Commentary on Mark

Robert H. Gundry

© 2010 by Robert H. Gundry

Published by Baker Academic

a division of Baker Publishing Group

P.O. Box 6287, Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287

www.bakeracademic.com

Ebook edition created 2011

Previously appeared in Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament (Baker Academic, 2010).

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—for example, electronic, photocopy, recording—without the prior written permission of the publisher. The only exception is brief quotations in printed reviews.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data for Commentary on the New Testament is on file at the Library of Congress, Washington, DC.

ISBN 978-1-4412-3759-0

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Mark

JOHN’S PREDICTING A MORE POWERFUL BAPTIZER THAN HE

Mark 1:1–8

GOD’S EMPOWERMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND APPROVAL OF JESUS

Mark 1:9–11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF JESUS’ STATUS AS GOD’S SON BY SATAN, WILD BEASTS, AND ANGELS

Mark 1:12–13

THE STRONGER ONE’S ARRIVING ON THE SCENE

Mark 1:14–15

THE FIRST EXHIBITION OF JESUS’ POWER OF ATTRACTION

Mark 1:16–20

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN TEACHING AND EXORCISM

Mark 1:21–28

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER SICKNESS, DISEASE, AND DEMONS

Mark 1:29–34

JESUS’ EXHIBITING MAGNETIC POWER AGAIN

Mark 1:35–45

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS

Mark 2:1–12

THE MAGNETIC POWER OF JESUS OVER TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS AND HIS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO EAT WITH THEM

Mark 2:13–17

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO FASTING

Mark 2:18–22

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH

Mark 2:23–28

JESUS’ EXERCISING AUTHORITY TO HEAL ON THE SABBATH

Mark 3:1–6

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF MAGNETIC POWER YET AGAIN

Mark 3:7–12

THE APPOINTMENT OF TWELVE APOSTLES AS EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ OVERWHELMING MAGNETISM

Mark 3:13–19

THE DERIVATION OF JESUS’ POWER FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT

Mark 3:20–35

JESUS’ SPEAKING IN PARABLES TO ESTABLISH GOD’S REIGN AMONG THE DISCIPLES AND TO SHUT OUT NONDISCIPLES

Mark 4:1–34

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE WIND AND SEA

Mark 4:35–41

JESUS’ WINNING A DOUBLE VICTORY OVER LEGION

Mark 5:1–20

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER DEATH

Mark 5:21–43

JESUS’ INVALIDATION OF UNBELIEF BY MEANS OF ASTONISHING MIRACLES

Mark 6:1–6a

JESUS’ EXTENDING HIS AUTHORITY THROUGH THE APOSTLES

Mark 6:6b–29

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FIVE THOUSAND MEN WITH ONLY FIVE LOAVES OF BREAD AND TWO FISH

Mark 6:30–44

JESUS’ AMAZING FEAT OF WALKING ON THE SEA

Mark 6:45–52

AN OVERFLOWING OF JESUS’ POWER TO HEAL

Mark 6:53–56

JESUS’ DEMONSTRATION OF DOMINANCE OVER PHARISEES AND SCHOLARS AND OF AUTHORITY OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Mark 7:1–23

JESUS’ EXORCISING A DEMON AT A DISTANCE AND WITHOUT A COMMAND

Mark 7:24–30

JESUS’ STUPENDOUS HEALING OF A DEAF-MUTE

Mark 7:31–37

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FOUR THOUSAND PEOPLE WITH SEVEN LOAVES AND A FEW SMALL FISH

Mark 8:1–9

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SIGN FROM HEAVEN

Mark 8:10–12

JESUS’ PROVING HIS MIRACULOUS POWER TO BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE

Mark 8:13–21

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF HEALING POWER IN A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT CASE OF BLINDNESS

Mark 8:22–26

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF POWER TO PREDICT HIS OWN FATE AND THAT OF OTHERS

Mark 8:27–9:1

A SUPPLYING OF VISUAL AND AUDITORY EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD’S SON

Mark 9:2–13

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF SUPERPOWER IN A SPECIALLY DIFFICULT EXORCISM

Mark 9:14–29

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT HIS OWN DEATH AND RESURRECTION

Mark 9:30–32

JESUS’ TEACHING WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE

Mark 9:33–50

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN A PUTDOWN OF PHARISEES ON THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE

