark, as in several like cases, has preserved to us, perhaps enabled so to do by Peter's vivid recollections (see above, on 5, 41. 7, 11. 34.) That Imay see again, one of the original meanings of the Greek verb which is some times no less correctly rendered look up (see above, on 6, 41. 7, 34. 8, 24. 25.) 52. And Jesus said unto him, Go thy way ; thy faith hath made thee whole. And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way. Go thy way, go away, depart, begone, implying that his prayer was already granted, and his further presence no more needed. Thy faith liath saved thee, both from bodily and spiritual blindness (see above, on 2, 9.) Immediately, without delay or preparation as occasion ally practised (see above, on 1, 31. 2, 5. 3, 3. 5, 8. 7, 27. 33. 8, 23. 9, 21), he looked up, or saw again, received his sight. But instead of obeying the command or accepting the permission to go home or else- MARK 11, 1. 297 where, he followed him (or according to the common text, Jesus) in the way, i. e. upon his journey, forming part of the great multitude which accompanied his public entrance to the Holy City as recorded in the following chapter. CHAPTER XI. Having finished his account of Christ's long journey to Jerusalem, Mark, passing over some particulars preserved by Luke and John, re lates his joyful recognition by the multitude as the Messiah, and his public entrance as such into the Holy City (1-11.) On his private entrance the next day with his disciples, he pronounces a symbolical judgment on a barren fig-tree, as a type or representative of unbelieving Israel (12-14.) In the exercise of his official powers he expells ali traders from the sacred enclosure of the temple, thereby leading to a new combination of his enemies (15-19.) Returning the next day from Bethany, where all his nights were spent at this time, they observe the fig-tree to be already blasted, which occasions a discourse upon the faith of miracles (20-26.) On his arrival at the temple he is met by a demand from the authorities to show his right to act as he was doing and the source of his alleged commission, which he answers by refer ring them to John the Baptist, who had foretold his appearance and vouched for his divine legation (27-33.) The new features which dis tinguish this part of the history, besides the change of scene from the villages of Galilee and Perea to the streets and temple of Jerusalem, are Christ's avowal of his Messianic claims, and his assertion of them by official acts, and in reply to the objections of the national authori ties. The consecution or coherence of the narrative is proved not only by the mutual connection of its parts but also by the exact concurrence of one, two, or all the other gospels, both as to the substance and the order of the topics. 1. And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he send eth forth two of his disciples. As he draws near to Jerusalem, our Lord prepares for his public entrance there as the Messiah. When they approach (or are near) to (literally into, perhaps up to, as far as) Jerusalem, to (the same par ticle, as far as) Bethphage and Bethany, two villages east of Jerusalem, and probably very near together. They are here named to designate the neighbourhood. The names are supposed to mean house (ov place) of figs and dates respectively. Bethany is elsewhere mentioned (John 11, 1) as the residence of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, from whom it 13* 298 MARK 11, 1. 2. 3. derives its present name. It was fifteen furlongs from the city. Beth- phage has wholly disappeared. At, close to (as on 1, 33. 2, 2. 4, 1. 5, 11. 22. 6, 3. 7, 25. 9, 10), the Mount of Olives, the high ridge east of Jerusalem and separated from it by the valley of Kedron (John 18, 1.) The present tense throughout this passage represents the scene as actually passing. Sendeth forth, or away, i. e. away from him and from the other disciples. 2. And saith unto them, Go your way into the village over against you, and as soon as ye be entered into it, ye shall find a colt tied, whereon never man sat ; loose him, and bring (him.) Go your way, i. e. go away, or simplv go, there being but one word in the original. ( See above, on 1, 44. 2,' 11. 7,29. 10,21.52.) Over agaihst, opposite, immediately before you. This is commonly supposed to be one of tbe two villages just mentioned, probably the first, as we know from John (12. 1. 12) that Christ set out from Bethany on this occasion. Immediately entering you will find a colt tied, on which no one of men has sat, a circumstance required in certain animals em ployed in religious uses. (Compare Deut. 21. 3. 1 Sam. 6, 7.) Loos ing (or untying) bring him. 3. And if any man say unto you, Why do ye this ? say ye that the Lord hath need of him ; and straightway he will send him hither. Our Lord anticipates the question which would necessarily occur to the disciples, namely, what they were to do if, as they must expect, objection should be made to their proceedings. If any man (i. e. any person, any body, any one) should ask them what they were doing, or why they did it, they were simply to reply that the Lord had need of it (the colt), and immediately he sends it here (or hither), the present tense denoting the result, because so certain, as already taking place. The Lord is understood by some in its highest sense as a divine name, the New Testament equivalent to Jehovah (see above, on 1, 3. 5, 19); by others in its lowest sense, as simply meaning our Lord or Master, without claiming for him any higher honours. In reality, and therefore in our Lord's intention, the two meanings are coincident, though not identical ; but how the owner of the colt would understand the title is another question. If we assume that he was a mere stranger, and that his consent was secured by an immediate divine influence, it seems most probable that he would understand the Lord as equivalent to God, in whose name the demand was made. But if we suppose with some that he was an acquaintance, or still further, that a previous arrange ment had been made with him, the Lord will rather be a personal description of our Saviour as the well-known teacher, whose disciples were the bearers of the message. Even on this latter supposition, MARK 11, 3. 4. 5. 299 nowever, which has no foundation in the text or context, there is evi dence of superhuman foresight in our Lord's exact description of the incidents as they occurred. 4. And they went their way, and found the colt tied by the door without, in a place where two ways met, and they loose him. While the parallel accounts simply state that the disciples went and did (Matt. 21, 6) and found (Luke 19, 32), as he had told them, Mark describes particularly where they found the colt tied, namely, by the door without, i. c. just outside of the house and at the very door, no doubt that of its proprietor, who had probably just used or was about to use it. But Mark describes the spot still more precisely, as being on the way round, i. e. probably the road which wound around the village, though the Greek word is applied in the classics to the streets of towns, which in ancient times, and in the east especially, were seldom straight. But as this was an inconsiderable hamlet, of which no trace now remains, and which had probably but one street, it seems better to explain the term, which occurs only here in the New Testament, according to its etymology, as meaning the highway upon which the village stood, and by which it was wholly or partially, sur rounded. A place where two ways met is a paraphrase, not of the origi nal (dps), peculiar to the later Greek. Jesus comr manded, as recorded in v. 3, of which the very words are repeated here by Luke (19, 34.) Let them go, or let them alone, allowed them to do what they were doing, the verb so often rendered let or suffer (as in 1, 34. -5, 19. 7, 12. 27. 10, 14), sometimes forgive (as in 2, 5. 9. 10. 3, 28. 4, 12, and in v. 25. 26 below), and sometimes leave or forsake (as in 1, 18. 20. 31. 8, 13. 10, 28. 29.) The verb go is not expressed in Greek, unless it be taken as a part of the inseparable phrase to let go. 7. And they brought the colt to Jesus, and cast their garments on him, and he sat upon him. Omitting the circumstance, which Matthew, with his usual accuracy as to numbers (see above, 5, 2. 10, 35. 46) states distinctly, to wit, that the mother of the colt went with it (Matt. 21. 7), Mark and Luke (19. 35) speak only of the colt itself, as the animal for which Jesus sent, and upon which he was to ride. Cast their garments, i. e. their loose outer garments, cloaks or mantles (see above, on 5, 28. 30. 6, 56. 9, 3. 10, 50) on him (or it, i. e. upon the colt), as a saddle or a cushion. If the subject of the sentence is the same as in the first clause, this must be regarded as the act of the two disciples. He sat upon him, i. e. on the colt or young ass. Jlark and Luke omit or take for granted what is stated expressly both by John (12, 14. 15) and Matthew (21, 4. 5), that this was in fulfilment of a prophecy of Zechariah (9, 9), which describes the King of Zion as coming to her mounted on an ass and a colt the foal of an ass, two parallel descriptions of the same thing. According to the ancient oriental custom, the ass and the mule were used by persons of the highest rank for ordinary riding and on state occa sions (see Gen. 22, 3. Num. 22, 30. Josh. 15, 18. 1 Sam. 25, 23. 2 Sam. 13, 29. 18, 9. 1 Kings 1, 33. 38. 44), while the horse mentioned in the scriptures is invariably the war-horse (see Ex. 15, 21. Judg. 5,22. Ps. 33, 17. 76, 6. 147, 10. Prov. 21, 31. Jer. 8, 6. Zech. 10, 3.) By describ ing the Messiah therefore as thus mounted, Zechariah represents him as a peaceful king ; and by actually thus appearing, Christ appropriates the passage to himself and claims to be the peaceful sovereign there de scribed. This obvious reference to a well-known prophecy, which any Jew would instantly detect and understand, removes a portion of those ludicrous associations, which are commonly connected with the animal here mentioned, an effect which is completed by the well-known fact, suggested by the royal usage just referred to, that the oriental ass is a ¦ess ignoble beast than the one which bears the same name elsewhere. 8. And many spread their garments in the way ; and MARK 11, 8. 9. 301 others cut down branches of£ the trees, and strewed (them) in the way. » Responding to this claim, expressed in act though not in word, the people recognize our Lord as the Messiah, spreading their (outer) gar ments in (or on) the road, an ancient practice at the proclamation of new sovereigns. (Compare 2 Kings 9, 13.) While some thus did him homage, others signified the same thing in a still more striking and impressive manner, by cutting thick boughs from the trees and spreading them before him, so as to form a kind of bed or carpet over which he rode. The Greek word translated branches is not the one commonly employed in that sense and here used by Matthew (21, 8), but according to the common text a form not used in classic Greek (o-Toxt3aSas) nor found in several of the oldest manuscripts (B. D. E. G.), on whose au thority the latest critics have expunged one letter, so as to produce a form (o-rtfia&as) familiar to the best Greek writers, and denoting beds or mattresses made of rushes, leaves, or twigs. As here applied it does not mean the boughs or branches, as such, but the kind of bed or cushion which they formed when spread upon the ground, thus answer ing the same purpose with the garments before mentioned. This accounts for the two acts being carefully assigned to different parties, those who could not or would not use their clothes in this way substi tuting branches from the trees, or according to another reading, from the fields, into which they are then described as going from the high way, to procure materials for this strange but interesting ceremonial. 9. And they that went before and they that followed cried, saying, Hosanna! blessed (is) he that cometh in the name of the Lord. Thus far the proclamation of the new king and his public recogni tion had been only by significant actions upon his part and that of his attendants. But now it was to break forth into language, in a sort of alternate or responsive chorus, uttered in succession by the crowd which went before and that which followed Jesus, the distinct mention of which, both by Mark and Matthew (21, 9), was probably intended to suggest some such antiphony, the rather as it seems to'have been prac tised in the Jewish worship and particularly in the chanting of the Psalms from which the particular passage sung on this occasion was selected, being still found in Ps. 118, 25. 26. Hosanna is a Greek modification or corruption of a Hebrew phrase occurring in that passage and strictly meaning save now (or we pray thee), but here used as a joyful acclamation or acknowledgment that the salvation so long promised was now come. It is no fortuitous coincidence, that this same Hebrew verb is the etymon or root of the name Jesus, borne by him who came to save his people from their sins (Matt. 1,21.) Blessed, i. e. praised, exalted, with divine and royal honours. The (one) coming, or the com ing (one), a beautiful description of the great deliverer so long ex 302 MARK 11, 9. 10. 11. pected, and to whom this psalm is obviously applicable, either directly as its proper theme, or indirectly as the person typified and repre sented by the ancient temple, the restoration of which after the return from Babylon this psalm, according to some eminent interpreters, was originally meant to celebrate. According to the present Jewish prac tice and tradition, it also formed part of the series of psalms sung at the passover, which makes it still more seasonable here, as the multitude who sang it were composed, at least in part, of strangers who had come up to observe that festival (see above, on 10, 1. 46.) 10. Blessed (be) the kingdom of our father David, that cometh in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest ! To this ancient and inspired theme the people add a variation of their own, or possibly one furnished by the liturgical forms which had been gradually coming into use for ages, and though no more authori tative than the other traditions of the elders, often, as in this case. perfectly accordant with the form and spirit of the divine patterns upon which they had been modelled. The latest critics omit the repe tition of the words, in the name of the Lord, reading, blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David, who is so named as the founder of the theocratic monarchy, and the most conspicuous representative of the Messiah's royalty. Hosanna in the highest has been variously understood as meaning in the highest strains, or in the highest places, i. e. heaven, which again may either be a call upon the heavenly host to join in these exulting acclamations, or a direct ascription of the sav ing influences rejoiced in to the highest source, i. e. to God himself. 11. And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple ; and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the even-tide was come, he went out unto Bethany, with the twelve. Omitting some particulars of this triumphal entrance, which have been preserved by Luke (19, 39-44) and John (12, 16-19) but did not fall within the scope of his own narrative, Mark hastens to record his arrival at the city and the temple, here denoted by a Greek word meaning sacred, and applied to the whole enclosure with its courts and buildings, as distinguished from the sacred edifice or temple, properly so called, and designated by a different word (the one employed below in 14, 58. 15, 29. 38.) And having looked around, surveyed the temple, not from idle curiosity, nor as a means of gaining information, but as a tacit assertion of his own authority, an act by which he took posses sion, as it were, of his Father's house and claimed dominion over it, an attitude maintained by him throughout this final visit to the Holy City. Eventide (an old English word for evening-time) already being the hour, i. e. the time of day being late or far advanced towards eve- MARK 11, M. 12. 13. 303 ning. This may seem to designate the time of his arrival ; but the usage of the Greek word for already- rather connects it with the time of his departure, as expressed correctly although not precisely in the common version. He went out (from the city and the temple) to (or into) Bethany, the village mentioned in the first verse of this chapter, where he lodged or spent the nights of this last visit, no doubt at the house of Lazarus or that of Simon (see below, on v. 19, and compare Luke 21, 37. 38.) With the twelve, now in constant attendance on him, until the desertion of Judas (see below, on 14, 10) and the subsequent dispersion of the rest (see below, on 14, 50.) 12. And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry. Mark appears to have recorded the occurrences of this week with remarkable precision, while Matthew, as in many other cases, some times puts together things which are akin, with less regard to chrono logical order than to mutual affinity (see below, on v. 14.) On the morrow (or the next day, i. e. after his triumphal entrance) they com ing out from Bethany (or having set out from that village to Jerusa lem) he hungered (or was hungry), having probably partaken of no food that morning, either because they set out very early, or because the hunger was to bear a part in the following symbolical instruction. That this was a simulated hunger, is not only an unworthy and irrev erent but a perfectly gratuitous assumption, as our Lord, by his incar nation, shared in all the innocent infirmities of human nature. It should also be observed, that though the hunger of our Lord alone is mentioned, it necessarily implies that of his followers, who would thereby be prepared to feel their disappointment the more sensibly, and better to appreciate the great truth symbolized by these familiar inci dents, to wit, the failure of the chosen race to answer the great end for which they had been set apart, and as it were to meet the divine ex pectations (compare Isai. 5, 1-4.) 13. And seeing a fig-tree afar off, having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon ; and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for the time of figs was not (yet). Afar off, or rather from afar, the expression having reference not so much to the position of the tree as to the point of observation. Having leaves, which in the fig-tree are said to be developed later than the fruit, and therefore presuppose it. Cam.e if, an elliptical but per fectly intelligible phrase, meaning, came to see or to determine, not for his own information but for that of his disciples. Haply, perhaps, in Greek a particle denoting mere contingency or doubt as to the issue not in his mind, but to the view of others. And coming to it, literally, 304 MARS 11, 13. 14. distance. For it was not the time (or season) of figs, and therefore the developement of leaves was premature and unnatural, affording promise of what was not to be realized. This simple explanation, given by Mark himself, does away with the necessity of all discussion, as to the different periods at which figs ripen, or the possibility of some remain ing on the tree all winter. The fact, as Mark records it more distinctly, but in perfect consistency with Matthew (21, 19), is that a solitary fig- tree by the wayside had out of season put forth leaves without fruit, and our Lord selects this premature and barren germination as a type or emblem of the chosen people, with their high professions and their ritual formality, but destitute of those fruits of righteousness, without which these external forms were worse than useless. This idea had al ready been embodied by our Saviour in a parable (Luke 13, 6-9), and thereby made familiar to the minds of his disciples, who would at once understand his coming hungry to the tree as a significant act, answer ing to that of the owner of the vineyard, who came three years seeking fruit and finding none (Luke 13, 7), especially if (as some suppose) the parable was uttered at the same time, although placed by many har monists much further back. 14. And Jesus answered and said unto it, Ko man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard (it). And answering, orally responding to tbe tacit and unconscious re fusal of the tree to keep the promise of its foliage. No longer, imply ing that it had once borne fruit, or, as the Greek particle may bo ex plained consistently with usage, not hereafter, never. Of (or from) thee let any one (literally, no one, the idiomatic double negative, en hancing the negation) eat fruit. This is a simple calm command, the idea of a passionate vindictive imprecation being founded wholly on the word curse used by the disciples (see below, on v. 21), and eagerly caught up by the infidel interpreter, either as a pretext for accusing Christ of selfish anger at his disappointment in not finding figs, or of irrational displeasure at an inanimate and senseless object. This very circumstance ought to have sufficed to show that the whole transaction was judicial and symbolical, and no more chargeable with spite or pas sion than the similar command which goes forth against every tree or even weed that withers. And his disciples heard, or rather, they were hearing, listening, when he thus addressed the fig-tree, an expression which connects the narrative before us with its sequel, afterwards re corded in its proper chronological connection (see below, on vs. 20.21), although added here immediately by Matthew (21, 20), so as to com plete the narrative at once, a striking instance of the difference already hinted at between the two evangelists, especially in this part of the his tory (see above, on v. 12.) 15. And they come to Jerusalem, and Jesus went MARK 11, 15. 303 into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves. On his second visit to the temple after this arrival at Jerusalem, he performs a more decisive act of Messianic power, involving a direct claim, although not expressed in words, to that high character or office. This was the purgation of the temple, by breaking up the market held there, driving out the traders, and prohibiting all traffic, and all other profanation of the consecrated area to worldly uses. A similar pro ceeding is described by John (2, 14-16), as having taken place at the first passover after the commencement of his public ministry. The attempt to identify these two purgations as the same transaction, but referred by tradition to two different dates, has no foundation but the alleged improbability that such an act would be repeated, or that if re peated, no one of the gospels should record both, as in the case of the miraculous feeding, first of five and afterwards of four thousand (see above, on 8, 1-9.) Both these objections, however, admit of a prompt and satisfactory solution. The purgation of the temple being intended, not to produce any permanent effect, but simply to assert our Lord's authority, was perfectly appropriate both at the commencement and the close of his official life. But the first took place before the opening of his Galilean ministry, which forms the subject of the first three gos pels. This accounts for their recording only the second, whereas John records the first for a twofold reason ; first, because he wrote to sup plement the others ; secondly, because he pays particular attention to the first stage or period of Christ's work in Judea, before the impris onment of John had led him to withdraw to Galilee (see above, on I, 14.) The abuse or nuisance thus reformed had gradually grown up on the pretext of providing for the wants of worshippers, especially of strangers, by supplying them with victims for the altar (oxen, sheep, and doves or pigeons), and with Jewish coin to pay their tribute to the temple-treasury, which was given in exchange for Greek and Roman money. Thus the outer court (often called the court of the Gentiles) had been partially transformed into a cattle-market, and partially oc cupied by brokers or exchangers with their banks or money-tables. These he now casts out, or drives out with authority, perhaps by force, as in the former instance (John 2, 15.) The submission of the people to this discipline requires no explanation, as its purpose was symbol ical not practical, and nothing more was needed than a momentary ex ercise of power, even though succeeded by an immediate repetition of the offence. Still more unnecessary is it to assume that during the whole interval between the two purgations the temple had been free from this profane intrusion, which was now renewed, perhaps with the connivance of the priests themselves, in opposition to the claims of him who had abated it. The probability rather is, that the inveterate cus tom had been interrupted only for a few days or hours, and had then been restored and continued, till it was again interrupted in the case before us. 306 MARK 11, 16. 17. 16. And would not suffer that any man should carry (any) vessel through the temple. Would not suffer, literally did not suffer, or permit (the same verb that occurs above in v. 6), that any one (not man) should carry a (not any) vessel (implement or utensil), a word of wider import than the English one, and nearly corresponding to the modern use of article. Through the temple, i. e. through the sacred enclosure, which had probably become a thoroughfare or passage from one part of the city to another. The coexistence of such profanation, not expressly forbidden by the law, but in flagrant opposition to its spirit, with punctilious attention both to commanded and traditional observances, illustrates very clearly the hoUowness and emptiness of pharisaical religion. That our Lord did not suffer or permit the practice here referred to, may be either understood to mean that he forbade it and denounced it, or more strictly that he actually put an end to it, for the time being, by the powerful authority and influence arising from his teaching and his miracles. 17. And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not writ ten, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer ? but ye have made it a den of thieves. And he taught, i. e. declared in words what he had thus affirmed in act, and added force to his doctrine by clothing it in familiar words of prophecy. Has it not been written, has it not been long on record, an expressive application of the perfect passive, which we have already met with more than once in this book. (See above, on 1, 2. 7, 6. 9, 12. 13.) The reference is to two distinct prophetic utterances, one of Isaiah (56, 7), and one of Jeremiah (7, 11), here combined as relating to the same thing or admitting of the same application. The passage in Isaiah is a clear prediction of the future enlargement of the Church, when all dis tinctions, national and personal, should cease, and the Gentiles be ad mitted to equality of privileges with the Jews. My house, the temple at Jerusalem, considered as the earthly residence of God and the asylum of his people. Shall be called, i. e. truly called, a common He brew idiom equivalent to saying, it shall be. The main idea in the original connection is, that it should be a house of prayer hereafter not for one but for all nations. That our Lord had reference chiefly to the fact, presupposed or incidentally stated, of its being called a house of prayer, and not to its ultimate extension to all nations, may be gathered from the circumstance that the latter clause is left out both by Luke (19, 46) and Matthew (21, 13), although Mark inserts it to complete the sentence. The whole prediction could be verified only after the destruction of the temple, when the house of God, even upon earth, ceased to be a limited locality, and became coextensive with the church in its enlargement and diffusion. But the part of the sentence which our Saviour quoted was appropriate, even to the ancient temple, while the words from Jeremiah related originally to it, as profaned by MARK 11, 17. 18. 19. 307 wicked Jews in ancient times. A den, cave, cavern, often the resort of thieves, or rather robbers, as it is expressed in the version of Jer, 7, 11. He is not to be understood as saying that this outward dese cration of the temple was the worst abuse existing, or the only one intended in the prophecy, but merely that it served as a type or sym bol of still worse corruptions, just as his expulsion of the traders represented a more general and sweeping reformation of abuses. 18. And the scribes and chief priests heard (it), and sought how they might destroy him ; for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine. These new and startling acts of authority were rightly understood by the chiefs of the theocracy, not as the wild deeds of a zealot imitat ing Phineas in his lawless yet heroic zeal for God, of which fanaticism there were many instances in that day (see above, on 3, 18), but as un ambiguous assertions of a higher and more permanent power, to wit, that of the Messiah as the great reformer, so described by Isaiah (4, 4) and by Malachi (3, 3. 4, 1), and as such to be preceded by the great reforming prophet of the old economy (see above, on 1, 2. 9, 4. 11.) Aware that the establishment of these pretensions would be fatal to their own official influence, the scribes and chief priests, as the leading members of the Sanhedrim or national council, no longer doubted whether he must be destroyed, but how, by what means, it could be effected. For they feared him, not with a mere personal alarm, but as the representatives of Israel, on account of the popular influence already possessed by him, because the crowd, the multitude, perhaps used con temptuously in the sense of rabble, was astonished, struck with admi ration and surprise, at his doctrine, i. e. at his mode of teaching or of setting fbi-th his claims as a teacher come from God, to wit, by mira cles as well as wisdom. (See above, on 1, 22. 27. 4, 2.) 19. And when even was come, he went out of the city. This verse distinctly marks the close of a second day, exactly cor responding to the one in v. 11, and implying what is formally affirmed by Luke (21, 37), that during this last week his days were spent in teaching in the temple, and his nights upon the mount of Olives, i. e. at Bethany, which was on its eastern slope ; unless the terms employed by Luke be intended to suggest the idea, that at least a part of these nights was employed in prayer amidst the solitudes of Olivet, an ex planation perfectly in keeping with the fact that to this evangelist we are especially indebted for the scanty knowledge we possess of the Saviour's habits of devotion. 20. And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw tho fig-tree dried up from the roots. 308 MARK 11, 20. 21. Another interesting circumstance, preserved by Luke (21, 38), and happily illustrative of what Mark here records, is the thronging of the people to the temple early in the morning for the purpose of hearing him. To gratify this salutary craving for instruction, we find him upon both these days (compare Matt. 21, 18) returning early to the city. Passing along, or by the same road as on the day before, they now behold the fig-tree, then conspicuous afar by its luxuriant foliage, completely blasted, withered, dried up, from its very roots. It is not said that the change took place at this time, but that they now ob served it, having had no other opportunity of doing so, as their inter mediate return to Bethany took place at night (v. 19.) There is nothing in Mark's language to forbid the supposition that the wither ing took place as soon as they had turned their backs, and therefore nothing inconsistent with the words of Matthew (21, 19), that the fig- tree was dried up or withered presently, i. e. in modern English, in stantaneously, upon the spot. The attempt to treat this as a contra diction, although made by German writers of great eminence, would be regarded as absurd in any Anglo-saxon jury-room or court of justice. 21. And Peter, calling to remembrance, saith unto him, Master, behold, the fig-tree which thou cursedst is with ered away. And Peter (from whom Mark may have derived this incident),, calling to remembrance, or, without departing from the passive form of the original, being reminded, put in mind, by what he saw, of what he heard the day before, says to him, Rabbi, the identical expression here preserved by Mark (as in 10, 51), but not perceptible in the translation either here or in 9, 45 above and 14, 45 below, thojagh it is not easy to imagine why it was not left unaltered in these places, as so many other Aramaic words are elsewhere, and as this very title is re peatedly in John (1,38. 39. 3,2. 26. 6,25) and Matthew (23,7. 8.) This want of uniformity in rendering the same word, even where the sense and the connection are identical, although probably occasioned by the diversity of hands employed upon the version, is to be regretted, not as a violation or concealment of the truth, but as depriving the unlearned reader of enjoyments and advantages, however slight, pos sessed by students of the Greek text. The remedy for this and other errors of the same kind should be sought, not in endless emendation of the printed text, which would do incomparably greater harm than good, but by the faithful exposition of the words of inspiration, as a necessary part of ministerial duty. Behold, lo, see, a word expressive of his own surprise, and at the same time calling the attention of his master to the object which occasioned it, as in our familiar phrases, see here, look here ! It is nearly equivalent to saying, what is this 1 or what does this mean ? and implies what is expressed by Matthew (21, 20), an inquiry how it could have happened, i. e. how the blasting could have taken place so soon. Which thou didst curse, the only MARK 11, 21. 22. 309 place in either gospel where this miracle is so described, but from which it has come to be its standing designation among preachers and interpreters. It might perhaps be treated as a hasty word of Peter, no more infallible than severat others left on record (for example, those in 8, 32. 9, 5), and uttered when he knew not what to say nor even what he said (9, 6.) But there is a sense in which the word is per fectly appropriate, to wit, that of a judicial sentence, by which evil is denounced on a deserving object and by competent authority, the only sense in which God can be said to curse his creatures, and in which too every human judge may no less truly be described as cursing those whom he condemns to death or any other punishment. Cursing, is sinful when it is not judicial or not just, but merely passionate or wanton. It is asked, however, how a curse could have either of the qualities just mentioned, when pronounced upon a senseless and inan imate object. This has been made the ground of much sentimental lamentation, chiefly on the part of those who love to pick flaws in the conduct of the blessed Saviour. The reply to such objections is the plain one, that the action was symbolical, the fig-tree representing the unfaithful and unfruitful Israel, whose leaves were put forth in ad vance of other nations, but without the fruit which ought to have attended or preceded them, and in default of which perpetual barren ness was to be the condign punishment of barrenness itself. To the still more trivial objection, founded on the loss incurred by the pro prietor, some reply that its unfruitfulness already showed it to be worth less ; others that the right here exercised was just the same with that by which not only single trees but whole plantations and whole harvests are continually blasted. The difficulty can be felt by none but those who question the divinity of Him who in this case, as in that of the swine destroyed near Gadara (see above, on 5, 20), only did visibly and audibly what God does silently in every providential stroke and judgment upon man or beast, upoir. the animal or vegetable kingdom. It is strange that the morality or justice of an action should depend upon the visible and personal presence of the actor, or his absence and concealment from the sight of men. The true question, as to all such cases, is between the believer andthe unbeliever in our Lord's divine right to control his creatures and the subjects of his providential gov ernment. Where this great doctrine is admitted, all such objections of detail will be contemptuously set aside as frivolous. 22. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God. If the surprise of the disciples had related not to the sign but the thing signified, our Lord would no doubt have expounded to them the symbolical design of this judicial miracle. But as they seem to have correctly understood its meaning, perhaps aided by the parable already mentioned (see above, on v. 13), they were chiefly interested in the miracle itself, the promptness and completeness of the change effected by a word from Jesus. This astonishment impi; d a very different 310 MARK 11, 22. 23. experience on their own part, perhaps frequent failures like the one of which we have already had an account (in 9, 18. 28. 29.) For such disappointments he assigns the same cause as on that occasion, namely, a deficiency of faith, i. e. of confidence in the divine power to effect such changes, or at least in the divine grant to themselves of a deri vative authority to do the same. Have (more emphatic than in Eng lish, and denoting rather to retain or hold fast) faith in God, literally, of God, a Greek idiom, in which the genitive denotes the object, and which has sometimes been retained in the translation (e. g. Rom. 3, 22. Gal. 2, 16. 20. 3, 22. Phil. 3, 9. Col. 2, 12. Jas. 2, 1. Rev. 14, 12), as it is here in the margin of the English Bible. 23. For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea ; and shall not doubt in his heart, bnt shall believe tbat those things which he saith shall come to pass ; he shall have whatsoever he saith. If this indispensable condition were complied with, they could per form with equal ease the greatest and the smallest miracles, i. e. meas ured by the scale of their external physical effects. They could not only blast a fig-tree, but remove a mountain from the land into the sea. This mountain, probably the mount of Olives, over which their path lay from Bethany to Jerusalem. The sea, a more indefinite ex pression, because not referring to so near an object ; there is no need therefore of explaining it specifically of the Dead Sea, or the Mediter ranean, or the Sea of Galilee. Whosoever (or whoever) in the first clause means, of course, whoever has received from me the gift or power of working miracles, to whom alone this promise was intended to apply. The mad attempts in later times to do the same by merely praying and believing, are not only fanatical but silly, as they exercise faith without an object, trying to believe what is not true, to wit, that they have previously been commissioned to perform such wonders. (See above, on 9, 29.) The verb translated doubt means originally to divide ; then to distinguish or discriminate ; and then, in classical usage, to determine or decide ; while in Hellenistic Greek it has the opposite meaning, to hesitate or doubt. This may be deduced either from the more elementary idea of differing, disputing, with another or one's self ; or from that of undue discrimination, as for instance, be tween great and lesser miracles, which last sense is peculiarly appro priate in the case before us. Whoever does not make a difference of this kind, or hesitate because he thinks the miracle too great, but really believes that God can do it, and has commissioned him to do it, shall undoubtedly succeed. He shall have (literally, it shall be to him) whatever he may say, i. e. command or predict in God's name and by his authority. Thus understood, the terms used in the first clause are not hyperbolical but literal, and mean precisely what they say, that if the apostles really believed their own commission to work MARK 11, 23. 24. 25. 311 miracles and faithfully performed it, it would be as easy to remove a mountain as to blast a fig-tree. Be thou removed, literally lifted, taken up, but with a view to its removal, thus including tho import of two English verbs, to take up and take away. Shall come to pass, literally comes to pass or happens, the present tense denoting the infallible cer tainty of the event by representing it as actually taking place. (See above, on v. 3.) 24. Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive (them), and ye shall have (them.) For this (cause or reason), i. e. because faith is thus essential to success in every thing dependent on a divine power. I say unto you, a formula preparing them for something solemn and important (see above, on 3, 28. 6. 11. 8, 12. 9, 1. 13. 41. 10, 15. 29), namely, the as surance that whatever they believed they should receive they would receive. This may be either a specific promise to those clothed with the power of working miracles, or a generic promise to believers. Taking the verse by itself the latter would seem to be the natural con struction ; but the intimate connection with what goes before seems to favour if not to require the other, as no good reason can be given for so sudden a transition from a subject which concerned only the apostles, to one of general and even universal interest. How could he say therefore, i. e. because the faith of miracles was indispensable to their performance, whoever asked any thing believing should receive it ? 25, 26. And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have aught against any ; that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses. The same question here presents itself, as to the generic or specific application of this precept, but attended with less difficulty, as there can be no doubt that the condition here prescribed is one of universal application, and the question whether it was addressed to the apostles as such, or intended for believers generally, is of little exegetical or practical importance. It seems more natural however to suppose that our Lord has reference to the twelve apostles still, and after stating the necessity of faith and the efficacy of believing prayer, in working miracles, reminds them that the same moral dispositions were required in this as in all other prayer, particularly specifying that forgiving temper which he may have seen to be especially deficient, at least in some of them. That he had reference, moreover, to the angry or vin dictive feelings of his followers towards the unbelieving Jews, whose destiny had just been foretold, is a possible but not a very obvious conjecture. When ye stand praying, often referred to as a common 312 MARK 11, 26. 27. 28. posture, and as perfectly consistent with the most profound humilia tion (Luke 18, 13), that of kneeling being rather mentioned on unusual occasions (Luke 22, 41. Acts 7, 60. 9, 40. 20, 36. 21, 51), but without forbidding or requiring either. If ye have aught, i. e. any thing, any ill-will, or even any just ground of quarrel or complaint. Against any (one) or any (person), the Greek word being in the singular num ber. That, so that, in order that, not as a meritorious ground or a procuring cause, but simply as a sine qua non, or indispensable condi tion, which is then repeated more distinctly in the next verse. 27. And they come again to Jerusalem ; and as he was walking in the temple, there come to him the chief priests, and tlie scribes, and the elders. On arriving the same morning at Jerusalem our Lord begins to walk about the courts or area of the temple, as if at home or in his Father's house (see above, on v. 11, and compare Luke 2, 49), an action unimportant in itself, but taken in connection with his previous pro ceedings, tacitly expressive of the same claim which he had already more emphatically put forth by his peremptory cleansing of the tem ple. It is not impossible, indeed, that the walking about here men tioned was intended to observe how far that measure had accomplished its external purpose of arresting the inveterate profanation of that sacred place. While thus engaged he is accosted by the chief priests, scribes, and elders. Now as these are the three classes who composed the Sanhedrim or national council (see above, on 1, 22. 8, 31), and as every thing here indicates that Christ's proceedings had attracted the attention of that body, it is altogether probable that this was an offi cial deputation from it, similar to that which had been sent to John the Baptist on his first appearance (John 1, 19-28.) 28. And say unto him, By what authority doest thou these things ? and who gave thee this authority to do these things ? This may be regarded as the first direct conflict between Christ and the authorities of Israel, all previous collisions having been with indi viduals or private combinations of unfriendly parties, whereas this, as we have seen, was probably an onset by the Sanhedrim itself. The demand here made is not to be regarded as merely officious and malignant ; for whatever may have been the personal or party motives of the individuals concerned, they were authorized and even bound, as guardians of the temple and the law, to ascertain on what grounds any one claimed to be a prophet, much more the prophet, i. e. the Messiah (sec above, on 6, 15. 8, 28, and compare John 1, 21. 25). But although they had this legal colour for the course which they pursued, it was in fact a mere pretence and solemn mockery to ask, at this late hour, for the evidence of that which had already been so clearly proved, that MARK 11, 28. 29. 30 313 they appear to have avoided making the demand, until it was extorted from them by the Saviour's unexpected recognition by the people and assumption of the Messianic office. Being thus put as it were in a de fensive position, they were rather forced against their will than eagerly disposed to put the questions here recorded. By (or more exactly, in, i. e. in the exercise of) what authority (or delegated power) doest thou these things, referring to his whole deportment since his last arri val, but particularly, no doubt, to those acts by which he seemed to claim a Messianic or Prophetic power. What expresses more in Greek than English, meaning strictly, of what sort or kind ? The question then is, not simply whence or from what source the power which he exercised was derived, but what was the nature of the power itself, divine or human, Messianic or Prophetic. The second question is by some regarded as a more distinct enunciation of the first ; but with greater probability by others, as a separate inquiry, consequent upon the other and pushing the inquisition further still. What is the nature of the offlce or commission which you claim to hold 1 And from whom do you claim to have received it 1 29. And Jesus answered and said unto them, I will also ask of you one question, and answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these tilings. Instead of answering their questions, he proposes one himself which they must answer before he will answer theirs. This has often been mistaken by believing readers, and misrepresented by unfriendly critics, as a mere evasion, though a wise one, of the captious question which had been proposed to him. But why should an evasion be more wise than silence or a positive refusal to reply to all ? And how could either of these causes be consistent with the Savour's dignity, at this eventful crisis, when the time had come for the assumption of his Messianic honours? The only way in which this difflculty can be shunned is by maintaining, that the question which our Lord proposed was not intended merely to stop the mouths of his opponents, but to answer their demands for his credentials, by referring them to testi mony which had been presented long before, and was really decisive of the question. The meaning then of this verse is, not merelv that his question must be answered first, but that it involved the answer to their own. 30. The baptism of John, was (it) from heaven, or of men ? answer me. The baptism of John is here put for his ministry or mission as it is in several other places (Acts 1, 22. 10, 37. 13, 25), and as the cross is often put for the gospel or for the method of salvation which it teaches (1 Cor. 1, 17. 18. Gal. 5, 11. 6, 12. 14. Phil. 3, 18.) From heaven, not merely of celestial origin, but also of divine authority. Of men, a variation only found in the translation, as the Greek preposi- 314 MARK 11, 30. 31. 32. tion is the same in either case, from men, i. e. of earthly origin and hu man authority. The question thus alternatively stated is the simple question whether John was a true prophet and a messenger from heaven. Answer me, i. e. if you can, or if you dare, the peremptory challenge so to do implying that they would not venture to reply. 31. And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven ; he will say, Why then did ye not believe him ? They reasoned, or still more exactly, reckoned, calculated, the effect of their replying one way or the other, an expression which implies that they were governed more by policy than principle in making this demand. With (or to) themselves, not only individually (each one to himself), but collectively (among themselves), as consultation was ne cessary to a joint reply, which also makes it still more probable that this was not a private but an official application (see above, on v. 27.) Why then, i. e. if he was a prophet sent from God, did ye not believe him ? This may seem to be a very insufficient reason for refusing to acknowledge their belief of John's divine legation ; and it is so if be lieve him merely means, acknowledge his pretensions or the truth of his doctrines. Why should they care for being thus reproached, when Christ had so often uttered far more grievous charges against them or the order to which they belonged ? The only satisfactory solution of this difficulty is the one afforded by attaching to believe its true specific sense, which is that of believing what John said of Christ, or receiving the forerunner's testimony to his principal. If they acknowledged John's divine legation, they tacitly acknowledged the Messiahship of Jesus, which he had so publicly and solemnly attested (John 1, 15. 26. 29. 32-34. 36. 3, 30. 36.) This not only explains their motive for re fusing to admit the truth of John's pretensions, namely, their reluc tance to assent to what would follow necessarily, to wit, that Jesus was the Christ, but also vindicates our Saviour from the charge of evading so important and legitimate a question (see above, on v. 29.) 32. But if we shall say, of men ; they feared the peo ple ; for all (men) counted John that he was a prophet indeed. The other answer to the question was no less objectionable but for a very different reason, namely, their unwillingness to brave the popu lar conviction and belief of John's divine legation as a prophet, which appears to have been undiminished by our Saviour's subsequent ap pearance, showing clearly that the two were not considered rivals, but co-workers in the same great process, though unequal in rank and original authority. There is a slight irregularity, or rather sudden change, in the construction of this sentence, but without effect upon the meaning. It consists in abruptly breaking off what these rulers said MARK 11, 32. 33. 315 themselves, and continuing the sentence in the words of the historian, they feared instead of we fear, as expressed by Matthew (21, 26) and Luke (20, 6.) Held John is commonly explained to mean considered of esteemed him ; but it may have the same sense as in v. 22, to wit, that they adhered to him, or held him fast, as a true prophet. 33. And they answered and said unto Jesus, We can not tell. And Jesus answering saith unto them, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things. We cannot tell, literally, we do not know (compare John 16, 18), instead of which our Lord himself says simply and authoritatively, neither do I tell you. This, as we have seen already, is no gratuitous or puerile evasion of a lawful and to all appearance reasonable ques tion, but a virtual though not a formal answer to it, under the disguise Of a question in return. The last clause therefore of the verse before us does not mean, as some seem to imagine, and as others willingly pretend, ' since you cannot answer my inquiry upon one point, I will not answer yours upon another, wholly diff'erent and unconnected with it.' But it means, ' as you refuse the testimony borne to my Messiah- ship by John the Baptist, whose prophetic inspiration and divine com mission you dare not deny, so I refuse to give you any other satisfac tion in reply to your demand for my authority.' The principle involved is the same as in his previous refusal of a sign from heaven (see above, on 8, 12), and in Abraham's answer to the rich man in the parable, " If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead " (Luke 16, 31.) The principle itself is the obviously just one, that no man has a right to demand a superfluity of evidence on any question of belief or duty, and that as the call for such accumulated proof is a virtual rejection of that previously given, it is the law of the divine administration to refuse it even as a favour, and to deal with those who ask it as guilty of the twofold crime of tempting God, in the original and strict sense of that strange expres sion (see Ex. 17, 2. 7. Deut. 6, 16. Ps. 78, 18.41. 