Mark 10:1–12

JESUS’ MAKING LITTLE CHILDREN AN EXAMPLE OF MEMBERSHIP IN GOD’S KINGDOM

Mark 10:13–16

JESUS’ SHATTERING THE ACCEPTED ECONOMICS OF SALVATION

Mark 10:17–31

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO FORECAST HIS OWN DESTINY

Mark 10:32–34

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE DESTINY OF HIS DISCIPLES

Mark 10:35–45

JESUS’ SHOWING MERCY AS DAVID’S SON IN THE RESTORATION OF SIGHT TO BARTIMAEUS

Mark 10:46–52

JESUS PROVED TO BE AN UNERRING PREDICTOR AND ACCLAIMED TO BE THE COMING ONE

Mark 11:1–10

JESUS’ ISSUANCE OF A STRONG CURSE

Mark 11:11–14

THE AWE-INSPIRING TEACHING OF JESUS AT HIS CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

Mark 11:15–18

THE STARTLING FULFILLMENT OF JESUS’ CURSE AND HIS STARTLING ANSWERS

Mark 11:19–25

JESUS’ OUTWITTING ALL THREE CLASSES OF THE SANHEDRIN

Mark 11:27–12:12

A Special Note on the Cursing And Withering of the Fig Tree

JESUS’ MARVELOUS ESCAPE FROM THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA

Mark 12:13–17

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SADDUCEES’ IGNORANCE

Mark 12:18–27

A SCHOLAR’S COMING TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH OF JESUS’ TEACHING

Mark 12:28–34

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SCHOLARS’ IGNORANCE, PRETENTIOUSNESS, AND RAPACITY

Mark 12:35–40

JESUS’ UPSETTING OF POPULAR OPINION ON THE SIZE OF GIFTS

Mark 12:41–44

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FATES OF THE TEMPLE, THE WORLD, AND THE SELECTED ONES, AND TO PREDICT HIS COMING AS THE SON OF MAN

Mark 13:1–37

JESUS’ MAKING OF FURTHER PREDICTIONS AND THE STARTING OF FULFILLMENTS

Mark 14:1–11

JESUS’ MAKING OF PREDICTIONS CONCERNING A PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER, AND THEIR FULFILLMENTS

Mark 14:12–16

JESUS’ EXHIBITING FOREKNOWLEDGE OF HIS BETRAYAL, VIOLENT DEATH, AND ULTIMATE VICTORY

Mark 14:17–25

A CONTEST OF PREDICTIVE ABILITY: JESUS VERSUS PETER AND THE OTHER DISCIPLES

Mark 14:26–31

THE FLOWERING OF FULFILLMENT FOR JESUS’ PREDICTIONS

Mark 14:32–52

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTIONS OF HIS REJECTION BY THE SANHEDRIN AND OF PETER’S DISOWNINGS OF HIM

Mark 14:53–72

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT HE WOULD BE GIVEN OVER TO THE GENTILES AND FLOGGED

Mark 15:1–15

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT THE GENTILES WOULD MOCK HIM

Mark 15:16–20c

JESUS’ EXPIRING IN A WAY THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS DIVINE SONSHIP

Mark 15:20d–27, 29–41

THE DIGNIFYING OF JESUS’ BODY IN BURIAL

Mark 15:42–47

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS AS A FULFILLMENT OF HIS PREDICTIONS

Mark 16:1–7

THE OVERAWING OF THOSE WHO HEARD THE NEWS THAT JESUS HAD BEEN RAISED

Mark 16:8

A Special Note on Mark’s Ending

Notes

Back Cover

Acknowledgments

My sincere thanks to Shirley Decker-Lucke, Editorial Director at Hendrickson Publishers, for accepting this exposition of the New Testament for publication; to Mark House, Phil Frank, and others for their work there on the publication; and to the Baker Academic team for their work on this reprint. My brother Stan Gundry, whose contributions to Christian publishing are deservedly well-known, encouraged me to write the exposition. Connie Gundry Tappy copyedited the manuscript. Her copyediting included not only the correction of errors and the refinement of style, but also a host of interpretive improvements and scriptural cross-references arising out of her comprehensive knowledge of the Bible. To her, my daughter as well as my copyeditor, I affectionately dedicate this volume.

Robert H. Gundry

Westmont College

Santa Barbara, California

Introduction

Dear reader,

Here you have part of a commentary on the whole New Testament, published by Baker Academic both in hardback and as an ebook. The electronic version has been broken into segments for your convenience and affordability, though if you like what you find here you may want to consider the whole at a proportionately lower cost. Whether in whole or in part, the e-version puts my comments at your fingertips on your easily portable Kindle, iPad, smartphone, or similar device.

I’ve written this commentary especially for busy people like you—lay people with jobs and families that take up a lot of time, Bible study leaders, pastors, and all who take the New Testament seriously—that is, people who time-wise and perhaps money-wise can’t afford the luxury of numerous heavyweight, technical commentaries on the individual books making up the section of the Bible we call the New Testament. So technical questions are avoided almost entirely, and the commentary concentrates on what will prove useful for understanding the scriptural text as a basis for your personal life as a Christian, for discussion with others, and for teaching and preaching.

Group discussion, teaching, and preaching all involve speaking aloud, of course, and when the New Testament was written, even private reading was done aloud. Moreover, most authors dictated their material to a writing secretary, and books were ordinarily read aloud to an audience. In this commentary, then, I’ve avoided almost all abbreviations (which don’t come through as such in oral speech) and have freely used contractions that characterize speaking (“we’ll,” “you’re,” “they’ve,” and so on). To indicate emphasis in oral speech, italics also occur fairly often.

You’ll mostly have to make your own practical and devotional applications of the scriptural text. But such applications shouldn’t disregard or violate the meanings intended by the Scripture’s divinely inspired authors and should draw on the richness of those meanings. So I’ve interpreted them in detail. Bold print indicates the text being interpreted. Translations of the original Greek are my own. Because of the interpretations’ close attention to detail, my translations usually, though not always, gravitate to the literal and sometimes produce run-on sentences and other nonstandard, convoluted, and even highly unnatural English. Square brackets enclose intervening clarifications, however, plus words in English that don’t correspond to words in the Greek text but do need supplying to make good sense. (As a language, Greek has a much greater tendency than English does to omit words meant to be supplied mentally.) Seemingly odd word-choices in a translation get justified in the following comments. It needs to be said as well that the very awkwardness of a literal translation often highlights features of the scriptural text obscured, eclipsed, or even contradicted by loose translations and paraphrases.

Literal translation also produces some politically incorrect English. Though “brothers” often includes sisters, for example, “sisters” doesn’t include brothers. Similarly, masculine pronouns may include females as well as males, but not vice versa. These pronouns, “brothers,” and other masculine expressions that on occasion are gender-inclusive correspond to the original, however, and help give a linguistic feel for the male-dominated culture in which the New Testament originated and which its language reflects. Preachers, Bible study leaders, and others should make whatever adjustments they think necessary for contemporary audiences but should not garble the text’s intended meaning.

Out of respect for your abilities so far as English is concerned, I’ve not dumbed down the vocabulary used in translations and interpretations. Like the translations, interpretations are my own. Rather than reading straight through, many of you may consult the interpretation of an individual passage now and then. So I’ve had to engage in a certain amount of repetition. To offset the repetition and keep the material in bounds, I rarely discuss others’ interpretations. But I’ve not neglected to canvass them in my research.

On the theological front, the commentary is unabashedly evangelical, so that my prayers accompany this volume in support of all you who strive for faithfulness to the New Testament as the word of God.

Robert Gundry

Mark

Reserved mainly for slaves and criminals being treated as slaves, crucifixion was considered the most shameful of deaths. This Gospel therefore counters the shame of Jesus’ crucifixion by showcasing his power to perform miracles, cast out demons, teach authoritatively, best his opponents in debate, attract crowds, and predict the future (including his own death and resurrection). According to very early church tradition Mark, a sometime companion of the apostles Peter and Paul, wrote the Gospel and got his information about Jesus from Peter. Since Peter didn’t associate with Jesus till their adulthoods, then, the Gospel starts not with Jesus’ birth but with the beginning of his public ministry, introduced as it was by John the baptizer (not to be confused with the apostle John).