56. Isai. 7, 12, and compare Jas. 1, 13), and of making him a liar, as John still more strangely phrases it, i. e. treating him as a false witness (1 John 5, 10.) With this view of the passage, while it still remains a signal instance of our Saviour's divine wisdom in replying to objections and in silencing opponents, it does not consist, as some unworthily imagine, in evading a momentous though malignant question by propounding one still harder on another subject, but in tearing off the mask of hypocritical anxiety to know the truth and save the name of God from profanation, by requiring those who questioned him to say first whether they be lieved the testimony previously given, and of which his own was really a confirmation and continuation. Thus explained, his answer may be amplified and paraphrased as follows. ' You demand by what right I perform these functions, which belong not even to an ordinary prophet, but to the Messiah only, as if this were your first acquaintance with my claims, and as if no attestation of them had as yet been given ; though 316 MARK 11, 33. you know well that my ministry was heralded by that of a forerunner, who explicitly bore witness to me as the true Messiah, and whose tes timony cannot be rejected without calling in question his divine lega tion, which I therefore challenge you to do, or if you dare not, to re ceive his attestation of my claims, instead of asking me for other and Unnecessary evidence ; and if you are unwilling to do either, I have still more right and reason to say, Neither do I tell you by what authority I do these things.' CHAPTER XII. Mark here continues his account of the great conflict between Christ and the authorities of Israel, occasioned by his publicly and unexpect edly assuming that official character, which he had before only claimed obscurely, indirectly, or in private. Following up his conclusive answer to their demand for his commission or credentials, he propounds a para ble, that of the wicked husbandmen or vinedressers, setting forth the conduct of the Jews, throughout their history as a church or chosen . people, to the prophets, as messengers from God, and to himself, as the last and greatest ofthe series, with an intimation ofthe necessary issue to themselves, to wit, the loss of their peculiar privileges (1-9.) In order to express distinctly the important fact, that although put to death by their hands, he was himself to be their judge and their de stroyer, he subjoins another parabolical prediction, drawn from the Old Testament, to that effect, and understood by those for whom it was intended, but whose hands are still tied by their dread of popular com motion (10-12.) Instead of violence they therefore still resort to cun ning, by proposing a series of questions to entrap him and embroil him either with the people or their Roman masters. The first, propounded by a coalition of Herodians and Pharisees, related to the lawfulness of their subjection to the Roman domination, but was answered so as to avoid the snare and lay down an important principle, exciting at the same time the surprise and admiration of his hearers (13-17.) The next attempt was by the Sadducees, and therefore in a more frivolous and scoffing tone, intended by a fictitious or exaggerated case, to expose the doctrine of the resurrection as a gross absurdity, but made the oc casion of a most important vindication of that doctrine (18-27.) The third question was proposed by a scribe or doctor of the law, with re spect to the relative importance of God's precepts, and so answered as not only to present the sum and substance of the whole law, but to command the admiration and assent of the person who had put the question, and to silence all who were disposed to push the inquisition further (28-34.) Having thus disposed of their interrogations, he now asks a question in return, involving an important Messianic prophecy, the true sense of which had been corrupted or lost sight of (35-37.) This MARK 12, 1. 317 is followed by a warning to the people against leaders so unworthy to be trusted, both on account of their false doctrine and their covetous hypocrisy (38-40.) By a slight but natural association, this important narrative is wound up with a contrast between great and small gifts to the treasury, and a statement of the rule by which their value is to be determined (41-44.) 1. And he began to speak unto them by parables. A (certain) man planted a vineyard, and set an hedge about (it), and digged (a place for) the wine-fat, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country. Began, i. e. began again, resumed the series interrupted in 4, 34 ; or began the series afterwards continued, although not recorded in de tail by Mark (compare Matt. 21, 28. 22, 1. 25, 1. 14.) The parables uttered by our Lord in this visit to Jerusalem have a peculiar charac ter, not only of significancy and solemnity, but also of appropriateness to the crisis, and to the position which he had assumed towards the rulers of the church and people. By parables, literally, in them, i. e. in the use of them, or in that particular form of instruction. The idea of this parable is found more than once in the Old Testament (Ex. 15, 17. Ps. 80, 8), but most distinctly in Isaiah 5, 1-7, which our Saviour no doubt had in view on this occasion and assumed to be familiar to "his readers. A certain man, or more exactly, a man, without any qualifying epithet. Planted a vineyard, i. e. planted vines in an en closure, which is regarded in the east as the most profitable kind of husbandry. The word translated hedge means any kind of fence or enclosure, and is applicable even to a stone wall (Eph. 2, 14), but is here commonly supposed to mean a thorn-hedge, which is regarded as the most effectual protection against man and beast. Digged a wine- fat, ov under-vat, the cellar or receptacle beneath the wine-press, into which the grape-juice flowed through a wooden grate or lattice. The circumlocution in the version is superfluous, the wine-vat itself being commonly an excavation. A tower, not necessarily a permanent or lofty structure, but applied to any building the height of which is its principal dimension, and in this case descriptive of a shed or scaffold, still used in vine-growing countries to protect the ripening grapes from depredation. All these are mentioned (as in Isaiah 6, 2) to indicate the care bestowed upon the vineyard, not as being the only acts re quired for the purpose, but as examples or suggestive of the rest. Let it out, literally, gave it out, i. e. for hire, a verb employed in the same sense by Herodotus. Husbandmen, cultivators, tillers ofthe ground, here used in the specific sense of vine-dressers, keepers of a vineyard, the exact Greek term for which occurs in Luke 13, 7. Interpreters differ very much as to the meaning to be put on the particulars of this description, some assigning a specific import to the hedge, vat, tower, &c, but all agree ing that the whole description is a lively image of the relation betweta 318 MARK 12, 1. 2. 3. God and Israel as his chosen people, carefully segregated from the Gen tiles, and provided with extraordinary means of spiritual culture and protection. Went into a far country is perhaps too strong a version of the Greek, which simply means to leave one's people or to go abroad, without specification of the distance. The hiring out and the departure are of course not to be pressed, but understood as circumstances intro duced in order to describe God as sending and the people refusing. If explained more precisely, the departure may denote, not an essential, providential, or spirituai absence, but the mere cessation of those great theophanies or visible appearances of God, which preceded and accom panied the giving of the law at Sinai, and were followed by a series of more mediate and indirect communications, both of an ordinary kind through his constituted representatives, the kings and priests ofthe the ocracy, and also of a more extraordinary nature by the special and occa sional ministry of prophets. The former class are then described, in accordance with the usage of a vineyard, as the husbandmen, to whom it was let out or hired during the absence of the owner. 2. And at the season he sent to the husbandmen a ser vant, that he might receive from the husbandmen of the fruit of the vineyard. At the season, in the time of fruit, or of the vintage. Of the fruit, in the last clause, is a partitive expression, meaning some (or a por tion) of the fruit, which may be understood as implying that the vine yard was let out on shares, a common practice still, both in Europe and the East, and described by travellers as usually much more advan tageous to the cultivators than to the proprietors or owners of the soil. The sending of the servant for this purpose naturally represents any call or summons to account for the advantages enjoyed, or the trust committed to God's people, and especially to those who hold official stations. Most interpreters explain it here still more precisely, as de noting the extraordinary missions of the prophets under the Old Testa ment economy, who might, almost without a figure, be described as servants sent to demand the fruits which the people and their rulers were required to produce, i. e. obedience to God's will and devotion to his service. Even here, however, it is better to rest in the general re lation thus denoted, than to urge particular resemblances which may not have been so intended. For the general principles of parabolical interpretation, as propounded and exemplified by Christ himself, see above, on 4, 14-20. _ 3. And they caught (him), and beat him, and sent (him) away empty. But they, the husbandmen, not only failed to execute their contract by delivering at least a portion of the fruits, but treated the message with contempt, and the bearer of it with insulting violence. Taking him they beat (him), a verb which strictly means to flay or skin but MARK 12, 3. 4. 319 is secondarily applied to the severest kind of scourging. Empty, empty-handed, i. e. without that which he came for. Accordmg to the obvious design of the whole parable, this is a lively figure for the un- dutiful and violent reception often given to the prophets or other divine messengers, and expressly mentioned by the Saviour elsewhere. (See Matt. 23, 29-31. 34, 37. Luke 11, 47-50. 13, 33. 34, and compare ITh. 2,15. Rev. 16, 6. 18,24.) 4. And again he sent unto them another servant, and at him they cast stones, and wounded (him) in the head, and sent (him) away shamefully handled. It is equally needless and impossible to identify these servants with particular prophets, or even with specific periods in the history of Israel, the idea meant to be conveyed being simply that of repetition and succession, of a sin not perpetrated once for all, but frequently committed through a course of ages. There is however a perceptible gradation in the conduct of the people here exhibited, the first servant having been only beaten, but the second stoned and wounded in the head. At him they cast stones is the true sense of the Greek verb here, although it usually means to kill by stoning (see Matt. 23, 37. Luke 13, 34. John 8, 5. Acts 7, 58. 59. Heb. 12, 20), which is here precluded by the statement in the last clause. Pelting with stones is speci fied not only as an easy and familiar kind of violence, but also as the usual form of capital punishment under the Mosaic law, preferred be cause it could be inflicted by a number, and particularly by the witnesses or prosecutors, who were thus deterred from rash and groundless accu sations (Lev. 20, 2. 27. 24, 14. 16. 23.) This judicial usage gave to lapidation a peculiar character among the Jews, even when practised without formal process, as a sort of charge, against those who were thus stoned, of some crime against the theocracy. As we know that some of the prophets perished in this way (Matt. 23, 37. Luke 13, 34), there is a twofold fitness in the action here ascribed to the hus bandmen, both as a natural and common form of violence, and also as historically true with respect to the thing signified. Wounded in the head, a Greek verb used by Thucydides in the sense of recapitulating. summing up, reducing to heads or to one head (compare the compound form in itom. 13, 9. Eph. 1, 10). which is plainly a figurative secondary usage, while the one which here occurs, though not found in the classics, is an obvious derivative from head in its original or proper import, and had probably been preserved in the dialect of common life. Shamefully handled, literally, dishonoured, i. e. outraged or insulted. This is a sensible advance upon the sending away empty of the verse preceding, the counterpart of which is not to be sought in particular aggravated cases of misconduct towards the prophets, but in the general declension of the unbelieving Jews from bad to worse throughout their history. 5. And again he sent another, and him they killed ; and many others, beating some, and killing some. 320 MARK 12, 5. 6. 7. Again is here omitted by the latest critics, but with no effect upon the meaning, the progression being adequately marked without it. The climax here attains its height, so far as the maltreatment of the servants is concerned, the beating and the stoning of the first two cases being followed in the third by killing. But that this was not intended to de note any such exact progression in the history, is now made plain by the addition of the last clause, showing that the cases previously men tioned were selected as examples out of many others varying in aggra vation. 6. Having yet therefore one son, his well-beloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. There is something peculiar but expressive in the very collocation ofthe first clause, yet therefore one son having, his beloved, which how ever is contracted by the modern critics into yet one son he had. There fore, not a logical connective meaning for this reason, but a continuative particle equivalent to so, or so then, in familiar narrative. The connec tion here suggested is, that having sent his servants all in vain, he had now none left to send except his only and his well-beloved son. This circumstance, so admirably suited to command our sympathy in and human case, becomes revolting when transferred directly to a divine subject ; a sufficient proof that parables are not to be expounded by adjusting the particular analogies and then deducing general conclusions, but by matching the supposed case, as a whole, with the real case which it illustrates as a whole, and letting only such minute points correspond as naturally fit into each other without violence or artifice. This method is not only recommended by its practical necessity in order to avoid the grossest incongruities, and also by the principles of good taste and the general analogy of language and interpretation, but required by pur Saviour's own example in interpreting a few of his own parables (see above, on 4, 10-20.) To this supreme authority it is vain to op pose that of Bernard or Augustin, or the dangerous position that a parable must be made to mean as much as possible. Here again the emphasis, though not the meaning, is impaired by a departure from the original arrangement, he sent also him unto them last. The con cluding words of this verse are so plainly expressive of hope or expec tation, as to show still further that it is not this one figure in the parable that corresponds to God, but the whole picture of the vineyard, with its owner and his husbandmen and son and rewards, that corre sponds to the whole history of Israel's undutiful reception of God's messages and wicked violence to those who brought them. 7. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. But, while the owner of the vineyard thus relied upon their prob- MARK 12, 7. 8. 9. 321 able respect for his own son, those husbandmen, a natural but graphic stroke, which seems to point them out as standing on the other side, in bold relief and opposition to the figure in the foreground. Amongst (literally, to or with) themselves, a very common idiomatic phrase, which might seem to denote mere individual reflection, but is deter mined to mean more, namely, mutual consultation, not only by the usage of the same terms elsewhere (see above, on 2, 8. 9, 33. 10, 26), but by the nature of the proposition made, necessarily implying a plurality of actors, and as a necessary consequence, of plotters. The heir, the owner of the vineyard by filial or hereditary right. Come, hither, the invitatory adverb used in 10, 21, but with a plural termina tion like a verb, as in 1. 17. 6, 31. It is here, like come in English, not expressive of mere motion, but a proposition to perform a certain act, even though it could be done without a change of place at all. Here again it is incongruous to press the correspondence of the sign and the thing signified, although this proposition bears an evident analogy to the ambitious and absurd attempt of the Jewish rulers, in the time of Christ, to oust him from his heritage and make their own provisional authority perpetual. In every effort to continue tho Mosaic institu tions beyond the time prescribed for their duration, the Jews have been guilty of the usurpation here projected by the husbandmen. 8. And they took him, and killed (him), and cast (him) out of the vineyard. Took him, the words translated caught him in v. 3, and in both cases strictly meaning taking him, as a preparatory act to further vio lence. Killed him and cast him out would seem to mean that the latter insult was offered to his dead body ; but as Matthew (21, 39) and Luke (20, 15) invert the clauses, there is probably no stress to be laid upon the order, and Mark's expression, although less exact, may be considered as equivalent in meaning to the others. The act of casting out denotes the whole rejection of our Lord, but perhaps with an allu sion to the literal fact of his suffering without the Holy City (see below, on 15, 20, and compare Heb. 13, 11-13), which must not however be regarded as the whole sense, any more than John the Baptist's preach ing in a wilderness exhausted fhe prediction of Isaiah (see above, on 1, 3. 4), or the dividing of our Saviour's garments that of David (see below, on 15, 24, and compare Ps. 22,18). As in many cases the external coincidence serves merely to identify the subject of a pro phecy, the same rule may at least occasionally hold good in the expo sition of a parable. 9. What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do ? He will come and destroy the husbandmen, and will give the vineyard unto others. What shall (or will) he do, not merely what would the owner of a vineyard do in such a case as that supposed ; for this form of the 14* 322 MARK 12, 9. 10. question would imply that the whole case was hypothetical ; whereas the future treats it as a real one, and still in progress, thus affording a natural and beautiful transition from the sign to the thing signified. As if he had said, by way of application, ' Well, there is such a vine yard and there are such husbandmen and they have done all this ; and now I ask you how the owner of the soil may be expected to treat such tenants V The answer to this question, which Mark records as given by our Lord himself (compare Matt. 21, 41), is one of the clearest intimations of the change of dispensations, the destruction of the faithless Jewish rulers, and the transfer of their privileges to another people, neither Jews nor Gentiles as such, but a new commu nity composed of both. The question how the vineyard, if it means the Jewish church, could be taken from the Jews themselves, is one of those arising from the practice, which has been already mentioned, of matching the detached parts of the sign and the thing signified, instead of treating them as wholes and letting the minutiae adjust themselves. The supposed violation of analogy is nothing to the one in the parable of the Sower, where the seed is first explained to mean the word, and then apparently identified with the hearers (see above, on 4, 15. 16. 18. 2u), and yet no plain reader of that parable has ever been disturbed in his conceptions of it, because founded on the obvious sense and application of the whole, and not on a measurement of each supposed correspondence by itself. The solution given by some writers of this difficulty, namely, that the vineyard does not mean the Jewish church but the Kingdom of God among the Jews, is rather an evasion than an explanation, or, if not evasive, is at least superfluous, for the reasons just suggested. 10. And have ye not read this scripture : The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner — Admirably suited as this parable was to illustrate the conduct of the Jews to the Prophets and to Christ himself, it was insufficient for his purpose, as to one point, namely, that it left the Son dead outside of the vineyard, and ascribed the work of vengeance only to the father. To intimate his own resuscitation and return as an avenger, he subjoins another parable (in the wide sense of the term) also derived from the Old Testament, but not amplified like the other or reduced to narra tive form. The passage quoted is Ps. 118, 22, in the Septuagint version with but little change. The words in the original immediately precede the Hosanna uttered by the people in their acclamations at his public entrance (see above, on 11, 9. 10) and imply his sanction of that application. Have you not read, or did you never read, a form of speech implying that the Hebrew scriptures were not merely read in public but in private. This scripture, in the specific sense of a text or passage (see below, on 15, 18, and compare Luke 4. 21.) Rejected is in Greek" still more expressive, as it implies previous examination, proof, or trial (see above, on 8, 31). The builders, or those building MARK 12, 10-12. 323 (the spiritual temple or the kingdom of Messiah), an appropriate de scription of the priests and rulers whose official work it was to carry forward that great enterprise, which might well be likened to a glorious structure, such as a palace or a temple (1 Cor. 3, 9. Eph. 2, 21). Is become, literally, this is (or has) become for, i. e. been converted into, a head, not the top or summit but the main or chief stone, of a corner, and therefore an important part of the foundation. Augustin and other Fathers make the point of the comparison to be the junction of two walls as an emblem of the Jews and Gentiles. Some later writers understand the corner-stone itself as an emblem of the Gentiles, whom the Jews rejected, but whom God was about to put into their place. But the reference to Christ is required not only by the context here, but by the repeated application of the passage to him elsewhere (com pare Eph. 2, 20. 1 Pet. 2, 6). 11. This was the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ? From the Lord was (came to pass, proceeded) this, a feminine form in Greek, which most interpreters regard as a close copy of the Hebrew idiom, in which there is no neuter form, but the feminine pronoun is used to signify this thing. Some of the best interpreters, however, make it agree regularly with the feminine noun head or corner whicli removes the irregularity in Greek, but only by departing from the Hebrew construction. From Mark's brief account it might appear, that this quotation was intended merely to describe Christ as exalted to his proper place in " God's building," notwithstanding his contempt uous rejection by the Jews ; but from the fuller report of Matthew (21, 43. 44) and Luke (20, 18), we learn that it was also meant to represent him as a judge and a destroyer, an idea which the foregoing parable could not convey without a violation of its plan and imagery, which required the Son to be regarded simply as a victim to the cupidity and hatred of the husbandmen. 12. And they sought to lay hold on him, but feared the people ; for they knew that he had spoken the parable against them ; and they left him, and went their way. They, not the people, who are distinguished from them in the next clause, but the chief priests, scribes, and elders, whose demand for his commission or authority had given occasion to this whole discourse (see above, on 11, 27.) Sought, not merely wished, but used means, or at least endeavoured to discover them. But, literally, and, the simple conjunctive being often used where an adversative particle is required by our idiom. Thepeople, literally, the crowd, the masses, whom they despised as well as feared (John 7, 49.) They knew is by pome referred to crowd or people, as a collective, they (the people) knew that he spoke the parable to (at or against) them (the priests, &c.) and the latter therefore did not dare to seize him, lest the people should 324 MARK 12, 13. 14. take sides with him against their rulers. But most interpreters prefer the obvious construction, which supposes they and them to have the same antecedent, and the clause to give the reason not for their fearing but for their desiring to arrest him. They desired it because they understood the parable as pointed at themselves; but because they were afraid of the people, they deferred the execution of their pur pose and apparently left him to return no more. Went their way, as usual, means nothing more than went away. 13. And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in (his) words. But although thus foiled in their direct attempt to silence himi they lose no time in aiming at the same end by a more insidious method, all the parties hostile to him coalescing for a moment in a joint and several effort to destroy his popularity and influence, by setting him at variance either with the Roman government or Jewish people. The means employed for this end was a series of entangling questions upon difficult and controverted points, both doctrinal and practical, to which it seemed impossible for him to return any answer that would not commit him in the eyes of some important party. This design is apparent from the coalition of two adverse sects or parties in the first attack, the Pharisees, or bigoted opponents of all heathenish and foreign domination, and the Herodians, or followers of Herod, who sustained him as the instrument and vassal of the Romans. This unnatural alliance between parties diametrically opposite in principle was caused by their common hostility to Christ, whose growing influence was far more dangerous to both than either could be to the other. By combining, too, they seemed to render his escape impossible, as any answer which would satisfy the one side must of course afford a ground of opposition to the other. Of this crafty and unprincipled contrivance, on the part of men whose only bond of union was their hatred of our Lord and their desire to destroy him, it might well be said that their design was to catch him, as a bird is caught in fowling, by a word, i. e. by a perplexing question, or, as some explain it, by an unguarded answer. 14. And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man ; for thou regardest not the person .of men, but teachest the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar, or not ? And they coming say to him, their first words being not a peremp tory challenge, as in the preceding case (11, 27), but a flattering address intended to allay suspicion and conceal their real purpose, so as to throw him off his guard and make it easier to entrap him. Master, i. e. Teacher, we know, not necessarily a false profession, since the charac ter here ascribed to Christ was not only true but universally acknow- MARK 12, 14. 325 ledged. True, i. e. honest, candid, truthful, one who spoke the truth without regard to consequences. Carest for no man, in the Greek a double negative, as usual enforcing the negation (see above, on 5, 37.) It does not concern thee about no man. The impersonal verb is that employed above in 4, 38, and there explained. What they here ascribe to him is not indifference or unconcern as to the welfare of others, but independence of their influence and authority, as motives for suppress ing an unwelcome truth. The flattery here lies, not in the falsehood or extravagance of the description, but in the honesty with which they seem to comprehend themselves among those for whom he did not care in the sense above explained. As if they had said, we come to you not only as a wise and famous teacher, but because we know that you will tell us to our faces what you think, without considering how it will affect us. Regardest not the person, literally dost not look into the face (or at the outward appearance) of men, i. e. art not influenced by any difference of rank, position, wealth, or power, a regard to which in the administration of justice was forbidden in the law of Moses as respect of persons or judicial partiality. (See Lev. 19, 15. Deut. 1, 17. 16, 19, and compare Prov. 24, 23. 28, 21.) The same thing is here denied of Christ, not as a judge, but as a teacher. In truth or of a truth, i. e. truly, really, sincerely, without any such reserves or personal regards as those just mentioned. Such adulation has blinded the eyes and warped the judgment of its thousands and its tens of thousands among human sages, and especially of those who glory in their insusceptibility of flattery. It is not surprising, therefore, that these crafty casuists and politicians, who regarded Jesus as a mere man, though an eminently wise and good one, should have hoped to find him as susceptible of flattery as others. Having thus prepared the way for their ensuing question, they at length propound it, in a very categorical and simple form. Is it lawful, is it right, not in itself or in the abstract, but for us as members of the chosen people, subjects of a theocracy (see above, on 2, 24. 26. 3, 4. 6, 18. 10, 2), to give tribute, literally census, one of the Latin words embedded in the Greek of Mark (see above, on 6, 27), strictly meaning an enrollment of the people and assessment of their property with a view to taxation (compare Luke 2, 1-5), but also used in the secondary sense of the tax itself, here distinguished as a Roman not a Jewish impost by the Latin word applied to it and by the express mention of the taxing power. Cesar, a surname of the Julian family at Rome, inherited from Julius Caesar by his grand nephew and adopted son, Octavius or Augustus, the first emperor of Rome, was afterwards transmitted through the line of his successors, not only those who were connected with his family, but those exalted by a popular or military nomination. It is here applied abstractly to the office, or rather to the actual incumbent, Tiberius, the step-son and successor of Augustus, who reigned from the 14th to the 37th year of the Christian era. It is not however in his personal capacity, but as the representative of Roman power, that he is here mentioned. Or not ? an artful presentation of the question as requiring a direct and categorical solution, without jualifications or distinctions, but as we say in English, " Yea or nay ? " 326 MARK 12, 15. 15. Shall we give_, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me ? bring me a penny, that I may see (it.) May we give, or may we not give ? the form of the Greek verb being not future but subjunctive and indefinite. It is therefore really another form of the preceding question, not a second one consequent upon it, as the English version seems to intimate. 1. Is it lawful? 2. Shall we do it ? for a thing may be lawful and yet not expedient or binding. (Compare 1 Cor. 6, 12. 10, 23.) But in Greek no such distinction Is expressed or suggested, but a simple repetition of the same inquiry in a different and more laconic form, thus rendering it still more categorical and peremptory, as admitting of no answer but a simple affirmation or negation. While the preamble to the question, therefore, was adapted to conciliate and prepossess an ordinary wise man, the question itself was so framed as almost to extort a categorical and therefore compro mising answer. But he with whom they had to deal saw not only through their question but themselves, and shaped his course accord ingly, so as at one stroke to solve the difficulty and defeat their malice. Knowing (or according to some copies, seeing) their hypocrisy, the part which they were acting (see above, on 7, 6), but here from the connection necessarily suggesting the idea of dissimulation, false pre tences, which we commonly attach to the derivative in English. Why tempt ye me ? not why entice me into sin, which is the ordinary sense of tempting (see above, on 1, 13), but why do you try me, prove me, put me to the test, which is its primary and proper import. (See above, on 8, 11. 10,2.) Then, instead of answering in thesi, as they evidently wished and expected, he gives a striking popularity and vividness to what he is about to say, by addressing it not only to the ears but to the eyes of those about him. Bring me a penny, a denarius, another of Mark's Latin words, denoting a silver coin in common circulation since the Roman conquest, worth from fifteen to seventeen cents of our money, but here mentioned not with any reference whatever to its value, but as the tribute money (coin of the census or taxation) as it is expressed in Matthew (22, 19.) That I may see (it), is almost sarcas tic, for though he did desire and intend to see it, yet the words, if seriously understood, seem to imply that he had never done so, and expected to derive some information from an inspection of the coin itself But this was no doubt understood by all about him as a sort of grave rebuking irony, intended to disclose his knowledge of their secret motives, and his scorn of their hypocrisy, in raising such an abstract question on a point decided by their every-day transactions in the way of business. As if he had said, ' What ! are you required to pay taxes to the Romans? And in what coin? Let me see one'— thus attracting the attention of all present to the question, and prepar ing them to understand his memorable answer. 16. And they brought (it.) And he saith unto them, MARK 12, 16. 17. 327 Whose (is) this image and superscription ? And they said unto him, Cesar's. And they (either those who put the question or some others pres ent) brought (it.) We may now conceive of him as holding the de narius in his hand, or displaying.it to those around, as if it had been something new, thus still more exciting curiosity and gradually open ing the way for the solution of the difficulty which had been suggested. Whose is this image and inscription ? referring to the well-known head and title of the emperor by which the money was authenticated as a legal tender. As if he had continued in the same tone as before, ' See, this money has a man's head and a man's name stamped upon it ; what does this mean ? who is this, here represented both in words and figures ? ' The inevitable answer, Cesar's, may to some have sug gested, at least vaguely and obscurely, the solution just about to be expressed in words, while others, perhaps most, still continued in sus pense, until the words were uttered. 17. And Jesus answering, said unto them, Pender to Cesar the things that are Cesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. The first words of this verse are not to be slurred over as mere ex pletives or words of course, but read with great deliberation and strong emphasis. And Jesus (having thus directed attention to the captious and unreasonable nature of the question, not evading it, but) answer ing (at last) said unto them, i. e. directly to his tempters, as a solution of their abstract question, but at the same time through them and as it were over their heads, to the surrounding masses, as a practical direction or a rule of duty. Render (return, pay back) the (things) of Gesar to Cesar, and the (things) of God to God, a collocation more emphatic (though identical in meaning) than the one in the transla tion, as it places last in either clause, not the thing to be paid but the person to receive it. Some attach to the Greek verb the diluted sense of simply giving out or paying, but the strong sense of paying back, restoring, correctly though not clearly enough given in our version, is not only permitted by the etymology and favoured by the usage of the word (compare Matt. 5, 26. 33. 6. 4. 18, 25. 20, 8. Luke 4, 20. 9, 42. 19, 8. Rom. 12, 17. 13, 7. 1 Th. 5, 15. 1 Pet. 3, 9), but required by the whole connection and essential to the full force of our Saviour's answer. Of the numerous specific senses put upon that answer there are probably but two exegetically possible and yet essentially unlike. The first of these supposes Christ to represent the two things as en tirely distinct and independent of each other, belonging to excentric incommensurable spheres, and therefore not to be reduced to any common principle or rule. As if he had said, Pay your taxes and perform your religious duties, but do not mix the two together or at tempt to bring them either into conflict or agreement ; for they really oelong to different worlds or systems, and have nothing common or 328 MARK 12, 17. 18. alike by which they can even be compared. This paradoxical inter pretation would deserve no notice had it not been gravely urged by one of the most celebrated modern German writers. The other exe getical hypothesis supposes Christ to say precisely the opposite of this, to wit, that the two duties are in perfect harmony and rest on one and the same principle. Within this general hypothesis, however, there are several gradations or distinct forms of opinion as to the principle here laid down. Without enumerating all these, it will be sufficient to state two, the lowest and the highest, which can be reduced to this class. The former understands our Lord as rather distinguishing the two obligations, but affirming their consistency and equal obligation, when they are not in collision. The latter understands him as iden tifying both as parts of one and the same system, as if he had said, your civil duties are but parts of your religious duties. By rendering to Cesar what is his you render unto God what is his. But the ques tion still remains, what doctrine did he teach as to the Roman domi nation and the duty of the Jews while under it ? The most approved and prevalent opinion is that in accordance with the maxim of Mai- monides and other rabbins, he regards the circulation of the coin of any sovereign as a practical proof that his sovereignty not only exists but is submitted to. So long as the Jews submitted to the Romans and enjoyed their protection they were not only authorized but bound to pay for the advantage. Others make the prominent idea that of penal visitation, or subjection to the Romans as a punishment of sin. The other precept, render unto God, &c, is understood according to these different hypotheses as meaning either, give your souls or your selves (which bear his image) back to him by faithful service or by true repentance, as you give back to the emperor in tribute the coin which he circulates among you. All these constructions seem to me too artificial, and the only satisfactory one that which understands our Lord as first suggesting by the very aspect of the coin that they were under obligations to the Civil power, and then reminding them that till these came in conflict with religious obligations they were no less binding. As if he had said, ' Yes, if you are actually under Roman domination, yet allowed to serve God in the way of his appointment, and indeed protected in that service, you are bound to pay back what you thus receive, but no such obligations can destroy those which you owe to God himself, or suspend them when they come in competition. In a word, repay to Cesar what he gives you, and to God the infinitely greater gifts which you receive from him.' 18. Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection ; and they asked him, saying — Also come the Sadducees to him, after the discomfiture of the Her odians and Pharisees. This does not seem to have been prompted by the same motive with the first attack, but rather by a frivolous desire to ridicule the doctrine of the resurrection, the denial of which is else where mentioned as a characteristic of the party (compare Acts 23 6.) MARK 12, 18-23. 329 Those saying (teaching or maintaining) a resurrection not to be. Asked (questioned, catechized) him, saying, what is recorded in v. 23, the four intervening verses being a preamble or a statement of the case on which the question was founded. 19. Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's In-other die, and leave (his) wife (behind him), and leave no chil dren, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. Master (Teacher), the same form of address with that in v. 14, ad mitting his authority as a religious teacher, if not as a prophet. Moses wrote to us may either mean prescribed to us, enjoined upon us, or be an ellipsis or contraction of the phrase in 10, 5, wrote us a commandment. The law referred to is in Deut. 25, 5-10, and was a temporary regula tion intended, like some other provisions of the law (e. g. Lev. 25, 13. Num. 36, 4- 7) to keep the tribes and families of Israel as far as pos sible in statu quo, during the period of national independence. After the deportation of the ten tribes and the return of Judah from cap tivity, the reasons for this singular provision were no longer in exist ence, at least in the same degree, and there is very little probability that it was still observed. This, with the extravagance of the case here stated, makes it highly probable that it is not a real but a ficti tious one, invented for the purpose of casting ridicule upon the resur rection, or as some suppose a well-known argument in the dispute between the Pharisees and Sadducees. 20. 21. 22. ISTow there were seven brethren, and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed, and the third likewise. And the seven had her, and left no seed ; last of all the woman died also. The technical formality with which the case is stated may belong to the usage of the Jewish schools, analogous to the modern practice, when a question is submitted for professional opinion. Or the prolix repetition may have been intended to enhance the ridicule of the sup posed case. Had in v. 22 is not the verb so rendered in the next verse, but the one which properly means took, and is so translated in vs. 20. 21. 23. In the resurrection, therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them ? for the seven had her to wife. This is the question growing out of the case previously stated. It is not like that of the Herodians and Pharisees, adapted and intended to entangle or embroil him with the government or people, but a mere 330 MARK 12, 24-26. puzzle, or at most a grave scoff at the doctrine of the resurrection, as involving such absurdities of theory and inconveniences of practice. 24. And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither . the power of God ? Therefore, literally, for this, on account of this, referring to what follows. ' Is not this the cause of your mistake, that you do not know,' &c. Err, wander from the truth and from right reason. Not knowing the scriptures, either in the sense of not being famihar even with the letter of their teachings on this subject, or more probably in that of not correctly understanding what they did know as to its ex ternal form. The two things which he charges them with not know ing are. what God had taught, and what God could do. 25. For when they shall rise from the dead, they nei ther marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels which are in heaven. When they rise, not the woman and her seven husbands, as in v. 23, but men in general, the dead, as appears from the general form of the ensuing proposition. Neither marry nor are married (or given in marriage), a sort of proverbial expression expressing the same act or contract with respect to the two sexes or the two parties in each case of marriage (compare the compound form in Matt. 24, 38. Luke 17, 27. 1 Cor. 7, 38.) As (or like) angels in heaven, i. e. immortal, and therefore not dependent upon reproduction for the preservation of their species. Some construe the clause, are in heaven like the angels ; but the words relate to their condition upon earth, not in the resurrection- state, or the period which follows that event, but at the very time of its occurrence. 26. And as touching the dead, that they rise ; have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I (am) the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob ? Touching (about, concerning) the dead, that they do (i. e. are to) rise. As to the truth or the doctrine that the dead rise, Have you not read, or did you never read, as in v. 10. The book of Moses, i. e. the Pentateuch or Law, which is not made up of distinct compositions, but was continuously written, and is really one whole, the subdivisions being merely mechanical and for convenience, which accounts for the five books having now no titles in the Hebrew text, but being desig nated by initial words and phrases. In the bush may either designate the place where the words were originally uttered, or the portion of the Pentateuch in which they are recorded (viz. Ex. 3, 6), according to MARK 12, 26. 27. 331 an ancient method of citation which occurs occasionally even in the classics (e. g. Phny says in plumbo when referring to his chapter upon lead), and as some think in another passage of this gospel (see above, on 2, 26.) This citation takes for granted the Mosaic origin and divine authority of the writing from which it is derived. From our Lord's selecting such a passage rather than others in the later scriptures which appear more pertinent and cogent (e. g. Isai. 26, 19. Ez. 37, 1-10) Ter tullian and Jerome inferred that the Sadducees acknowledged only the five books of Moses, which was long the prevalent belief; but in our day the most competent authorities deny that there is any ground for this opinion, and allege that the Sadducees differed from the Pharisees, not as to the canon of scripture, but only as to the traditional or oral law (see above, on 7, 3.) 27. He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living : ye therefore do greatly err. Two objections, not without some colour, have been made to the va lidity of this, considered as an argument in favour of the resurrection. The first is, that the declaration in the passage cited seems to mean no more than that he who had been the God of Abraham, Isaac and Ja cob, would still be the God of their descendants, which would be no less true if the patriarchs had ceased to exist. The other is, that even if it necessarily assumes their continued existence, it only proves the im mortality of the soul, and not the resurrection of the body. Various attempts have been made to meet this difficulty, by alleging for exam ple that as man consists of soul and body, their reunion is implied or ensured by the fact that God is still their God ; or by assuming that the declaration cited has respect to a covenant represented as still valid, and therefore implying the continued existence of the souls, and the future reunion of the souls and bodies of the human parties to that covenant. But all such explanations lay the chief stress upon some thing not spoken of at all, either in the original passage or in Christ's citation and interpretation of it. Perhaps the simplest and most satis factory solution of the difficulty is, that this is not an argument at all, but an authoritative declaration ofthe truth. Our Lord must then be understood, not as saying that they ought to have known this doctrine to be taught in that familiar passage, but as telling them that this, though not its obvious, is its real meaning. ' Did you never read that gracious declaration of the Lord to Moses, in which he describes him self as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob ? Well, to you that may seem to be a mere reminiscence of the past ; but I can tell you that the patriarchs are there referred to, not as persons who exist no longer, nor even as disembodied spirits, but as living men, possessed of souls and bodies, whose God Jehovah is to be forever, a relation partially suspended for the present by the separation of these parts, but hereafter to be fully reinstated by the resurrection and redemption of the body. In your interpretation of such scriptures, and in your rejection of this doctrine, ye do therefore greatly err) This view of the matter, while 332 MARK 12, 27. 28. it does away with the necessity of all abstruse and recondite construc tions, answers every necessary purpose ; for the context and the circum stances ofthe case are as fully satisfied by an authoritative declaration as they would be by a formal demonstration, since in either case the doctrine of the resurrection is confirmed by the highest possible au thority, the only difference between them being that our Lord, upon the supposition here proposed, instead of arguing the point, simply states the conclusion, thus teaching with authority and not as the scribes (see above, on'l, 22), who, as we learn from Luke (20,39.40), were both satisfied and silenced by this unexpected answer. 28. And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had an swered them well, asked him, Which is the first com mandment of all ? This may at first sight seem to be an attack from a third quarter; but not only were the scribes for the most part Pharisees (see above, on 2, 16), but Matthew (22, 34. 35) says expressly that this one was a lawyer from among them, who acted as their spokesman, on their re assembling after the discomfiture of the Sadducees. It is therefore a renewal of the first assault (vs. 13-17), but in a less insidious form, and by a less prejudiced and hostile agency, yet still with the design of tempting i. e. trying him (Matt. 22, 35.) The way in which the two accounts complete each other as to this point, although perfectly fa miliar to our courts of justice, is of course regarded by some peda gogues and pedants as a glaring contradiction, which it is uncandid and unreasonable either to deny or to attempt to harmonize. This scribe had been a witness ofthe previous conversation, and was no doubt one of those whom Luke describes as applauding our Lord's answer to the Sadducees. While Matthew therefore represents him as a tempter in the sense before explained (see above, on 8, 11. 10, 2. 12, 15) and as the spokesman of the Pharisees, Mark, with perfect consistency, gives prominent relief to his personal respect for Christ and his real curiosity to hear his judgment on the subject here propounded. What (or what kind of) commandment, as the first word strictly means, though often used for mere numerical distinction (see above, on 11, 28.) AU, in the oldest copies, is masculine or neuter, and cannot therefore be grammati cally construed with commandments, but with things understood, form ing a sort of superlative compound, first-of-all. First, i.e. in impor tance and binding force. This is said to be an old rabbinical dispute, still extant in the Jewish books. The trial (or temptation) here in volved no risk (as in the joint demand of the Herodians and Pharisees), but only a dissent from one of the contending parties, and a loss of reputation as a wise expounder of the laws, if not a suspicion of grave error in preferring certain precepts to all others. 29. 30. 31. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the MARK 12, 29-31. 333 commandments (is), Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord ; and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength : this (is) the first command ment. And the second (is) like, (uamely) this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other com mandment greater than these. These snares our Lord avoids by stating in reply, not a precept of the decalogue, or any other one commandment of the law, but its com prehensive summary in Deut. 6, 4. 5 and Lev. 19, 18, the former passage summing up the first and the latter the second table. By this admira ble answer, he avoids the inconveniences attending a more specific one, and at the same time turns away the thoughts of those who heard him from unprofitable subtleties to fundamental principles of the high est practical importance. Instead of singling out particular command ments as entitled to the preference, he gives the first and second place to two contained in scripture and preceptive in their form, yet compre hending all the rest, and at the same time setting forth the true princi ple of action, to which all obedience owes its value and its very being. The first quotation is the famous Shema of the Jewish worship, so called from its first word (vap) meaning hear, and constantly repeated as a sort of creed or summary of all religion. There is no need of at tempting any nice distinction between heart and soul and mind, the obvious design of the accumulated synonymes being to exhaust the one idea ofthe whole man with all his powers and affections. This like wise renders unimportant the additions made to the original, either in the Septuagint or the gospel, and the variations of existing manuscripts, since none of these diversities or changes have thejeast effect upon the main idea of supreme love to God and disinterested lqve toman. Self- love, as being an original principle of our nature, and therefore not sub ject to the caprices of the will, is wisely made the standard of men's iove to one another, which would otherwise be ever sinking far below the level of our natural regard to our own welfare. And (there is) a second, like (or of the same kind, namely) this. Greater than these, other precept (or commandment) there is not. Of all our Saviour's wise and happy answers to insidious or puzzling questions, this is the most exquisitely beautiful, because so unambiguous, so simple, so ex actly corresponding to the form of the question, so evasive of its tri fling and unprofitable element, so exhaustive and demonstrative of what was really important in it, and therefore so unchangeably in structive and so practically useful to the end of time. 32. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth ; for there is one God, and there is none other but he — One of the finest strokes in this fine picture, which the sceptical 334 MARK 12, 32. 33. critics do their best to neutralize, if not efface, is the effect produced upon the scribe himself, a change of feeling altogether natural and easy in a well-disposed and highly cultivated mind, on finding unexpectedly such deep and clear views of the meaning of the law, where he had only looksd for abstruse subtilty or shallow commonplace. The puerile idea, that one evangelist describes him all through as an enemy, the other as a friend, is as worthy of its authors as it is unworthy of the subject, not only on religious principles, but even on their favorite ground of esthetics and psychology. Nothing can be truer to human nature or in better taste than the very change of feeling which these writers so contemptuously set aside as a sheer harmonistical invention. Another pitiful failure of the same school is the effort to identify this conversation with another like it, but of somewhat earlier date, pre served by Luke (10, 25-28), as having given occasion to the parable of the good Samaritan. If this hypothesis, intended to discredit all the narratives, as flowing from inconsistent and confused traditions, requires any other refutation than is furnished by the palpable difference of text and context, it belongs to the exposition of that gospel. Well is not a mere expletive or even a connective similar to why or so at the begin ning of a sentence, but an emphatic adverb (as in v. 28, and in 7, 6. 9. 