JOHN’S PREDICTING A MORE POWERFUL BAPTIZER THAN HE

Mark 1:1–8

1:1–3: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, God’s Son, 2according as it’s written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I’m sending my messenger before your face [= ahead of you], who’ll pave your way [= the road you’ll travel], 3[the messenger who is] the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way of the Lord. Make his paths straight.’ ” “Gospel” means “good news.” Jews would associate this good news with Isaiah 52:7: “How lovely on the mountains are the feet of him who brings good news, who announces peace and brings good news of happiness, who announces salvation, [and] says to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’ ” Non-Jews would think of the good news of an emperor’s accession to power, birthday, visit to a city, military victory, or bringing of prosperity to the empire. But Mark’s good news has to do with the salvation and victory brought by Jesus over evil in all its demonic and physical forms. “The gospel of Jesus Christ” therefore means “the gospel about Jesus Christ” and refers to a proclaimed message (“the voice of one crying out”), not a book (though because books like Mark’s contain that proclaimed message, the term came to refer to those books in the capitalized form of “Gospels” to distinguish them from the message, kept uncapitalized as “gospel”). “Jesus” is a personal name, the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name “Joshua.” “Christ” is a title, meaning “anointed one” in the sense of “someone divinely appointed for a task.” It’s the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Messiah,” which has the same meaning. Somewhere along the line this title “Christ” evolved into another personal name for Jesus. By itself, “God’s Son” doesn’t have to connote deity. The term occurs elsewhere for angels and ordinary kings, for example. But as this Gospel progresses, no doubt will remain that Mark means us to understand that as God’s Son, Jesus is indeed divine.

“The beginning of the gospel . . .” takes place “according as it’s written” in the following Old Testament quotation, which Mark applies to the introductory ministry of John. So this beginning covers John’s ministry in 1:2–8 and no more. The agreement of his ministry with the quotation shows that God, who stands behind the writing of “the prophet,” is working out his plan. Mark names Isaiah as the prophet, and indeed 1:3 contains the text of Isaiah 40:3. But in 1:2 “Behold, I’m sending my messenger before your face” comes from Exodus 23:20, and “who’ll pave your way” comes from Malachi 3:1. Never mind, though. Isaiah deserved mention for providing the bulk of the quotation. God is the “I” who sends John as his “messenger” ahead of “you,” who is Jesus Christ. In Exodus 23:20 the messenger is an angel, and “you” is the nation of Israel. In Malachi 3:1 God is the one whose way is paved. And in Isaiah 40:3 “the Lord” is God. So using acceptable literary license, Mark changes some of these referents to make his quotation apply variously to God, John, and Jesus. God sees to it that someone prepares for his Son’s journey onto the public stage. As is fitting for so high a dignitary as the Christ, God’s Son, the Lord, the road he travels onto that stage needs to be paved, clear, and straight—easily traveled, not like the twisting roads in hilly, mountainous Israel.

1:4–5: There came on the scene John, the one who was baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. 5And all the Judean region and all the Jerusalemites were going out to him and getting baptized by him in the Jordan River as they were confessing their sins. John’s coming on the scene matches the sending of God’s messenger in 1:2. Baptizing matches paving the way of the Lord, also in 1:2. The wilderness here matches the wilderness there. John’s preaching matches the shouting of a voice in 1:3. And the baptism of repentance matches preparing the Lord’s way and straightening his paths. A wilderness was by and large devoid of human population, but not necessarily of vegetation. There was, in fact, plenty of vegetation along the Jordan River. The sparsity of human population highlights by contrast the going of “all the Judean region and all the Jerusalemites” to John to have him baptize them. “The Judean region” stands for its inhabitants. The first “all” emphasizes the wide extent of this region and joins the second “all” to emphasize the large number who came to be baptized. This large number anticipates the even larger numbers of people whom Jesus will attract to himself. The references to Judea and Jerusalem, which was located in Judea (the southern part of Israel), imply that John was baptizing toward the southern end of the Jordan River, close to where it empties into the Dead Sea. Baptism represented the washing away of sins. Flowing water, such as that of the Jordan River, was especially suited to represent such a washing; and the very word “forgiveness” means a “sending away” that separates sin from the sinner. This separation indicates why Mark has called John’s ministry “the beginning of the good news.” In and of itself, baptism didn’t result in the forgiveness of sins. It was repentance that did. Repentance led to baptism; and confession of sins accompanied baptism to verbalize the repentance, which means a change of mind that results in a change of behavior. The people didn’t baptize themselves. To have done so would have symbolized self-cleansing and self-forgiveness (much as in some contemporary psychology). As a messenger of God, John baptized people to symbolize God’s cleansing them and forgiving their sins.