37 above) here equivalent to excellently, admirably, nobly. Thou hast said the truth, or more exactly, in (or with) truth (i. e. truly) thou hast said, what follows (see above, on v. 14.) Instead of three de tached clauses, we have then one full one, well and truly didst thou say that (not for) there is one (the latest critics omit God, which only makes the phrase still more impressive.) This refers to the first words of our Lord's quotation, the sublime declaration of the divine unity, which the scribe then amplifies, perhaps with reference to the first command ment (Ex. 20, 3.) Not only is he one in the sense of what theologians call simplicity, i. e. without parts, division, or complexity, but also in the negative exclusive sense of onliness, and there is no other except him. This is far from being a mere echo or a vain repetition of the words of Moses ; it is rather a profound though simple comment on them, which is continued through the following sentence. 33. And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love (his) neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt-offerings and sacrifices. Here again, although the scribe repeats the words which Christ had quoted, with an unimportant substitution of equivalents (mind for under standing), which may possibly belong exclusively to Mark's report, it is only for the purpose of another comment or addition, showing like the first (in the preceding verse) a more than ordinary insight into the true sense and spirit of the law. and a remarkable congeniality with Christ's own teaching upon that great subject. As before he made the unity of God exclusive of all others, so he now puts supreme love to MARK 12, 33. 34. 335 him in its true position, with respect to all ritual observances, not as at variance with them, or as superseding them so long as the Mosaic dis pensation lasted, nor merely as superior in degree of dignity and value, but as being the soul or vital principle to which they owed whatever dignity or value they possessed, and in default of which they must be worse than worthless. Burnt-offerings and sacrifices are specific and generic terms, the last denoting animal or bloody offerings in general, the first the olah or most important species of such offerings, in which the victim was entirely consumed, and the whole work of expiation typified. Animal oblations are exclusively mentioned, not as such, but as the most important part of the sacrificial ritual, in which alone the doctrine of vicarious atonement, by tHe sacrifice of life for life, was typified, the vegetable offerings being simply an appendage, a distinct acknowledgment of God's propriety in all his creatures, but apart from the others, as devoid of meaning and effect as when Cain offered fruits of the earth in competition with his brother's bleeding victims (Gen. 4, 3-5. Heb. 11, 4.) The idea here is. more (i. e. intrinsically better, more acceptable to God, and more useful to the worshipper) than all the ceremonies of the law, considered in themselves and as devoid of this informing principle. 34. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him (any ques tion.) Jesus seeing him that he answered implies more than is expressed in the version Jesus saw that he answered, namely, that he saw his person at the same time that he searched his thoughts. Discreetly, in its modern usage, which is almost wholly negative, implying the avoidance of all danger by a wise precaution, falls far short of the original, which answers better to intelligently, meaning strictly and according to its etymology, mind hamingly. He answered as one having voi>s, intelli gence or intellect, not only as a natural endowment, but in active exer cise, and on the highest subjects. This high praise which, although sufficiently attested by our Lord's authority, is also justified by what is here recorded of the man's own language and deportment, is now fol lowed by a still more interesting statement, namely, that he was not far from the kingdom of God, the best explanation of which language is the simplest and most obvious, to wit, that he was almost on the same ground with our Lord's disciples. The reference is not so much to moral dispositions as to intellectual and doctrinal perceptions. This is no assurance that the scribe was then a true believer or would finally be saved. It was rather a warning to come nearer still or rather actually enter, lest he should have cause to wish that he had still re mained afar off. There is the same reticency, as to this man's subse quent career, as in the case of the young ruler (see above, on 10, 22), but with far more positive encouragement to hope that he was ulti- 336 MARK 12, 34-36. mately saved. Yet these are among the very cases, of which Christ himself said, that the first would be last and the last first. (See above, on 10, 31, and compare Matt. 19, 30. 20, 16. Luke 13, 30.) With this most interesting conversation ends the series of tentative interrogations to which the Saviour was exposed in this last visit to Jerusalem, a series progressively diminishing in malice and in craft, until the last interro gator, though a Pharisee, a Scribe, and a tempter or inquisitor, was finally pronounced by Christ himself not far from the kingdom of God; thus bringing out as the result of these experiments on his capacity and wisdom as a teacher, the remarkable fact that, while the worst of his opponents were unable to convict him of an error or betray him into a mistake, the best of them, wBen brought into direct communication with him on the most important subjects, found themselves almost in the position of his own disciples. Under such influences, some attrac tive and conciliating, some repulsive and alarming, it is not surprising that of all our Lord's opponents, whether more or less malignant and fanatical, no one any longer (in the Greek no longer) dared to question him. 35. And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that Christ is the son of David ? Thus far our Lord's position had been wholly a defensive one ; but now he turns the tables and asks a question in his turn, not merely for the purpose of silencing his enemies, but also with a view to the asser tion of his own claims as the Messiah. Answering, retorting their interrogations. While he taught, literally, teaching, not in private conversation, but in the course of his public and official instructions. In the temple, i. e. in its area or enclosure (see above, on v. 11.) How, in what sense, upon what ground, or by what authority. Say, i. e. officially, or ex cathedra, here equivalent to teach. The scribes, as the expounders of the law and the religious teachers of the people (see above, on 1, 22. 9, 11, and compare Matt. 23, 2.) The Christ, the Messiah, Greek and Hebrew synonymes, both meaning Anointed, and applied to the Prophet, Priest and King of Israel, predicted by the prophets, and expected hy the people (see above, on 1, 1. 8, 29. 9, 41.) is, in the doctrine of the scriptures, or is to be, in point of fact. Son, descendant, heir, of David, as the first and greatest theocratical sover eign (see above on 10, 47. 11, 10.) 36. For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The Loed said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till [ make thine enemies thy footstool. For assigns the reason of the question or the ground of the objec tion which it states ; but the latest critics have expunged the particle. In the Holy Spirit, i. e. in intimate union with and under the control- MARK 12, 36. 337 ing influence of that divine person. My Lord, i. e. David's, as our Saviour explicitly declares in the passages already cited ; yet not of David merely as a private person, nor even as an individual king, but as representing his own royal race and the house of Israel over which it reigned. The person thus described as the superior and sovereign of David and his house and of all Israel, could not possibly be David himself, nor any of his sons and successors except one who, by virtue of his twofold nature, was at once his sovereign and his son. See Rom. 1, 3. 4. That the Lord here meant was universally identified with the Messiah by the ancient Jews, is clear, not only from their own traditions, but from Christ's assuming this interpretation as the basis of his argument to prove the Messiah's superhuman nature, and from the fact that his opponents, far from questioning this fact, were unable to answer him a word, and afraid to interrogate him further (Matt. 22, 46.) The original form of expression, in the phrase Sit at my right hand, is the same as in Ps. 109, 31. A seat at the right hand of a king is mentioned in the Scriptures as a place of honour, not arbi trarily, but as implying a participation in his power, of which the right hand is a constant symbol. See above, on Ps. 45, 10 (9), and com pare Matt. 19, 28. The sitting posture is appropriate to kings, who are frequently described as sitting on their thrones. (Compare Ps. 29, 10.) In this case, however, the posture is of less moment than the position. Hence Stephen sees Christ standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7, 55. 50), and Paul simply says he is there (Rom. 8, 34.) The participation in the divine power, thus ascribed to the Messiah, is a special and extraordinary one, having reference to the total subjugation of his enemies. This idea is expressed by the figure of their being made his footstool, perhaps with allusion to the ancient practice spoken of in Josh. 10, 24. This figure itself, however, pre supposes the act of sitting on a throne. It does not imply inactivity, as some suppose, or mean that Jehovah would conquer his foes for him, without any intervention of his own. The idea running through the whole psalm is, that it is in and through him that Jehovah acts for the destruction of his enemies, and that for this very end he is invested with almighty power, as denoted by his session at the right hand of God. This session is to last until the total subjugation of his enemies, that is to say, this special and extraordinary power of the Messiah is then to terminate, a representation which agrees exactly with that of Paul in 1 Cor. 15, 21^28, where the verse before us is distinctly refer red to, although not expressly quoted. It is therefore needless, though grammatical, to give the until an inclusive meaning, namely, until then and afterwards, as in Ps. 112, 8, etc. This verse, it has been said, is more frequently quoted or referred to. in the New Testament, than any other in the Hebrew Bible. Besides the passages already cited, it lies at the foundation of all those which represent Christ as sitting at the right hand of the Father. See Matt. 26, 64. 1 Cor. 15, 25. Eph. 1, 20-22. Phil. 2, 9-11. Heb. 1, 3. 14. 8, 1. 10, 12. 13. 1 Pet. 3, 22, und compare Rev. 3, 21. 15 338 MARK 12, 37. 38. 37. David therefore himself calleth him Lord, and whence is he (then) his son ? And the common people heard him gladly. Therefore, or so then, David calls him Lord, i. e. his own superior or rather sovereign. Whence, from what source, or by what means 1 How is he at once his superior and inferior, his son and sovereign ? The only key to this enigma is the twofold nature of the Messiah as taught even in the Old Testament, and applied to the solution of this very question in the beginning of the epistle to the Romans (1, 3. 4.) But this doctrine had been lost among the Jews, and more especially among the scribes or spiritual leaders, so that to them the question was unanswerable. They still held fast however to the doc-' trine, that he was to be the Son of David, which indeed became a reason for their giving up the doctrine of his higher nature, as being incompatible with what the scripture taught so clearly as to his descent and lineage. It is an instructive instance of perverted inge nuity, that one of the most eminent of modern German critics and interpreters maintains that Jesus, far from admitting that the scribes were right in making Christ the Son of David, teaches here that he was not ! The effect of this unanswerable question upon those to whom it was addressed, or at whom it was aimed, is said by Matthew (22, 46) to have been that no one could answer him a word, nor did any one dare from that day any more to question him. There is of course no inconsistency between this statement and the one in v. 34, above, as both occurrences took place upon the same day; and as it has been well said, while Mark exhibits him as silencing their questions. Matthew goes further and describes him as silencing their very answers. On the other hand, Mark here describes the impression which his teaching made upon the masses. And the common people (literally, the much or great crowd) heard him gladly, sweetly, pleas antly, with pleasure (see above, on 6, 20.) 38. And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and (love) salutations in the market-places — The contrast, tacitly suggested in the verse preceding, is here car ried out by representing Christ as warning them (the crowd who heard him gladly) against the scribes who would have silenced him. In his doctrine, in his teaching, as or while he taught (see above, on 1, 22. 27. 4, 2. 11, 18.) Beware of, literally, see from, not look away from, but look out from, be upon your guard against (see above, on 8. 15.) Love, literally, will, choose, wish, desire. The scribes, those (wishing), admits of two constructions, one of which supposes this to be descriptive ofthe whole class (beware of the scribes, for they love, &c.) the other only of a part (beware of those scribes who, or such scribes as, desire &c.) The proximity of this verse to the one in which our Lord himself pro- MARK 12. 38. 39. 40. 339 nounced a scribe not far from the kingdom of heaven seems to recom mend the latter sense in this place. He is then to be understood as giving them a test by which to regulate their trust in their religious teachers. As if he had said, 'Some scribes are not far from the Messiah's kingdom, while others have lost sight of his divinity; in order to distinguish between those two classes, observe which are proud and ostentatious, selfish and ambitious, in their conduct, and of these beware.' Clothing, clothes, or robes, in Greek the plural of a noun originally meaning equipment, fitting out, applied both to armour and to dress, then restricted to the latter, then confined, as dress in English often is, to the outer garment, robe or mantle, which in the oriental costume is particularly full and flowing. To go, in Greek to walk about, suggesting the idea of a needless locomotion for the pur pose of display. Salutations, formal ceremonious compliments, accord ing to the oriental fashion in the market-places, agora or forum, as the customary places of great concourse (see above, on 6, 56. 7, 4.) 39. And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts. As other objects of desire and frivolous ambition to the baser sort but probably the greater number of the scribes, he names Ihe first seats (one Greek word) in the synagogues, or meetings for religious worship, the idea of a building being secondar}' and incidental (see above, on 1,21. 23. 29. 39. 3,1. 6,2.) Uppermost rooms is a Greek word of the same form, each being compounded of a noun and the ordinal number first. Rooms here means places, as in our familiar phrases make room, no room, while in good room, large room, and most other combinations, it means a chamber or apartment of a house, which is the meaning probably attached to it by many English readers both in this and in several other places (e. g. Lu. 14, 9.) Even places, however, would not be an adequate translation here, the Greek word meaning places to recline, i. e. at table (see above, on 2, 15), and the whole phrase the most honourable or conspicuous of such reclining places which, according to the Greek and Roman usage, was the middle place in each triclinium ov couch intended to be occupied by three. Feasts, suppers, dinners (see above, on 6, 21.) 40. Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers : these shall receive greater damnation. While the preceding verse presents a lively but humiliating picture of the vanity and levity of these Jewish clergy or religious teachers, that before us adds a darker trait, belonging not to manners merely but to morals, or to mores in the higher sense. Those devouring, swal lowing up, consuming, i.e. spending for their own advantage, the houses, often put for households, families, and by Xenophon and iElian, as by Mark, Luke (20, 47), and Matthew (23, 14), for the house with its contents, and so for property in general. Of widows, often mentioned 340 MARK 12, 40. 41. in the Scriptures as the most defenceless class of poor, and therefore special objects both of divine and human pity, whose unrighteous spo liation, whether fraudulent or violent, is here mentioned as an aggravat ing circumstance attending the embezzlements and peculations of these worldly scribes, who may have had peculiar opportunities for such sins, as expounders of the civil no less than the ceremonial and the moral law, or as the ghostly advisers of the sick and dying, the executors of their wills and the guardians of their children, in all which capacities enormous wickedness has been committed, since these words were ut tered, by a corrupted ministry and priesthood. For apretence making long prayers, or more simply, in pretence (or as a pretext) praying long. The only question here is, whether these words (in themselves perspicuous enough) are to be construed with the first clause, as a fur ther aggravation of the wickedness there mentioned (cloaking their fraud and their extortion under unusual appearances of zeal and devo tion, and even using these as means to their nefarious ends), or to be taken as a new and distinct item in the catalogue (affecting such devo tion in pretence, i. e. without sincerity, as hypocrites.) Both these senses being perfectly appropriate and perfectly consistent, it is better as in all such cases to combine them, and to understand our Lord as saying, that these scribes were not only hypocritical and ostentatious in their devotions, but employed this very ostentation and hypocrisy as a means of enriching themselves at the expense of the most helpless classes. So far was their religious office or profession from ex tenuating their guilt, that ou that very ground, as a fearful aggra vation, there (pious sinners) shall receive (not only greater, but) more abundant (or excessive) judgment (righteous retribution), which in this case means of course condemnation, punishment, or exe cution. By these criteria, which any man was able to apply without much risk of error or injustice, he taught the people to distinguish be tween those scribes, probably ihe great mass, of whom they must beware or be even on their guard, and the few who, like the scribe in the pre ceding context, were already " not far from the kingdom of God," (v. 34) 41. And Jesus sat over against the treasury, and be held how the people cast money into the treasury ; and many that were rich cast in much. By a perfectly natural association, the evangelist might here have added, as a sort of contrast to the picture of these hypocrites devouring widows' houses, that of a poor widow, perhaps thus impoverished, giv ing her remaining mite to God, even if the incident itself had hap pened at some other time. But as Mark and Luke (21, 1-4) both give it in the same connection, passing over, as it were, for the purpose, the extended report of Christ's discourse against the Scribes and Phari sees preserved by Matthew (23, 13-39), and as the other incidents of this eventful week, so far as we can judge, are chronologically ordered. it is much the most probable as well as the most pleasing supposition, that soon after he had uttered this same denunciation against clerical MARK 12, 41. 42. 341 plunderers of widows houses, he beheld a widow in the very act of doing what was diametrically opposite. Mark, as usual, imparts to us a clear though brief glimpse of the outward situation. And Jesus sitting, or having sat down, perhaps at the close of the discourse re corded briefly here and in full detail by Matthew, over against, opposite, in front of, the treasury, a name given by the rabbins to thir teen chests called trumpets from their shape, which stood in the court ofthe women, but applied by John (8, 20), either to the court itself, or to some other large apartment of the temple, in which Christ addressed the people upon that occasion and perhaps on this, although the word treasury here means, not the court or room, but the receptacle within it, in which sense Josephus also used it, in saying that the golden vine presented to the temple by Agrippa was suspended over the treasury. The treasuries or store-rooms, mentioned by the same writer in the plural number, have respect to the siege of the city by the Romans, when the citizens deposited their goods for safety in the chambers which surrounded or adjoined the courts of the temple. Beheld how denotes a more particular and curious inspection than would have been ex pressed by the usual word saw. The verb itself means to survey or contemplate as a spectacle, and implies a close observation of the manner as well as of the general fact of contribution. The people, crowd, or multitude, as a promiscuous mass, without distinction of rank or wealth. Cast, casts, the present tense as usual exhibiting the scene as actually passing. Money, literally, brass or copper (see above, on 6, 8.) It ap pears from what is here said, that the contribution was not only in a public place but open to inspection as to what each person gave. And many rich (men) cast (in) many (things or coins) or large (sums.) 42. And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites, which make a farthing. There is something very striking in the form of the original, though not in strict accordance with our idiom. And coming one poor widow, the rery numeral implying loneliness, a trait obliterated by translating it as an indefinite article or pronoun (a or a certain), cast (in) two mites, ov lepta, meaning very small coin, or the smallest then in circu lation. Mark explains the Greek term by a Latin one (KoBpdvrrjs, quad- rans) denoting the fourth part of a Roman as, which was itself the tenth part of the denarius or silver penny mentioned in v. 15 above. The widow's mite was therefore about the fifth part of a cent, and her whole contribution about two fifths. The value is only of importance as showing upon how minute a gift our Lord pronounced this splendid panegyric, which might well be envied by a Croesus or a Rothschild. It is a quaint but flue remark of Bengel, that instead of merely men tioning the sum (a quadrans), Mark gives the pieces that composed it, one of which the widow might have kept, instead of casting both into the treasury. 43. And he called (unto hiin) his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily, I say unto you, That this poor widow 342 MARK 12, 43. 44. hath cast more in than all they which have cast into the treasury. Not content with noticing this humble benefaction for himself, our blessed Lord directs the attention of his disciples to it also. Verily (amen) I say unto you, his accustomed formula in introducing some thing solemn and important, or, as in this case, strange and unexpected. More than all those casting into the treasury on this occasion. In the last verse he explains the principle or gives the key to this paradoxical assertion, namely, that the value of such gifts is to be estimated, not only by the motive, which he takes for granted, or leaves out of the account as too notorious to be overlooked, but by the cost or sacrifice which it involves. 44. For all (they) did cast in of their abundance: but she of her want did cast in all that she had, (even) all her living, For all they, meaning either all the rich expressly mentioned in v. 41, with whom the widow is contrasted in the next verse, or all the rest, as being richer than herself and therefore sacri ficing less in their donations. Of their abundance, out of that abound ing (or remaining over) to them. But she, or as it may be rendered this (one) or this (ivoman,) of her want, out of her deficiency, the noun corresponding to the verb employed in 10, 21. and there explain ed. All that she had, in Greek still more expressive, all (things) whatsoever (or as many as) she had. AU her living, the whole life of her, in which sense life is used occasionally elsewhere. (Luke 8, 43. 15, 12. 30.) Strong as these expressions are, they do not necessarily mean any thing more than that she gave all then at her disposal or com mand, all that she might have spent for her subsistence. CHAFTEB XIII. Having publicly assumed his Messianic office and begun to exercise its powers ; having defined his position with respect to the existing theocratical authorities, and by his last discourse cut off all hope of further tolerance or reconciliation ; our Lord now bids farewell to the temple with a solemn prophecy of its destruction, addressed to his disciples, who inquire as to the time and the premonitory signs of this great catastrophe (1— I.) This gives occasion to a long prophetical discourse, in which he first tells them what are not signs of the end (5- 13), and then what are (14-33), closing with an exhortation to perpe tual vigilance and readiness for his appearance (34-37.) As no part of scripture has been more variously explained than this, with its parallels in Luke and Matthew, it will be well before attempting to interpret the details, to exhibit briefly some of the more general hypotheses by which their meaning is determined, and to discriminate setween what is agreed upon as certain and what is more or less the MARK 13. 345 subject of dispute. The starting point of all discussion on the subject is the universally admitted fact, that we have here an express predic tion ofthe destruction ofthe temple by the Romans. This is granted, even by the infidel who looks upon it as a happy accident, a chance- coincidence, and by the sceptic who regards it as- a prophecy ex eventu. Some go further and suppose the destruction of Jerusalem to be the subject of the whole discourse ; but this requires the assumption of so many hyperbolical expressions, and such a violent construction of the terms apparently referring to remoter changes, that the great mass of interpreters admit the coexistence of two great themes in this context, the destruction of the temple and the end of the world or the present state of things. It then becomes a question how these topics stand related to each other, as to which point there are two main theories, each of which is variously modified. The first is, that these two great subjects are distinctly and sucessively presented, so that the interpreter can separate them from each other ; the second, that they are promis cuously blended, or at least continually interchanged and intermingled, so that such a separation is extremely difficult if not impossible. Of those who take the first view, some suppose the one theme to be finally disposed of, before the other is introduced at all, but differ much as to the precise point of transition, though the greater number fix it either at v. 14 or v. 24 of this chapter (and the corresponding parts of Luke and Matthew.) But as some things in each of the divisions thus obtained seem to be more appropriate to the other, many interpreters assume an inverted order of the topics, or a return to the first after the second is disposed of, or a still more complicated scheme, in which the signs of each event are stated in succession, and then the times in the same order. These inconveniences, as well as other more important reasons, have induced some of the best modern writers to regard both themes as running through the whole discourse, but still with great diversity of judgment as to their precise mutual relation. Some regard this as a typical one, the destruction of Jerusalem prefiguring that of the whole world hereafter. Another theory is the perspective one, according to which nearer and remoter events are presented like the objects in a landscape, without chronological specification of the inter vals between them. A third modification of this same hypothesis is that of sequences or cycles, the same prophecy receiving not a gradual fulfilment merely, which is an assumption common to several of the theories already mentioned, but a series or succession of complete ful filments upon different scales and under diff'erent circumstances. Even this incomplete enumeration will suffice to show the vast variety of plausible hypotheses devised to facilitate tho exposition of this difficult and interesting passage, a variety susceptible of only one solution, namely, that the prophecy itself has been but partially fulfilled, and that the unfulfilled part, from the very nature and design of prophecy, cannot be fully understood, or even certainly distinguished as literal, or figurative, until the event shall make it clear. Every prediction which has been fulfilled was equally mysterious beforehand, for example those of Christ's first advent, scarcely one of which was not suscepti- 344 MARK 13, 1. ble of two or more interpretations till he actually came ; and the same thing may be looked for in the predictions of his second coming. It is the part of wisdom, therefore, not to attempt what is impossible, the anticipation of things yet to be developed, but to ascertain, as far as may be, what has been verified already, and to be contented, as to the remainder, with a careful explanation of the terms employed, according to .analogy and usage, and a reverential waiting for ulterior disclosures by the light of divine providence shining on the word. Among the incidental but important questions raised in this discussion, one of the most difficult and interesting has respect to the apparent nearness of the two events as here predicted, and the mode of recon ciling this representation with the truth of history and our Lord's omniscience. This is a difficulty not confined to any one hypothesis, but pressing more or less on all which recognize a real prophecy with two distinguishable themes or subjects. To this point, as well as to the general question, upon what hypothesis or principle the passage is to be explained, there will be constant reference in the following detail ed examination of the chapter. 1. And as he went out of the temple, one of his disci ples saith unto him, Master, see what maimer of stones, and what buildings (are here !) And he departing (going forth) out of the temple (or sacred enclo sure), not merely leaving it for the night (as in 11, 11. 19), but going finally away from it, an idea still more clearly expressed by Matthew (24, 1.) One of his disciples, probably Peter speaking for the rest, who are mentioned collectively by Matthew, and indefinitely by Luke (21, 5.) Master (i. e. teacher), see, not as if he now surveyed them for the first time, but as a natural and child-like expression of their own surprise and admiration, which may have been uttered before, but only recorded here, because of the remarkable discourse to which it gave occasion. What manner, i. e. what sort or kind, the phrase always used to represent this Greek word in our version (compare Matt. 8, 27. Luke 1, 29. 7, 39. 2 Pet. 3, 11. 1 John 3, 1.) As the words are not a question but an exclamation, there is no need of com pleting the sentence by supplying any thing. What stones! what buildings ! Josephus gives a lively and it might almost seem extrava gant account of the materials used in Herod's renovation of the temple, which he describes as marble blocks of dazzling whiteness and enor mous size, some being twenty-five feet long, twelve high, and eight wide. Buildings, in the plural, means not merely the sanctuary (see above, on 11, 11), but the courts with their porches and adjoining chambers some of which were very spacious. The temple originally built by Solomon (1 Kings 6, 37. 38), and destroyed 400 years after by Nebuzaradan, general of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (2 Kings 25, 9), was rebuilt after long delays and interruptions by the restored Jews under Persian auspices and finished in the year 515 B. C. (Ezra 6, 15.) This structure, which appears to have been much inferior ex- MARK 13 1. 2. 345 ternally to Solomon's (Hagg. 2, 3), was renewed by Herod the Great piecemeal, one part remaining while another was rebuilt, so as to pre serve its moral and historical identity, perhaps on account of the pre diction (Hagg. 2, 7-9. Mal. 3, 1.) Hence it is always known in history not as the third but as the second temple. Herod, with whom the love of art and especially of ornamental architecture was a ruling passion, after decorating and rebuilding many towns and cities both in Palestine and other countries, seems to have chosen for the occupation of his last years the renewal of the temple, in a style of architecture no doubt far superior to that of Solomon, when measured by the classical or Grecian standard. John represents the Jews indeed as say ing that the work had then been going on forty-six years (John 2, 20), i. e. from the time of its original inception, but no doubt with many interruptions and suspensions, though Josephus speaks of eight years during which ten thousand men were constantly employed upon it. The separate mention of the stones is thought by some to imply that the work of renovation was still going on and the materials lying about, singly or in masses. The admiration here expressed by the disciples did not spring from ignorance or want of taste, but from the natural impression made even on untutored minds by architectural magnifi cence. 2. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings ? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Nothing can be more natural than this question as a preparation for the prophecy that follows, as if he had said, 'Stable and secure as these splendid edifices now appear to you.' The same essential mean ing is expressed, but less emphatically, by the affirmative construction (thou seest.) Left, not left behind, whjch is expressed by a different Greek verb (as in 10, 7. 12, 19), but let alone or left in statu quo. Stone upon stone, the literal translation, is equally good English and more pointed than the common version. Shall not, twice repeated, is the peculiarly expressive Greek negation by the aorist subjunctive which excludes all possible contingencies. Thrown down, so translated only here and in the parable (Matt. 24, 2. Luke 21, 6) ; elsewhere de stroyed (see below, on 14, 58. 15, 29), come to nought, overthrow (Acts 5, 38. 39), and once dissolved (2 Cor. 5, 1), the nearest approximation to the strict sense, which is that of loosening, separating the parts, a term peculiarly appropriate to such a total ruin as the one here pre dicted. This verb, and the phrase stone upon stone, have been preserved in all the three accounts, no doubt because the Saviour uttered these very words or their exact equivalents. 3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, over against the temple, Peter, and James, and John, and An drew, asked him privately, 15* 346 MARK 13, 3. 4. On his way from Jerusalem to Bethany, which lay across the mount of Olives, he appears to have sat down on the mountain's brow to rest or to take another view of the city, which from that point lay spread out before him like a map or picture. He sitting (thus) over against (directly opposite) the temple, which was on the east side of the city, next the mount of Olives, and separated from it only by the narrow brook or dell called Kedron (John 18, 1.) The position here assigned to Christ and his disciples is not only striking in itself, but suited to enhance the grandeur of the prophetical discourse that follows. Mark alone names the four disciples, who are no other than the two pairs of brothers first called to attend the Saviour (see above, on 1, 10-20), two of whom (Andrew and John) had left John the Baptist to follow him (John 1, 37), and three of whom (Peter, James and John) had already been distinguished from the rest on more than one occasion (see above, on 5, 37. 9, 2.) Privately (in private or apart) might seem to mean apart from the other nine apostles ; but as Mat thew (24, 3) still says the disciples, it is probable that the four are only mentioned as particularly earnest in making this inquiry, although speaking with and for the rest. 4. Tell us, when shall these things be ? and what (shall be) the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? Tell us more than this, or over and above this, as if what he had just said only served to whet their curiosity or appetite for informa tion. The as.-uranee that this strange event would certainly take place made them only the more anxious to know when, and by what tokens it would be preceded. These things, the changes just predicted, the destruction of the temple with all that it involved or presupposed or carried with it as its necessary consequences. Shall be, happen, come to pass, though not the verb so rendered elsewhere but the sim ple verb of existence. Shall be, at the time of the event, or is now as a mutter of prediction and divine appointment. This shall be is supplied by the translators ; that in the last clause is expressed in the original, but by a verb denoting simple futurition, which can be ren dered into English only by the phrase, about to be fulfilled. Some understand this to mean when all these (things), i. e. the temple and its appurtenances, or the world itself, are about to be finished, i. e. abol ished or destroyed ; but there is no instance of this sense in the New Testament, unless it be the doubtful one in Rom. 9, 28, where it is quoted from the Septuagint version of Isai. 10, 22. It rather means either when these predictions are about to be fulfilled, or still more probably, when this existing state of things, this system or this dis pensation, is about to be completed, wound up, brought to a conclusion (compare Matt. 24. 3.) The sign, token, or premonitory indication, either in the general sense in which all great events or changes may be said to have their signs, or in the special sense of a prophetic sign, or one event predicted to ensure the occurrence of another. The two juestions nay be taken as equivalent expressions for the same thing, MARK 13, 4. 5. 6. 347 when will it be, and how are We to know when it will be 1 or as two distinct inquiries, the first relating to the time and the second to the premonitions. It is plain, however, that even if the questions be dis tinct, they have relation to the same event, and that the disciples looked for the destruction ofthe temple, which their Lord had just predicted, as a part of that great winding up, denouement, or catastro phe, which they were already accustomed to associate with the erection of Messiah's kingdom. 5. And Jesus answering them, began to say, Take heed lest any (man) deceive you. Began to say is always something more than said (see above, on 1, 45. 12, 1), and seems here to imply that what he said was not restrict ed to a single topic, that he first spoke of one thing and then proceeded to another. This is the more probable because our Lord, instead of beginning with the signs or premonitions of his second coming, as many seem to think he does, and as the twelve may have expected, begins by telling what was not to be so reckoned, although apt to be mistaken for the signs in question. But (instead of stating these signs first) he began by saying (something very different.) Take heed, liter ally, look (out), see (to it), be on your guard (see above, on 8, 15. 12, 38.) Lest any (man), or any (one), mislead you, make you err or wander from the truth or from the path of duty. The divine wisdom of the Saviour and his knowledge of the perils which beset his fol lowers are strikingly exemplified in this preliminary warning against error and delusion, this exposure of false signs before giving a descrip tion of the true. This method of proceeding is the more remarkable because tho course suggested by fanatical excitement is the very oppo site, and even wise men who devote themselves to such inquiries are too prone to look exclusively at what is positive in Christ's instruc tions, without heeding this preliminary admonition, or even observing that his purpose in this first part of his discourse is not to tell what are but what are not the premonitions of the great catastrophe to which he here refers, whatever it may be. 6. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am (Christ), and shall deceive many. For (introducing the ground or reason of this unexpected warning) many will come in my name, a very common phrase in the New Tes tament and used repeatedly in this gospel (see above, on 9, 37. 38. 39. 41. 11, 9. 10, and below, on 16, 17), but here in a stronger sense than usual to denote, not mere profession or commission or dependence, but a literal assumption of another's name or personation of him, as ap pears from what follows, saying (that) I am, i. e. I am Christ, as expressed by Matthew (24, 5), and correctly supplied here by the translators. (See the similar expression used above in 6, 50, and there explained.) This description would include false Messiahs, i. e 348 MARK 13, 6. 7. such as claimed to be the true Messiah in opposition to our Lord, and false Christs, i. e. such as claimed to be himself, returned again ac cording to his promise. The latter sense is certainly the most appro priate in this connection, where he is not speaking to the Jews who doubted or denied his Messiahship, but to his own disciples who had solemnly acknowledged it (see above, on 8, 29), and who were much less in danger of deception by the claims of any new competitor than by a personation of the Lord himself. But when was this fulfilled 1 We have no historical account of false Messiahs or false Christs, in either of the senses just explained, before the downfall of Jerusalem ; whereas there are reckoned more than fifty false Messiahs since that time among the Jews, from Bar Cochba in the second century to Sabbatai Zebhi in the seventeenth ; and among the Christians various fanatics and impostors have directly or indirectly claimed to be our Lord him self, in one sense or another. This is one of the chief difficulties which attend the exclusive application of this part of the discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the period immediately preceding it ; to overcome which those who advocate that view are under the neces sity of assuming, without evidence from history, that the prophecy was verified, or of reckoning as false Christs some who were only false prophets or false teachers or fanatical impostors, such as Simon Magus, Elymas, Theudas, Judas the Gaulonite, Dositheus, Menander, Cerinthus, and others ; no one of whom is known to have assumed that sacred name and character. Some escape the difficulty by applying this par ticular prediction to a later period, and others, as we have already seen, by giving a wide scope to the whole discourse, and making this part comprehend all false pretensions of the kind in question, from the dale of the prediction to the end of time. 7. And when ye shall hear of wars, and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled ; for (such things) must needs be, but the end (shall) not (be) yet. Having told them that the mere assumption of his name, or profes sion of identity with him, however many might attempt it, would be no sign of his actual return, he now points out another false sign of a very different nature, not dependent upon human cunning or impos ture, but on the misapprehension of God's providence by believers themselves. When ye hear (not shall hear, which is too exclusive, though the reference is really to the future) wars and rumours (lite rally, hearings) of wars, which some suppose to mean the same thing, the second phrase being added to explain how wars could be heard, when ye hear wars, even (or that is) rumours of wars. But most in terpreters suppose two different objects to be here distinguished ; either wars immediately at hand the sound of which is heard directly, and those more remote which are known only by report ; or actual wars, such as have already broken out, and threatened or inchoate wars, of which rumour gives premonitory notice. Be ye not troubled, agitated, filled with consternation, as if these commotions necessarily imply tho MARK 13, 7. 8. 349 imminence of some great catastrophe or of the final consummation. The necessity of this caution, not to the first disciples merely but to their successors, is abundantly apparent from the well-known fact that pious men in every age have been continually falling into this mis take. It would be easy to evince, by a catena of quotations from the earlier and later fathers, from the medieval writers, the reformers, and the protestant divines of the last three centuries, that this propensity to look on national commotions and collisions as decisive proof that the world is near its end, has never been extinguished in the church. There are no doubt truly devout Christians at this moment drawing such conclusions from the mutiny in India and the war in China, in direct opposition to our Lord's command, which, even if directly applied only to the first disciples and their times, involves a principle admitting of a no less certain application to ourselves and our times. The mean ing is not that such changes may not be immediately succeeded by the greatest change of all, but only that they are no sign of it, and ought not to be so regarded. 8. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be earthquakes in (di vers) places, and there shall be famines, and troubles : these (are) the beginnings of sorrows. The first clause of this verse simply represents as certain what had only been referred to as a possible or probable contingency. ' I say this because national disturbances not only may but will occur, and you will therefore be in danger of this very error.' Rise, or retaining the emphatic passive form, will be roused (see above, on 1, 31. 4, 27. 5, 41. 6, 14. 12, 26, and compare the illustration drawn from such events in 3, 24.) The next clause extends what has just been said of national commotions to physical calamities and social troubles, earthquakes, famines and disturbances, which last word seems to mean internal troubles, such as riots and rebellions, as distinguished from foreign or international collisions ; but the word is omitted by the latest critics because wanting in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions. The textual question is of less importance, as the enumeration of par ticulars is not intended to exhaust but to exemplify the general idea of commotions and calamities, from which the followers of Christ would be tempted to expect his speedy re-appearance. This mistake is not theoretical but practical, because it confounds the beginning with the end of a disciplinary process, and unnerves men for exertion and en durance, by the hope of speedy or immediate respite, when a long course of trial and of suffering is still before them. This idea, which was negatively brought out in the last clause ofthe verse preceding, is posi tively brought out in the last clause of the one before us, where the original order of the words is peculiarly significant and striking. Be ginnings (not endings, as you may hastily conclude) ef throes (or vangs are) these (things). There is also wonderful significancy in tha 350 MARK 13, 8. 9. second noun, which properly denotes, not sorrows or pains in general, but the pangs of childbirth in particular, a figure often used in scripture to describe not mere intensity of suffering, but also the accessory ideas pf its being sudden, temporary, and productive of some new result. Hence it is never applied to the torments of fhe damned nor even to the life-long sorrows of the present state, but'only to intense yet mo mentary pains preceding some extraordinary change for the better or the worse (compare Isai. 26, 17. John 16, 21. 1 Thess. 5, 3.) Here again it is difficult to find in contemporary history a state of things answer ing to this description before the downfal of Jerusalem, the Roman empire being then at peace and the provincial wars of which we read too insignificant and local to exhaust the meaning of this terribly sub lime description. 9. But take heed to yourselves ; for they shall deliver you up to councils, and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten, and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them. The double pronoun in the first clause is peculiarly emphatic, but see ye to yourselves, implying a return from more remote anticipations or predictions to his immediate hearers. As if he had said. ' but while these dangers will exist for ages and these errors be committed by many generations of those who shall succeed you, there are others still more imminent, affecting you as individuals, and calling for the utmost care and circumspection to avoid them.' These were the dangers of immediate persecution to which the apostles would be soon exposed, of arraignment before councils or tribunals, whether national or local, with personal maltreatment of a painful and disgraceful kind, but with the accompanying opportunity of bearing witness to the truth and to their master before civil rulers of the highest rank. The indefinite con struction, they shall deliver you, is equivalent in sense, though not in form, to the passive, ye shall be delivered. The verb does not of itself denote treacherous betrayal, but simply transfer or delivery into the power of another, and especially of magistrates or executioners (Luke 12, 58.) Councils, synedria, a word corresponding in its etymology to sessions and 'consistories, or meetings where men sit together for some common purpose, and especially for consultation or deliberation upon public business. An Aramaic corruption of this Greek word (Sanhedrin) was used to designate the national council of the Jews, composed of priests, scribes, and elders of the people (see above, on 8, 81. 11,27); but the word itself may have been extended to the local courts of jus tice. In (literally into) the synagogues, which some philologists regard as a mere interchange of particles, but others as a const ructio prmgnans, in which previous entrance is implied though not expressed. Into the synagogues ye sliall be (taken and) beaten, or scourged in the severest manner (see above, on 12, 3. 5.) Synagogues is here to be taken in its proper rense of public meetings, chiefly for religious worship, at which MARK 13, 9. 10. 11. 351 the Jewish traditions also represent such punishments as having been inflicted, not as religious or ecclesiastical penalties, but for the sake of greater publicity, as secular notices in England are in certain cases pub lished in the churches, or at least upon the church-doors. Before, a Greek preposition idiomatically used to signify judicial or forensic ap pearance in the presence of a magistrate, a neglect of which idiom has obscured the sense in our translation of Matt. 28, 14. Rulers (leaders, governors) and kings, here put for the highest class of civil magistrates or rulers. Sliall be brought, literally, stood, or made to stand (as in 9, 36) as culprits or offenders. For my sake, or on my account, i. e. be cause ye are my followers and bear my name, diffuse my doctrines and promote my cause. For a testimony to the true religion and the claims of Christ as the Messiah. Against them, or more exactly, to them, i. e. the rulers just referred to, without indicating the effect upon them. This prediction was fulfilled in the apostles, as we know from the example of the only ones whose history has been recorded (see Acts 4, 8. 5, 27. 12, 3. 16, 20. 17, 19. 18, 12. 22, 30. 24, 1. 25, 2. 26, 1. 2 Tim. 4, 16.) There is no need therefore of extending the imme diate application of the words beyond them. 10. And the gospel must first be published among all nations. As the corresponding part of Matthew (24, 14) occurs later in our Lord's discourse, some consider it misplaced in Mark's account ; but as all the manuscripts assign it this position, we must regard it as at least appropriate, if not actually uttered in this connection. Nor is there any incongruity or incoherence in this collocation, since the next verse may be taken as a natural recurrence to the present or the proximate future, after referring to that more remote. And to (or into) all na tions, an indefinite expression answering to generally, everywhere, wherever it is meant to be diffused, in opposition to a merely local proclamation, must first, i. e. first of all, as the great end to be secured, and as a necessary consequence before you can expect your efforts or your sufferings to cease. Be published, heralded, proclaimed, the gos pel, standing emphatically at the end, i. e. the glad news of my advent and salvation. Even in reference to the agency of the apostles, this was substantially fulfilled in a very general extension of the church before the downfal of Jerusalem. 11. But when they shall lead (you), and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate, but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye ; for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. The exhortation to be confident and undismayed is now put into the peculiar but expressive form of a command not even to premeditate what they should say in self-defence before the magistrates and rulers 352 MARK 13, 11. 12. 13. previously mentioned. They, indefinitely, as in v. 9. Lead you and deliver you, in Greek, lead you delivering, the pronoun standing in the same relation to the verb and participle, which together express a simul taneous action. To take thought, in old English, is not merely to think, but to be anxious or solicitous, which is also the meaning of the Greek verb here. Shall be given, or more exactly, may be given, a construc tion strongly expressive of contingency. In that hour, or time (see above, on 6, 35. 11, 11), i. e. when you are thus delivered and arraigned. That (literally, this) speak (and nothing else) ; it is not merely an en couraging assurance, but a positive command to mix nothing of their own with what was thus communicated to them. The same remark applies to the next clause, ye are not the (persons) speaking, but (it is) the Holy Spirit. This means, not simply that the Holy Spirit would provide for them and spare them the necessity of self-defence, but also that they must not interfere with this mysterious advocate, but look upon themselves as nothing more than vehicles or channels of his reve lations. 12. Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son, and children shall rise up against (their) parents, and shall cause them to be put to death. This verse carries out the idea of the ninth with a fearful definite- ness and distinctness, by explaining the vague subject of the verb there, as including not only enemies but friends, the nearest friends. In other words, they must prepare themselves for the disruption of the tenderest ties. Now may seem to introduce an argument or indicate a change of topic ; but in Greek it is the usual connective (Si) elsewhere rendered and or but. The nouns in the original are without the article, which not only adds to the rapidity and vigour of the sentence, but brings out the different relations more distinctly and vividly, brother and brother, father and son, children and parents. Betray is the same verb that is translated deliver up in vs. 9. 11, and is used here in precisely the same sense. There is a needless and enfeebling circumlocution in the version of the last clause, which means simply, they will kill them (ov put them to death.) The whole verse is merely an amplification of the ground or reason of the exhortation at the beginning of v. 9. But ye, take heed to yourselves, for dangerous and trying times are just before you. 13. And ye shall be hated of all (men) for my name's sake ; but he tliat shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved. This verse caps the climax of anticipated horrors by requiring them to be prepared not only for unnatural but universal hatred, founded not upon any thing belonging to themselves, but on that which might have been expected to protect them, their relation to their master. For (or on account of) my name, not only because you bear it and invoke it, MARK 13, 13. 14. 353 but because of all that it expresses and implies. In a word, he exhorts them to prepare for the worst, but at the same time assures them that the (one) persevering and enduring (for the Greek verb expresses both ideas) to the end, not a fixed point but a relative expression (as in v. 7), meaning the extreme or uttermost of the trials through which any one is called to pass, shall be saved, rescued, finally delivered from them. He promises them no exemption from the common lot, but rather intimates peculiar trials, both in kind and in degree, yet with the cheering promise of escape at last. Here again the terms of the prediction, although in themselves appropriate to the apostles and to some extent realized in their experience, seem intended to embrace a wider scope and to provide for a variety of other cases. What is most important to observe, however, is, that here ends the negative part of Christ's discourse, in which he shows them what are not the signs for which they asked, and teaches them that neither the assumption of his name, nor wars, nor international commotions, nor intestine strife, nor providential calamities, nor persecution, nor the severing of the nearest ties, nor the hatred of Christ's followers for his own sake, however dreadful in themselves, are any sign of his approach, to put an end to the existing state of things ; for through all these men may pass unin jured and survive them. 14. But when ye shall see the abomination of desola tion, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not— let him that readeth understand— then let them that be in Judea flee to the mountains : Here begins the positive part of his discourse, or his direct answer to the question of the four disciples in v. 4. But may here have its proper adversative force, equivalent to saying, on the other hand, when ye shall see, or more exactly, when ye see, another aorist subjunc tive (see above, on v. 7), the abomination of desolation (or the desolating abomination), an expression borrowed from the prophet Daniel (9, 27), and applied in the Apocrypha (1 Mace. 1. 54) to the sacrilegious profana tion of the altar by Antiochus Epiphanes. The first noun in Hebrew de notes originally any thing disgusting or revolting, but is specially applied in usage to objects of religious abhorrence, and especially to every thing connected with idolatry and heathenism. The epithet attached to it means wasting, desolating, and is particularly used to denote the devas tations incident to war. The combination of the two suggests the com plex idea of a heathen conquest, which, to the vast majority of readers in all ages, has appeared peculiarly expressive of the Roman triumph over Israel and destruction of the Holy City under Titus (compare Luke 21, 20), although some have ingeniously attempted to explain it of moral and religious depravation from within. The (one) spoken of by Daniel the prophet is excluded by the latest critics as an unauthorized assimilation to the text of Matthew (24, 15.) Standing where it ought not (or must not), i. e. in a holy place as here expressed by Matthew 354 MARK 13, 14. 15. (24, 15.) Let the (one) reading attend (or understand), a parenthetical command, referred by some to Christ himself, in which case it is a monition to the readers of the prophet, and would here be out of place, unless the reference to Daniel be a part of the true text. Another ex planation, which may be said to be a favourite with the modern writers, understands this clause as an interjectional suggestion of the evangelist himself, directing the attention of the reader to this remarkable quota tion and prediction. But why should both evangelists make the same interjectional suggestion at the same place, without any thing in Christ's words to occasion it? As to the mention of the prophet Daniel, it is not absolutely needed to give meaning to the admonition, since every Jewish hearer would at once recognize it as a citation of a well-known passage in a well-known prophet. Or if the admonition does necessarily imply a previous mention of the prophet, it furnishes an argument of no small weight in favour of the textus receptus. Asa signal instance of perverted ingenuity it may be mentioned, that one of the earlier neolo-1 gists of Germany explained this as a caution to the reader against thinking this the genuine and proper sense of Daniel's language ! Then, in that case, you will have seen a sign at last of my approach, and may begin to act accordingly. Then let the (disciples) in Judea flee (escape) into the mountains or the highlands of the interior (see above, on 3, 13. 5, 5), as the Christians in the siege of Jerusalem, according to Eusebius, did flee beyond them to Pella, on the northern frontier of Perea. The full force of this exhortation cannot be perceived except by viewing it in contrast with the former part of the discourse, in which he accumulates what seem to be sufficient causes of alarm and flight, but only to forbid them. ; Though thousands should appear professing \ \ , to be Christ, though every nation in the world should be involved in war, though all the ties of nature should be broken, and though men should hate me so intensely as to persecute you purely upon my ac count, no matter, remain quiet, "in your patience possess ye your souls " (Luke 21, 19.) These are fearful evils and will lead to dreadful suffering, but they are not signs of my appearing. But when you see a heathen host triumphant upon sacred ground, then, then flee from Judea to the mountains, for a great catastrophe is then at hand.' 15. 16. And let him that is on the house-top not go down into the house, neither enter (therein), to take any thing out of his house ; and let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. These are mere amplifications of the precept to make haste, drawn in part from oriental usage. The house-top (literally, dome, which originally meant a building, then a roof, and now a round roof), is here the flat roof of the east, often resorted to for sleep, retirement, prayer, or recreation, and communicating with the street or field by stairs upon the outside, to which some suppose allusion here, while others under stand it as an exhortation to escape by flight along the tops of the con- MARK 13, 16-19. 355 tiguous houses to the city wall, in either case without descending into the interior of the dwelling, even for the most necessary purpose. The same idea of extreme haste is vividly excited by the image of the husband man or farmer fleeing from the field without returning to that part of it (or to the house) where he has laid aside his upper garment. The (one) being in the field, literally, into it, i. e. who has gone (and still re mains) there. 17. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days ! The same impression of extreme haste and confused flight is now heightened by an exclamation of compassion for those who are retarded even by the tenderest affections and the most beloved encumbrances. Woe to is here equivalent to alas for, as an expression not of wrath but pity. Those with child (literally, having in the womb), because unfit to travel ; suckling (giving suck), because unable to escape without aban doning their infants. In those days, i. e. when the sign of this great revolution shall appear. 18. And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. The same impression is still further strengthened by exhorting them to pray, thus suggesting their absolute dependence upon God for such a mercy, that these premonitory signs may be so ordered as to time, that their flight may not be hindered by the season or the weather, theUreek word signifying properly a storm, and then the stormy season or the winter. These four verses (15-18) contain no new information or prediction, but merely serve to enforce and amplify the precept in the last clause of v. 14, and in conjunction with it to convey the strongest possible impression of urgent danger and precipitate escape. 19. For (in) those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. All this implies that the evils thus to be escaped must be extraor dinary both in kind and in degree, which implication is now exchanged fona direct assertion, in a hyperbolical but not fictitious form, that the distress against which they are here warned, and from which they are instructed here to save themselves, would be without a parallel in hu man history. Although it is not absolutely necessary to attach the strongest meaning to these strong expressions, it is certainly desirable to understand them strictly if we can, and thus avoid the disadvantage which always accompanies the process of extenuating and diluting the expressions even of uninspired and human speakers. Now it is, to say the least, a singular coincidence that the contemporary narratives of tho Jewish War, the siege of Jerusalem, its capture, and the sufferings in cident to both, describe the latter in such terms as make our Lord's 356 MARK 13, 19. 20. 21. prediction any thing but hyperbolical in form or substance. Referring the reader for details to Josephus, and to those modern writers who have wrought up his materials in other forms, we may simply say on the authority of these contemporary statements which there seems to be no reason for disputing or at least no means of refuting, that there probably has never been so great an amount of human suffering from physical and moral causes, within so short a time and so confined a space, as in the last siege of Jerusalem by Titus. This not only serves to vindicate our Lord's prediction from the imputation of ex travagance, but also to restrict its application to that great event, the history of which by an independent Jewish writer, with the best imag inable opportunities of information, so remarkably illustrates and con firms his language. 20. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved ; but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days. As if even this comparison with other times of suffering were not enough, our Lord adds the finishing stroke to his appalling picture, by declaring that distresses so intense would be too much for human weakness to endure, unless contracted by a special divine interposition. Except that (literally if not, unless) the Lord, the Sovereign God, Je hovah (see above on 12, 29. 37), had shortened, docked, curtailed, a Greek verb primarily signifying amputation or mutilation of the limbs of animals, and here applied, by a lively figure, to the abbreviation of a period of time ; not to the shortening of the several days, as some suppose, but to that of their aggregate amount. No flesh, no human life, with distinct allusion to its frailty and infirmity, should be, (or rather could be) saved, i. e. delivered from destruction. But this condition is complied with. For the sake of (or on account of) the elect (or chosen ones), not those of men, but those whom God has chosen to be thus excepted, Hath shortened tlie days, in his own purpose, which secures their being actually shortened hereafter. 21. And then, if any man shall say to you, Lo, here (is) Christ, or lo, (he is) there, believe (him) not. And then, at that time also, i. e. at the time of extreme suffering just described, or at a period immediately succeeding it, no less than at the time referred to in vs. 5. 6, whether earlier or later, there will be danger of delusion from false Christs and false prophets. If any (one), any person, any body, man or woman, say to you, Lo (behold. look, see) here (is) the Christ (or the Messiah), or lo there (he is), be lieve not (him or it), the man himself or what he says to you. This seems to imply that the coming of Christ, the signs of which had just been given (vs. 14-20), was not to be a visible personal appearance; for if it had been, the declaration, he is here, or he is there, would not have been necessarily and invariably false, and the disciples could not MARK 13, 21. 22. 23. 357 have been charged to disbelieve it, from whatever quarter it proceeded. This consideration, taken in connection with the wonderful coincidence, already spoken of, between the previous description and occurrences attending the destruction of Jerusalem, seems to establish the important fact, that in a part at least of this prophetical discourse, the coming of Christ is an invisible impersonal one, and that any teaching to the contrary, respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, might be rejected as delusive and unauthorized. 22. For false Christs and false prophets shall, rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if (it were) pos sible, even the elect. As the preceding admonition was conditional in form (if any one say), and might therefore seem to be suggestive merely of a possible contingency, the fact is now explicitly affirmed, that such impostors would undoubtedly appear, with the remarkable addition, that their claims would be supported by miraculous credentials. Signs and won ders is a common phrase for miracles, exhibiting them under the two fold aspect of proofs or attestations and of prodigies or portents. Show, literally, give, which has been taken in three different senses ; that of offering or promising, without performing ; that of giving out, profess ing, or pretending ; and that of really affording or exhibiting. The last, as being the strict sense of the expression, is entitled to the prefer ence without some positive reason for departing from it. Now the only reason that can be suggested is the supposed improbability of the thing predicted, aud the absence of historical proof that the prediction was fulfilled in this sense. But we do read on the one hand of extravagant pretensions, and on the other of extraordinary portents, just before or at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem ; and how far these things were connected, may be reasonably made a question. This prediction, in its strict sense, is among the passages which seem to show that even real miracles are not sufficient of themselves to prove the truth of any doctrine, but only one part of a complex demonstration, at once sensi ble, rational, and spiritual. The last clause expresses both the ten dency and purpose of these lying wonders, to seduce, to the seducing or deceiving away from (the truth and from the church), if possible (im plying that it is not), even (or also, no less than others) the elect, those chosen to salvation, both in the proximate and lower sense of present deliverance from such deception, and in the higher one of ultimate de liverance from sin and suffering (see above, on v. 20.) , 23. But take ye heed ; behold, I have foretold you all (things.) He now exhorts them to do their part by becoming caution, as he had done his by timely admonition. But (on the other hand) do ye (emphatic because not necessarily expressed in Greek as it is in Eng lish) look (out), see (to it), be on your guard ; for if you fail to do so 358 MARK 13, 23. 24. it will not be my fault. Behold, a word entirely different froni that immediately preceding, and in this connection nearly equivalent to our phrase, you see, you know. I have foretold, or told you beforehand, an expression not confined to prophecy or supernaturat prediction, but oc casionally used to express mere priority of time or order, a distinction here of no importance where the two things coincide, as he had not only spoken but predicted it beforehand. This appeal to the apostles as in danger of delusion, and responsible for the use of the prescribed means of escape from it, implies that the reference is still to those times, without any indication of a wider or ulterior purpose. 24. But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light. The language of this verse is entirely perspicuous ; but as to its application and connection, there are two questions of no small diffi culty and importance. The first is, what we are to understand by those days, and as a subordinate point, that tribulation? The other is, in what sense the great physical changes mentioned in the last clause are to be explained, as figures for political and social revolutions, or as literal mutations in the face of nature. These questions are by no means independent of each other, the solution of the second being really involved in the solution of the first. In a case so doubtful and uncer tain, where the speculations and disputes of ages have succeeded only in presenting new alternatives, without providing new means of deci sive choice between them, it will be sufficient to record the two most plausible and popular hypotheses, to which indeed all others may be readily reduced. The first assumes that this is a direct continuation of the previous prediction, so that those days are the days of the de struction of Jerusalem, and that distress the unexampled suffering by which it was preceded and accompanied, From this assumption, by a necessary consequence, it follows that the changes mentioned in this verse and the next are figures for national and social revolution ; that the coming of the Son of Man (predicted in v. 26) is the same invisible coming which took place at the destruction of Jerusalem (see above, on v. 21) ; and lastly, that the angels of v. 27 are the preachers of the gospel, and the gathering there ascribed to them the planting and ex tension of the church among the Gentiles. It is vain to say, in opposi tion to this view, that it converts into figures what may just as well be literally understood; because so, long as it remains true that some prophecies are not to be strictly interpreted (for instance that of Mal achi respecting Elijah, as explained by Christ himself in 9, 12. 13), it will still be possible to put a similar construction upon others, and will still be made a question whether this is right or wrong in any given case, until decided by the actual event, like the prophecies respecting our Lord's advent and the circumstances of his passion (see above, p. 342.) The adherents of the figurative explanation can appeal to a long series of Old Testament predictions, where it seems just as natural and clear to them as it seems irrational and false to their opponents. MARK 13, 24. 25. 359 The question therefore cannot be decided, either upon abstract princi ples of hermeneutics, or from the general analogy of scripture, since the principles are really the subject of dispute, and the analogies adduced are just as doubtful as the case before us. The only way in which the ultimate solution of the question can be hastened or facilitated, is by appealing to the context and inquiring whether the construction which has now been stated is the simplest and most natural. In favour of it is the consecution of the passage and the intimate connection with the previous context, without any explicit indication of a change of subject. On the other hand it may be urged that such transitions are not al ways formally announced, but often slightly though intelligibly hinted, and that even those who deny the change of subject hero, are obliged to admit it at some later point of the prediction, where it is no more self-evident or certain than at this. But is there any indication, even a slight one, that our Lord here passes to a more remote futurity ? Such an indication some discover in the conjunction but and pronoun those, which although it may possibly mean those same, or the days just mentioned, may also mean, and it is said with closer adherence to its primary usage, as denoting a remoter object, those other, or the days spoken of before but not in the immediate context, or even though not previously spoken of at all in this discourse, yet readily suggested and intelligible from its whole design and purport. According to this view of the passage, after having warned the twelve of the physical and moral risks to which they must expect to be exposed in the approach ing crisis of the Jewish church and state, he says, but in those (other) days, after that tribulation (without saying how long after), there shall be a change, not only in the church and state, but in the frame of nature, and then shall the Son of Man appear again, not as in the other case invisibly, but visibly and in his proper person, in the clouds and with his angels, who shall gather together the elect from every quarter. This exegetical hypothesis has certainly the great advantage of apply ing the strong language of the passage to a change which all believe to be predicted elsewhere, although some deny that it is foretold here. As to the question of connection and the sense to be attaohed to those days, it is so minute and subtle, as a question both of logic and phi lology, that even the most candid and judicious may arrive at very dif ferent conclusions. These remarks have reference to the report of Mark alone ; the additional difficulties which arise from the word im mediately used by Matthew (24, 29), and the mode of reconciling that expression with the last view here presented, can be most conveniently considered and disposed of in the exposition of that gospel. 25. And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. Shall fall, or more exactly, shall befalling, which unusual expres sion may denote a continued rather than a sudden fall, whether literal or tropical. From its not being said upon the earth (as in Rev. 9. 1), some infer that the stars are here described as falling out (the strict 360 MARK 13, 25. 26. 27. sense of the Greek word), i. e. going out, expiring (compare Rom. 9, 6. 1 Cor. 13, 8. Jas. 1, 11. 1 Pet. 1, 24), or apparently falling out of heaven, like what are vulgarly called shooting stars. The powers (those) in heaven, are by some understood to mean the heavenly host (or forces), an expression applied elsewhere both to the heavenly bodies and to angels. Others, with less probability, attach to it the abstract sense of physical forces, or the powers of nature, those mysterious in fluences by which the celestial motions and phenomena are caused and regulated. The essential idea, upon either of these suppositions, still remains the same, namely, that of total change in the appearance of the heavens. Shaken, a Greek verb originally denoting the commotion of the sea, but applied in usage to all violent agitation, whether physical or moral (compare Matt. 11, 7. Luke 6, 38. 48, with Acts 17, 13. 27, 4. 2, 2.) 26. And then shall they see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then, i. e. according to the first interpretation above given (on v. 24), at the same time, that of the destruction of Jerusalem ; accord ing to the other, then and not before, at the time of the final consum mation just predicted. The Son of Man, the Messiah, now in his state of humiliation, but then exalted to the right hand of power. In clouds (without the article), not in the ordinary clouds of heaven, but sur rounded by such vapoury yet luminous integuments as anciently dis closed and at the same time veiled the glory of Jehovah's presence(see above, on 9, 7, and compare Ex. 14, 20. 16, 10. 19, 9. Num. 10,.37. Ps. 97, 2. Dan. 7, 13.) With power much and glory, i. e. not only in the actual possession of divine power and authority, but also with a visible display of it, according to the scriptural usage of the Greek and Hebrew terms translated glory (Ps. 68, 17. Acts 7, 53. Heb. 12, 22.) 27. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven. The presence of the angels, implied in the preceding verse, as in every mention of a theophany or divine manifestation (see above, on 8, 38, and compare Luke 9, 24. 9, 52), is here distinctly mentioned in con nection with their office as ministering spirits to the heirs of salvation (Heb. 1, 14), and especially as sent forth to assemble them on this occa sion. Those who understand this as referring to the fall of Jerusalem and its effects, either take angels in its primary and wide sense of mes sengers, or in the usual sense as figures for the preachers of the gospel, or as themselves invisibly but really employed in its diffusion. Gather together is in Greek still stronger, as the double compound verb suggests the additional idea of a common centre, or rallying point, rendezvous. ¦ The four winds, the cardinal points from which the winds blow, used in prophecy for the boundaries of the whole earth and for MARK 13, 27. 28. 29. 361 all between them (Ezek. 37, 9. Dan. 7, 2. 11, 4.) From earth's end to heaven's end, without the article prefixed to either of the nouns, i. e. from end to end of the world or visible creation, of which heaven and earth are the two great divisions. Some, with less probability, suppose an allusion to the apparent junction of the earth and sky at the horizon or the boundary of vision. But in either case, the main idea is the same, that of assemblage from the whole world in its widest extension and remotest bounds. 28. ISTow learn a parable of the fig-tree. When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near. Now is not an adverb of time (viv), but the usual connective (hi) meaning simply and or but, but not with the strong adversative force of the conjunction (dXkd) at the beginning of v. 24. From the fig-tree (i. e. as proceeding from it or afforded by it) learn the parable (i. e. the analogy appropriate to this case and throwing light upon it.) Her branch, a literal translation ofthe Greek, in which the word for fig-tree is feminine. The' possessive its appears to have been unknown at the date of our translation, and the old form thereof 'is avoided here as awk ward and cacophonous. Has already become soft (or tender) with the flowing sap, and thus prepared for germination. Is yet, referring to a pre vious condition as still lasting, conveys the very opposite idea to the one intended, which is that of change at the return of spring. Puts forth, lets grow, or, if taken as a passive form, are put forth, which however is less natural and less accordant with the half-personification of the fig-tree in the words preceding. Ye know that near the summer is, one of our Lord's numerous appeals, not only to the processes of nature, but to the business and experience of common life, to illustrate moral truth. This is the third recorded use of the fig-tree for that purpose (see above, on 11, 13, and compare Luke 13, 5.) 29. So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, (even) at the doors. So also ye, an emphatic form, still stronger than the one at the be ginning of v. 23, and serving to distinguish his immediate hearers from the subject of the verb know in v. 28, although the parties are identical. The antithesis really intended is between their habits of external obser vation as to natural changes and the duty of analogous attention to far more important moral changes. (Compare Luke 12, 54-56.) Come to pass, or rather coming to pass, happening. They must not wait until the signs were past before they drew their conclusion and addressed themselves to action. Know, precisely the same form in Greek with that in the preceding verse, and there translated ye know ; but this for tuitous coincidence between the second person plural of the present in dicative and imperative, is one of the few ambiguities belonging to the 16 362 MARK 13, 29. 30. Greek verb, and occasionally making the construction doubtful (as in John 14. 1), although here the sense is clear from the connection, even in the common text ; but the oldest manuscripts and latest critics have the passive form (ywdxo-KHTm) it is known. (It) is nigh, may either mean the moral or figurative summer, corresponding to the natural or proper one in the preceding verse ; or more directly, the catastrophe or consummation which the figure represented. At (the) doors, a familiar and expressive figure for proximity or nearness, which is rather weak ened than enforced by adding even. 30. Verily, I say unto you, That this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. Verily (Amen), I (the Son of Man) say to you (my disciples and apostles), a preliminary formula indicative, as usual, of something to be uttered peculiarly solemn and important. It is indeed the turning point of the whole question as to the period referred to in the previous con text, and might be described (by another figure) as the key to it, but for its own obscurity and various interpretation. Shall not pass, the usual aorist subjunctive, suggesting rather the idea that it may or can not pass, the negative future being necessarily implied though not ex pressed. Be done, come to pass, or happen, the same verb that is used in the preceding verse. Pass, pass by, or pass away, a verb applied elsewhere to the lapse of time (as in 14, 35 below, and in Matt. 14, 15. Acts 27, 9. 1 Pet. 4, 3), to the motions of men (as in 6, 48 above, and in Matt. 8, 28. Luke 12, 37. 17, 7. 18, 37. Acts 16, 8. 24, 7), and to the disappearance or removal of inanimate objects (as in the next verse, and iu Matt. 26, 39. 42. Luke 16, 17. 2 Cor. 5, 17. 2 Pet. 3. 10. Rev. 21, 1.) But the critical word in this critical sentence is generation, which some make here synonymous with race or nation, and apply it to the Jews, who are not to lose their separate existence until all these changes have been realized. This gives a wide scope to the prophecy^, and readily enables us to transport what is said in vs. 24-27 to an in? definitely distant future. But although some English writers, for this reason, still adhere to that interpretation, others of the same class, and the German philologists almost without exception, treat it as a sheer invention without any authority either in classical or Hellenistic usage, so that some of the best lexicons do not give this definition, even to condemn it. Of the few alleged examples, chiefly in the Septuagint version, all admit of being taken in one of th e< acknowledged senses, which in the New Testament are three in number, all reducible to one and tho same radical idea, that of a contemporary race, or the aggre gate of those living at the same time. This is the direct sense in the great majority of cases (such as 8, 12. 38. 9, 19. Matt. 11, 16. 12, 39- 45. 16, 4. 23, 36. Luke 7, 31. 16, 8. 17, 25. Acts 2. 40. 13, 36. Phil. 2, 15. Heb. 3, 10), and is scarcely modified when transferred from men to time (as in Acts 14, 16. 15. 21. Eph. 3, 5. 21. Col. 1, 26), or to tho stages of descent and degrees of genealogical succession (as in Matt. 1, 17.) Common to all these cases is the radical idea of contemporaneous MARK 13, 30. 363 existence, which it would be monstrous therefore to exclude in that be fore us, as we must do, if we understand it of the whole race in its suc cessive generations. It follows, therefore, that unless we forge a mean ing for the word in this place, which is not only unexampled elsewhere, but directly contradictory to its essential meaning everywhere, we must understand our Lord as saying, that the contemporary race or gener ation, i. e. those then living, should not pass away or die till all these prophecies had been accomplished. The precise time designated is of no importance ; whether a generation be reckoned at its maximum (a hundred years), or at its minimum (thirty), the result in this case will be still the same ; for although the great mass of the generation might be gone within the shortest of these periods, some would still survive to represent it, as we know that one ofthe men here addressed did ac tually live nearly, if not quite, seventy years longer. The choice here does not lie between a larger or a smaller fraction of a century, but be tween years and ages. Those who apply the whole preceding context to Christ's coming at the downfal of Jersusalem, consider that inter pretation as required by the verse before us ; but this exegetical ne cessity is not acknowledged on the part of those who give a wider scope to; the prediction. Of these some assume another change of subject, or transition from a remoter to a proximate futurity, and limit all these things to what immediately precedes. Others explain done or come to pass as meaning shall begin to be fulfilled, so far as to ensure the rest of the fulfilment which has been proceeding ever since. A third solu tion proceeds upon the general assumption that this prophecy, like prophecy in general, is not intended to predict events which were to happen once for all at some specific juncture, but a series or sequence of events which should often be repeated, sometimes on a large and sometimes on a small scale, now in this place, now in that, here in one form, there in another, but throughout the variations with a con stant adherence to the original essential consecution of causes and effects, and even to the primary form of the prediction, so far as to make each fulfilment recognisable as such whenever seen upon the field of history or actual experience. This last hypothesis, which might be justly questioned as a mere imagination if applied to this case only, is in fact derived from an extensive induction of the older prophecies, and only secondarily made use of in the one before us. By one or another of these plausible hypotheses, the words of Christ in this verse may be taken in their strict sense, without necessarily restricting what precedes to a proximate futurity, i. e. to the period of the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem, but applying at least some parts (for example vs. 24-27) to his second advent and the final consummation. The meaning of the verse before us then will be, that the contemporary generation should not wholly pass away without beholding one great cycle of fulfilment, i. e. without seeing this prophetic picture realized, as to all its essential parts, in one specific instance, although not exhaust ed of its whole prophetic import, Which is yet to be developed in a course of ages. 364 MARK 13, 31. 32. 31. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. To the strong asseveration in the first clause of the preceding verse, which by itself has the force of the most solemn oath, our Lord now adds another most emphatic declaration of the infallible fulfilment of his prophecy, applying, not as in the other case, to that one sentence, but to the whole discourse or series of predictions. The meaning is not merely that his word can no more pass away than heaven and earth,. - implying that the latter is impossible; for although the established frame of nature, or existing constitution of the universe, is sometimes used in the Old Testament as the strongest expression of unchangeable stability (e. g. in Ps. 72, 7. 17. 89, 37. Jer. 33, 25), that meaning is not only less accordant with New Testament usage, but is here forbidden by the structure of the sentence, the first clause of which is not con tingent or conditional, but a direct and positive assurance that the hea ven and the earth, with the article, i. e. this heaven and this earth, which you regard as so immutable, shall (i. e. certainly will) pass away or disappear, cease to exist, at least in their present form. But my words, what I say in general, and what I have said on this occasion in particular, not only shall or will not pass away, as a matter of or dained and settled certainty, but could not in any case or possible con tingency, a difference suggested by the change of the indicative future to the aorist subjunctive. Pass away, as applied to words, means, cease to be true or prove false, or in any way whatever fail of their accomplishment. 32. But of that day and (that) hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. But of that day, the same emphatic pronoun that occurs above in v. 24, and which here as there may possibly mean that (same) day, of which I have just spoken (in v. 30), but more probably, because more agreeably to usage, that (other) day, of which I spoke before (in. vs. 24-27.) And that hour, or according to the critics, or the hour, which is merely added to convey still more precisely the idea of exact time. No one knows except the Father is the main proposition, the intervening words being merely a parenthesis, designed to strengthen the negation by excluding what might else have been considered probable exceptions. No one — (not even the angels, or as the oldest copy reads, an angel in heaven, i. e. one nearest to God and therefore most likely to know), not even the Son — except the Father. This view of the syntax shows the absurdity of reading no man, unless it be in some pronominal and vague sense which the word has lost in modern English (see above, on 2, 21. 10. 18.) It also seems to show the impossibility of the con struction, nor the Son except (as he is one with) the Father, which, though true in logic and theology, is false in grammar. The difficulty which it was intended to remove, is obvious and very great, and none MARK 13, 32. 33. 365 the less because peculiar to this gospel, where the words stand however in all ancient manuscripts and versions, though in some with an addition (such as only or of man) intended to relieve the seeming contradiction between that negation and the omniscience of the Saviour. So deeply was this difficulty felt in ancient times, that Ambrose pronounced the clause an Arian interpolation, as if the Arians could have had the opportunity of making it in all known copies, or having it would only have embraced it in this one case and in this one gospel ! Such sub terfuges are no longer thought of, and the words are now universally regarded as among the least suspicious ih the text of the New Testa ment. Another ancient method of escape, not critical but exegetical, is that suggested by Augustin, who by Christ's not knowing under stands that he did not choose to toll, as this was a matter not intended to be known by the disciples. Not only far more candid, but immea- sureably more profound and satisfactory, is Calvin's recognition of the words in their most obvious and strongest sense, as the statement of a truth beyond our comprehension, yet not more so than the whole mystery of godliness, or doctrine of the incarnation, which involves the coexistence of the finite and the infinite, of limitation and immen sity, in one theanthropic person. Whether this be represented as a suspension or repose of the divinity in union with humanity, or called by any other specious name, is a mere question of philosophical nomen clature, the decision of which any way must still leave the difficulty where it found it. As the proof of Christ's divinity depends on no one passage nor indeed on any number of specific proof-texts, but is in terwoven with the warp and woof of scriptural theology, it cannot be unravelled, or in any way impaired, by the fullest admission that, in some sense, the ignorance of men and angels, with respect to the pre cise time of the final consummation, was shared by the Son himself. That such a, declaration should be made at all, is wonderful enough, but scarcely credible on any supposition, or in any sense, if made in reference to the date of the destruction of Jerusalem. 33. Take ye heed, watch and pray ; for ye know not when the time is. But what should be the practical effect of this uncertainty 1 Not recklessness, but watchfulness. Take heed, look (out), see (to it), be upon your guard, tbe same expression as in v. 23. Watch, in both languages originally means to be awake, not to sleep, but with the accessory notion, which has now become the principal, of being on one's guard or looking out for danger. Pray, implying, as in v. 18, that neither watchfulness nor caution is sufficient to avert the danger here in question without a special divine interposition, and that this can only be obtained by asking. So far from the use of these means being superseded by their ignorance of the time fixed for the events, this ignorance is given as the very reason why they ought to use them. Watch and pray, because ye know not when the time is. 366 MARK 13, 34. 35. 34. (For the Son of Man is) as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his ser vants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. This is not a formal parable, as the words supplied in the Geneva Bible and retained in our translation seem to indicate, but merely a comparison occurring as it were at the moment, and immediately sug gested to the reader, by an as or as if, ' Ye know not when the time is, as if (or any more than if) a man &c.' Taking a far journey is a single word in Greek, and that an adjective derived from (or akin to) the verb used above in 12, 1, and there explained. The former strictly means away from home, or rather from one's people, and denotes therefore not mere absence from one's house or family but from his country. Beyond this, neither distance nor the act of journeying is necessarily suggested by the Greek word which, as here combined with man, approaches very nearly to the English absentee, especially as used in Ireland, to denote proprietors who do not live upon their lands nor even in the country, but beyond the channel or in foreign parts. Who left is too historical a form, leading the reader to expect a formal narrative, instead of a mere passing reference. The Greek word. is a paiticiplo, leaving (or having left), his house, giving (ov having giv en) to his servants, i. e. at the time of his departure, the authority (or delegated power) to conduct his household and to manage his affairs while absent. And to each his own work, so that the authority with which they were collectively entrusted was not to exempt them indi vidually from the necessity of work or labour. And to the porter or doorkeeper he entrusted a peculiar charge, that he should watch, both keep awake and guard the house, as well as be in readiness to readmit his master should he unexpectedly return ; for this idea, although not expressed, is necessarily suggested by the previous context, and implied in our Saviour's application of the case supposed to that of his disci ples in the next verse. The verb translated watch is not the one so rendered in the verse preceding and familiarly employed in Attic prose by Xenophon and Plato, but a later Greek or Hellenistic synonyme, derived from a secondary sense of another Attic verb. The only difference, if any, in their primary signification, is that the one here used means strictly to awake, and the other to be sleepless or to lie awake. As here used they are perfectly synonymous. 35. Watch ye therefore ; for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock-crowing, or in the morning. Watch ye therefore, do as that servant was required by his master, and for the same reason, that the master may himself return when not expected. This transition from the parable or illustration to the case in hand is very beautiful though very simple, and is rendered still more MARK 13, 35. 36. 367 striking by our Lord's addressing his disciples just as if they were do mestics left in charge of their master's property and dwelling. Ho does not say, ;for you are like those servants in not knowing,' but with out employing any term of likeness or comparison, he says to them di rectly, for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, thus transporting them at once into the ideal situation which he had been just describing. There is something in the turn thus given to the con versation as pleasing to the taste as it is helpful to the understanding. The last clause is, if possible, more exquisite and admirable still ; for with inimitable ease and grace, it carries out the imaginary case in its details, without a formal application, which could not be needed even by the dullest or most careless reader. The divisions of the night here mentioned are commonly supposed to be the four military watches which had superseded the three ancient ones at the Roman conquest. See above, on 6, 48, where this division is implied ; but here the watches are distinctly enumerated, no doubt by their proper and customary names. At even, a Greek adverb, strictly moaning late, a. relative expression sometimes meaning late in life, but commonly late in the day, or towards its close, at evening, and in reference to night, the early portion as distinguished from the three that follow. Midnight ex plains itself, and has its synonymes in every language. Cock-crow, a compound used in JEsop's fables, and in this enumeration designating the three hours after midnight. In the morning, literally, early, the exact correlative of late, the first of the four terms here used, and tech nically signifying the three hours before sunrise. After all, it may be doubted whether this division is not rather popular than technical, ru ral than military, and whether this view of the language does not en hance its poetical or graphic beauty. It is needless to observe how much is added to the point and force of the whole sentence, by distinctly naming the divisions of the night, instead of saying as he might have done, without a difference of essential meaning, ' at whatever time of night he may arrive.' 36. Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. This is the conclusion of the charge in the first clause of the preced ing verse, the residue of that verse forming a parenthesis, in which the reason is assigned for watching, namely, that they knew not when their master would return. That reason is in fact, though not in form, here carried out by showing why their ignorance should make them watch ful. Lest (for fear that) coming suddenly (without immediate warning or affording time for preparation) he find you sleeping, and thereby neg lecting his express command as well as treating him with insolent in difference. The assumption here that they were bound to watch or sit up for their master, which is not the ordinary duty of all servants, seems to show that he considers his apostles as doorkeepers or porters, whose charge it was to watch in this way, and of whom he made speci fic mention in the close of v. 34. As if he had said, 'you will soon be like servants left at home by their master, and especially like porters 368 MARK 13, 36. 37. left to guard the door and watch for his return.' The fitness and pro priety of this particular comparison, besides the general one to servants, is another delicate but admirable stroke in this inimitable picture. 37. And what I say unto you, I say unto all, Watch. Had our Lord's discourse ended with the preceding verse, it would have been a charge to the apostles, as such, or at most to rulers in the church, so far as they resemble or succeed them in official functions. But with gracious wisdom, and at the same time with a heavenly art transcending all rhetorical contrivances, he at the very close, and in a sentence of unusual brevity, at once extends the exhortation to inces sant watchfulness, as founded on the utter uncertainty of those great changes, and especially the greatest of all which he had predicted, to his followers in general, not only to those then alive, in view of the de struction just impending over Israel, but also, by parity of reasoning and necessary consequence, to all believers who should live before the final consummation. What (things) to you I say to all I say, then summing all up in one single word, the burden and the moral of this whole discourse, Awake (or watch/) However the disciples may have been affected and impressed by this concluding apologue and warning, it is not to be supposed that they could either understand or feel it at the time of its delivery, as they did not long after, when they found themselves indeed forsaken by their master, and entrusted with the care of his house and household till he came again. CHAPTER XI7. Having wound up the history of our Lord's prophetic ministry, the evangelist now enters upon that of his sacerdotal work, beginning with the final resolution of the theocratic rulers to destroy him (1-2), but then pausing to record a touching incident which took place during his abode at Bethany, his unction by a woman, as a sort of prepara tion for his burial (3—9), and at the same time bringing to maturity the treacherous design which had already been conceived by one of his apostles (10-11.) Then follows an account of the arrangements made for his last passover (12-16) and of its actual celebration, during whicli he announces his betrayal by one of their own number (17-21), and after which he institutes the Christian Passover or Lord's Supper (22-25 ) At the close of this remarkable service, he withdraws from the city to the mount of Olives, by the way announcing to the twelve that they were about to be dissolved and scattered until he should re assemble them in Galilee after his resurrection (26-28), with a particu lar prediction to Peter of his own approaching fall (29-31.) Then comes the prelude to his final passion, the mysterious conflict in the MARK 14, 1. 369 garden of Gethsemane (32-42), immediately followed by his seizure and the flight of his disciples, the particulars of which appalling scene are stated briefly but with graphic vividness (43-52.) The next scene exhibits his arraignment in the presence of the High Priest and the Sanhedrim, the false charge and testimony brought against him, his refusal to defend himself or answer any of their allegations, till at length he has an opportunity, not only of declaring but of solemnly swearing, that he is the true Messiah, whereupon he is condemned to death for blasphemy, and in the meantime given up as a convict to de rision and maltreatment (53-65.) During these proceedings his pre diction with respect to Peter's fall had been literally verified by three distinct denials of his master, under circumstances of peculiar aggra vation, a humiliating but exact account of which concludes the chap ter (66-72.) Although the division of the chapters here is dispropor tionate and inconvenient, it could hardly have been made otherwise without a still more undesirable disruption of the narrative, in which no pause occurs between the incident at Bethany and the transfer of our Saviour from the bar of Caiaphas to that of Pilate. In examining the details of this most interesting and important passage, it will be even more than usually proper and expedient to make use of the par allel accounts only for the purpose of defence or illustration, leaving Mark to tell his story in his own way, both as to the choice and the arrangement of his facts and his peculiar method of expression, all which are essential to the oneness and the definite effect of the whole narrative. 1. After two days was (the feast of) the passover, and of unleavened bread ; and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft and put (him) to death. After two days does not mean that the passover was two days after the discourse in the preceding chapter, though it may have been so, but that two days before the passover Jesus took the preparatory steps here mentioned. The word translated passover (pascha) is the Ara maic form (anas) of the original Hebrew term (rt§3), applied in the law of Moses to the annual solemnity observed in commemoration of the exodus from Egypt, and so called because the destroying angel passed by or over (hDs) the houses of the Israelites in the destruc tion of the first-born. It was first celebrated in the very night of the departure out of Egypt, and thenceforth annually (with a few inter ruptions) until the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. It was the oldest and in some respects the most important of the observances in troduced by Moses, and is therefore often called the feast (or festival) by way of eminence. It was at once sacrificial and domestic, the es sential rite consisting in the slaughter of a lamb at the sanctuary and its subsequent consumption, not by fire on the altar, but as food by the household of the offerer. The original institution of this service is recorded in Bx. 12, 1-16, and afterwards embodied in the Mosaic 16* 370 MARK 14, 1. legislation (Lev. 23, 5. Num. 9, 1-3.) To make the rite more truly commemorative, it was anciently observed precisely as at first, in a standing posture and with every preparation for an immediate journey. This exact imitation of the outward circumstance seems to have been gradually discontinued, with the exception of the bitter herbs and the unleavened bread, although the essence of the rite remained unaltered. Besides its primary commemorative purpose, it was connected, in the ceremonial calendar, with the commencement of the harvest, and as a prophetic symbol typified the great deliverer who was to come, "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world " (John 1, 29. 1 Cor. 5, 7.) From it the lewish year was reckoned (Ex. 12, 2), and by it the chronology of Christ's public ministry is marked and meas ured in the gospel of John (2, 13. 23. 4, 45. 5, 1. 6, 4. 11, 55.) The pas chal lamb was selected on the tenth day of the first month (Nisan), and slaughtered on the fourteenth in the evening, or as the Hebrew phrase (Fx. 12, 6) literally means, between the evenings, i. e. according to the Karaites and Samaritans, between sunset and dark; but accord ing to the prevalent practice and tradition, the first evening began with the declining and the second with the setting sun. A similar distinc tion between an earlier and later evening is mentioned by Herodotus, and may be still traced in the diverse use of the word evening, as de noting the afternoon or the beginning of the night, in different parts of our own country. The later traditions of the Jews, collected in the Talmud and the'writings of Maimonides and other rabbins, describe a very complicated paschal ritual, including the distribution of five successive cups of wine, the singing of a series of psalms which they called the Great Hallel, and various liturgical formulas of benediction and thanksgiving. Whether the service was conducted in this form at the time ol Christ is altogether doubtful; but even granting that it was, it cannot be supposed that our Lord would put the traditional additions on the same footing with the paschal rite itself. Besides the passover, properly so called, on the fourteenth day of the first month, there was a festivat of seven days, extending to the evening of the twenty -first, during which unleavened bread was eaten, as it was at the paschal meal itself, in commemoration of the haste with which Israel went out of Egypt with their dough yet unleavened in their kneading- troughs, but at the same time with a typical allusion to the fermentation of yeast or leaven as an incipient corruption and as such an emblem of moral depravation, for which symbolical reason leaven wa5 excluded from al offerings by the law of Moses, just as salt was required in all animal oblations on account of its conservative and antiseptic virtue (see above, on 9, 49.) The whole of this festival is here meant by the passover and the unleavened (bread, or strictly, things, the adjective in Greek being of the plural number and the neuter gender.) Coincident with this great annual observance was the fiu.il resolution of the ecclesiastical and national authorities (here as often elsewhere represented by the chief priests and scribes) to de stroy the life of Jesus, not by open violence, but as they still hoped, by deceit or craft, a significant Greek word which originally means a MARK 14, 1. 2. 3. 371 bait for fish, but in its secondary usage any means of enticing even human prey. The immediate object of the fraud or trick was to secure his person, but their ultimate design to kill him. Sought how (as in 11, 18), considered and inquired by what means their end might be attained, an expression which perhaps implies that they had not yet satisfied themselves on this point, or projected any definite design. 2. But they said, Not on the feast (day), lest there be an uproar of the people. They said, not once for all, or on any one occasion, but as the im perfect tense implies, from time to time, during their consultations on the subject. On the feast day should be in the feast (or festival), as the concourse which gave rise to their fears was not confined to the day of the passover strictly so called, but continued through the whole week following or the days of unleavened bread. Lest, or lest at some time during the term specified, the Greek word being not the simple negative (pn), but a form compounded with an indefinite particle of time (prjiroTe.) There be, literally, shall be, a form of speech implying more distinctly than the subjunctive, the probability of such an issue. Uproar, a good translation of the Greek word which properly means noise or audible disturbance (see above, on 5, 38), and is only seconda rily applied to tumult or popular disorder in general. Of the people, as a mass or aggregate (XaoC) but not an organized body (Sr}/iou.) Here, as elsewhere, the people present at Jerusalem are spoken of as representing the whole race of Israel, which is the less surprising as the population at this season was not only swelled to an enormous size, but composed of Jews and proselytes of "every nation under heaven " (Acts 2, 5.) Thus far the plans of the rulers for our Lord's destruction seem to have been merely negative, and ' so continued till a new turn was given to their whole proceedings by the overtures of Judas (see below, on v. 10.) 3. And being in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster-box of ointment of spikenard, very precious ; and she brake the box, and poured (it) on his head. Before proceeding to describe this change of plan, and the nego tiation which occasioned it, Mark pauses to relate an incident connected with it in more ways than one, as well as very striking and affecting in itself. Being in Betliany, i. e. while he was at Bethany during his last visit to Jerusalem. (See above, on 11, 11.) Nothing can be more natu ral and easy than the introduction of this incident at this point, both by Mark and Matthew (26, 6), the attempt to represent it as at vari ance with the chronology of John (12, 1) being altogether groundless, as the six days there relate to his arrival in the neighbourhood of Jeru salem, and the two days here to his preparation for the paschal ser vice. Equally groundless is the notion, entertained by some, that the 372 MARK 14, 3. passages describe two different anointings, a coincidence not only most improbable, but here assumed without the least necessity. Simon the leper, i. e. who had formerly been so afflicted, not at this time, which would have excluded him from society (see above, on 1. 40), unless we assume that he was absent upon this occasion. The definite descrip tion of him as the leper implies that he was generally well known, per haps as one whom Christ had healed. That he was a relative or inti mate friend of Lazarus, though not at all improbable, is not a necessary supposition to conciliate this narrative with John's, who mentions Lazarus as present at the entertainment and Martha as attending on the guests, neither of which statements necessarily implies that it was in their own house. A woman, i. e. Mary the sister of Lazarus and ¦ Martha (John 12, 3), the same difference between the sisters being here observable as in the incident preserved by Luke (10, 38-41.) Alabaster (box is not expressed in the original), a term properly denot ing a variety of gypsum, white and semi-transparent, and susceptible of being wrought into delicate and ornamental shapes, such as vases and vials, particularly spoken of by Pliny as tbe best receptacles for un guents, or the fragrant oils regarded by the ancients as among the most costly and delightful luxuries. From the frequent use of alabaster for this purpose it acquired the wider sense of any such receptacle, so that Theocritus speaks of " golden alabasters." There is no need how ever of departing from the strict sense in the case before us, as the whole impression made by the description is that of a refined and exquisite as well as rare and costly sacrifice. Of (that is, full of, or containing) spikenard, which appears to be intended as a version of two distinct Greek words, the first a noun (nard) denoting an oriental gum or exu dation, highly valued by the ancients, and the other an adjective (mo-TiKrjs) which has been variously understood, as denoting the place from which the unguent was procured (Pista), but of which we have no other information ; or as derived from the verb (nivm) to drink, and meaning liquid, potable, an explanation coinciding remarkably with a statement in Athenaeus as to drinkable unguents, among which nard is particularly mentioned. But most interpreters, ancient and modern, adhere to the only sense of the Greek word justified by usage, which connects it with the well known words for faith (wio-ris) and faithful (ttio-tos). and makes it here mean true or genuine, as opposed to coun terfeits and adulterations. Very precious, i. e. in the old and strict sense of the English word, of great price, costly, dear, expensive. And breaking, literally, breaking together, i. e. crushing by compression, which was probably a part of the luxurious custom, and perhaps one reason for the use of alabaster, as a compact but compressible material. The box, in Greek, the alabaster, as before, box being not only not in the original, but probably conveying an erroneous notion of the shape, which is much more likely to have been that of a close-mouthed vase or long-necked phial. Poured (it) down upon him, down upon the head, the last words being added as a specification of the first, and the down ward motion twice expressed (though not at all in the translation) by the repetition of a preposition (nard) having that sense in connection MARK 14, 3. 4. 5. 373 both with verbs and nouns. (For examples of this usage, seel, 10. 30. 4, 4. 5,13. 10,42. 11,15. 12,40. 13,2.) The remarkable emphasis thus put upon the downward motion, though a matter of course, apparently requiring no particular mention, may be intended to suggest that the fragrant affusion ran down upon the person of the Saviour even to his feet, thus reconciling one of the alleged discrepancies between John's narrative and that before us. 4. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, Why was this waste of the ointment made ? We have here a fine example of the way in which independent but concurrent witnesses complete each other's statements, a phenomenon familiar to the plainest men among ourselves who ever sat upon a jury, or even attended a trial, though pronounced by German wisdom an ir- reconcileable discrepancy. There were some, says Mark ; the disciples, says Matthew (26, 8) ; one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, says John (12, 4) ; all perfectly consistent and completely harmonized by simply supposing, that what Judas suggested was inconsiderately caught up and repeated by the rest, a fact of every-day occurrence in our popular assemblies. Had indignation, grieving and complaining, a verb ex pressive both of sorrow and resentment or disapprobation (see above, on 10, 14. 41.) Within (or more exactly to) themselves, perhaps with the accessory idea, to each other (see above, on 2, 8. 9, 33. 10, 26. 11, 31. 12, 7.) And saying, to what (end), or for what (reason), has this loss (waste or destruction) of the ointment happened (come to pass or taken place), a milder or more indirect reproach than that expressed in our version. 5. For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. The ground of the objection is distinctly stated, not that the use of such things was luxurious and therefore sinful, but that the money which it cost might have been better spent in the relief of suffering. In itself considered, this is a most plausible objection, and was no doubt honestly expressed by some or all of the disciples, except Judas who first broached it, and whose avarice repined that she had not contrib uted the same amount in money, so as to be under his control and prob ably at his disposal (John 12, 6.) Might (or could) have been sold, a. Greek verb originally meaning export trade or traffic beyond seas, but then generically used of any sale whatever. More than, literally above ov over, a coincidence between the Greek and English idiom. Pence denarii, the Roman silver coin before referred to (in 6, 37. 12, 15) and there explained. The sum here mentioned is from forty-five to fifty dol lars of our money, and agrees almost exactly with the price of the most 374 MARK 14, 6. 7. 8. costly nard as stated by Pliny. Murmured, or expressed their dissat isfaction, not only at but to her. 6. And Jesus said, Let her alone ; why trouble ye her ? she hath wrought a good work on me. Let her alone, leave her, suffer her to do what she is doing (compare the. use ofthe same verb in 7,27. 10,14. 11,6.) Trouble, literally, give (or afford) labours, cares, vexations, an idiom also found in Attic prose. A good work, not merely no offence or folly, but a positively good work, she has wrought, tne genuine past tense of the English verb to work (now nearly superseded by the so-called regular form worked) and therefore exactly corresponding to the noun, as in the original. On me, literally, in me, a preposition of more various and frequent use in Greek than English, here suggesting the idea of a closer contact and more intimate effect or operation than the other particle. This is a memorable and instructive instance of our Lord's rejecting an ostensible morality as spurious or ill-timed, and approving what would still be condemned by many sincere Christians as a sinful or at least an irrational extravagance. But let it be carefully observed in what sense and on what grounds he pronounced this paradoxical decision. 7. For ye have the poor with you always, and when soever ye will ye may do them good ; but me ye have not always. What justified this seeming misappropriation of so large a sum was the extraordinary occasion and the secret motive. To relieve the wants of many is intrinsically better than to anoint the head or feet of one. But if that one is the incarnate Son of God, about to suffer for the sins of men ; if the same opportunity of testifying love to him will never be repeated ; and if that love can be emphatically testified by unction, or by any other costly outward application ; it would be right to make it, even if the poor must lose or suffer so much for it. How much more when such loss is entirely unnecessary, and may be pre vented or made good by greater benefactions upon other occasions, which can never be wanting, for the poor shall not cease out of the land (Deut. 15, 11.) To the popish argument (from these words) in favour of a showy and expensive worship, Calvin ingeniously and forcibly replies, that by applauding such an act as only practicable once, our Lord implicitly forbids its repetition and condemns its habit ual imitation, just as he would no doubt have rebuked this very wo man for the same ' proceeding, if adopted as an ordinary token of affection. 8. She hath done what she could ; she is come afore- hand to anoint my body to the burying. What she had she did, i. e. according to her means and opportuni" MARK 14, 8. 9. 10. 375 ties, she showed her willingness to sacrifice her own enjoyment and possessions to the honour of her Saviour. She is come (or she under took) beforehand to anoint my body for the burial, a Greek word not denoting actual interment, but the whole preparation of the body for the tomb by ablution, shrouding and (among the Jews) anointing and per fuming (compare John 19, 40.) All abuse of this example, as a pre text for substituting such attentions to the Saviour in the place of faith and love and general obedience, is precluded by the obvious considera tion, that in this case his omniscience recognized the outward act as merely the spontaneous expression of those inward dispositions, without which it would have been in Mary's case, and has been in the case of thousands, a mere superstitious mockery. 9. Verily, I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, (this) also that she hath done shall be spoken of, for a memorial of her. That Mary had indeed chosen the good part which could not be taken from her (Luke 10, 42), either by the hypocrisy and avarice of Judas or the utilitarian parsimony of his brethren, is now evinced by one of the most glorious distinctions ever conferred upon a mortal, a distinction which instead of fading with the lapse of time grows daily brighter, and to which, as one has well said, even unfriendly critics and interpreters contribute, as it were, against their will and in the very act of doubt or censure. Verily (in the original, amen) i" say to you, the formula of solemn affirmation which we have already met with so re peatedly (see above, on 3,28. 6,11. 8,12. 9,1. 41. 10,15. 29. 11,23. 12, 43. 13, 30.) Wherever this gospel, not the written one before us, as some foolishly imagine and others maliciously pretend, but the his tory or news of these events, or my whole history on earth, now drawing to a close. Shall be (is, or may be) preached (heralded, pro claimed) throughout (literally into) the whole world, also (i. e. in addi tion to my history, or rather as a part of it, inseparable from it) what she did (just now in anointing me, and you found fault with) shall be told (or talked of) for a memorial of her, something by which she shall be held in everlasting remembrance, thus perpetuating her praise and the malicious or mistaken judgment passed upon her. 10. And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray hiin unto them. From Mark's narrative alone, there might seem to be no connec tion, except that of chronological succession, between this and the preceding incident ; but by combining the accounts, as any justice of the peace would m the case of four credible witnesses, we learn that the reception which our Lord gave to the sanctimonious suggestion of Iscariot, in relation to the ointment, was the proximate occasion, though 376 MARK 14, 10-11. 12. of course not the primary .cause of that disciple's treachery (see John- 12, 10. Luke 22, 3.) Stung by the well-deserved reproof of his hy pocrisy and avarice, he yielded to the influences which had long beset him, and went away from the hospitable board of Simon to the chief priests (as rulers of the church and nation), that he might betray him to them. The Greek verb strictly means deliver up or put into their power ; but as this could only be effected by a breach of trust and violation of the most intimate and tender ties, betray is not too strong a version. 11. And when they heard (it), they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him. And they hearing (his proposal) were rejoiced at this most unex pected opportunity of compassing their ends, without the delay which they had concluded to be necessary, and yet without popular commo tion, against which the traitor undertook to guard (Luke 22, 6.) And promised, in answer to his own proposal (Matt. 26, 15), to give him money, literally, silver, but generically used like the corresponding French word (argent.) The precise sum is preserved by Matthew on account of its connection with a signal prophecy (Matt. 26, 15. 27, 4. 9. 10.) Whether the sum there mentioned was the full price of his treason, or only the earnest money, is a question which belongs to the interpretation of that gospel. Sought how, inquired for the necessary ways and means, as in v. 1. Conveniently, opportunely, at a good time, i. e. safely for himself, and so as to secure his employers from the popular commotion which they so much dreaded. 12. And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where Vilt thou that Ave go and prepare, that thou mayest eat the passover % At length arrived the first day of unleavened bread, on which they killed the passover (j. e. the paschal Iamb), an indefinite construction equivalent to the passive form, the passover was killed, i. e. habitually or according to custom (see above, on v. 1.) That the reference is not to what was done by the disciples upon this occasion, is clear from the following inquiry where they should make the necessary preparation, of which the killing of the lamb was the essential part. His disciples say to him, Where wilt thou (dost thou wish that) going we pre pare ? 13. And he sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water ; folloAV him. MARK 14, 13. 14 377 Two of his disciples, whose names (Peter and John) have been preserved by Luke (22. 8), though he omits the question put by the disciples, and begins abruptly with our Lord's command. Bearing (or carrying) a pitcher, properly an earthen vessel, the Greek word de noting not the shape but the material, being a kindred form to that translated tiling (tiles) in Luke 5, 19 (sea above, on 2, 4.) This com pletes Matthew's more laconic statement, that he sent them to such an one, or to a certain person, without naming or describing him, whereas Mark and Luke (22, 10) tell how they were to find him. To the sceptical interpreters this is of course a contradiction, or at least a wholly different tradition. Others admit the accounts to be consist ent, but deny that there is any thing described in either but the exe cution of a previous agreement between Jesus and a friend or acquaint ance in the city. But how could the disciples reach this friend by following the first man whom they met with a pitcher of water 1 To suppose that this too had been previously settled, is a perfectly gratu itous assumption ; and if not, it can only be regarded as a prophetic sign, like that which Saul received from Samuel (1 Sam.. 10, 1-8), and this would imply, not a previous agreement, but a supernatural fore sight and control of human actions. 14. And Avheresover he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples ? Wherever he may enter (or goes in), say to the master of the house, in Greek a single word meaning house-owner, house-master. Good man is often incorrectly read, as if it were the noun man with an epithet of praise before it (goodman), whereas it is an old English word for master, as applied to a house-holder, husband, or the father of a family. A similar mistake is sometimes made by reading handi work (i. e. hand-work), in Ps. 19, 1, as if it were handy (i. e. skilful) work. The master (teacher) saith is thought by some to imply that the man was a disciple ; but this is not a necessary implication, if the whole proceeding was extraordinary and the result secured by a special superhuman influence. The same consideration will remove all diffi culty as to the long delay in seeking this accommodation, when the throng of strangers was so great and the available room already occu pied. Guest-chamber is in Greek a word properly denoting a place where a traveller unloads his beast, or halts for the night ; then an inn or place of public entertainment ; then a hired room, as here. Shall (or may) eat the passover with my disciples, who constituted, as it were, his household, and would therefore be expected to unite with him in this observance. 15. 16. And he will shew you a large upper room fur nished (and) prepared ; there make ready for us. And 378 MARK 14, 15-19. his disciples went foi-th, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them, and they made ready the pass- over. Upper room, a Greek word meaning any room above the ground- floor, or up-stairs, where the, best apartments of an Oriental house are usually found. Furnished, literally, spread, i. e. supplied with tables and couches, such as were used at meals (see above, on 2, 15.) Pre- pared, not the participle of the verb that follows, but a cognate adjec tive answering to ready. There are evidently two preparations for the passover mentioned in this sentence ; that of the room, already made by the proprietor ; and that of the lamb with its accompaniments, bread and wine and bitter herbs, which was now to be made by the two disciples, and which they did make as recorded in v. 16, where we learn no new fact but the simple execution of the Saviour's orders. 17. And in the evening he cometh with the twelve. In the evening, literally, evening having come (become, begun to be), the same construction that is used above in 6, 2. 21. 35. 47. 11, 19. He cometh, into the city, to the house and room prepared for him. 18. And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And they reclining (see above, on 2, 15) and eating, an obvious de parture from the primitive and legal usage, but one regarded by our Lord as unessential or he would not have adopted it ; a practical reproof of those who, even under a spiritual dispensation, fight about attitudes and postures, as among the weightier matters of the gospel. Accord ing to the usual harmonical arrangement, the first words ofthe Saviour at this interview were those preserved by Luke (22, 15-18). followed by a second strife for the pre-eminence (Luke 22, 24-30), and this by the washing of the feet of the apostles with the following discourse (John 13. 1-20), and this by what is here recorded in all four gospels (Matt. 26, 21. Luke 22, 21. John 13. 21.) One of you shall betray me (in the sense before explained on v. 10), the (one) eating with me, not merely one of those now at the table and partaking of the paschal meal, but one who, in some special and peculiar sense, might be said to eat with Christ, from which it has been inferred that Judas sat next him upon one side, and partook of the same dish, a supposition favoured by the words of John (12, 26.) Those of Mark, however, may contain an allusion to Ps. 41,9, which John expressly quotes (13,18.) 19. And they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, (Is) it I? and another (said, Is) it I % The effect of this terrible announcement on the minds of the disci- MARK 14, 19. 20. 379 pies. They began (at, once, on hearing it) to be sorrowful, or more ex actly, to be grieved, distressed, as the Greek word is a passive verb and not an adjective. One by one, an unusual Greek phrase, the sense of which however is clear from its obvious composition. And another, although sometimes ridiculed by hypercritics as unmeaning and super fluous after saying one by one, is a perfectly natural expression belong ing to the dialect of common life. The first phrase only denotes order and succession, that they asked the question severally not together, while the other says the same thing in another form, that when one had spoken then another would re-echo the inquiry. Far from being a vain repetition or tautology, this supplemental clause adds not a little to the life and spirit of the whole description. Is it I, though essen tially correct, is not an adequate translation of the Greek phrase, which is negative in form and can only be expressed in English by a circum locution, being really equivalent to saying, It is not I, is it ? (see above, on 4, 21.) This is not a difference of mere form, as it shows that each of the disciples, in the act of asking, really asserted his own innocence or disavowed the guilt of treason, and aggravates the shameless hy pocrisy of Judas in propounding the same question (Matt. 26, 25.) It is possible, indeed, though hardly probable, that the additional clause (and another, Is it I?) may have tacit reference to Judas, and may be intended to distinguish him from the eleven, as no longer one of the same body, but another, i. e. an alien and intruder. 20. And he answered and said unto them, (It is) one of the twelve, that dippeth with me in the dish. And he answering (this general inquiry) said to them (collectively, as all had asked him.) One of (not the simple genitive, but as in v. 18, a preposition meaning out of, (from among) the twelve (the chosen com pany now present.) That dippeth (i. e. who dips), though correct in sense, might be referred by a hasty reader to the twelve collectively, as an inaccurate expression for who dip ; but there is no such ambiguity in the original, which strictly means the (one) dipping, and like the similar expression in v. 18, seems to describe the traitor as particularly near to Christ at table and in some peculiar sense partaking with him, dipping the bread into the dish or bowl before them, and containing probably a broth or liquid preparation ofthe bitter herbs which formed part of the paschal supper. If there was only one such dish upon the table of which all made use alike, this answer would be no description ofthe person, but a mere reiteration ofthe general fact that one of them would be the traitor, and even that expressed in an unusual manner with the definite article, the (one) dipping. If we suppose, upon the other hand, that there were several such bowls or dishes, one of which, or the only one upon the other supposition, was now standing before Christ and his betrayer, both of whom were making use of it at one and the same moment, then this expression (the one dipping) is a real designation of the person. John's account of a previous communication between two of the disciples and their master, not alluded to in either 380 MARK 14, 21. 22. of the other gospels, admits of an easy reconciliation with them, which belongs however to a different place. 21. The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him ; but Avoe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had never been born. The Son of Man, the Messiah, still before you in the form of a ser vant, and approaching the end of his long humiliation, goeth, is now going, taking his departure out of life, about to die, as it is written, has been written, has been long on record (see above, on 1, 2. 7, 6. 9, 12.13. 11,17.) Of, about, concerning him, as the subject of the prophe cies referred to, which must therefore be fulfilled in him. Indeed, the particle of concession (piv), meaning, it is true, and corresponding to the but (bi) in the next clause, both together giving to the verse the antithetical or balanced form, so much affected and admired in Greek prose. But woe to, and alas for (see above, on 13, 17, both wrath and pity being here appropriate) that man, not merely the man, or this man, but yonder man, as if Judas were already at a distance, or perhaps pointing him out as one already severed from that sacred body, of which Christ was the head and the apostles members. By whom, through whom, by whose agency. Betrayed, delivered over to the power of his enemies (see above, on vs. 10. 11.) The original form of the last clause is peculiar and considerably altered in the version. Good were it (literally was if) for him (or according to the latest text with out the verb, good for him) if not born was that man. This is often urged as one of the most cogent arguments in proof of the eternity of future punishments, because, however they might be prolonged, if they were ever to have an end, such an existence would be still preferable to nonentity. The only objection to this argument in favour of a doctrine clearly set forth elsewhere, is the seeming violence of putting a strict logical interpretation on a phrase which seems to be proverbial and popular. (See above, on 9, 42.) 22. And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake (it), and gave to them, and said, Take, eat ; this is my body. In close connection with the paschal feast, as a supplement to it and a substitute for it, our Lord, employing the materials already on the table, i. e. the bread and wine partially consumed in the repast just finishei, institutes a new solemnity, to be observed forever in the church of the new dispensation. The simplicity of the rite itself, of the mode in which it was established, and of its record in the gospels, is in striking contrast with the pomp and mystery which have since been thrown around it. Of this institution we have four distinct accounts, by Mark (vs. 22-25), Matthew (26, 26-29), Luke (22, 19 20), and MARK 14, 22. 23. 381 Paul (1 Cor. 11, 23-25.) They differ only as to fulness and the order in which some particulars are stated. Paul's account is in one respect the most authoritative, as it was communicated to him by the risen Saviour (1 Cor. 11,23.) As they did eat (literally, they eating) i. e. while they were partaking of the paschal supper. Taking bread, or a bread (the bread, Matt. 26, 26), i. e. a loaf or cake of the unleavened bread eaten at the Passover, and which the Jews now make in thin hard cakes or biscuits. Having blessed, and at the same time given thanks (Luke 22, 19. 1 Cor. 11, 24), he brake it (in two, or into pieces), and game to them (the apostles, still reclining at the table.) Eat is omitted by the latest critics in the text of Mark, as an assimilation to that of Matthew. Luke and Paul have neither take nor eat, both which however are implied in the whole transaction. This is my body, com mon to all four accounts, appears so unambiguous and simple an ex pression, that it is hard to recognize in it the occasion and the subject of the most protracted and exciting controversy that has rent the church within the last thousand years. That controversy is so purely theological that it has scarcely any basis in the exposition of the text ; the only word upon which it could fasten (the verb is) being one which in Aramaic would not be expressed, and therefore belongs merely to the Greek translation of our Saviour's language. Until the strong un guarded figures of the early fathers had been petrified into a dogma, at first by popular misapprehension, and at last by theological perversion, these words suggested no idea but the one which they still convey to every plain unbiassed reader, that our Saviour calls the bread his body in the same sense that he calls himself a door (John 10, 9), a vine (John 15,1), a root (Rev. 22, 16), a star, and is described by many other metaphors in scripture (see John 10, 9.) The bread was an emblem of his flesh, as wounded for the sins of men, and as administered for their spiritual nourishment and growth in grace. 23. And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave (it) to them, and they all drank of it. The same act is then described in relation to the wine, and almost in the same words. The cup, still standing on the table ; whether the third or any other of the five cups in the later Jewish ritual, is as un important as it is uncertain. Giving thanks is not to be distinguished from the blessing in the verse preceding, as if he only blessed the bread and only gave thanks for the wine ; but as two descriptions of the same act, each presenting one of its component parts, benediction and thanksgiving, from the latter of which the whole service afterwards de rived the name of eucharist. They all (an expression not used of the bread), a sort of prospective or prophetic comment on the withholding of the cup from the laity in the Church of Rome. 24. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. 382 MARK 14, 24. 25. 26. • This is my blood must of course receive the same construction as this is my body in v. 22. That of (or the blood of) the new testament (or covenant.) The Greek noun (6Vi4r)xr/), from a verb which means to arrange, dispose, or settle, means itself arrangement, disposition, set tlement, with special application to two kinds, a testamentary arrange ment and a mutual compact, or a last will and a covenant. The only clear case of the former meaning in the Greek of the New Testament is that in Heb. 9, 16. 17, followed almost immediately (v. 20) by an example of the other, referring, as in this place, to the Mosaic or Levitical cove nant, ratified with Israel at Sinai, and sealed with sacrificial blood, pre figuring the blood of Christ as the seal of a new or better covenant (Heb. 7, 22. 8, 6-10. 9, 20. 10, 16. 29. 12, 24. 30.) That shed, or the (blood) shed, for many, not only for their benefit but in their stead, as the bloody sacrifices symbolized, not only expiation in the general, or expiation by the sacrifice of life, but vicarious atonement in particular, or expiation by the sacrifice of life for life (Lev. 17, 11.) 25. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you, see above, on vs. 9. 18, and the places there, referred to. Fruit, offspring, a term properly applied to animals, but also, by a natural metonymy, to plants. The whole phrase is a peri phrasis for wine, not merely that before them, but the whole species or variety of beverage. The sense of grapes, which would be otherwise more obvious, is here excluded by the verb to drink. That (literally when) 1 drink it new (not anew or again, but fresh and at the same time of a new sort) in ihe kingdom of God. The simplest explanation of these words is that which makes them a solemn though figurative declaration, that the Jewish Passover was now to be forever superseded •' by the Lord's Supper as a Christian ordinance. These words do not decide the question whether Christ himself partook of this first sacra ment, because they may refer to the wine of the paschal not the eucha- ristical repast. 26. And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. When they had sung a hymn, in Greek a single word, hymning (or hymned), referring no doubt to the series of psalms usually chanted at the Passover and known in the later Jewish ritual as the Great Hallel. There is of course no allusion to the modern distinction between psalms and hymns, nor to the modern use of metre, rhyme, and artificial melody and harmony, all which appear to have been wholly unknown to the ancient church, and have still less authority from scripture than the use of human compositions as an aid in worship, when these are agreeable to God's word iu their sentiment and spirit. The original church-music was most probably the simplest kind of chant- MARK 14, 26-29. 383 ing, in which all could join without laborious instruction or the cum bersome machinery of choirs, music-masters, singing-schools or instru ments, though these appliances are not unlawful or at variance with the character of spiritual worship. Into the Mount of Olives, from which, i. e. from Bethany, a village on the eastern slope, our Lord had proba bly come in to celebrate the Passover, and now goes part of the way back, not as before to spend the night among his friends, but to enter on his passion and to fall into the hands of his betrayer. 27. And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offend ed because of me this night ; for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered. As it matters little at what precise part of the evening or the meal these words were uttered, there is no need of transposing them in order to assimilate them to the order of John's narrative. The words them selves have also been preserved by Matthew (26, 31) nearly in the same form. They contain a prediction, that Christ's nearest followers, the twelve apostles, should that night be offended in him, not offended at him, in the modern sense, i. e. displeased and alienated in affection, but their faith staggered and their confidence impaired, so that at the first approach of danger, they would be dispersed, thus verifying, although not exhausting, the prophetic picture drawn by Zechariah (13, 7) of God's people scattered like a flock of sheep on the removal of the shepherd, a comparison peculiarly appropriate in this case, on account of the timidity and helplessness, the want of clear views and a strong will, displayed by the apostles at the death of Christ. 28. But after that I am risen, I will go before you into Galilee. This discouraging announcement is immediately succeeded and ma terially qualified by a cheering assurance that the dissolution of the apostolic body would be transient ; that it would soon be reconstructed, and that Christ himself, then risen from the dead, would lead the way, or go before them, to their old field of labour, and (as to most of them) tlieir ancient home in Galilee. Go before is a pastoral act, referring to the figure of a flock in the preceding verse (compare John 10, 27.) The verse may mean that before the Galileans could return home from the passover, he would be risen from tbe dead, and once more at the head of the procession (see above, on 9, 32.) 29. But Peter said unto him, Although all shall be offended, yet (will) not I. Not contented with this promise, that their separation should be only for a time and followed by a glad reunion, Peter, with character istic forwardness and self-will, un4ertakes to make his own case an ex- 384 MARK 14, 29. 30. ception to the general defection, little imagining in what sense it would prove to be so. Fastening on the first words of our Lord's prediction (ye shall be offended in me), and as if he had heard nothing of what followed, he declares, and if (even if) all (the rest), or still more arrogantly, all (men) shall be offended in thee, but (or yet) not I. This is one of the most unfavourable specimens on record of the dark or weak side of this great apostle's character, because it exhibits, not mere self-sufficiency and overweening self-reliance, but an arrogant estimate of his own strength in comparison with others, particularly with his brethren and associates in the apostolic office. This invidious self- preference is thought by some to be pointedly yet gently hinted at, in that searching question of our Lord to Peter at the sea of Galilee (John 21, 15), :< Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" i. e. more than any of his brethren, the chief of whom were present upon that occasion (John 21, 2), and not one of whom had been allowed to sink so low as to deny his master in the presence of his enemies, except the yevy one who, in his blindness and self-confidence, gratuitously volunteered the rash engagement in the verse before us. 30. And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, that this day, (even) in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. In order to leave this sell-sufficiency without excuse, our Lord dis tinctly warns him that within a few hours, on the very day then pass^ ing, in the very night then coming on, he would deny all knowledge of the person whom he now declared himself incapable of leaving even for a moment. To-day has reference to the complete day of twenty-four hours (what Paul calls the vxix'H'jpepov, 2 Cor. 11, 35) ; this night to that part of it during which darkness prevails ; so that the one is a more precise specification of the other. Before the cock crow twice, i. e. at the usual times, first about the middle of the night, and then a few hours later, these being the familiar limits of the third watch called cock-crowing (see above, on 13, 35.) As the second cock-crow was the one most commonly observed and reckoned as a note of time, the same division of the night may be defined by saying, before the cock crow (i. e. in the morning), which is the form of expression actually here em ployed in all the other gospels (Matt. 26, 34. Luke 22, 34. John 13, 38.) The difference is the same as that between saying before the bell rings and before the second bell rings (for church or dinner), the refer ence in both expressions being to the last and most important signal, to which the first is only a preliminary. The existence or occurrence of the latter, though expressly mentioned only in the last phrase, is not excluded by the first, and if previously known, may be considered as included in it. Deny me, i. e. profess not to know me, which was a virtual though not a formal abjuration of his friendship and authority. 31. But he spake the more vehemently, If I should die MARK 14, 31. 32. 385 with thee, I will not deny thee in any wise. Likewise also said they all. , This additional and more specific premonition, which might almost seem sufficient to prevent its ow n fulfilment, had a very different effect, not only upon Peter, but upon the rest of the apostles. Its effect on him was to produce a frequent iteration of the vow already uttered. More vehemently is not an exact translation of the Greek word, which ex presses quantity not quality, and means abundantly, superabundantly, excessively (compare the cognate forms in 6, 51. 12, 40. 44.) Spake or talked, uttered still more in the same strain, that is not recorded. The effect upon the others was a feeble echo of their ardent spokesman's vio lent asseverations, a proceeding very natural in such a situation, and no doubt expressive of sincere affection in the minds of most, but no less inconsiderate and rash than Peter's pledge, without its independence and originality ; a difference suggested by the very form of words in which it is recorded, likewise (or so too) also all said (or were saying.) 32. And they came to a place which was named Geth- semane ; and he saith to his disciples, Sit ye here, while I shall pray. If the conversation just recorded (vs. 27-31) took place on the way from the city to the Mount of Olives, Mark's arrangement may be reckoned strictly chronological ; but even if it passed before they left the house, such resumptions and recurrences are natural and common in all narrative style, and we have met with one already in this chapter (see above, on v. 3.) The verse before us is then to be explained as taking up the story where the writer dropt it (in v. 27), to relate what occurred a little while before. And tliey come (the graphic or descrip tive present) into a place, not in the vague sense of a spot or situation, which would have required another Greek word (roirov), but in the specific sense which we attach to it in speaking of a gentleman's place, i. e. farm or country seat. (Compare the use of the same word in John 4, 5, where it is rendered parcel of ground, i. e. piece of land, and in Acts 1, 18. 4, 34, 5, 3. 28, 7, where it is rendered field, land, lands, possessions^) Some suppose its use here to imply the presence or vicinity of dwellings, an assumption which is afterwards applied to the solution of some seeming difficulties in this history. Of which the name (is) Gethsemane, or oil-press, an appropriate designation of a place on the Mount of Olives. It was not, however, a mere mill .or manufactory of oil, but an enclosed oliveyard or garden (John 18, 1), which the local tradition still points out, beyond the valley or brook Kedron, at the foot of Olivet. Sit (or sit down) here, while (or until) I pray. 33. And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy. Out of the whole number of apostles he now chooses the same three 17 386 MARK 14, 33. 34. who had witnessed the transient but transcendent glories of his meta morphosis or transfiguration (9, 12), to behold the opposite extreme of his deepest abasement and humiliation. These may have been taken with him as the future witnesses of what they saw, or from his natural desire as a man to have friends near him while he suffered, though un able to relieve or help him. Whither he took them is not stated, but most probably into the interior recesses of the garden, while the rest remained about the entrance or not far within it. The idea of some, that they remained in the house of the proprietor or tenant, is both needless and gratuitous. Sore amazed, a vory strong Greek word de noting both surprise and consternation (see above, on 9, 15), and here used in its strongest sense to signify the preternatural depression and alarm, of which our Saviour condescended to partake, as the represent ative and surety of his people. The other verb, although of doubtful derivation, is employed by Xenophon and Plato to denote extreme anxiety and anguish. 34. And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sor rowful unto death ; tarry ye here, and watch. He does not conceal his feelings from his three companions, but ex presses them in terms still stronger than those used by the evangelist himself. My soul is not a mere periphrasis for the pronoun (I), but refers his strange sensations more directly to the inward seat of feeling and emotion. Exceeding sorrowful,m Greek a compound, also used by Aristotle and Isocrates, and primarily meaning grieved all round, en compassed, shut in, by distress on every side. Unto (as far as) death, so that death itself can add but little to the agonies now suffered ; or so that the least addition must exceed any human power of endurance and result in death. Compare the similar expression of the prophet Jonah (4, 9.) Tarry (remain, continue) here, i. e. in the spot to which he had conducted them, apart from the remainder of the company. He feels the need of more complete seclusion even from his three com panions, as essential to his liberty in prayer. Watch, either in the primary and strict sense of the verb both in Greek and English, i. e. keep awake, or in the secondary but more usual sense, be upon your guard, protect yourselves from danger by looking out for its approach at any moment. He does not ask their prayers on his behalf, but only their watchful circumspection on their own. 35. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And going on (or forward, or before them) a little (while or space, more probably the latter), he fell upon the earth (or ground), not as an ordinary posture of devotion, but as the expression and effect of an ex traordinary anguish. Mark first gives the sum and substance of the prayer, and then a portion of its very language. The petition was that MARK 14, 35. 36. 387 if it were possible, i. e. compatible with God's perfections and designs. the hour or time, so long expected, of his bloody passion, might pass from him, be removed, and cease, without his suffering what now im pended. All attempts to reconcile this prayer with the assumption that our Lord did not really desire what he thus asked, are subversive of the very use of language, and directly contradictory to the letter of the scriptures. The key to this mysterious enigma, so far as it can be unlocked to the mind of creatures, is afforded by tho obvious consider ation, that our Lord endured precisely the same kind of suffering which any mere man would experience in the same situation, but without sin of his own. He therefore shrank from death, and sunk be neath the sense of God's wrath, no less really than we do. This was a necessary incident of his incarnation, and essential to his genuine humanity, his actual possession of a true body and a reasonable soul. But besides this unavoidable participation in the sufferings of the race whose nature he assumed, his sufferings even in the garden were vicarious ; he not only suffered with but for men, in their place, in stead of them ; and though he could not simply as a man partake of sorrows caused by sin, because his own humanity was sinless, he could and did partake of them as the great atoning sacrifice by whose stripes we are healed (see Isai. 53, 5. 1 Pet. 2, 24.) For both these reasons, his expressed desire to escape is to be strictly understood as a neces sary incident of his humanity, and also as a part of his vicarious suf fering. 36. And he said, Abba, Father, all tilings (are) possi ble unto thee ; take away this cup from me : nevertheless not what I will, but Avhat thou wilt. Having indirectly stated the contents or substance of his prayer, Mark gives his very words, or their equivalents, using the first person. Abba, the Aramaic word for Father, here preserved by the evangelist like other vernacular expressions which we have already met with (see above, on 5,41. 7, 11. 9, 5. 11, 21.) He also gives the Greek transla tion, not as uttered by our Lord himself, but as necessary to its being understood by Gentile readers. This seems more likely in itself, and more consistent with Mark's usage as just stated, than the opinion of some writers, that the two forms, Greek and Aramaic, had become combined in practice so as to form one name, which they prove from Paul's employing the same combination twice in his epistles (Rom. 8, 15. Gal. 4, 6.) But how could such a combination have arisen, if not from the necessities of those to whom the language of our Lord was not vernacular? It is not only possible, indeed, but probable, that Paul's use ofthe Aramaic form arose from the tradition of our Saviour-s hav ing used it upon this occasion, or perhaps as a customary form of ad dress in his habitual devotions. All things (are) possible io thee, a simple recognition of the divine omnipotence, without reserve or meta physical distinctions. The complete submission, in the last clause, to the Father's will, without regard to his own human wishes, is a glori- 388 MARK 14, 37. 38. ous triumph of our Lord's obedience, even over the severest trial that can be conceived of. Though he really desired, as a man, to be deliv ered from the wrath of God, yet, even as a man, he finally consented to endure it, as the only means by which to save his people from their Sins. (Matt. 1, 21.) 37. And he cometh, and findeth them sleeping, and saith unto Peter, Simon, sleepest thou ? couldest thou not watch one hour ? He cometh back to the place where he hath left the three disciples, the distance being mentioned exclusively by Luke (22, 41.) Findeth, a discovery surprising not to him but to the reader and the writer. Sleeping, not profoundly but at intervals, the impression naturally made being that of a dozing drowsy state, occasioned by distress of mind (Luke 22, 45.) This failure, even of his chosen friends, to comfort and sustain him by their wakeful presence, though foreseen and as it were provided for, could not fail to aggravate our Lord's distress at this mo mentous crisis. His question to Peter, and through him to all, ex presses an upbraiding pity. Sleepest thou, is it possible that you are sleeping, whom I brought with me and left here, with an express com mand to watch while I was praying yonder '? Couldest thou not, a strong expression, strictly meaning, wast thou not strong enough, or hadst thou not sufficient strength '? (see above, on 5, 4. 9,18.) One hour is not given as the precise time of his separation from them, but as a proverbial expression for a very short time. (For the usage of the Greek noun, see above, on 6, 35. 11, 11. 13, 11. 32.) 38. Watch ye, and pray, lest ye enter into temptation. The spirit truly (is) ready, but the flesh (is) Aveak. What they could not do from sympathy with him, they might well do from regard to their own safety. Watch (keep awake, and on yonr guard), and pray (not for me but for yourselves), that ye enter not into temptation, or some trial of your faith and patience, more severe than you can bear. The meaning is not that this trial could be now avert ed, but that its approach made watchfulness and prayer a more becom ing attitude for the apostles than the listlessness and indolence of hopeless sorrow. The last clause is universally regarded as a gracious apology for their remissness, but the antithesis is variously understood, some supposing flesh and spirit to be simply the body and the mind; but most interpreters, in better keeping with the usage of the terms, make flesh the sinful nature with its culpable infirmities, and spirit the higher dispositions and principles produced by grace. The meaning then is that, although their better nature was inclined to do what he* required, the remains of natural corruption hindered it. 39. And again he went away, and prayed, and spake the same words. MARK 14, 39. 40. 41. 389 And again going away he prayed the same word. This was not a vain repetition, such as Christ himself forbids (Matt. 6, 7), but an em phatic reassertion, both of his sincere desire to escape the suffering from which nature necessarily recoiled, and of his equally sincere desire that the question should not be determined by this natural repugnance, but by the sovereign will of God alone. It was the co-existence of these two desires in his soul at the same moment, and the subjection of the one to the other, that gives character and meaning to this great turning point or juncture in tho process of our Lord's humiliation and atoning passion. If he had not shrunk from death, it must have been because he was impassible, incapable of suffering, and therefore unfit to become the substitute of sinners doomed to everlasting woe. If he had not humbly consented to endure the wdll of God for man's sake, the great purpose of his incarnation must have been unac complished. But by doing both, both perfectly, and both at once, he proved himself to be indeed the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2, 5.) 40. And when he returned, he found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy ; neither Avist they Avhat to answer him. And returning he found them again sleeping, or according to the latest text, again coming he found them sleeping. Coming, returning, from his place of retirement, after his second prayer mentioned in the preceding verse. Heavy is in Greek a passive participle meaning bur dened, weighed down, a natural expression, perhaps common to all lan guages, for the effect of drowsiness upon the eyelids ; for the state de scribed here (as in v. 37) is one of drowsiness and not of deep sleep. Wist, the past tense of the old English verb to wit, synonymous with know. And they knew not what to answer (literally what they should answer) him) i. e. how they should reply to his reproaches, or account for their untimely slumbers. (See above, on 9, 6, and compare Luke 9, 32.) 41. And be cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take (your) rest : it is enough, the hour is come : behold, the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Sleep on now, literally, sleep the rest (of the time). Some editors point the text, and some interpreters explain it, as a question, do ye sleep on still (or still further) ? But these English phrases are inclu sive of the present and describe a state of things continuing unchanged ; whereas the Greek (to \omav) refers only to the future, and always when applied to time answers, not to yet or still, but to henceforth or to now as used in the translation. (Compare Acts 27, 20. 1 Cor. 7, 29. 2 Tim. 7, 8. Heb. 10, 13.) The best philological interpreters, therefore, take the verb as an imperative, Sleep on ! They are not agreed, however, 390 MARK 14, 41. as to the sense in which this permission or command is to be understood. Some regard it as ironical, implying a still more severe reproof of their oscitancy and inertness. But as such an irony, in such a situation seems untimely and incongruous, most writers understand it as a kind of remission of a charge which seemed to weigh so heavily upon them. As if he had said, Still asleep ! (or once more sleeping !) Well. I will disturb your rest no longer. Sleep on for the rest of the short respite still allowed you. The obvious objection to this explanation is that in the same breath he tells them to awake ; but even this is not unnatu ral, if taken as a sort of after- thought, suggested by the sight or sound of the approaching enemy. Sleep out the little time still left — but no, the hour is come, &c. ! It is enough, another doubtful and obscure ex pression found in Mark alone. In Greek it is a single word (an-e^ei), a verb, which according to its etymology and composition, means both to hold bark, (i. e. to restrain another or one's self) and to have back (i. e. to receive again, receive in full, be satisfied.) In the former sense the middle voice is applied in the New Testament to moral and religious abstinence (compare Acts 15, 20. 29. 1 Thess. 4, 3. 5, 22. 1 Tim. 4, 3. 1 Pet. 2, 11). and the active A'oice to local distance (as in 7, 6 above, compare Luke 7, 6. 15, 20. 24, 13.) In the other sense, the active voice denotes reception both of gifts and pa}'ments (as in Matt. 6, 2. 5, 16. Luke 6, 24. Phil. 4. 18), and in one case the recovery of a lost posses sion (Philem. 15.) According to this varying usage, some explain the verb here as a personal one meaning, he is (still) afar off, i. e. the be trayer ; or, it is past, i. e. the crisis and the agony. But the latter meaning is not justified by usage, and although the former is identical with that expressed in Luke 15, 20, the assertion that the enemy was far off would be neither true nor relevant in this connection. The con struction commonly adopted, therefore, is impersonal, derived from the primary sense of receiving, being satisfied, it is sufficient (or enough.) But there is still a question as to its reference or application, whether to their sleep or to their watching. This depends in some degree upon its being construed with what goes before or follows. If the former, it may mean, I ask no more of you, I no longer ask you to watch with me ; if the latter, you have slept enough, the hour is come. This last phrase readily recalls to mind tlie repeated declaration that our Saviour's hour was not yet come (see John 2,4. 7, 30, and compare John 12,23. 13, 1. 32. 17, 1.), a usage which imparts peculiar grandeur and so lemnity to this announcement that the long expected crisis had at length arrived. What is meant by the hour is particularly stated in the last clause. The Son of Man, i. c. the incarnate Son of God, the Messiah in his humiliation, is delivered, handed over (the certain event, although still future, being spoken of as actually passing at the moment) into the hands of the sinners, i. e. either in a vague sense, of the world or of mankind, considered as the adverse party, or more specifically, of the wicked men who are to be his unjust judges and his cruel executioners. The reference is not merely to the treachery of Judas or of the Jewish rulers in delivering their Messiah to the Gentiles, but to the divine aban donment of Christ to the power of his enemies (compare Acts 2, 23.) MARK 14, 42. 43. 391 42. Rise up, let us go ; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand. Rise up, or rouse yourselves, the Greek word properly denoting, not a mere corporeal movement, but the act of awaking out of sleep (see above, on 4, 27. 6, 14. 16. 12, 26. Let us go, literally, lead (off or lead the way), the same expression that is used above in 1, 38, and there ex plained. The supposition of an eminent interpreter, that this is an ex pression of returning terror, or a half-unconscious call to flight, is not only most unworthy and unpleasing in itself, but entirely at variance witli the tenor of the narrative, which clearly represents the great pre liminary passion as now past, and the Redeemer as again exhibiting the same serene intrepid spirit that had breathed in his farewell discourses and his sacerdotal prayer preserved by John (14-17.) The interrup tion of this state of mind and feeling by the conflict in Gethsemane, so far from being a discrepancy between John and the other gospels, is a necessary part of the mysterious process, by which he was bruised for our iniquities and we by his stripes healed (Isai. 53, 5. 1 Pet. 2, 24.) It is no more unnatural or inconsistent than the transit of a traveller through a deep and dark intervening valley, from one mountain to another, only to descend still deeper on the other side. Behold, lo, as some thing unexpected and surprising to his hearers. The one deliver ing (or betraying) me has (already) approached (or is at hand.) 43. And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Ju das, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders. And immediately, Mark's favourite expression, but here used em phatically to denote the instantaneous succession of the facts recorded. He yet speaking, so that there could be no interval between his words and the appearance of the enemy. Cometh, or rather is at hand, is on the ground, the previous movement being not so much expressed as implied. One (or according to the critics, being one) of the twelve, a member of the Apostolic body. This would be a most superfluous de scription if it were not intended to suggest the fearful aggravation of the ¦ traitor's guilt, arising from his long and intimate relations to his victim, which accounts moreover for the words being found in all the parallels (see Matt. 26, 47. Luke 22, 47.) A great multitude, or more exactly, much crowd, not great numbers merely, but a promiscuous assemblage, mob, or rabble (see above, on 2, 4. 12. 12. 37. 41.) As the words translated swords and staves have a wider sense, and might perhaps be rendered knives and sticks, they suggest the idea not of a military force but of an armed mob, carrying such weapons as they might have hastily caught up on hearing the alarm and learning the arrest that was about to take place. This is not inconsistent with the next words, from the chief priests, &c., which relate to the commission held by Judas, the intervening clause being merely a parenthetical description of the crowd 392 MARK 14, 43. 44. by which he was accompanied. That there was also a civil or military force to secure the execution of the order, is implied here and explicitly affirmed by John (18, 3.) The distinctness and formality with which the chief priests, scribes, and elders are enumerated here and elsewhere (see above, on vs. 1. 10, and on 8, 31. 10 33. 11, 27), would be wholly unaccountable except upon the supposition that the writer wished to keep his readers constantly in mind, that this was not a personal but national transaction, being managed both by popular and official agency. 44. And he that betrayed him had given them a to ken, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he : take him, and lead (him) aAvay safely. The (one) delivering (betraying) him, the main idea being not that of treachery but extradition, which however necessarily involved the other (see above, on vs. 10. 11. 18. 21. 41.) Had g iven them, not to the mob, but to the officers by whom he was accompanied. A token, not the word translated sign in Matt. 20, 48, but a cognate form denoting a concerted signal, not unlike the military countersign in English. 1 shall kiss, or may kiss, the original construction being more expressive of contingency, as though he had said, ' if I should kiss any one, that is he.' The practice of saluting with a kiss prevails to this day, even be tween men, not only in the East, but in many parts of Europe. Some suppose it to have been the customary salutation used by Christ and his apostles, as it afterwards was practised in the apostolic churches (Rom. 16, 16. 1 Cor. 16, 20. 2 Cor. 12, 12. 1 Thes. 5, 26. 1 Pet. 5. 14.) This would make the act of Judas appear natural and unsuspicious (though he had so lately left his master and his brethren) except to those who were already in the secret. Others gather from the silence of the history on this point, and the undue familiarity which seems to them implied in such a practice, that the act of Judas was a new and unac customed one, and that he did not care for the surprise which it would naturally call forth, as his purpose would by that time be accomplish ed. Take him, a stronger word in Greek meaning master, overpower, seize, secure him (see above, on v. 1, on 1, 31. 3, 21, 5, 41. 6, 17. 7. 27. 12, 12.) Lead him away might in accordance with Greek usage, mean to death or execution (as in Acts 12, 19), but is here no doubt to be taken in its usual and proper sense, take him off, i. e. in custody or as a prisoner, to those who sent you. Safely, securely, or according to the derivation of the Greek verb, infallibly, i. e. without fail. This injunction has by some been represented as an absurd precaution against Christ's mi raculous power, and therefore probably a fiction, while another class regard it as a symptom of that madness or infatuation which was natu ral in Judas's position. Perhaps more probable than either is the sup position that, although he knew our Lord's aversion to the use of his extraordinary power for his own protection and defence, he may have apprehended some attempt to rescue him by his disciples, such as- actu ally took place but was instantly arrested. (See below, on v. 47.) MARK 14, 45. 46. 47. 3*93 45. And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, Master, and kissed him. As soon as he had come, in Greek a single word, coming (or having come), i. e. to Gethsemane, which Judas well knew as a place of pre vious resort (John 18, 2.) Goeth a compound form of the same parti ciple, coming lo (or up to) him. He saith (or says) as if the scene were gtill actually passing, Rabbi, Rabbi, the original vernacular expression, here preserved by Mark (as in 9, 5. 11, 21 above), but without a Greek translation (as in v. 36. 5, 41. 7, 34), because the title had become fa miliar even to the Gentile reader. The notion entertained by some, that this form of address was less respectful or affectionate, and there fore used by Judas when the others said Lord or Master, is entirely groundless, as may be seen by a comparison of John 1, 38. 49. 3, 2. 26. 6,25, even in the English version, and of 9, 5. 11, 21 above and John 4, 31. 9, 2. 11, 8, in the original. Kissed him, an emphatic com pound of the verb in the preceding verse, without exact equivalent in English, but denoting that he kissed him in an affectionate and earnest manner, adding to the guilt of the betrayal by the manner of commit ting it. This variation of expression, while it serves to illustrate the resources of the language for the accurate expression of minute distinc tions, also shows the precision both of Mark and Matthew in employ ing it, as the stronger term would have been misplaced in recording what the traitor said, but is highly appropriate and expressive in relat ing what he did. 46. And they laid their hands on him, and took him. Omitting Christ's upbraiding questions, here preserved by Luke (22,48) and Matthew (26.50), Mark relates the execution of the traitor's orders (as recorded in v. 44) and the actual seizure of that sacred person which had so often and so long escaped them. Laid, literally, threw or cast, but without implying undue force or violence. Took him, the verb used above in v. 44, and there explained. 47. And one of them that stood by drew a sword, and smote a servant ofthe high priest, and cut, off his ear. But one or some (one), an expression which may have been intended to suggest that this was the random act of a single person. Of those standing by might seem to intimate that it was a chance spectator or an unknown individual; but we learn from Matthew (26, 51) that it was one of those with Jesus, and from John (18, 10) that it was Simon Peter, both which statements, although more precise than Mark's, are * perfectly consistent with it, yet regarded by the sceptical critics as un questionable tokens of a variant tradition. The idea that the earlier evangelists suppressed the name of Peter, lest it should involve him in danger as the author of this injury, is utterly at variance with the fact that he was recognized a few hours after by a near relation of the man 17* 394 MARK 14, 47. 48. 49. whom he had wounded (John 12, 26), and also with the fact that all complaint on that score had been silenced by our Saviour's last recorded miracle of healing (Luke 22, 51.) Drawing the sword, which he car ried, one of the two mentioned in Luke 22. 38. The word translated sworel is not the classical expression, but one used in Homer to denote the knife worn by his heroes with the sword, and used to slaughter animals. In later Greek, it was applied to military weapons, first to certain new varieties or forms, and then in the New Testament to swords in general. Smote, struck, wounded, the same Greek word being used by John (18, 10.) 48. And Jesus ansAvered and said unto them, Are ye come out as against a thief, with sAvords and (with) staves to take me ? Answering their thoughts or actions (see above, on 9, 5. 10, 24. 12, 35.) To them, the whole crowd, but especially the officers who came with a commission to arrest him and to represent the national authori ties. The last clause may be also read without interrogation. Ye are come out, which appears to be more natural. As against a thief, or robber, as the Greek word properly denotes, and the context here re quires, since such a posse would not be required for the detection or pursuit of a mere thief, in the modern and restricted sense of the ex pression (see above, on 11, 17.) Swords and staves, or knives and sticks, as in v. 43, the former phrase suggesting the idea of armed officers, civil and military, and the latter that of a promiscuous rabble armed with clubs or bludgeons and such other Aveapons as could be provided at xx, moment's warning. To take (arrest) me, not the verb employed in vs. 44. 46, but one supposed to signify the act of seizing with both hands, and frequently applied in the New Testament to legal appre hension or arrest. (Besides the parallels, Matt. 26. 55. Luke 22,54. John 18, 12, see Acts 1, 16. 12, 3 23, 27. 26, 21.) The reproach im plied in these words, whether construed interrogatively or affirmatively, is that they should now come out against him as a formidable public enemy, after letting slip so many opportunities of safe and quiet seizure, as particularly mentioned in the next verse. 49. I was daily Avith you in the temple, teaching, and ye took me not ; but the scriptures must be fulfilled. Daily, day by day, not all day, but from day to day, referring no doubt chiefly to the days immediately preceding, though possibly not without allusion to his former visits With you, a much stronger 'phrase in Greek, meaning at you, close to you, in intimate proximity and contact with you (see above, on 1, 33. 2, 2. 4, 1. 5, 11. 22. 6, 3. 9, 19. 11, 1. 4.) In the temple, i. e. its area or' courts, within the sacred enclosure (see above, on 11, 11. 15. 16. 27. 13, 1. 3) Teaching, not merely present as an idler or a looker-on, but publicly engaged in my official work, and therefore all the more accessible, both in the way of MARK 14, 49. 50. 51. 395 -accusation and of seizure. And ye took me not, or did not seize me (see above, on vs. 44.46), as ye might have done with so much ease and safety. The force of this rebuke may seem to be impaired by the fact, that the rulers of the Jews had been deterred by the fear of popular resistance, of which there now seemed to be no longer any danger. But our Saviour may have reference to this very change, as his words were not addressed to the rulers, but to their representatives, official and popular. The translation of the last clause has effaced a striking trait of the original, an instance of the figure called aposiopesis, in which the conclusion is suppressed or left to be supplied by those who read or ,hear the sentence (see above, on 7, 11.) The literal translation is, but that the scriptures might be fulfilled — and there he stops abruptly. Some supply, ' now seize me ! ' which however would require a different verbal form before it ; others, ' ye are now allowed to take me,' which is open to the same objection. The formula most readily suggested and agreeable to usage (compare Matt. 1, 22. 21, 4. 26, 56.) is, all this comes to pass (ov happens), but nothing need be formally supplied, the sen tence being left intentionally incomplete in form, although the sense is doubtless that expressed in the translation. 50. And they all forsook him and fled. And leaving him, to himself and to his enemies, the verb employed above in v. 6 and in 13, 2. 34, and other places there referred to. All fied, a clear case of the strongest universal term being qualified and restricted by the context, as it can only mean all his followers or disci ples, as predicted in v. 27, but repudiated as incredible by those who now fulfilled it by their own free actions. This change is far from being inconsistent with experience and human nature, or, as the Ger mans say-, unpsychological. Tbe very rashness ofthe promise (v. 31), and of the impotent attempt at self-defence when it was hopeless (v. 47), might have served as premonitions of the shameful dereliction here recorded. To the objection sometimes made, that so explicit a prediction must defeat its own fulfilment, the reply is, that such prophe cies are uttered only when the issue is too certain to be thus prevented, as in the case of Judas (Matt. 20, 25. John 13. 27) and Peter (see above, on v. 30.) It may even be admitted, in a certain sense, that the prophecy contributed to its own fulfilment, by enfeebling or destroying the factitious courage, which existed while the danger was still future or remote. 51. 52. And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about (his) naked (body);, and the young men laid hold on him, and he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked. This incident, recorded only here, has occasioned much discussion, not because of its intrinsic moment, or of any light thrown by it on the history, but simply from the difficulty of determining why it was in- 396 MARK 14, 52. 53. serted. Of the various conjectures upon this point, one of which snp. poses the young man to have been John, another James, another some one from the garden of Getbsemane, another some one from the house in Jerusalem which they had lately left, there seem to be only two that are not perfectly gratuitous. The first is, that the young man was the author of this gospel, who has then preserved a vivid reminiscence of his own, connected with the scenes of that night long to be remem bered, yet with characteristic modesty suppressed his name. This, though merely a conjecture, is intrinsically credible and partially cor roborated by the fact that Mark, whose name a uniform tradition has connected with this gospel, was a young man living with his mother in Jerusalem a few years later (Acts 12. 12), and not improbably at this time also. This much at least may be asserted with some confidence, that if the incident occurred to any person otherwise well known, it was no doubt the evangelist himself. The remaining supposition is, that the youth who thus escaped was entirely unknown and unimpor tant, and that the incident itself is mentioned, only as a vivid trait in the recollections of some one who witnessed the whole scene, perhaps Peter, whom another old and uniform tradition represents as having in fluenced in some way the production of this gospel, and contributed some of its most valuable matter. A certain one, the same expression as in v. 47, and here too meaning a single insulated individual. Fol lowed him (Jesus), either as a friend, or out of curiosity, aroused by the nocturnal tumult. A linen cloth, in Greek a single word, denoting the material and not the shape, which may have been either that of a sheet under which he was sleeping, or of a loose garment worn at night, in either case implying that he was undressed and probably just risen out of bed. Cast about, in the original, agrees not with the garment but the man, and means that he was wrapped or muffled in it, on (his) naked (body.) The yoting men (if genuine) may mean the offi cers or soldiers, or more probably than either, the disorderly young men who are found in every mob, and who delight in acts of wanton violence. But the latest critics follow some of the most ancient manu scripts and versions in expunging these words (the young men) and leaving the verb perfectly indefinite (they seize him.) 53. And they led Jesus away to the high priest : and with him were assembled all tbe chief priests and the elders and the scribes. Led away, from the garden of Gethsemane where he was arrested, and across the brook or valley of the Kedron, into the city of Jerusalem again. To the High Priest, i. c. to his residence, and into his imme diate presence. Mark takes no notice of the confusion then existing in the office of High Priest, occasioned by the arbitrary interference of the Romans, so that there were several High Priests alive at one time, i. e. several who had actually exercised the office, though the law of Moses recognized but one, and that one the hereditary representative of Aaron This appears to have been Annas, who was therefore probably re MARK 14, 53. 54. 397 garded by the strict Jews as the legitimate incumbent ; but having been displaced by the Romans, and deprived of all direct official power, he appears to have secured the nomination of his own son and i-vm-in- law, as his successors, thereby maintaining indirectly his own influence, and probably the title too in common parlance, which accounts for Luke's mentioning both Annas and Caiaphas as High Priests at the same time (Luke 3, 2), and for John's saying here that they brought him first to Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was High Priest that year (John 18, 13), which does not mean that it was now a yearly office, even under Roman domination, but is merely an allusion to the frequency with which the incumbents were displaced by the authorities. John adds (18, 24) that Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas, before whom he was formally arraigned. With greater brevity, but equal. truth, Mark speaks of one High Priest and one appearance of our Lord, before him. And there come together with him, i. e. with Jesus into the High Priest's presence, or there come together to him, i. e. to the High Priest himself, which last is the construction now preferred. The chief priests,- scribes, and elders, are again distinctly named (see above, on v. 43) as the three great orders or estates, composing the synedrion or sanhedrim, which represented the whole church and. na tion, and now, as soon it was day (Luke 22, 66), convened at the resi dence of Caiaphas, to deliberate and act upon the case of Jesus. 54. And Peter followed him afar off, even into the palace of the high priest ; and he sat with the servants, and warmed himself at the fire. However unexpected the fact here recorded, there is probably no reader who, as soon as it is stated, does not feel it to be perfectly in keeping with what he knows already of the character of Peter, who would scarcely seem to be himself if he continued in concealment, and whose reappearance on the scene, and subsequent performance there, exhibit just the strength and weakness which together constitute the native temper of this great apostle. Without saying how he gained ad mission, which is afterwards explained by John (18, 15), Mark simply states that Peter followed from afar (or from a distance, see above, on 5, 6. 8, 3. 11, 13), implying that at first he had retreated with the rest, but now ventured to approach the place of trial, under the influence no doubt of true affection for his master, and not of a mere idle curiosity which would scarcely have induced him to incur such hazard for its gratification. Even into answers to three particles in Greek, the first of which (ras) means unto, up to, or as far as ; the second (ea-w) inside or within; the third (els) into ; an unusual accumulation of such words, suggesting that his going so far was a strange and unexpected thing. The palace, literally, hall or court, and probably denoting not the whole house but a part of it. The idea of a palace, i. e. of a princely mansion, which tradition has attached to this word, here and in the parallels (Matt. 26; 58. Luke 22, 55. John 18, 15), appears to have no idequate foundation in the usage either of the word or of the office, as 398 MARK 14. 54. 55. we have no reason to believe that the High Priests at any time were lodged in royal style, but least of all at this time, when the tenure of their place was so precarious, and any such display would probably excite the jealousy of Roman power. There is no objection to the word, however, in the simple sense of an official residence, as the bishops' palaces in England are so called without necessarily implying either magnitude or splendor. Sat, was sitting, with the servants, not mere domestics but more probably the officers, as the word is rendered in John 7, 32, and often in that gospel, i. e. the executive or ministerial agents of the national authorities. And warming himself at the fire, literally, the light, which they had kindled, as it was a cold night (John 18, 18), probably according to the custom of the east, in the centre of the hall or open court already mentioned. This description is so natural and lifelike, yet so little likely to occur to a fictitious or even to a later writer, that it seems to vouch for the contemporary origin of this whole record. 55. And the chief priests and all the council sought for witness against Jesus, to put him to death, and found none. Here begins the judicial process (falsely so called) by which the Messiah, whose advent Israel had expected for ages, and for whose sake the theocracy existed, was to be denied and put to death as an im postor. The national character of the proceeding is again suggested by the mention of the chief priests and the whole synedrium (or council), this collective designation being substituted for the scribes and elders, who are usually mentioned with the chief priests as composing it. (See above, on vs. 1. 10. 43. 53.) There is something in the very variation of the parallel accounts, in their description of this body, that appears to be significant. While Mark names only the chief priests distinctly, comprehending both the other orders under the generic title, and Matthew distinguishes the elders also, leaving the scribes to be included under the residuary phrase, Luke on the other hand particulary mentions the chief priests and scribes, but instead of elders uses the collective term of kindred origin, the presbytery (elder ship or senate) of the people (Luke 22, 63.) In this variety of forms, to all but sceptics less suspicious than exact resemblance, the evangelists convey the one idea, that this legal persecution was the work, not of private prosecutors, but of public representatives and rulers. Sought for witness (i. e. testimony, evidence) against Jesus, to (with a view or in order to) kill him (or put him to death). The ne cessity of this preliminary measure arose from the legal requisition ot two witnesses in every trial for a capital offence (see Deut. 17, 6. 7. 19, 15. Heb. 10, 28, and compare Matt. 18, 16. 1 Tim. 5, 19. Rev. 11, 3), which seems to have been construed strictly as requiring double testimony to the same act. It was necessary, therefore, to find two who had been present at the same or a precisely similar offence, whatever it might be. The difficulty, then, was not that they found MARK 14, 55. 50. 57. 399 none, as the English Bible renders it, but, as the Greek words literally mean, they did not find (what they were seeking), i. e. probably two witnesses to one and the same act. It would have been strange indeed if no one could be found to testify at all ; but it was not strange that they found it hard to obtain two concurrent witnesses to one and the same thing. The only other sense in which it could be absolutely said that they found none, is that although they could easily prove many acts and words of Christ, they did not amount to a capital offence, so that in reference to their object, which was to destroy him, they may be said to haye found none. 56. For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together. That it was not the mere want of witnesses that hindered their pro ceedings, is now stated most distinctly, for many bare false witness against him. This does not necessarily denote a sheer invention, or even a deliberate perversion of the facts alleged, but merely their objec tive untruth, whether they believed them to be true or not. The gross misapprehension of our Saviour's words and actions, into which the Jews continually fell, and from which his own disciples were not wholly free, would, even in the absence of malignant purpose, be enough to falsify their testimony ; how much more when such a purpose did exist and operate, whether in a great or small degree. The literal transla tion of the last clause is, and equal the testimonies were not. Some suppose equal to mean adequate, sufficient for their purpose, which affords a good sense but is hardly justified by usage. Others under stand it to mean even, uniform, harmonious, and with the negative, in consistent, contradictory. This also gives a good sense, but the fact implied is hardly probable, to wit, that all the witnesses directly con tradicted ohe another. Free from both these objections is the expla nation which supposes equal to have reference to the legal requisition of two concurrent witnesses to one fact, which it might not be so easy to obtain as a multitude of independent witnesses to different words or actions. 57. And there arose certain, and bare false Avitness against him, saying, At length they seemed to have attained their purpose, having met with a plurality of witnesses to one remarkable expression of the Saviour. And certain (i. e. some) arising, i. e. coming forward, mak ing their appearance, or literally standing up before those who ex amined them. The particular charge here alleged against him may ap pear to be a strange one in comparison with many others which they might have urged. And so it would be, if they had selected it themselves as the ground of accusation, but it seems to have been forced upon them as the only charge supported by two witnesses, with even the appear ance of consistency, and this proved only an appearance. The chargo 400 MARK 14, 57-60. was false, not because Christ had never spoken such words, for we have them upon record, but because it transformed into a threat what he had uttered as a promise, or offered to do if they themselves destroyed the temple, and because they wholly disregarded his allusion to the mean ing of the sanctuary under the Old Testament, as a symbol of God's presence and inhabitation, to be superseded by the advent of the Mes siah. 58. We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and Avithin three days I will build another made without hands. We heard him saying, probably on the occasion mentioned by John ' (2, 18-21), and if so at the very opening of his ministry, and several years before the accusation. Destroy, the same verb that is used above in 13, 2, and there explained. This temple, not the word which has occurred so frequently before (11,11.15.16.27. 12,35. 13,1.3. 14, 49), but one which denotes the sacred edifice, the sanctuary, or temple properly so called. The form of the original is here peculiarly expres sive, although foreign from our idiom, the temple — this — the handmade. Made without hands is in Greek a single word, the same that occurs just before but with a negative particle prefixed. Within, literally, through, i. e. during, in the course. I will build stands emphatically at the close of the original sentence. 59. But neither so did their witness agree together. But neither so, literally, and not even so (or thus), i. e. according to the statement made in the preceding verse. Was their testimony equal, the same expression that occurs in the last clause of v. 56, and admit ting of the same variety of explanation, but most probably denoting, here as there, that they could not succeed in finding two concurrent witnesses to this one speech of Christ, or any other of his words and ac tions, which could possibly be made the ground of a specific charge against him. In the present instance, as the witnesses all varied from the truth, they naturally varied from each other, so that no two were so far agreed as to satisfy the requisitions of the law. (See above, on v. 55.) 60. And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what (is it which) these witness against thee ? And arising, standing up, in the midst, i. e. within the body of the council, and, as some understand it, in the centre of the semicircle formed by the assembly according to an old tradition of the Jews themselves. Into the midst is the exact translation, which apparently implies a previous movement of the high priest from his seat to some conspicuous position for the purpose of addressing him. All this MARK 14, 60. bl- 401 seems to presuppose a formal meeting of the Sanhedrim, and to show that the inquiry mentioned in v. 55 was not a private or preliminary one, but the commencement of the public process, as appears indeed from its being there ascribed to the whole body. As the witnesses did not agree together, the accused was not obliged to answer or defend himself, and therefore by his silence only exercised the right belonging to the humblest Jew according to the law of Moses. At the same time, he knew well that all defence would be entirely unavailing (Luke 22, 67. 68), and besides had no desire to be acquitted by them. Answerest thou nothing ? is in Greek still stronger from the double negative (ovk ovhiv), which cannot be expressed in English without changing the whole sense (see above, on 3, 27. 5, 37. 6, 5. 12, 14.) The meaning of the question may be either, ' hast thou nothing to reply, dost thou acknowdedge what they say ? ' or ' wilt thou not reply 1 dost thou treat the testimony with contempt 1 ' The latter agrees better with the following question, what do these testify against thee? i. e. is it true or false1? and if true, how dost thou explain it, or justify thy conduct 1 This was an attempt to make the prisoner supply the want of testimony by his own confession, a proceeding utterly abhorrent to the spirit and the practice of the English law, though familiar to the codes and courts of other nations, both in ancient and in modern times. 61. But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again tlie high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed ? As our Lord persisted in refusing all reply to these vexatious ques tions, on a charge not only false but unsupported even by false wit nesses, the high priest suddenly dismisses that complaint as unavail ing, and propounds to him the real question now at issue. It is perfectly consistent with Mark's statement, although not included in it, that this question was put, not in the same way with those before it, but in the solemn form of a judicial adjuration, or an oath by the liv ing God, Jehovah, as distinguished from ail false gods (Matt. 26, 63.) Such an oath the priests were empowered to administer (Num. 5, 19), and such an oath our Lord did not refuse when lawfully propounded, thus explaining by his own act the true meaning of his precept, Swear not at all (Matt. 5, 34), as not forbidding solemn and regular judicial oaths. Art thou the Christ, the Messiah 1 (see above, on 1, 1. 8, 29. 9, 41. 12, 35. 13, 21.) The Son of the Blessed, i. e. of the Blessed- God, an epithet which frequently occurs in the Old Testament. It has been disputed whether this is a mere paraphrase or repetition of the first clause, or an independent question. In the one case the meaning is, 'Art thou the Messiah, whom Ave know to be the Son of God? ' In ihe other Case, ' Dost thou claim to be, not only the Messiah, but the Son of God ? ' The former is the natural and obvious construction, and is defended on the ground that, as the Messiah was called the Son of Man on the authority of Dan. 7, 13, so he was likewise called the Son of God on the authority of Ps. 2, 7, both which passages were cer- 402 MARK 14, 61. 62. 63. tainly regarded by the ancient Jews as Messianic prophecies. That the higher title was so used in the time of Christ, is argued from such passages as John 1, 49. 3, 17. 36. 5, 25. 27. 9, 35. 11, 27. 20, 31. Acts 9, 20. The only reason for a different opinion is the supposed defec tion of the Jews from the doctrine of Messiah's deity, implied in our Lord's question in relation to the 110th Psalm (see above, on 12, 35-37.) But all the known facts may be harmonized by simply assuming that Son of God was still a current name of the Messiah, though its meaning had been lowered and extenuated. The question still recurs, however, whether the high priest intended merely to inquire if he claimed to be the Christ, employing two familiar Messianic titles, or whether he designed to ask if he claimed also to be a divine person. The latter is more probable, because the second title would be other wise superfluous ; because the Saviour had already been accused of call ing God his father and of thereby making himself God (John 5, 18) ; and because his answer to the question was treated as blasphemy, for which a mere assumption of the Messianic office would have furnished no colourable ground or pretext. 62. And Jesus said, I am, and ye shall see the Son of Man, sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Not only because solemnly enjoined in due form of law, but also because thereby furnished with a public opportunity of making known his claims, our Lord now answers with sublime conciseness and sim plicity, I am, i. e. I am both the Christ and the Son of the Blessed, per haps not without allusion to the significant divine name once revealed to Moses (see above, on 6, 50, and compare Ex. 3, 14.) To this cate gorical and unambiguous response, he adds what may seem to be a mere prediction, but is also both an explanation and a pledge or confirmation of the foregoing answer. ' Yes, 1 am the Son of God, but no less really the Son of Man, and you shall one day see the very form now arraigned and about to be maltreated in your presence, no longer as the form of a servant, but of a king seated at the right hand of power, as a sharer in the honours of omnipotence, and coming with the clouds of heaven.' (See above, on 13, 26.) 63. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further AA'itn esses? This bold and perhaps unexpected avowal of his Messianic claims, in their most explicit and offensive form, was eagerly caught at by the high priest, as supplying the deficiency of proof from other quarters, and enabling them out of his own mouth to condemn him. He pro ceeds, therefore, to rend (or tear open and apart) his clothes, not the loose outer dress (see above, on 5, 27. 6, 56. 10, 50. 13, 16), but the tunic or under-garment, which, according to Mamionides, were both (or all) to be subjected to this process. The act itself was not a sign MARK 14, 63. 64. 65. 403 of personal mourning, which as such was not permitted to the high priest (Lev, 10, 6). but of official detestation and abhorrence at the blasphemy supposed to have been uttered. Why yet (or still) have we need of witnesses? the difficulty under which the cause had laboured, and by which it would probably have been defeated, if our Lord had not spontaneously supplied what was wanting by his own confession. 64. Ye have heard the blasphemy; what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death. Ye heard the blasphemy (just uttered), not the bare claim to pro phetic honours, or even to those of the Messiah considered as a mere man, which could not have been described as blasphemy, but the distinct asser tion that he was the Son of God, and therefore, as the Jews correctly un derstood it, a partaker of the divine essence. (See the same interpretation of his language, and the same charge founded on it in a more popular in formal way, John 10, 30-36.) What think ye? literally, what appears to you, or how does it appear to you ? This is not a colloquial demand for their opinion, but most probably the customary form of taking votes or putting questions in the Sanhedrim, and therefore followed by an unanimous decision of the body. Guilty of death, i. e. justly liable, obnoxious, or exposed to it. We know of one exception to this state ment (see below, oa 15, 43) ; but the dissenting senator was probably not present at this meeting. 65. And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy ; and tlie servants did strike him Avith the palms of their hands. The sentence having been pronounced, its execution was partially forestalled by cruel and unmanly treatment of their prisoner. This might seem from the concise account of Mark and Matthew (26, 67) to have proceeded from the senators themselves, which in itself is credible enough, as we may learn from the subsequent experience of Stephen (Acts 7, 54. 57) and Paul (Acts 23, 2) before the same tribunal. We find, however, conduct of the same kind, although not precisely at the same time, ascribed by Luke (22, 63) to those who held Jesus, i. e. to the officers and soldiers who had charge of him, and these may pos sibly have been the actors in this shameful scene, both before and after hiss arraignment. Even then, however, such maltreatment would not have been possible without the permission or connivance of the San hedrim itself. The insults were particularly aimed at his pretensions to prophetic inspiration, now supposed to be exploded and declared in valid by the highest theocratical authority. And some began to spit upon him, universally regarded as the strongest and the grossest indi cation of contemptuous abhorrence. And to cover his face, literally, cover it around, i. e. completely, so as to prevent his seeing. Prophesy, not in the restricted modern sense of foretelling something future, but 404 MARK 14, 65. 66. in the primary and wide sense of speaking by inspiration or under a special divine influence. The demand may have been made in this vague form, but also in the shape of more specific taunts, one of which has been preserved by Matthew (26, 68), and of course regarded by the sceptics as a discrepant tradition. The express mention of the servants (i. e. officers, see above, on v. 54) in the last clause seems to favour the opinion that the acts described in the first, disgraceful as they are, were those of their superiors in rank and station. The rest of this clause is a periphrastic version of a rare and doubtful phrase which literally means, they threw him (or threw at him) with slaps, i. b. struck him with the open hand; but some explain the last word to mean strokes with a rod. In either case, the essential fact remains the same, to wit, their brutal violation of that sacred person by blows as lawless as they were inhuman. 66. 67. And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest ; and when she saw Peter warming himself, she looked upon him, and said, And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth. During the intervals of these proceedings, Christ's prediction with respect to Peter had been lamentably verified. Tfie several steps of his denial, though protracted through the night, and parallel to those of our Lord's examination, are here put together so as to form one con nected narrative. The confusion and obscurity confessedly belonging to this subject are precisely such as might have been expected a priori from the actual confusion ofthe scenes described, the multiplicity of ac tors, the incessant movement to and fro. and the consequent variety of forms in which the story might be told with equal truth, according to the few facts chosen out of many by the several historians. While all agree in three distinct denials on the part of Peter, none of them assert that there were only three demands or accusations, a restriction which - would really have been suspicious and improbable, considering how many Avere arrayed against him. By assuming what is constantly occurring in such cases, though rejected by the sceptics as a sheer in vention of the harmonists, to wit, that Peter Avas assailed by many with the same demand, and also that the speakers moved from place to place, as they naturally would at a time of such excitement and com motion, all apparent discrepancies may be reconciled without the use of force or artifice. With these remarks upon the mutual relation ol the four accounts, we may proceed to examine more particularly that before us, leaving the others to be similarly handled elsewhere. Peter being in the court below, not in tho loAver story of the house or palace, as the English version seems to mean, but in the open space around which it was built, and which was lower than the floor of the sur rounding rooms. One of the maids (or female servants) of tlie high priest, perhaps the one who kept the door (John 18, 17), though John's statement may refer to a previous challenge made when he and Peter MARK 14, 67. 68. 69. 405 entered (18, 15), whereas this took place while he was at the fire warming himself (see above, on v. 54.) Seeing him (thus employed), and no doubt struck with something in his aspect, either previously familiar or unlike that of the men around him, looking at him (some thing more than simply seeing him), she says (directly to him), And thou (or thou too) wast with the Nazarene Jesus, a contemptuous de scription commonly applied to Christ and to his followers long after. (See above, on 1, 24. 10, 47, and compare Matt. 2, 23. Acts 24, 5.) There is no need of supposing that these questions were malignant, or designed to implicate Peter in the charge against his master. If in dicative of any thing beyond mere curiosity, it was probably of interest in the case of Malchus (see above, on v. 47, and compare John 18, 26.) 68. But he denied, saying, I know not, neither under stand I what thou sayest. And he went out into the porch ; and the cock creAv. Taken completely by surprise, and probably considering only the possible hazard to himself, Peter answered with a prompt and categori cal denial that he even understood the question, a denial rendered still more emphatic by the use of two synonymous verbs, rendered know and understand. Disturbed, however, by the question of the woman, he now passes from the court itself into the fore-court or vestibule, i. e. the front part of the house, through Avhich lay the passage from the court into the street, most probably an arched gateway, as in many houses at the present day, not only in the East, but in European cities, such as Rome and Paris. This movement may have been intended to prepare for his escape from the embarrassing position into which he had been brought by his own rashness. But here he meets with two interruptions ; first, the crowing'of the cock, i. e. the earlier or midnight crow, which marked the beginning of the third watch, as the morning crow announced its close. The other gospels refer only to the latter, whereas Mark distinctly mentions both, perhaps aided by the indelible impressions of the person most immediately concerned, who, though he does not seem to have been much affected at the moment by this early cock-crow, no doubt afterwards remembered having heard it. This premonitory signal of his fall might possibly have hastened his de parture, but for another interruption mentioned in the next verse. 69. And a maid saw him again, and began to say to tfiem that stood by, This is (one) of them. The same woman who had challenged him before, and who was probably still on duty at the door, seeing him again, perhaps about to leave the house, began to call the attention of the bystanders to him, by asserting positively what she only asked before, saying, This (man) is of them (from among them, one of them), i. e. of the followers of Jesus. It would have been strange indeed if this suggestion had ex cited no attention and occasioned no inquiry. All experience and anal- 406 MARK 14, 69. 70. 71. ogy would lead us to expect precisely what we find recorded in the gospels, namely, that several began at once to question him, another woman (Matt. 26, 71), a man (Luke (22, 58). and some who had been around the fire (John 18, 25), especially a kinsman of the person whom Peter himself had wounded (John 18, 20.) The attempt to represent this most natural and therefore most harmonious variety as contradic tion or a variant tradition is, like all the other efforts of the same sort, lost upon the great mass of American and English readers. 70. And he denied it again. And a little after, they that stood by said again to Peter, Surely thou art (one) of them ; for thou art a Galilean, and thy speech agreeth (thereto.) And he again denied, not merely that he was a follower of Christ but, as Ave learn from Matthew (26, 72), that he even knew him. There is here a sensible gradation or advance upon his first denial, in the per sonal and disrespectful form now given to it (/ know not the man.) But this appears to have had no effect upon the persons round him ; for after a little, a relative expression perfectly consistent with the more exact specification of about one hour (Luke 22, 59), during which it no doubt formed the subject of a lively conversation and discussion, those standing by, who had been thus employed, again said to Peter, stating the conclusion to which they had come, Surely (certainly) thou art of them (i. e. thou belongest to them), as in v. 69. For this conclu sion they assign a specific reason, that he was a Galilean, as most of Christ's disciples were, and as he Avas himself by residence, as well as by reputed birth. For this they also gave a reason, that his speech (talk or dialect) resembled (that of Galilee), probably in accent and pronunciation, which, according to the Jewish books, differed from that of Judea in confounding the gutturals and the two last letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Provincial differences of this kind are mentioned very early in the Sacred History. (See Judges 12, 6.) 71. But he began to curse and to swear, (saying) I know not this man of whom ye speak. This is the third stage or degree of the denial, in which Peter, not contented with repeating what he said before, abjures still more dis tinctly and contemptuously all acquaintance Avith the Saviour, and as if this most disloyal lie were still too little, corroborates it with profane oaths and an impious imprecation of divine wrath on himself, if he even knew the man of whom they spake, and to whom he had, a few hours earlier, made the strong self-confident assurance recorded in vs. 29. 31. He began (perhaps implying that he afterwards continued) lo anathe matize (or curse himself if what he said Avas false) and swear (or in voke God as a witness of its truth.) Besides the other aggravations of this fearful sin, its combination of falsehood, ingratitude, disloyalty MARK 14, 71. 72. 407 and breach of promise, it appears to have involved a momentary lapse into sinful habits long since forsaken, as the supposition, that Peter had been once addicted to profaneness, is not only natural and credible, but serves to explain his gratuitous resort to such means of corroboration in the case before us. 72. And the second time the cock crew. And Peter called to mind the word that Jesus said unto him, Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice. And when he thought thereon, he wept. It vras not from any natural cause, but by a special providential or dering, that the second or morning cock-crow had so diff'erent an effect from the first, to wit, that of recalling to the mind of Peter the predic tion of his master (see above, on v. 30.) That such oblivion is possible under strong excitement and temptation, must be known to thousands from their own experience, who will therefore need no refutation of the charge, that the narrative is untrue because " unpsychological." While Mark and Matthew (26, 75) both omit a striking and affecting circum stance preserved by Luke (22, 61), the first named uses an expression found in neither of the others, and the sense of which is much disputed, although no explanation is more probable than that given in the Eng lish Bible, when he thought thereon, literally, casting (his mind) on (it.) Examples of this usage have been found in several of the latter classics, such as Plutarch, Marcus Antoninus, Sextus Empiricus, and Galen. The other explanations which have been proposed, e. g. rushing out, covering (his head), beginning, continuing, &c. are all either contrary to usage or require too much to be supplied. The only one entitled to compete with that first given takes the verb in the same sense hut sup plies a different object, easting (his eyes) on (him), i. e. looking at the Saviour as he passed, an act exactly corresponding to the one ascribed to Christ himself by Luke (22, 61), and represented as the immediate cause of his self-recollection and repentance. If this bo philologically possible, it certainly presents a very beautiful antithesis between the statements of the two evangelists, the one relating how the Lord looked at Peter, and the other how Peter, looking at the Lord, wept bitterly. CHAPTER XV. Having traced the history of our Lord's prosecution to his condem nation by the Sanhedrim, and added as an episode the brief apostasy of Peter, Mark now proceeds to give the second part of this judicial process, namely, that which took place at the judgment-seat of Pilate, the Roman Procurator of Judea, before whom he avows his royal dig 408 MARK 15, 1. nity, but gives no answer to the accusations of the Jewish rulers (1-5.) Seeing these accusations to be groundless, Pilate seeks to give him the advantage of a custom then prevailing, according to which some one prisoner was set free at the yearly festival ; but the people, instigated by their rulers, demand the release of a notorious criminal, and the crucifixion of Jesus in his stead (6-14.) With culpable facil ity the governor, though anxious to deliver him, at length abandons the attempt, and allows them first to mock and then to crucify him (16-20.) Mark describes briefly, but with great distinctness, the pro cession for this purpose from the judgment-hall to Golgotha, the treat ment which he there received, and various coincidences tending to identify him as the Messiah of the prophecies (21-32.) After six hours of preternatural darkness, and a dying cry which led to new derision on the part of his tormentors, he expires upon the cross, thereby opening a free access to God, denoted by the rending of the vail within the temple, and is acknowledged as the Son of God by the Roman officer who had charge of his execution, as well as by the women who came up with him from Galilee (33-4L) The completion of his great work, and the end of his prolonged humiliation, are indi cated by a sudden change in the tone of the whole history, and the providential care with which his body is preserved from profanation and promiscuous burial, being entrusted to the care of a wealthy ruler who believed in him, laid in a new grave at or near the place of cruci fixion, and watched through the Sabbath by those female followers, who seem to have filled the place of the apostles during their defec tion (42-47.) Of these events we have three accounts besides the one before us, that of Matthew (xxvii) most resembling it, while those of Luke (xxiii) and John (xviii. xix) are more distinct and independent, though substantially harmonious, and forming altogether a historical picture which has never been surpassed, and in which the lights and shades are blended with an effect beyond all human art and skill. The particular narrative of Mark, though vivid, has comparatively few of those minute strokes, which he elsewhere adds so often to the parallel accounts ; a difference perhaps arising from the interruption of the re collections and impressions with which Peter had before supplied him. 1. And straightway in the morning, the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried (him) away, and delivered (him) to Pilate. Here begins the second part of our Lord's trial, that which took place before the Roman governor. Immediately at (or towards) the dawn, in Greek an adverb meaning early j early in the morning (see above on 1, 35. 11, 30. 13, 35), but here used as a noun, with the arti cle prefixed, and governed by a preposition. The whole phrase means, as soon as it was day, without defining the precise time any further. The chief priests are spoken of throughout this whole transaction as M A h, K 15, 1. 2. 409 the leaders in it, which was the natural result of their position as the official representatives of the theocracy and the highest of the orders which composed the Sanhedrim. As the Greek word rendered consul tation sometimes means a council (as in Acts 25, 12), the whole phrase (making a council) might be understood to denote the holding of a formal meeting ; but the usage of the gospels is decidedly in favour of explaining it to mean the act of private consultation and deliberation, as to what step they should next take. (See above, on 3, 6, and com pare Matt. 12, 14. 22, 15. 27, 7. 28, 12.) The priests consulted with the other members of the Sanhedrim, the elders and scribes, all three classes being comprehended in the phrase which follows (and the whole Synedrium), a formal and exact enumeration, of which we have already had repeated instances, all intended to evince the national and public character of the transaction. The necessity of further consultation at this stage of the proceedings arose from the fact that they had lost the power of inflicting capital punishments, as we learn, not only from John 18, 31, but from Josephus and the Talmud, which contains a tra ditional statement, that this power was taken from the Sanhedrim, about forty years before the downfall of Jerusalem. Although they had condemned the Saviour, therefore, it was not in their power to execute the sentence, without resorting to their foreign masters ; and they might well regard it as a serious question how this should be done without undue concession on the one hand, or a failure to attain their purpose on the other. The result of their deliberation Avas, that they replaced the prisoner's bonds, which may have been removed during the trial, 'and carried him away, from the high priest's house, which was no doubt near the temple, to that of the Procurator on Mount Zion, and delivered him, gave him up, transferred him as a prisoner, to Pilate. After the eldest son of Herod the Great, Archelaus, (Matt. 2, 22), had been recalled and banished to Gaul by Augustus, Judea was annexed to the great Roman province of, Syria, and gov erned by deputies called Procurators, the fourth of whom Avas Valerius Gratus and the fifth Pontius Pilatus, appointed in the thirteenth year of Tiberius, and already hated by the Jews for his extortions and severities (compare Luke 13, 1.) Like his predecessors and successors in that office, he resided commonly at Cesarea (compare Acts 23, 33. 25, 1. 4. 6. 13), but attended at Jerusalem during the great festivals, in order to preserve the peace, then specially endangered, and also it is said to exercise judicial functions, these times of extraordinary con course being naturally chosen for that purpose. (See below, on v. 7.) 2. And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews ? And he, ansAvering, said unto him, Thou sayest (it.) Omitting the preliminary dialogue with Pilate, Avhich was after wards supplied by John (18, 29-31), and in which the governor refused to ratify and execute their sentence without knowing the charge and the evidence on which it rested, Mark proceeds at once to their com pliance with this requisition, by appearing before Pilate, not as judges 18 410 MARK 15, 2. 3. 4. but accusers of their own Messiah. Knowing well that the- religious charge of blasphemy, on which they had themselves convicted him (13, 64), would not be entertained at that tribunal, they artfully ac cused him of claiming to be King of the Jews, and as such a com petitor or rival of the Emperor (Luke 23, 2.) Pilate therefore asks him, art thou the King of the Jews ? or as the words might be trans lated with a closer adherence to the form of the original, thou art (then) King of the Jews 1 which gives to the inquiry a slight tone of sarcasm, perfectly in keeping with what follows. The answer of our Lord, thou sayest (it), interpreted according to its most obvious mean ing and the idiom of other languages, might be regarded as an evasion or even a negation of the question, and is actually so explained by one of the Greek commentators, ' thou sayest (it), not I ! ' It is now agreed, however, that the idiom is a Hebrew one, of which traces have been found in later Jewish books, and which amount to a strong affirmation. That our Lord employed this very phrase, or its exact equivalent, may be inferred from its appearance in all four accounts. (Compare Matt. 27, 11. Luke 23, 3. John 18, 37.) 3. And the chief priests accused him of many things ; but he ansAvered nothing. In addition to this general charge of claiming royal honours, or perhaps in mere specification of it, the chief priests, his official prose cutors, accused him (of) many (things), or much (see above, on 1, 45. 3, 12. 5, 10. 23, 43. 9, 26), to which he answered nothing, as appears from Pilate's question in the next verse. The positive statement of the fact here is peculiar to King James's Bible, being found neither in the Greek text nor in any of the earlier English versions. The reasons of this silence were no doubt the same as when he stood before the Sanhedrim (see above, on 14, 60. 61) ; the frivolity of the charges, the certainty of condemnation, and his own unwillingness to be acquitted. The statement has reference only to the charges of the Jews, and is therefore perfectly consistent with John's detailed report of a conversation between Christ and Pilate, as to the nature of his kingdom, by which the governor appears to have been satisfied that there was nothing in his claims adverse to the imperial prerogative or dangerous to the public peace. (See John 18, 34-38.) He was thus enabled to see through the flimsy pretext upon which the Jewish rulers claimed his interference for the punishment of Christ as a political offender, the only means by which they thought it possible to compass his destruction. 4. And Pilate asked him again, saying, Answerest thou nothing ? behold hoAV many things they witness against thee. But Pilate, although satisfied that these accusations were malicious and frivolous, could not understand our Lord's refusal to eive them a MARK 15, 4. 5. 6. 411 direct and formal contradiction. He therefore expresses his surprise at this reserve, not only as injurious to the prisoner's own cause, but as making it less easy for the governor himself to discharge a prisoner, whom he fully believed to be innocent, but who obstinately refused to plead not guilty. This idea is suggested in the last clause of the verse before us, see how many (and how great) things they testify against thee ! As if he had said, ¦ how can I dismiss such multiplied and for mal charges, even though I think them groundless, if the accused party will not say they are so 1 ' Thus understood, the questions here re corded are not merely curious, much less malignant, but intended to facilitate our Lord's acquittal. 5. But Jesus yet answered nothing; so that Pilate marvelled. This surprise of Pilate was increased on finding, that the prisoner not only stood mute to the charges of the priests, but refused to give the governor a reason for his silence. The apparent harshness of this conduct with respect to Pilate, who undoubtedly at this time wished to set him free, is relieved by the consideration, that he ought to have done so on his own conviction, and that even the most formal contra diction on our Lord's part would not have prevented or delayed the fatal concession, by which Pilate ultimately sacrificed him to his ene mies. As yet, however, he continues to pronounce him guiltless, and after an attempt to transfer him to Herod's jurisdiction (Luke 23, 5-12), still reiterates the same conviction (Luke 23, 13-15.) Passing- over these particulars, preserved by Luke, Mark proceeds to describe Pilate's next expedient for the rescue of his prisoner. 6. Now at (that) feast he released unto them one prisoner, whomsoever they desired. At that feast he released seems to be an anticipation of what after wards occurred as to Barabbas ; but the Greek words are expressive, not of an incident, but of an usage. At that feast, i. e. at the pass- over (John 18, 39), not only that year, but every year, or as the words might be translated, feast by feast (see above, on 13, 8. 14, 49), he re leased (i. e. as the imperfect tense implies, he was accustomed to release) unto them (for their benefit or satisfaction) whomsoever they desired, or requested as a favour to themselves, which is the true force of the middle voice (see above, on 6, 24. 25. 10, 38. 11. 24.) 'The origin of this strange practice is entirely unknown ; but as no trace of it has been found in Jewish books, it was probably established by the Romans, as a means of popular conciliation, in the troublous times preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. The classical analogies which some adduce, the Greek Thesmophoria and the Roman Lectisternia are only partial, and throw little light upon the Jewish custom. 412 MARK 15, 7-10. 7. And there was (one) named Barabbas, (Avhich lay) bound Avith them that had made insurrection with him, avIio had committed murder in the insurrection. There happened at this time to be a notable (or noted) prisoner (Matt. 27, 16), described by Mark and Luke (23, 19) as a rebel and a murderer, and by John (18, 40) as a robber, all which expressions seem to indicate him as a Zealot, one of those fanatical insurgents, whose excesses Josephus represents as growing more and more atro cious till the outbreak of the war, and as contributing in no small measure to the ultimate catastrophe (see above, on 3, 18. 11, 15.) The political complexion thus imparted to his crimes may account in part for the popular clamor in his favour. The last clause is plural, and refers to to his fellow-rebels (or insurgents.) 8. And the multitude, crying aloud, began to desire (him to do) as lie had ever done unto them. Instead of crying out (or aloud), several of the oldest manuscripts and versions have ascending (going up) i. e. to the Prastorium (see be low, on v. 16.) Began (and continued) to desire (or rather to express desire by asking, as in v. 6.) Him to do, supplied by the translators, is no doubt the correct mode of completing the ellipsis. As he always did to them (or for them, as in v. 6) may perhaps imply that Pilate was himself the author of this questionable practice, though it does not necessarily exclude a reference to his predecessors also. Though the populace (6 6'xW) would no doubt have claimed their privilege in any case, they were probably prompted to demand it still more importu nately by their rulers, with a view to the attainment of their own ma lignant purpose (see below, on v. 11.) 9. But Pilate answered them, saying, Will ye that I release unto you the King of the Jews ? From Mark's brief narrative it might appear, that Pilate merely caught at the demand of the people for a prisoner's release, as possibly affording him the means of rescuing our Lord, whose innocence of all political designs he not only saw but had repeatedly asserted (Luke 23, 4, 14.) But we learn from the more detailed account in Matthew (27, 17), that Pilate had assembled them and given them their choice between Barabbas and Jesus, erroneously but naturally thinking to secure the liberation of the latter by limiting the choice to him and to so infamous a convict. But he ought to have considered that the feel ing of the Jews towards Christ (as described in the next verse) would have led them to prefer any other, however infamous, much more one w-hose resistance to the Roman power they may have secretly applauded as a zeal for God. 10. For he kneAv tliat the chief priests had delivered hira for envy. MARK 15, 10. 11. 413 For introduces Pilate's reason for calling him King of the Jews {compare John 18, 29), to wit, because he knew that they had brought him to his bar and transferred him to the Roman jurisdiction, not be cause they thought him really an enemy to Cassar, or, if they did so, would have valued him the less on that account, but because he was a formidable rival of their own, and if his claims were established, must at once destroy their influence and power as the chiefs of the theocracy, and as such representing the Messiah till he came, so that their selfish interest would prompt them to defer his advent to the latest moment. This is the jealousy or party-spirit, rather than personal envy, Avhich the governor correctly saw to be the motive of their whole proceeding against Christ, and which he covertly suggested by demanding whether he should not release their king. This description involves likewise a contemptuous allusion to their charges of ambitious aspirations against one so harmless and, as he supposed, so powerless as the man before him. It must not be overlooked that the jealousy or envy here re ferred to was imputed by Pilate to the chief, priests as the leaders in this persecution ; while the proposition in the verse preceding is ad dressed to the multitude, as if in answtr to their own demand for their accustomed privilege. It may be regarded therefore as a sort of appeal from the rulers to the people, as if he had said, ¦' You ask for a prisoner as usual ; well, here is your King, whom your leaders have just brought before me ; shall I set him free 1 ' 11. But the chief priests moved the people that he should rather release Barabbas unto them. To counteract the governor's appeal to the people, which appeared to recognize Jesus as their King, and in that character proposed to set him free, the chief priests and elders (Matt. 27, 20) moved (agitated, instigated, stirred up) the crowd (or rabble) by persuasion (Matt, ib.) to demand, that he should rather release (discharge, set free) Barab bas to them (ovfor them, as in vs. 6. 8.) This deliberate preference of a bad man to a good one, of a justly condemned criminal to one whom even Pilate recognized as innocent, would have been enough to brand the conduct of the priests with infamy. But when to this we add that they preferred a murderer to the Lord of life, a rebel and a robber to a prophet, to their own Messiah, nay, to the incarnate Son of God him self, this perverseness seems almost incredible and altogether irrecon- cileable with rectitude of purpose and sincere convictiom For a mas terly exposure of these aggravating circumstances in the conduct of the Jewish rulers compare Acts 3, 13-15, where Peter adds the very fact here mentioned, that they insisted on his death in opposition to the judgment and tho wishes of a heathen magistrate. 12. And Pilate answered, and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do (unto him) Avhom ye call the King of the Jews ? 414 MARK 15, 12. 13. The expression of their choice between the prisoners seems to have taken Pilate by surprise, and to have left him in doubt as to their wishes with respect to Jesus ; for he probably could not even yet be lieve, tliat they would go the whole length of their murderous inten tions/and therefore asks them how this other prisoner shall be disposed of. As this was not within their jurisdiction, or in any way at their disposal, since their extradition of the prisoner to Pilate, he must be understood as asking, not for information, or in deference to their opin ion or desire, but simply to express his own surprise at their extraordi nary choice. As if he had said, ' Do you not perceive that by choosing the robber, murderer, and rebel, to be set free, you leave the other prisoner in custody 1 and Iioav do you expect him to be treated 1 ' 13. And they cried out again, Crucify him ! Again does not mean that they had uttered this same cry before, but simply that they now uttered it in reply to Pilate's question, in return to what they had just heard. We are now so accustomed to associate crucifixion with the death of Christ, that it may seem to us a matter of course that he should die in that way, rather than in any other. But as the proposition came from the Jews and not the Ro mans, although crucifixion was a Roman not a Jewish punishment, and although if he had been executed by tho Jews themselves he Avould probably have died by lapidation (see above, on 12, 4), it be comes a question, why the multitude cried crucify him, rather than behead him, stone him, or simply, put him to death. That crucifixion was at once the most painful and disgraceful mode of capital punish ment, was no doubt a reason for our Lord's submitting to it as a part of his humiliation and atoning passion, but can scarcely have induced the Jews to clamor for it, as they here do, without some more proxi mate and palpable occasion. Such an occasion was afforded by the -fact, that Pilate had just given them their choice between two prison ers, and they, in choosing one, had virtually put the other in his place ; and as Barabbas by the Roman law would no doubt have been crucified, they ask that Jesus may be treated likewise. Thus understood, the cry of the infatuated rabble, Crucify him ! really means, deal with him as you would have dealt with Barabbas, and with Barabbas as you would have dealt with him, i. e. crucify the one and release the other. By causes seemingly so accidental was the great providential purpose realized, according to Avhich Christ was to die an ignominious and agonizing death, yet one Avhich should preserve the integrity of his body from mutilation or distortion, and at the same time bring about a literal fulfilment of the curse pronounced on every one who hangs upon a tree, (see Deut. 21, 23, and compare Gal. 3, 13,) the original reference in whicli is to the posthumous exposure of the body after stoning or beheading, by suspension in some public place, the only hanging practised under the law of Moses, while the terms of the malediction are so chosen as to be appropriate to crucifixion also, i remarkable example of the unexpectel Avay in which the MARK 15, 14. 15. 41» prophecies are often verified. This was in fact one of the ends to be accomplished by the Saviour's transfer from the Jewish to the Roman power, as we learn from the remarkable expressions of a different evan gelist (John 18, 32.) 14. Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done ? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him! Pilate perceives too late the error, into which he had fallen, of allow ing the people a specific choice between the prisoners, and of even seeming to refer the fate of him whom he considered innocent to their decision. But instead of stopping short at this point, he betrays his weakness and his want of principle by needlessly reopening the question, and demanding upon what ground they insisted on his exe cution. Why, in the original, is for, implying a negation (no, not so, for what evil hath he done ?) Perceiving their advantage and his vacillation, the mob, as might have been expected, under the direction of their artful and malignant leaders, answered this question only by crying more exceedingly (or out of measure, as the same word or a kindred one is rendered in 10, 26 above), crucify him, i. e. ' carry out your own plan, stand to your agreement, execute your bargain ; you have given us our choice and we have chosen Barabbas ; now do your part and put Jesus in his place.' 15. And (so) Pilate, willing to content the people, re leased Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged (him), to be crucified. Willing, not in the attenuated modern sense of having no objec tion, but in the primary and strong sense of desiring, wishing. This distinction is important, as the word, correctly understood, implies that Pilate acted under the influence of other motives than such as grew directly out of this affair. That a Roman soldier and an arbi trary ruler should have yielded to mere clamour, in direct opposition to his own avowed convictions, is so highly improbable as not to be admissible, if any other explanation of his conduct can be even plau sibly suggested. Such an explanation is perhaps afforded by the well known fact, attested by Josephus and contemporary classical histo rians, that the Jews were among the most unmanageable and refractory of all the conquered nations ; that the Roman emperors attached an almost disproportionate importance to their being kept in due subjec tion, by a skilful combination of concession and coercion ; that it had now become a constant practice for the people to complain at Rome of oppression and mal-administration ; and that these complaints were treated with particular attention and sometimes followed by the most unfortunate results to those who had occasioned them. Besides the case of Archelaus, which has been already mentioned, we find two of 416 MARK 15, 15. the later procurators, Felix and Festus, although men of very different character, attempting to conciliate the Jews, or as Luke expresses it, to lay up favour with them (i. e. against the day of reckoning at Rome), by unjust treatment of an eminent apostle (compare Acts 24, 27. 25, 9.) There is every reason to believe that Pilate shared the same anxiety, and therefore highly probable, that when he found the whole mass of the people thus united with their leaders in demanding this unrighteous sacrifice, it occurred to him that he had no'w an unex pected opportunity of gaining popularity, and possibly escaping ruin, by abandoning one whom he knew to be innocent indeed, but whose destruction would appear to such a man a small price to be paid for his own safety. If this view of the matter be correct, he was not merely willing to content thepeople in relation to this one affair, but positively wished to gain their favour, Avith respect to his own official conduct, and the influence which they might exert against him, when his functions ended. This supposition, Avhile it serves in some measure to account for Pilate's otherwise inexplicable conduct, far from extenu ating aggravates his guilt, by assigning a directly selfish motive for Avhat might else have seemed the mere effect of weakness. To content the people is a Latin legal phrase (satis facere) translated into Greek (to Ikixvov Tvoxrjo-ax), the converse or correlative of which occurs in Acts 17,' 19. It is here not a technical but popular expression, correspond ing to our own word satisfy, derived from the Latin one just men tioned. The people, here as throughout this narrative, is a Greek word meaning crowd or rabble, and employed to signify the tumultuary char acter of the proceeding, Avhich was rendered national less by the popu lar participation than by that of the highest theocratical authorities. The extraordinary change in the feelings of the people, since their joyful recognition of our Lord as the Messiah (see above, on 11, 8-10), has been made the ground of sceptical objection, but admits of satisfactory solution from the following considerations. Even granting that the multitude on both occasions Avas substantially the same, which is a very large concession, when we take into account the vast numbers present at Jerusalem besides the ordinary population, we have no right or reason to regard it as exempt from that mobility of feeling and of conduct, to which the word mob owes its origin, and which is constantly exemplified throughout the world, in every time of more than usual excitement, and is commonly ascribed to the extraordinary force of human sympathy in large crowds, making them susceptible of influ ences which as individuals they would scarcely feel at all. This mere susceptibility, however, would account for nothing, unless the influence itself can be detected, as it may be here, in the concerted action of the theocratic rulers, which had never yet been brought to bear upon the people as it was in this case, all the previous opposition having been that of individuals and private combinations. It is not surprising that the masses, with their habits of religious veneration for the leaders of the church or nation, on finding that these leaders, as a body, looked on Christ as an impostor and blasphemer, should have suddenly renounced him as one who had deceived themselves. It may be asked, MARK 15, 15. 16. 417 however, why the rulers did not earlier avail themselves of this con- iro'ding influence, instead of constantly deferring the execution of their plans fur fear of popular resistance. (See above, on 14, 2, and compare Luke 22, 6.) It is not to be denied that this requires explanation, and implies that something had occurred to make the people less disposed to such resistance, and to give the rulers influence or freer scope. This last solution is afforded by the obvious consideration, that the multitude who welcomed Christ as the Messiah were largely influenced by false views of the kingdom about to be established, and of the promised king himself, whom they regarded as a conqueror and secular monarch, by whom the Jews were to be rescued from their present vassalage, and raised to an equality, or rather a superiority, to other nations. Under the influence of such anticipations, and of our Saviour's mira cles as proving him to be the Deliverer so long expected, many would be ready to espouse his cause and to acknowledge his pretensions, even in defiance of their theocratic rulers. But when these secular and carnal hopes were disappointed, by his unresisting seizure and arraign ment, and his formal condemnation by the Sanhedrim as an impostor, there would naturally be a great revulsion in the public feeling towards him, which would no less naturally lay them open to the influence of unscrupulous and crafty agitators ; and this, with the proverbial mo bility belonging to all crowds, is abundantly sufficient to account for the alleged inconsistency, or rather to convert it into a decisive proof of authenticity and truthfulness. Released Barabbas to them (to the people), and delivered Jesus, virtually to them also, but formally to the Roman soldiers, who Avere to execute the sentence. Having scourged him (another Avord of Latin origin, see above, on 0.27. 37. 12, 14.) This was a cruel and gratuitous addition to his sufferings, not peculiar to this case but belonging to the Roman practice. We learn from Luke (23, 16) that Pilate had before proposed this as a minor but sufficient punishment (too much for one whom he acknowledged to be innocent,) but which he now inflicts in addition to the greater, a fur ther proof that his feeble movements of compassion had now yielded to his selfish fears. 16. And the soldiers led him away into the hall called Pretorium ; and they call together the Avhole band. The soldiers, no doubt those composing Pilate's body guard and then on duty. Led him aivay, from the judgment-seat, probably erected in front of the house, not only to accommodate the scruples of the Jews (John 18, 28, 29), but also in compliance with a Roman cus tom. Josephus speaks of Floras, one of Pilate's successors, as erecting his tribunal in the very place here mentioned. Into (within, inside of) the hall (or open court, as in 14, 54. 66.) Called Pretorium, literally, which is Pretorium, the relative being of the neuter gender and there fore not agreeing with hall, which is feminine but with something not expressed, or, with the whole inside of the court, as being the official residence of Pilate. Prmtorium is another of the many Latin words 18* 418 MARK 15, 16. 17. 18. occurring in this gospel, and originally means the tent of the Praetor or commander in an encampment, but was afterwards extended to the official residence of any Prastor or Proconsul, or other representative of Rome in provinces or conquered countries, as in Acts 23, 35 to the Procurator's residence in Cesarea, and here to the corresponding struc ture in Jerusalem, both of which Avere built by Herod the Great, the latter with great splendour on the northern brow of Zion overlooking the enclosure of the temple, and connected with it by a bridge, one arch of which is said to be still extant. In the court of this palace, the guards call together the whole band, cohort, maniple, the Greek word be ing used with great latitude, to designate larger and smaller divisions of the army, and here most probably employed in an indefinite or relative sense, to mean the whole corps to which they belonged, whether larger or smaller. 17. And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns, and put it about his (head). In derision of our Lord's supposed pretensions to compete with earthly sovereigns, these rude warriors affect to clothe him in a royal dress and to pay him royal honours. They clothe him in purple, or as Matthew has it, scarlet, the Greek terms for colour being very in definite, and frequently confounded even in the classics, that rendered purple being used especially to designate a great variety of shades from bright red to deep blue. But even if the word be taken in its modern fixed sense, there is no inconsistency between the statements, as the meaning evidently is, that they clothed him in mock-purple, or in something to represent a royal dress, most probably a red military cloak (Matt. 27, 28), Avhich would answer their purpose as well as any thing more costly or of a real purple colour. And they put around him (i. e. around his head), having woven (it), a thorny crown. This is commonly explained as an act of wanton cruelty, the thorns being intended to pierce the brow as commonly exhibited in painting. Some interpreters suppose, however, that as nothing is said of any such effect, the crowning was intended, like the robing, merely for derision, and that the crown was made of thorns, because some plant of that kind happened to be near at hand, or because the thorns presented the ap pearance of some customary ornament about a crown. The use of some plant Avas the more natural because the first crOAvns were mere wreaths of leaves and flowers, such as those of palm and laurel, worn by the victors in the ancient games. 18. And began to salute him, Hail, King of the Jews ! Having thus pretended to array him as a king, they now affect to pay him homage in the customary form. Began to salute (i. e. to hail or recognize him as a sovereign.) Hail, rejoice, be happy, the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew and Chaldee phrase, Oh king lire forever (Dan. 6, 21.) The king of the Jews, the title which he had assumed, MARK 15, 18-21. 419 and which these soldiers, like their commander, thought supremely ri diculous, as borne by such a person. It has been well observed that, as the Jews especially derided his prophetic claims (see above, on 14 65), so the Romans mocked at his regal pretensions. 19. And they smote him on the head with a reed, and did spit upon him, and boAving (their) knees, worshipped him. That this scene was not mere raillery or sport but cruel mocking, is apparent from the violence by which it is now followed. They struck his head with a reed, no doubt the same which Matthew (27, 29) repre sents as having been put into his hand as a mock-sceptre. With these rough soldiers the jesting tone is hard to be maintained, and soon re lapses into bitter earnest or is mingled with it in incongruous confusion. Thus, after violating their own fiction, by striking the pretended king and spitting on him, they still bow the knee and worship him, or do him reverence as a real sovereign. 20. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. As this was only meant to be a passing show or momentary mock ery, they soon grew weary of it, stripped him of the temporary purple, and replaced his own clothes as a necessary preparation for conducting him to execution ; but not till Pilate had exhibited him to the Jews without, as their pretended sovereign, and made another effort to de liver him, but on the false ground of his insignificance and incapacity to injure either Jews or Romans (John 19, 4r-16.) They lead him out, i. c. out of the city, as appears to have been customary in all execu tions, being expressly spoken of in several cases, as in those of the blasphemer (Lev. 24, 14), of Naboth (1 Kings 21, 13), and of Stephen (Acts 7, 58.) 21. And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alex ander and Rufus, to bear his cross. They compel, a Persian word adopted by the Greeks and originally signifying the impressment or compulsory employment of men, beasts, and conveyances by royal couriers in the Persian empire, secondarily applied to all forced assistance or compulsory employment of any kind or for any purpose (compare its use in Matt. 5, 41.) A certain passer by (or some one passing by), Avhich seems to imply that he was taken at random, without any special reason for selecting him, such as his being an African (from Cyrene on the north coast), or a slave, or a dis- jiple. From the field does not necessarily mean from work there, but 420 MARK 15, 21. 22. 23. agreeably to usage may mean from the country into town (see above, on 5, 14. 6, 56.) Mark describes him more particularly as the father of Alexander and Rufus, no doubt well known persons when he wrote, most probably among the Christians. The attempt to identify these persons with those named in Acts 13, 1. 19, 33. Rom. 16. 13. 1 Tim. 1, 20. 2 Tim. 4, 14 is entirely conjectural. That he might bear his cross, as malefactors usually did, and as John (19, 17) says that Jesus did in this case. There are two ways of reconciling this apparent contradic tion ; first, by supposing that our Lord did bear his cross until he reached the city-gate and then sunk under it, so that going forth (Matt. 27, 32) they compelled this stranger to relieve him ; or secondly, by supposing that Simon only lightened the burden by carrying the part of the cross which was behind him (Luke 23, 26) ; either of which ex planations is more natural than the supposition of a contradiction. 22. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, Tbe place of a skull. Golgotha is an Aramaic form of the Hebrew word for skull. The Latin version of the same word is Calvarium, from which comes Cal vary, a word familiar to us by tradition, although not used in the English Bible. Some suppose it to have been so called from the skulls of those who had been executed there ; but their exposure was con trary to Jewish usage and to ceremonial purity. Others suppose the skulls to have been buried ; but why then should the place be called from them any more than from other portions of the skeleton 1 For these reasons, and because the word is singular, not plural, it is now the prevalent opinion, that the place was so named from its shape, as a protuberance or knoll, which will account for its tradi tional description as a mount or mound, but not a mountain or a lofty hill. 23. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh ; but he received (it) not. They (the soldiers) gave him (i. e. offered to him, put into his hand or to his lips), to drink, for the purpose or in order that he might partake of it, myrrhed wine (spiced or medicated with myrrh), a mix ture said to have been usually given to criminals before execution for the purpose of deadening their sensibility to pain. A precept some what similar is contained in the Talmud, apparently founded upon Prov. 31, 6. As the wine used by the soldiers was a cheap sour wine (called in Latin posca) little if at all superior to vinegar, and as myrrh, gall, and other bitter substances, are put for the whole class (see Deut. 29, 18. 32, 32. Jer. 8, 14. Lam. 3, 19. Amos 6, 12. Ps. 45, 8. Cant. 4, 6. 14), there is really no difference between this passage and the vinegar mingled with gall of Matt. 27, 34. It is equally unreasonable, there- fa -e, to suppose two different potations with some harmonists, or to MARK 15, 24. 25. 421 allege a contradiction with some sceptics. Although in itself an act of mercy, yet as forming part of the whole murderous process, it was a literal fulfilment of the prophecy in Ps. 69. 21. 24. And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take. And having crucified him, i. e. nailed him to the cross, either before or after its erection, they divide (or distribute) his garments, which were allotted, as they often are in modern times, as a perquisite or fee, tQ the executioners. Garments, clothes, precisely as we use the latter word in English when Ave speak indefinitely, either of the whole dress, or of any given part, as in the more particular account of this transac tion which has been preserved by John (19, 20.) This Avas another literal fulfilment of a prophecy (Ps. 22, 18), not in its full or highest sense, but so as to identify the person in whom even that sense was to be fulfilled. (See above, on 11, 2.) 25. And it was the third hour, and they crucified him. The third hour, according to the Jewish reckoning, i. e. from sun rise, about nine o'clock of our time. But according to John (19, 14) it was already the sixth hour when Pilate made his last attempt to rescue him. This discrepancy is of course regarded by the sceptical interpreters as irreconcileable. But what can be intrinsically more im probable than such a contradiction, on a point so easily determined, and which must have been notorious to multitudes '? And how can its escaping observation and remaining "uncorrected be accounted for? The extreme improbability of these assumptions would suffice to jus tify us in concluding, that there must be some means of solution, even if we knew not what it is, or how to ascertain it. But besides this strong presumption against a contradiction, there are several methods of solution, each of which is less incredible than that hypothesis. The first is to refer the two specifications of time to different events or in cidents, Mark's to the crucifixion, John's to the preparation, with which they are respectively connected in the narrative. The objection to this explanation is, that it leaves John's statement unexplained and unintelligible, as the preparation was a whole day (see below, on v. 42.) The second method of solution understands hour to be used by both evangelists for a division of tho day (see above, on 6, 48. 13, 36), ex tending from the third to the sixth hour, the beginning of which is mentioned by one writer, and the end by the other. This, though ad missible in case of exegetical necessity, ought not to be assumed Avith- out it, as no evidence exists of any such usage of the word hour, and the words do not naturally suggest this meaning. A third solution, much more probable than either of those previously mentioned, is that John, writing primarily for the churches of Asia Minor, uses the Ro man mode of reckoning, i. e. from midnight, as he is thought by some 422 MARK 15, 25-28. to do elsewhere (1, 39. 4, 6. 52.) The objection that this would make the crucifixion too early, is greatly weakened by considering, that our Lord was arrested in the evening, and condemned by the Sanhedrim at daybreak. The fourth solution rests upon the supposition of an early error in transcription, of which however there is no trace in the oldest copies extant. But as these are at least four centuries later than the date of composition, and as numbers may have been expressed in those still older by numerical letters, the signs for three and six, being very much alike, might easily be interchanged. What is most important here is not a peremptory choice between these different solutions, but a due appreciation of their probability, compared with the assumption of a direct contradiction, unobserved by friends or foes for ages. 26. And the superscription of his accusation was writ ten over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. The inscription of his crime (or accusation) was inscribed, according to the Roman custom mentioned by Suetonius and other writers. Mark merely records the fact that the only charge against him was his being king of the Jews, a ground of condemnation so absurd, that the Jews themselves would never have assigned it. We find accordingly that it was written by the Roman governor (John 19, 19), no doubt as a sort of protest against such an execution, not so much on account of its injustice as of its absurdity. We also learn from the parallel ac counts that it was written in three languages (Luke 23, 38), and placed above the sufferer's head (Matt. 27, 37), and that when the Jews de sired it to be changed, the governor refused (John 19, 21. 22.) 27. And with him they crucify two thieves, the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. Two thieves, or rather robbers (see above, on 11, 17. 14, 48), prob ably associates of Barabbas in his insurrection, and now left to suffer for it while their leader was released. Their being crucified with Christ was not necessarily intended as an indignity to him, but may have been in accordance with the usual practice of executing at the same time those who were condemned at the assizes held before or after the great festivals (see above, on v. 1.) They crucify, i. e. the soldiers charged by Pilate with the execution (see above, on vs. 15. 16.) One from (his) right and one from his left (parts), a peculiar idiom equivalent in meaning to right and left hand (or side) in English (see above, on 10, 37. 40. 12, 36. 14, 62.) 28. And the scripture Avas fulfilled, which saith, And he Avas numbered Avith the transgressors. This verse is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, who suppose it to have found its way into the text from Luke 22, 37. Whether genuine or not, there can be no doubt that it indicates a real MARK 15, 28-31. 423 fulfilment ot the prophecy in Isaiah 53, 12, although not exhaustiA-e of its meaning, as it includes otner outward points in which the Saviour was confounded with transgressors, and in its highest sense teaches the great doctrine of his substitution and vicarious atonement for the sins of men. 29. And they that passed by railed on him, wagging their heads, and saying, Ah, thou that destroyest the tem ple, and buildest (it) in three days. The cruel mocking of our Saviour is continued as he hangs upon the cross. Those passing by, not merely such as happened to be pass ing when the crucifixion took place, but also many who Avere present for the purpose, and who walked to and fro before him to express their spite and triumph in his dying agonies. Blasphemed him, both in the lower sense of railing or reviling, and in the higher sense determined by his being a divine person (see above, on 2, 7. 3, 28. 7, 22.) Wagging (literally moving) their heads, either laterally (shaking the head) as a gesture of negation, here implying a denial of his Messianic character, or vertically (nodding) as a gesture of assent to his condemnation as a just one ; or more indefinitely, with some motion of the head expressive of malignant triumph (see Ps. 22, 7.) The particular taunt here recorded has re spect to the specific charge on which he was arraigned before the San hedrim, and on which he would have been condemned but for a failure in the testimony (see above, on 14, 57-59.) Ah, in Greek oua, a sort of applauding acclamation (like huzza or bravo) used in the ancient games, and here applied ironically to our Lord, as one who had promised or threatened more than he was able to perform. The (one) destroy ing (throwing down, dismantling) the temple (i. e. who undertook to do so) and in three days building (it again.) 30. Save thyself, and come down from the cross. The greatness of his undertakings is contrasted with his present helriess state. ' If thou hast power to destroy and build the temple, th'.u must have power to save thy own life, and to come clown from the cross where thou art hanging.' This allusion to his own Avords. as misrepresented by the witnesses against him, seems to have been uttered by the common people, and is far less bitter and malignant than that expressed by their rulers, as recorded in the next verse. 31. Likewise also the chief priests mocking, said among themselves with the scribes, He saved others ; himself he cannot save. These cruel insults, far from being confined to the mere populace were carried furthest bv the chief priests, scribes, and elders (Matt. 27, 41 ), collectively described by Luke (23, 35) as the rulers, thus impart ing to these last acts of derision the same national and public character 424 MARK 15, 31. 32. 33. which had been already ascribed to the judicial process and to the transactions before Pilate, and also implicating these representatives of Israel in the execution of our Lord, though outwardly performed by Roman soldiers. There is peculiar venom in the sarcasm uttered by these rulers, as it actually taunts him with his miracles of mercy, and without denying their reality, exults in the supposed loss.of his saving power, just when it was needed for his own deliverance. 32. Let Christ the King of Israel descend hoav from the cross, that Ave may see and believe. And they that Avere crucified Avith him reviled him. This cruel taunt is followed by a no less cruel challenge to this false Messiah, this pretended king of Israel, to verify his claims by now de scending from the cross, with an accompanying offer to acknowledge his pretensions, when established by this ocular demonstration. Be sides the masses and the rulers, Mark and Matthew (27, 44) represent the robbers crucified with him as uniting in these blasphemous revil- ings, an act of desperate malignity which might appear incredible at such a moment, if analogous examples were not furnished in abundance by the scenes which still occur at executions, and sometimes at the death-beds of notorious sinners, whose blasphemy and malice are not always silenced even by the agonies of dissolution. Luke (23, 39-43) represents only one of these unhappy wretches as reviling Christ, and the other as reproving his companion, and imploring mercy from the Saviour, who receives his prayer. The seeming inconsistency in these accounts may be removed by supposing, either that the plural form in Mark and Matthew is generic and descriptive of the class, like chief priests, scribes, and elders, without excluding individual exceptions; or that both did actually take part in the blasphemy, but one was sud denly arrested and converted, as a trophy of divine grace even in what might have seemed a desperate extremity. We are only concerned here with the apparent inconsistency; the details of Luke's narrative belong to the exposition of that gospel. 33. And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land, until tlie ninth hour. As the moment of the Saviour's death approached, external nature displayed tokens, as it were, of sympathy with the great catastrophe. The sixth hour coming (or becoming, happening, arriving), Avhen he had already hung upon the cross three hours (see above, on v. 25), there was darkness, literally, darkness happened (or began), another form of the same verb that is used in the preceding clause. Was over (or came upon) the whole land (of Israel), or the whole earth, the Greek word bearing both translations. As the latter, however, is itself re stricted by the fact that it was dark already over one half of the globe. there is the less objection to the common version, which confines the -jarkness to the Holy Land, as the appointed scene of these sublime MARK 15, 33. 34. 425 events, and accounts for the silence of contemporary history in refer ence to this darkness. Though the sun was obscured (Luke 23, 45), it was not a natural eclipse, which is excluded by the full moon preceding and determining the Passover. Nor would the mere concurrence of a nat ural eclipse, however striking, have been so significant at this great crisis, as an extraordinary obscuration, specially ordained for this par ticular occasion. It was not, however, a mere transient shadow or de- liquium of daylight, but a darkness of three hours, from the sixth to the ninth of the Jewish day, i. e. from noon to three o'clock of our reckoning, being half the time of the Redeemer's actual suspension and exposure on the cross. This unearthly gloom immediately preceded his last words and actions after a protracted silence. 34. And at the ninth hour, Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani ? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken" me? At the close of this long interval of darkness and silence, during which we may suppose the taunts and sneers of those standing by to have been hushed in terror and suspense, Jesus speaks again, and with a loud voice, uttering the first Avords of the twenty-second Psalm, My God, my God, why didst thou forsake (abandon, leave) me ? These words are given, no doubt as he uttered them, in Hebrew, with the single substitution of one Aramaic synonyme (sabachthani for azab- thani), followed by the Septuagint version, not as having been ut tered at the same time, but as added for the benefit of Gentile readers. Some regard this repetition of the first words of the psalm as an inti mation that the whole prophecy which it contains had been or was about to be fulfilled in him. The more usual and obvious opinion is, that he selected this particular expression, not because it was the first, or to represent the rest, but because it was designedly descriptive of the trial through which he had just passed, as a state of actual desertion by the Father, in which lay the essence or the height of his vicarious pas sion, and compared with which his mere corporeal agonies were nothing. Some infer from this use of the psalm in question, that it is a formal and exclusive prophecy of this event, and that all its language has re spect to it directly. Others explain the psalm as having primary refe rence to David and his enemies, but as types of Christ and those who caused his death. A third hypothesis divides the psalm mechanically, as it were, between these two great themes, assigning certain parts to each, without propounding any principle or rule of distribution. A fourth view of the matter understands the psalm as a generic prophecy, describing what the righteous as a class, or an ideal person representing them, must suffer at the hands of sinners, and supposes the description to have had its highest and most striking although not its sole fulfil ment in the sufferings of Christ. Common to all these exegetical nypotheses is the assumption of an original intentional reference to him, 426 MARK 15, 35. 36. and not a mere accommodation or perversion of the language to another subject, as asserted by the sceptical-interpreters. 35. And some of them that stood by, when they heard (it), said, Behold, he calleth Elias. The allusion here is to the obvious resemblance of the name Elijah, both in its Greek and Hebrew form, to the word which means my God in the quotation from the twenty-second psalm. This resemblance is still stronger, or more marked, in Matthew's orthography (Eli) than in Mark's (Eloi), though sufficiently perceptible in either to explain the speaker's meaning and intention. Some regard this as a serious mistake upon the part of those who stood by, and who are then to be regarded as really believing that the Saviour had invoked Elijah. But this is not a natural or probable error in a Jew, who must have under stood the words, unless we assume that they were indistinctly uttered^ which is not only a gratuitous assumption, but apparently at variance with the statement that he cried with a loud voice, implying, in such a case as this, articulate intelligible utterance. Even the Hellenistic Jews, to whom some have imputed the mistake, were as familiar with the He brew text as modern Jews in Europe or America. To the supposition that the persons meant were Roman soldiers, there is a different but no less obvious objection, namely, that they would know nothing of Elijah ; or if this be too much to assume in reference to those who had been many years in Palestine, it may at least be said that even such would scarcely think of Elijah in the circumstances here described, and also that the same familiarity with Jewish history and doctrines, that would make the prophet's name familiar, would prevent its being thus confounded with another well known formula. On these grounds, or on others, most interpreters are now agreed, that this was not an actual error, but a bitter irony or sarcasm, which affected to mistake the mean ing, and involved at the same time an allusion to the prophecy of Malachi (4, 5), that Elijah should return before the coming of Messiah. (See above, on 9, 11-13.) 36. And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and put (it) on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone ; let us see whether Elias Avill come to take him down. The action here described had no connection with our Saviour's cry, or with the false sense put upon it by the lookers on, but was occa sioned by his saying, / thirst (John 19, 28.) The one who ran was no doubt one of the Roman guard by whom he had been crucified, and the vinegar administered the sour wine provided for the soldiers (see above, on v. 23, and compare John 19, 29.) This however was not drugged or spiced with gall or myrrh, like that which he refused before (v. 24), because unwilling to mitigate his sufferings or deaden his own MARK 15, 36. 37. 38. 427 sense of them That which he now received, was merely sour wine, or wine and water, or perhaps what is properly called vinegar, still used as a beverage in modern as it was in ancient times (Ruth 2, 14.) The reason of our Lord's complaint and draught, and their connection with the completion of his sacrifice, belong to the exposition of John's gos pel. The circumstance is mentioned here by Mark, in order to com plete the cruel jest about Elias. When in compliance with his own request, one of the soldiers filled a sponge with vinegar and placed it on a reed or stalk of hyssop (John 19.29) and approached it to his mouth, the heartless mockers, far from being moved by this last sign of life, called to the soldier, let alone (desist, or wait), let us see if Elias comes to take him down. As if they had said, ' why allay his thirst when his forerunner is approaching to deliver and provide for him 1 ' To this absurd as Avell as wicked jest, the man appears to have re sponded, in the very act of giving him the vinegar, a circumstance recorded here by Mark, while Matthew (27, 49) gives the language of the others, a variety which none but a sceptical interpreter can look upon as contradiction. 37. And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost. Emitting a great voice, not a mere cry but an articulate intelligible utterance, the words of which have been preserved by John (19, SO) and Luke (23, 40), while neither Mark nor Matthew records any of our Lord's last sayings, after the citation from the twenty-second psalm. The accounts, however, are entirely consistent, and combined afford a series of dying words, succeeding one another with a natural and per fectly harmonious connection. Gave up the ghost is not, as the English reader might imagine, an exact translation of some strange Greek phrase, but a native idiom of our own, corresponding to a single Greek word, meaning breathed out or expired, a beautiful substitute for died, which all the evangelists appear to have avoided, perhaps in order to suggest more strongly the idea, that our Lord's death was an act of his own will, as predicted by himself (John 10, 18), and distinctly although variously recorded here in all the gospels. (Compare Matt. 27, 50. Luke 23, 46. John 19, 30.) 38. And the vail of the temple was rent in tAvain, from the top to the bottom. The restrictive institutions of the old dispensation being temporary in design and preparatory to the new. the completion of the great work of atonement was attended by a symbolical announcement, that the barriers erected in the ceremonial law were now cast down, and free ac cess allowed into the presence of Jehovah. The event which symbolized this great change was the rending of the veil or hanging, which divided the Holy Place from the Most Holy, or the outer from the inner sanc tuary. As the whole sanctuary, both in its moveable and standing 428 MARK 15, 38. 39. form, set forth the doctrine of divine inhabitation, so its innermost apartment represented the most intimate approach to God and com munion with him, and the rending of the veil which closed the entrance symbolized the removal of all hindrances to such communion, now ef fected by the sacrificial death of Christ. The demand of the German sceptics how this rending could be knOAvn to any but the priests, is only equalled by the answer of the German believers that, as many priests were afterwards converted (Acts 6, 7), it became generally known through them. The rending is described with great particularity by Mark and Matthew (27, 51) as being into two parts, and from top to bottom, whereas Luke (23, 45) simply says that it was rent in the midst (or through the middle.) Compare the allusions to this veil in the epistle to the Hebrews (6, 19. 9, 3. 10, 20.) 39. And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saAv that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man Avas the Son of God. This verse describes the effect of Christ's death and the accompa nying circumstances on the Roman officer who had been charged with the execution. The centurion, a Latin word denoting the commander of a hundred men, but used Avith some degree of latitude to designate the subordinate officers of a Roman legion. It is worthy of remark that Avhile Matthew and Luke often use this title, and invariably in the form of a Greek translation or equivalent, Mark in this chapter three times has the Latin word itself, iu strict accordance with his Latinisms elsewhere. Points of difference, so slight and unimportant in them selves, are, for that very reason, the more likely to be genuine, or to proceed from the original writer, and evince not only the integrity and unity of each composition, but its author's individuality of thought and language, unaffected by his inspiration. The centurion, the (one) stand ing by, over against him (or in front of him), observing the whole pro cess of his crucifixion, seeing that so having cried he expired. Some of the modern writers try to make this the ground of the centurion's con fession, namely, that the dying man could cry with so loud a voice ; whereas the meaning evidently is, when all was over, when this last cry had been uttered, then the centurion said Avhat is here recorded. Truly, no doubt, certainly, this man, thus shamefully put to death as an impostor, Avas innocent of that charge (Luke 23, 47), and Avas really the Son of God, as he pretended. As the article is wanting before both nouns, some translate the phrase, a son of a God, and explain it as a heathenish expression, but on that account the more appropriate in the mouth of a Roman soldier Avho knew nothing of the true reli gion. This may be admitted, as to the mere form of the expression ; but it cannot be supposed that any Roman, ofthe rank of a centurion, even if he had been in tho country only a few days, much less if lie had spent some years there, could be so wholly ignorant of Christ's pretensions, and of the sense in which he claimed to be the Son of God, as to attach no other meaning to the words than that suggested by his MARK 15, 40. 41. 429 own mythology. He no doubt spoke in Latin, which has no more defi nite expression than Filius Dei, the language having no such part of speech as the definite article. 40. 41. There were also women looking on afar off, among whom was Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less, and of Joses and Salome ; who also, when he was in Galilee, followed him, and ministered unto him ; and many other women which came up with him unto Jerusalem. Besides the Roman soldiers, whose orders required them to witness the whole process of the crucifixion, it was also witnessed by a very different class, and frorn very different motives, those of personal in terest and strong affection. From the special mention of these two classes or spectators of the tragedy, it is not improbable that they alone were present during the whole time, the remaining multitude, though vastly numerous, continually fluctuating, as in all such cases, where the show, whatever it may be, is prolonged through many hours. But who were they whose personal attachment to the sufferer kept them thus in sight, though at a distance, of his agonies 1 Not the apostles, whom he had selected to be with him, and by whom his kingdom was to be erected. With a single exception (John 19, 26), they appear to have been still dispersed, and at a distance from the scene of sorrow ; but tlieir place was providentially supplied by a number of female friends and disciples, who had come up with our Lord from Galilee, and who had previously contributed, both by their possessions and their personal attentions, to his maintenance and comfort. Not only Mark and Matthew here (27, 55), but Luke at an earlier period of the his tory (8, 1-3), expressly speak of these devoted women as many, al though only few are named ; so that this honourable duty of providing for our Saviour's wants was not monopolized by any narrow clique or circle, but divided, as it were, among the body of his female followers. Mary Magdalene, or Mary of Magdala, now Mijdal, on the west coast of the Sea of Galilee, on whom our Lord had wrought a signal miracle of dispossession (Luke 8, 2), of itself sufficient to account for her devo tion, though it sprang no doubt from a still higher source of spiritual gratitude. Tradition has confounded or identified this woman with the nameless " sinner " in Luke 7, 37, and thus made the local name of Magdalen descriptive of repentant harlots, an assumption perfectly gra tuitous and possibly calumnious of this devoted Christian. For although no depth of degradation is beyond the reach of Christ's compassions and almighty grace, we have no right to exalt even these by assuming a degree of degradation which may never have existed in the case sup posed. Or even granting the tradition to be credible and ancient, we should carefully distinguish between any mere tradition and authentic history. Mary the mother of James and Joses, mentioned above, in 6, 3, with two others, as the brethren of our Lord, i. e. most probably 430 MARK 15, 41. 42. his cousins and the sons of Clopas or Alphaeus by this Mary, who is commonly regarded as the sister of our Lord's own mother, notwith standing the identity of name, but by some as the sister of Joseph. James the less, literally, the little, either in stature (like Zaccheus, Luke 19, 3), or in age, to both which the Greek word is applied in usage. Although positive in form, it is probably a relative expression, and in tended to distinguish one James from another, i. e. according to the prevalent opinion, James the Son of Alphaeus from the older, larger, or more eminent apostle of the same name. Instead of Salome, Mat thew has the mother of the sons of Zebedee, whose name is therefore commonly supposed to be Salome. But this inference, though proba ble, is not absolutely certain, as the two evangelists may not have named precisely the same three out of the many Galilean Avomen whom they both describe as present at the crucifixion. 42, 43. And now, when the even was come, because it was the preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, an honourable counsellor, Avhich also waited for the kingdom of God, came and went in boldly unto Pilate, and craved the body of Jesus. There is nothing in this history more striking than the sudden change, not only in the narrative, but in the incidents themselves, as soon as the great work of expiation is accomplished. As before this every thing was providentially so ordered as to aggravate and almost to exaggerate our Lord's humiliation, so now the same extraordinary providence is visible, protecting his remains from profanation, and se curing them an honourable burial, preparatory to his resurrection. The insults of the soldiers and the rabble and the rulers are now followed by the tenderest attentions of refined and tender friendship; the scourge, the buffet, and the spittle, by delicate perfumes and spices ; the mock-robe and thorny crown by pure white linen and a tomb where no corpse had ever rested. The special divine interposition with re spect to our Lord's burial must not be overlooked. The Roman custom was to let the bodies rot upon the cross and be devoured by birds ; but when this form of punishment was introduced among the Jews, their law would not admit of this exposure (Deut. 21, 23), and it became usual to expedite the death of those thus executed, so as to admit of their burial the same night in a promiscuous receptacle or common grave. There was therefore every human probability, that Christ's limbs would be broken to abbreviate his life, and his body buried with the other convicts, and especially with those who suffered at the same time, both which events would have seriously interfered with the de sign and the effect of his resuscitation. But the first was prevented by his early death, the more remarkable because the death by cruci fixion was among the most lingering and painful possible, the frame being suspended by sensitive but not vital parts, and life destroyed, not merely by the wounds, but by the joint effect of hunger, thirst, expo- MARK 15,. 43. 44. 45. 431 sure, cramps and spasms. The other profanation was prevented by an unexpected movement on the part of a distinguished person, who has hitherto been out of view, though not inactive. This was Joseph of (or rather from, i. e. originally from) Arimathea, described by Luke (23, 51) as a city of the Jews, and identified by some geographers with the Ramah or Ramathaim of 1 Sam. 1, 1, but by Eusebius and Jerome with an Armatha near Lydda, called Ramathem in Maccabees and Ra- niatha by Josephus. This man was a counsellor or senator, not a local magistrate of Arimathea, but a member of the Sanhedrim, who had taken no part in the process against Jesus (Luke 23, 51), but himself also waited for the kingdom of God, i. e. expected the Messiah's ad vent (see above, on 1, 15.) The word translated honourablehas respect originally to the personal appearance and means handsome, comely, as in 1 Cor. 7, 35. 12, 24, but is then transferred to character and social position, corresponding very nearly to respectable in English. This man, who had hitherto been a concealed disciple through fear of the Jews, now comes forward, when it was least to be expected, musters courage to go into Pilate's presence, and asks, as a gift or a favour to himself, the body of Jesus. 44. And Pilate marvelled if he Avere already dead ; and calling (unto him) the centurion, he asked him whether he had been any while dead. Pilate expresses no surprise at the request, nor any hesitation in acceding to it, a result no doubt secured by the character and rank of the petitioner. He only wonders at the early death, and even doubts if it be possible ; but having learned from the centurion, who had charge of the execution, that he had been dead some time, he gave the body to Joseph, not delivered or transferred it merely, but, as the Greek word properly denotes, made him a present of it, no doubt in allusion to the frequent practice, probably well known to Pilate's own experience, of receiving money from the friends of executed criminals, to spare them the dishonour of exposure or promiscuous burial. 45, 46. And when he knew (it) of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph. And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre. Besides the facts which Mark here mentions, that the body was taken from the cross, wrapped in linen, and laid in a tomb hewn m the rock, no doubt a lateral excavation, and a stone rolled against the opening; we learn from Matthew (27, 60) that the tomb was Joseph's own, which he had recently prepared ; from Luke (23, 53) that it had never yet been used; and from John (19, 41) that it was in a garden, at or near the place of crucifixion. Both Mark (v. 42) and John (19, 432 MARK 15, 46. 47. 42) mention, that it was the preparation, that is, immediately before the sabbath, which began at sunset, so that a speedy burial was neces sary to avoid a violation of the law ; and therefore, as this tomb was near at hand, the body was immediately conveyed there, these apparent accidents contributing not only to its preservation from dishonour but to the fulfilment of two prophecies, the one that his bones should not be broken (Ps. 34,20), and the other, that though joined with the wicked in his death, he should be buried with the rich or noble (Isai. 53, 9.) 47. And Mary Magdalene and Mary (the mother) of Joses beheld where he was laid. The last fact which Mark here mentions is that two of the women named in v. 40, both called Mary, were spectators of Christ's burial, as well as of his death, observing where he was deposited, to which Matthew (27, 61) adds, that they sat down before the tomb, and Luke (23, 56) that they afterwards procured spices, to be used upon the body of their master, after the sabbath which they religiously observed. CHAPTER XVI. The remaining topics are the Resurrection and Ascension, with the In termediate appearances of Christ to his disciples and his commission to the twelve apostles. Tho confusion which confessedly exists in this part of the gospel narrative, and the consequent difficulty of reducing it to one continuous account, is not the fault of the historians, but the natural effect of the events themselves, as impressed upon the senses and the memory of diff'erent witnesses. If it had pleased God to in spire a single writer as the historian of the resurrection, he would no doubt have furnished as coherent and perspicuous a narrative as any other in the sacred volume. But since it entered into the divine plan, as a necessary element, to set before us not a single but a fourfold pic ture of our Saviour's life and death, we must purchase the advantage of this varied exhibition, by submitting to its incidental inconveniences, among which is the difficulty, just referred to, of combining all those views, taken from different points of observation, into one complete view to be seen at the same moment. The historical problem is as hard to solve as the pictorial, not more so, and the seeming inconsistencies, re sulting from the effort to amalgamate the narratives, ought no more to destroy our faith in their eventual harmony, than similar points of dis agreement, in four photographic views of the same edifice or landscape, ought to make us question either the identity of the object or the ab solute truth of the delineation. A large part of the difficulty, practi- MARK 16, 1. 433 cally felt as to the gospels, has arisen from the error of attempting the impossible, to wit, the resolution of four landscapes into one, and the effort to improve upon God's method of exhibiting this part of saving truth, instead of thankfully resting in the apostolic dictum, that " the foolishness of God is wiser than men" (1 Cor. 1.25.) The extent to which these harmonistic methods have been carried, has produced a natural though not a rational reaction towards the opposite extreme of denying all consistency and unity in these inspired variations of a single theme, and converting even incidental proofs of oneness into pretended proofs of contradiction. Between these extremes of error, as in multi tudes of other cases, there is happily a middle course of truth and moderation, which, refusing to reject the tokens either of essential har mony or unessential variation, endeavours to account for every seem ing inconsistency, and yet to leave each narrative in undisturbed pos session of its characteristic and designed peculiarities. These views, which have already been presented in their substance and applied to the Avhole history, are here repeated as peculiarly appropriate to this concluding portion, in which the variations are more numerous and striking than in any other passage of the same length, and in which the opposite extremes of sceptical and harmonistic method are presented in the most revolting contrast. While apparent contradictions between Mark's brief narrative and those of Matthew, Luke, and John, may be readily removed by fair comparison and natural hypotheses, such as all involuntarily assume in weighing evidence relating to the common place affairs of life, it is still more important to detect, if possible, the grounds on which he has selected and arranged his facts, as furnishing a key to their correct interpretation and appreciation. Such a key is af forded by the simple suggestion, that in this account of the Saviour's resurrection and subsequent appearances, a specific purpose of the writer is to point out the successive steps, by Avhich the incredulity of the apostles was at length subdued, and their minds prepared for the re ception and the execution of their great commission. These successive steps or stages are : his message by the company of women (1-8) ; that by Mary Magdalene (9-11); that by the tAvo disciples jour neying to Emmaus (12-13) ; his final appearance to the apostolic body (14) ; followed by the great commission (15-18), the ascension (19), and the execution of these farewell orders (20.) The reader will do well to bear in mind the close concatenation of these topics, when he comes to the question with respect to the genuineness of the last twelve verses (see below, on v. 9.) 1. And when the sabbath Avas past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the (mother) of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him. In execution of the purpose just ascribed to the evangelist, he de scribes the first intimation of our Saviour's resurrection which reached the apostles. This consisted of a declaration made by an angel to three women at the sepulchre, and a message sent through them to the 19 434 MARK 16, 1. 2. eleven (1-8.) The sabbath being past (or more exactly, through) implies what is expressly said by Luke (23, 56), that notwithstanding their desire to pay the last permitted honours to the body of their Lord, " they rested the sabbath-day according to the commandment." The women named are those who had been previously mentioned (15, 40) as spectators ofthe crucifixion, and two of them again (15, 47) as wit nessing his burial. Though only the two Maries are here named by Matthew (28, 1), and only one of them by John (20, 1), and none of them by Luke (24, 1), who merely continues what he had been saying ofthe Galilean women (23, 56), and adds some (or certain) with them; it is evident that all this is nothing more than a striking instance of harmonious variation, the accounts differing only in minuteness- and precision. The essential fact, which Mark here brings out, is that the first intimation of Christ's being risen was made to women at the sepul chre. After naming the three leaders or most active members of the company, he states their errand or the object of their early visit. They brought spices (in Greek, aromata), when is not here said, although the obvious construction of the sentence is that they did so after the sab bath was past, and as this came to an end at sunset, they might easily have done so afterwards, so as to have them ready for use early the next morning. The statement of Luke (23, 56) is equally indefinite as to the precise time of these purchases, which might be mentioned be fore their observance of the sabbath, though it took place after it. The representation of the two accounts as contradictory is not only ground less but unfair, and as such to be rejected. That they might anoint him is usually understood of embalming for the preservation of the body, which would imply the absence of all hope as to his resurrection. But as embalming in the proper sense was not a Jewish practice (as to John 19, 40, see above, on 14, 8), and was the work rather of physicians than of women (compare Gen. 50, 2), and as the aromatic substances here mentioned were suited only for external application, it is on the whole most probable that they intended merely to express affection and respect by outward unction, just as another Mary had done during her Lord's lifetime (14, 8.) 2. And very early in the morning, the first (day) of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun. The precise time of their coming for this purpose is described by Mark as very early on the first day of the week, which agrees with the parallel accounts, even the added words, at the rising of the sun (liter ally, the sun homing risen), being really no more at variance with the others than with Mark's OAvn words ; and he surely cannot be sup posed to contradict himself. The expressions may be fully reconciled, either by referring them to different arrivals, not distinctly mentioned, or from the usage known to various languages, which takes dawn and sunrise indefinitely, as descriptive of the same time, namely, early morn- MARK 16, 3. 4. 5. 435 ing, and of which examples have been cited from Judges 9, 33. Ps. 104, 22, and the Septuagint version of 2 Sam. 23, 4. 2 Kings 3, 22. 3. 4. And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away ; for it was very great. The evangelist relates the conversation of the women on their way to the sepulchre of Christ, when they seem to have considered, for the first time, how they should gain access to the tomb, which was secured by a great stone or rock, placed against or in the entrance of the exca vation (see above, on 15, 46.) But on arriving at the spot, they find the obstruction already removed. When they looked, literally, looking up, implying that their eyes before were downcast (compare Luke 24, 5) and their thoughts absorbed in the subject of their conversation. They behold (with surprise) thai the stone has been rolled away, the present tense describing the whole scene as actually passing. The concluding words (for it was great exceedingly) have reference, not to what im mediately precedes, but to their anxious thoughts and consultations. This connection is made clear by a parenthesis in most editions ; but the original construction is what the Greek grammarians called a hysteron proteron, or grammatical inversion, when the writer goes back and supplies a word or clause omitted in its proper place. As if he had said, ' they asked who would roll the stone away, and when they came found it rolled away already, which was a sensible relief, for it was very large.' 5. And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white gar ment ; and they were affrighted. From what is here said it is clear that Joseph's sepulchre was not a mere grave, but a spacious vault or excavation, such as men provided for themselves and for their families (compare Isai. 22, 16), and of which there are specimens still extant in the rocks about Jerusalem. A young man, in Greek a single word meaning youth, here described as he appeared to the women, but by Matthew (28, 1. 5) as an angel of the Lord, who had descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. There is something puerile in the attempt to repre sent this as a contradiction, since it is not necessarily implied that he re mained in that position, nor in Mark's account that he was inside of the sepulchre, but only that the women, as they went in, saw him sitting on the right hand, perhaps at the entrance, and upon the stone which he had just removed. The difference in relation to the number of the angels is the same as in the case of the demoniacs of Gadara (see above, on 5. 2), and of the blind men healed at Jericho (see above, on 10, 46), except that Matthew here records but one, and the plurality 436 MAR K 16, 5. 6. 7. belongs to Luke (23, 4), which does not favour the idea, entertained by some, that Matthew naturally saw things double, or combined them into pairs. It was sufficient for Mark's purpose to describe the angel who addressed the women, and thus took the leading part in this transaction. Clothed, literally, cast about, enveloped, wrapped, the same verb and the same construction as in 14, 51. White, denoting not mere colour but a supernatural effulgence, as in 9, 3. Affrighted, both astonished and alarmed, the same verb that is used above, in 9, 15. 14, 33, and a strengthened form of that in 1, 27. 10, 24. 32. It hero expresses not mere fright, but that peculiar awe which may be sup posed to spring from the sight of a superior being. 6. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted ; ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified ; he is risen ; he is not here ; behold the place where they laid him. The language of the angel is encouraging and re-assuring ; he antici pates their anxious inquiries for the Saviour, and informs them of his resurrection. Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified, is not a mere descrip tion of the person, but a pointed allusion to his extreme humiliation, summed up in the name Nazarene (Matt. 2, 23), and terminating in his crucifixion. ' You are looking for the body of that scorned and persecuted Galilean, whom the Jews so lately put to an ignominious and painful death ; but you are come too late, he is no longer here ; he has awaked from the sleep in which you thought him sunk forever ; so that noAv you can find nothing but the spot which he occupied during his brief death and burial.' Gracious and soothing as these words are, they are not Avithout a slight tone of reproach, that those who loved the Son of Man so well, and had attended so long on his teaching, should look upon his case as one of natural mortality, and come to honour his remains, but not to witness his resuscitation. 7. But go your Avay, tell his disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee ; there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. It was not for tho relief and consolation of these pious women only or chiefly, that tho messenger from heaven spoke, but through them to the body of Apostles, or disciples in the strictest sense, and es pecially to Peter, who, notwithstanding his denial of his master, was to be restored, not only to his place as an apostle, which indeed he had not lost, but to his old precedence as the representative and spokesman of his brethren. (Compare John 21, 15-17. Acts 1, 15. 2, 14. 38. 3, 0, 12. 4, 8. 5, 3. 8. 29.) Go your way, in modern English go away, in Greek a single word, depart, begone, implying that they had no time to lose and that their presence was required elsewhere. Having, as it were, supplied the place of the apostles during their defection (see above, on 15, 40. 47), these devoted women are now commissioned to MARK 16, 7. 8. 437 recall them to their duty, by reminding them of an appointment made by Christ before he suffered (see above, on 14, 28), but which they had forgotten in the sorrow and confusion caused by the literal fulfilment of those prophecies respecting his own death which they had probably regarded as mere parables. The confusion of mind thus produced ap pears to have prevented their perceiving or remembering, that the same predictions had foretold his resurrection, which had now come to pass accordingly, and of which the angel here directs the woman to inform them, not directly, but by saying that tho Lord was ready to fulfil his pledge, by going before them into Galilee. This might seem to mean that he would actually go there as of old at their head, and as their literal leader ; but we learn from John (21, 1-14), and Matthew (28, 16-18), that he joined them after their arrival, and may therefore take the words before us in the equally legitimate sense, that he would be in Galilee before them, i. e. they would find or meet him there, on their return home from the passover. There shall ye see him, as he said to you, referring to the promise and appointment made on his way from the upper chamber in Jerusalem to the garden of Gethsemane (see above, on 14, 28.) 8. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sep ulchre ; for they trembled, and were amazed : neither said they any thing to any (man), for they Avere afraid. Going out they (not merely walked, or even ran, but) fled from the sepulchre. The next Avords do not formally assign a reason for their flight, but continue the description, and (not for) tremor and ecstasy (trembling and amazement, see above, on 5, 42), had (held or pos sessed) them. Taken by itself, the last clause of this verse would seem to mean that the women, in their terror and confusion, did not deliver the angelic message to the eleven. But as the natural effect of their alarm would be the opposite of this ; as it is not easy to see what they had to fear from making the communication ; and as Matthew speaks expressly twice (28, 10. 11) of their going to report to the disciples ; all ordinary laws of language and of evidence not only suffer but re quire us to understand the clause as an additional description of their haste and agitation, trembling and amazement seized them, and to no one they said nothing, for they were afraid, not afraid to speak, but so alarmed at the vision and the words of the angel, that they did not stop to speak to any one, but hurried to convey his message. As Mark is not relating all these movements in detail, but simply enumerating the successive intimations made to the eleven of their Master's resurrec tion, he proceeds no further with the first, but passes to the second in the next verse. 9. Now when (Jesus) Avas risen early, l.lie first (day) of the Aveek, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. 438 MARK 16, 9. 10. Although Mary Magdalene was one of the three women named by three of the evangelists, as coming early to anoint the body of the Lord, two of them afterwards appear to separate her from the rest and introduce her alone in a part of the ensuing transactions. This is understood, by some of the best modern writers, as implying that, al though she came with the other women to the tomb, she remained behind when they had fled, pursuing her inquiries for the body of her Lord, and was consequently honoured with a second vision of angels and a sight of Christ himself. This is related in detail by John (20, 11-18), and very compendiously by Mark, who reckons this his first appearance, either absolutely or in reference to his own selection and ar rangement of the facts. This verse assigns a reason for Mary Magda lene's devotion to the Saviour, and perhaps for the honour put upon her by this special appearance to herself alone. There is then no ground for the assertion, that she is introduced here as a personage who had not been previously mentioned, which has been used to corroborate the fashionable modern notion, that this and the following verses are a spurious addition to the gospel by a later hand. The external evidence relied upon is the omission of the passage in the Vatican manuscript, and some indications of doubt as to its genuineness in several other ancient critical authorities. In support of the foregone conclusion thus reached, German ingenuity has not failed to detect internal indi cations of a different writer, such as the absence of Mark's favourite expressions, and the use of several not found elsewhere in his Gospel. The futility of such a process, when applied to a dozen sentences, if not self-evident, may easily be made plain by applying it to an equal part of any other book, and observing how triumphantly the same thing may be proved in any case whatever. The folly of supposing that the gospel ended with the word for (iqiofiovvro ydp, v. 8/, has led to the more complex hypothesis of a genuine conclusion now lost and replaced by that before us, which some ascribe to Mark himself but at a later date. But to most minds this assumption will seem far less easy to believe, than the simple supposition, that the actual conclu sion is the one originally written, not only in direct continuation of what goes before, but in execution of a plan which runs through the whole chapter, and has been already stated in the introduction to it. 10. (And) she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept. It appears from this verse, that the case of Mary Magdalene was mentioned, only as a second intimation of our Lord's resurrection made to his apostles ; for as soon as she had seen and heard him, as related in detail by John, she went and reported to the disciples (John 21, 18), or as it is here expressed, to those who had been with him, that he was alive, and what he had said to her. One of the arguments against the genuineness of these verses is the use of this unusual expression, those who had been with him, although perfectly appropriate and more ex pressive thau John's term (disciples), because suggestive of the fact MARK 16, 10. 11. 12. 439 that they had formerly been with him, but had since forsaken him, and been far from him, at the very time when their presence and at tentions seemed to be most needed. As they mourned and wept, liter ally, mourning and weeping, as they might have done for any human friend, whose loss they thought irreparable. This untimely sorrow, at the very time when they should have been rejoicing, shows their faith and hope to have been shamefully defective, as appears still fur ther in the next verse. 11. And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not. So little prepared were the eleven for the very change which Christ had clearly and repeatedly predicted, that when Mary came to them with this new message, and her own direct testimony to the fact that he was risen and had appeared to her, it had no more effect upon them than the previous report of her companions, who had gone with her to the grave, and after leaving her appear to have been favoured with a distinct sight of the risen Saviour (Matt. 28, 9. 10.) Believed not is in Greek still stronger, being one compound verb which might be ren dered disbelieved, or as it is expressed by Luke (24, 11), it seemed to them as idle talk or nonsense. Such a state of mind may seem almost incredible ; but it must be remembered, that all depended on a fixed conviction that the death which he predicted was not to be literally understood, so that when it did take place, they could not instan taneously adjust their views and feelings to this great and sudden change, but simply abandoned all their previous hopes, and sunk into an impotent despairing sorrow. 12. After that, he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country. As if to punish them for their defection and stupidity, and per haps to avoid a similar revulsion in the opposite direction, our Lord did not appear at once to the eleven, but prepared them for the sight by these repeated messages through others. At the same time, he re warded the affectionate fidelity and stronger faith of his devoted female friends, by making them the channels of the two communications which have been already mentioned. That this privilege, however, was not to be limited to either sex, is now shown by the mention of a third intimation made to two of them, not two of the eleven (as appears from Luke 24, 33), but two from among the disciples in the wider sense, to whom the description in the preceding verse (mourning and weep ing) must be understood as extending. The meagre summary of which some writers here complain is as perfectly in keeping with Mark's pur pose in this chapter, as the rich detail of Luke (24, 13-35) with his design. The only discrepancy which has been alleged is Mark's saying that our Lord appeared lo Iheui in another form, Avhile Luke says that 440 MARK 16, 13. 14. their eyes were holden that they should not know him. The one gives the cause and the other the effect. 13. And they went and told (it) unto the residue ; neither believed they them. And they, the two disciples mentioned in the verse preceding, going away, i. e. back to Jerusalem instead of going on to Emmaus (Luke 13, 33), reported, carried back word (as in v. 10, and in 6, 30) to the rest, to those remaining in the Holy City, but with special referencei no doubt to the apostles, as their representatives and leaders, whose in-' credulity was more unpardonable in itself, and at the same time hurtful to the faith of others. Neither them (or not even them) did they be lieve, an emphatic expression, not implying that these witnesses were more entitled to belief than those before them, but referring simply to the circumstance, that this was the third mediate intimation of the great event, and that even this, although the third, was insufficient to command their full belief; so that the defect of faith afterwards re buked in Thomas (John 20, 27. 29) was here displayed, though in a less degree, by the entire apostolic body, and could only be removed by the immediate attestation Avhich is recorded in the next verse. 14. Afterward he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. Afterward, in Greek an adjective in the comparative degree, mean ing later, latter, the neuter form of which, as of many other adjectives, is used as an adverb. Though it does not of itself mean last, for which there is a separate superlative form (vararov, not used in the New Tes tament), it often virtually takes that meaning from the context, namely, when connected with the close of a distinctly marked series or succes sion of particulars (as in Matt. 21, 37. 22, 27. 26, 60.) This is also the case here, and a point of some importance to the emphasis if not the meaning of the passage, as it marks not a mere chronological suc cession, but a climax or complete gradation in the disclosure of the Saviour's resurrection to the body of apostles. Having sent them three announcements of the great event (vs. 7. 11. 13), he now, lastly, (or at last), appeared to the eleven, literally, to them the eleven, ov the eleven themselves, i. e. directly, without any further indirect or medi ate communication. Appeared, in Greek a passive form, was mani fested (or disclosed), suggesting the idea of suddenness, and agreeing with the general fact, revealed in all the gospels, that the Saviour's in tercourse with the disciples, in the interval between his resurrection and ascension, was not continued but occasional, and probably at dis tant intervals (see John 20, 26.) As they sat at meat, literally, to them reclining, lying down, or lying up (to the table), then the cus tomary attitude at meals (sue above, on 2, 15. 14, 3. 18.) Upbraided irlfiSi* MARK 16, 14. 15. 441 (or reproached) their unbelief, or rather incredulity, in reference to the great fact of his being risen from the dead, but not a total want of faith in his divine authority or doctrines. Hardness of heart, in Greek a single word (hardheartedness), denoting not mere callousness or in sensibility of the affections, but torpor and inaction of the whole heart, in its widest sense, including intellect as well as feeling (see above, on 2, 6.8. 3,5. 4,15. 6,52. 7,16.19.21. 8,17. 10,5. 11,23. 12,30.33.) The specific groundof this reproach is then assigned, because they did not be lieve those homing seen (or who had seen) him risen. This is probably the meeting from which Thomas was absent (John 20, 24), the eleven hav ing reference to the whole body, as then constituted, not to the number actually present upon any one occasion. It thus appears that Thomas was only guilty of the same incredulity a little longer than the rest, because not so early favoured with the sight of his risen master, and that the reproach addressed to him at the next interview (John 20, 27-29) was equally applicable to the others. 15. And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. With the same rapidity and brevity which mark this whole conclud ing narrative, Mark subjoins immediately to Christ's reproof of the apostles for their unbelief, their great commission, which according to Matthew (28, 16-20) they received in Galilee, a difference pushed by some so far as to allege that Mark represents our Lord's ascension as taking place in the room where the disciples were convened. The truth is that Mark's obvious design in this Avhole chapter is not to relate details, but simplyfcto enumerate the links required to complete the great chain of events Avhich he has been constructing. The analogy of vs. 9^14 would lead us to expect no greater fulness than we actually find here. The essential fact is, that such a commission was given be fore our Lord's ascension, not the place or other circumstances, which however are recorded elseivhere. There is also no absurdity in sup posing as some eminent interpreters have done, that the commission here recorded is distinct, i. e. uttered at a different time, from that in Matt. 28, 18-20, the one at Jerusalem, the other in Galilee. Go ye into all the world is not in the original a direct command, but a parti cipial construction, going into all the world, preach the gospel, from which it has sometimes been inferred, that the precept is conditional and means, wherever you do go (for other purposes) there preach the gospel. But the thought supplied, for other purposes, is perfectly gratuitous, the true ellipsis being, for this purpose, as the participle is dependent on the following verb, and is a past form meaning strictly, having gone. The verb itself is one that properly means going to a distance, journeying (as in v. 12.) Preach the gospel has become so technical a phrase for official or professional duty, that "we often lose sight of its primary and proper sense, proclaim the good news, publish the glad tidings of salvation. To every creature, or more exactly, to the whole creation, which may cither be a parallel equivalent to all the 19* 442 MARK 16, 16. 17. world, then put for its inhabitants, or may mean the moral and in telligent creation, with specific reference, in this case, to mankind, as the subjects of salvation, and the recipients of the gospel message. 16. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned. The command to preach the gospel is attended by a solemn sanc tion, or a promise and a threatening, to show its bearing on the destiny of those who shall embrace it or reject it. The (one) believing (it as true, or as from God, and accepting the salvation which it offers) shall be saved (delivered from all evil, natural and moral, or from sin as well as suffering), and the (one) disbelieving (refusing to believe, the same verb as in v. 11, rejecting it as false, and the Saviour whom it offers) shall be damned, a word not too strong to express eternal ruin or per dition, but from its modern use or abuse, awakening different associa tions from the Greek verb, which means simply, shall be judged against, i. e. condemned, implying, although not expressing, the same terrible result. 17. And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name shall they cast out devils ; they shall speak with new tongues. (As) signs (or proofs of your divine legation) to those believing (or converted by your preaching) these (things) shall follow (it.) This seems to be a simpler and more natural construction than the one com monly adopted, these signs shall follow those believing, i. e. go with them wherever they go. It has been disputed whether this is a promise of miraculous gifts to all believers, and if so how it was fulfilled. As the miracles here mentioned were to serve as signs or proofs, their end would be attained without their being universal, i. e. by their being bestowed upon many, or even on a few, who may possibly be those represented as believing, not with a saving faith merely but a special faith of miracles (see above, on 9, 29.) Or the promise may be to be lievers as a body, though it was to be fulfilled in the experience of only some. And as this whole discourse has reference to the planting and extension of the church in the first ages, the presumption, even from its terms, would be, that these miraculous endowments were a temporary gift, a presumption since confirmed by the experience of the church, al though the time cannot be ascertained at which they wholly ceased. In my name, bearing it, invoking it, and claiming for me all that it im ports, as well as acting for me and by my authority (see above, on 9, 37-39. 41. 11, 9. 10. 13, 6. 13.) They shall expel demons, here as elsewhere (see above, on 1, 34. 39. 3, 15. 6, 13) placed in the first rank among the miracles of Christ and his apostles, as extending to another world and to another race of spiritual beings. New tongues can only mean languages before unknown to the speakers, in which sense the promise was fulfilled at Pentecost, and on a smaller scale in MARK 16, 17. 18. 19. 443 other cases still preserved in apostolical history. (See Acts 2, 4. 10, 46. 19, 6, and compare! Cor. 13, 1. 8. 14, 5. 6. 18. 22. 23. 39.) This is one of the grounds, on which the sceptical critics would reject this passage as a spurious addition to the gospel, while to others, free from such dogmatic prepossessions, it is rather a confirmation of its authenticity and genuineness. 18. They shall take up serpents ; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Take up serpents, handle venomous and deadly reptiles without in jury, a prophecy fulfilled in the experience of Paul (Acts 28, 2). though pronounced by some interpreters entirely irrelevant and of another kind. As the Greek verb often means to take away or to take up for the purpose of removing (see above, on 2, 12. 21. 4, 15. 25. 6, 8. 29. 43. 8, 8. 11, 23. 13, 15. 16. 15, 21), some explain it here in re ference to the expulsion of noxious animals from certain regions, as by St. Paul from Malta, and St. Patrick from Ireland ; but these are later legends, and the other miracles here mentioned are instantaneous acts upon particular occasions. Anything deadly, mortal, fatal, such as poison. Shall not, the strong aorist negation excluding every possible contingency. Hurt them, not in the sense of giving pain, but in that of permanently injuring, or more specifically, killing. There is no par ticular fulfilment of this promise upon record in the sacred history, and the later legend of John's drinking poison may have been directly de rived from it. But this is no proof that it was not really fulfilled, as the cases above mentioned were recorded incidentally, for other reasons, not as specimens, much less as an exhaustive list, of such fulfilments. On the infirm (strengthless, as in 6, 5. 13), they shall lay hands, as the twelve did when first sent out (see above, on 9, 13.) Recover, literally, have (themselves) well (the converse of the phrase employed in 1, 32. 34. 2, 17. 6, 55), which some strangely understand, not of the sick, but of the healers, who should not only give health to others, but enjoy it unimpaired themselves. 19. So then, after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. So then, a resumptive and continuative particle of frequent use in the New Testament, though not in this book, which is far from render ing the genuineness of this passage doubtful, as the writer only intro duces the phrase here to wind up his whole narrative. The Lord, now absolutely so called, when his sovereignty or lordship had been proved and attested by his resurrection. After the speaking to them (just re corded), i. e. the commission to evangelize the world, with the accom panying sanction and assurance of divine assistance. Was taken up, and as the Greek verb would at once suggest to every reader, taken back, 444 MARK 16, 19. 20. "the preposition used in composition signifying both upward motion and repetition or restoration, as in dvat3\iira>, to look up and to see again (see above, on 8, 24. 25. 10, 51. 52.) Into the heaven, the sky, the visible expanse, referring merely to the apparent direction of the move ment ; or into that part of the universe where God permanently mani fests his presence to the saints and angels (see above, on 1, 10. 6, 41. 7,34. 11,25. 12,25. 13,32. 14 62.) Sat (ov sat down) on the right, literally, from the rights, the same peculiar idiom that occurs above, in 10, 37. 40. 12, 36. 14, 62. 15, 27, and in which the adjective agrees with parts or places, as it does in English with side or hand. The right hand here denotes the place of honour and of shared or delegated power, and the whole phrase Christ's assumption of the mediatorial dignity, which he had purchased by his sufferings and obedience (see above, on 12, 36.) 20. And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working Avith (them), and confirming the Avord with signs following. Amen. But they, the apostles, as the other party in this great transaction, going out (ov forth), not from the room in which the Lord appeared to them, which some assert to be the only meaning that the words will bear, but from Jerusalem, after the effusion of the Holy Spirit and the dispersion of the mother church, as recorded in the first part of the Acts of the Apostles. Preached (announced, proclaimed the new religion) everywhere, in all directions, and perhaps more strictly still, in all parts of the world, as we know that the original diffusion of the gospel was extremely rapid and simultaneous, which accounts for the absence of detailed information, while the general result is among the most notorious facts of history. The Lord, the, risen and ascended Sa viour, mentioned just before by the same title, working with (them), co-operating, an expression also employed by Paul (2 Cor. 6, 1) to de note the gracious use of human instrumental agency in executing the divine plans. The particular co-operation here intended is that prom ised in v. 17, of which this clause describes the general fulfilment. Confirming, fortifying, strengthening, corroborating, rendering effec tive, by miraculous credentials. The word, i. e. the gospel Avhich they preached as a divine revelation. With (literally, through, by means of) the following (or accompanying) signs, not signs in general, but those specifically promised in the previous context (see above, on vs. 17. 18.) It would not be easy to find two short sentences containing more than these concluding verses, one of which describes the whole process of our Saviour's exaltation, and the other the whole missionary work of the apostles, as its necessary fruit, and therefore a conclusive proof of its reality. If the original conclusion of this book is lost, its place has been wonderfully well supplied. THE END. 9002 08837 8261 v,'" , 'illi 1 '' M.i i i,i j, i 'i' i n 'i , "' 'fiAiili Ip 1 j |! ¦ wa 111 III! Wi!'!!