1:6–8: And John was clothed with camel’s hair and [had] a leather belt around his waist and was eating locusts and wild honey. 7And he was preaching, saying, “The one [who’s] stronger than I is coming after me, the strap of whose sandals I’m not worthy, bending down, to loosen. 8I’ve baptized you with water, but he’ll baptize you in the Holy Spirit.” John was no city-slicker. His clothing and diet carry forward the preceding theme of a wilderness and characterize him as a prophet in the mold of Elijah, whose return was predicted in Malachi 4:5 (see 2 Kings 1:8 for a similar description of the Old Testament Elijah). The one who’s coming after John is Jesus. “After” has a spatial meaning, “behind,” and a temporal meaning, “subsequent to.” Spatially, Jesus will follow as a disciple behind John to the extent of submitting to John’s baptism. Temporally, Jesus will follow John by starting his ministry later than John’s. John attracted all the Judean region and all the Jerusalemites and got them to submit to the baptism of repentance. So if Jesus will be stronger than John, he must be very, very strong. And John’s unworthiness to perform even the extremely menial task of bending down and loosening Jesus’ sandal strap adds yet more to the description of Jesus as stronger. Still further, Jesus’ upcoming baptism of people in the Holy Spirit contrasts favorably with John’s currently baptizing them with mere water. This contrast puts an exclamation mark on Jesus’ greater strength, particularly because the Spirit connotes power (as in Acts 1:8, to take but one example: “you’ll receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you”). The Spirit will enter Jesus at his baptism in 1:9–11, so that he’ll exercise power in preaching, teaching, casting out demons, healing the sick, raising the dead, and even (as we’ll see) in dying as a ransom for people, not to mention rising from the dead. In Mark’s Gospel it’s these very activities—not a later imparting of the Holy Spirit as in Luke-Acts, for example—that will constitute Jesus’ baptizing people in the Holy Spirit (see especially Mark 3:20–30).

GOD’S EMPOWERMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND APPROVAL OF JESUS

Mark 1:9–11

1:9–11: And it happened during those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and he was baptized by John into the Jordan. 10And immediately, while coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being split apart and the Spirit descending like a dove [and coming] into him. 11And a voice came from heaven: “You’re my beloved Son; I’ve taken delight in you.” “Those days” refers to the beginning of the good news during John’s ministry. The village of Nazareth contrasts with the allusion to the city of Jerusalem in 1:5, and Galilee (up north) contrasts with Judea (down south) also in 1:5. Mark doesn’t say that anyone besides Jesus came from Galilee to be baptized. As the lone Galilean to do so, then, Jesus differs from “all the Judean region and all the Jerusalemites” that went out to John. Thus the spotlight now shines on Jesus. His coming to John for baptism fulfills the spatial meaning of “after me” in John’s prediction of a coming stronger one (see the comments on 1:7, and 1:14 for the start of Jesus’ ministry as the fulfillment of an additional, temporal meaning in “after me”). Jesus’ doesn’t confess any sins as he’s being baptized (contrast the people in 1:5). His silence is eloquent; for replacing a confession are God’s empowering him with the Spirit, acknowledging him as his beloved Son, and declaring his delight in him—all because Jesus has no sins to confess. The immediacy of God’s acting thus and of Jesus’ seeing heaven being split apart and the Spirit descending into him underscores the divine actions that replace a confession of sins. Heaven is split apart by the Spirit’s descent (compare Isaiah 64:1). The descent is like the downward flight of a dove. This comparison suits a dove’s being the only bird fit for sacrifice under the Jewish law (Leviticus 1:14). It also suits the dove’s being considered a divine bird by pagans. The Spirit’s splitting heaven apart signifies the power of the Spirit, and his entering into Jesus empowers Jesus for his ministry as John’s coming stronger one (1:7–8). Jesus’ seeing heaven being split apart and the Spirit descending into him makes him aware of his empowerment by the Spirit. To strengthen Jesus’ awareness, audition is then added to sight. A voice comes. It comes from heaven because it’s the voice of God the Father, who dwells there. “You’re my Son” confirms the identification of Jesus Christ as “God’s Son” in 1:1 and echoes Psalm 2:7, to which God adds “beloved” to blend affection with acknowledgment. “I’ve taken delight in you” echoes Isaiah 42:1 and adds approval to acknowledgment and affection. Whatever happens to Jesus from now on, then, we can be sure that God is on his side.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF JESUS’ STATUS AS GOD’S SON BY SATAN, WILD BEASTS, AND ANGELS

Mark 1:12–13

1:12–13: And immediately the Spirit thrusts him out into the wilderness. 13And in the wilderness he was being tempted by Satan for forty days; and he was with wild beasts; and angels were serving him. The immediacy of the Spirit’s thrusting Jesus out into the wilderness confirms and stresses Jesus’ infusion with the Spirit. The present tense of “thrusts” adds to the emphasis. But since Jesus was baptized in the Jordan River, he was already in a wilderness. So “into the wilderness” means into the nearby wilderness of Judean mountains. Mark’s repeating the theme of wilderness calls attention to Jesus’ being alone there with Satan, wild beasts, and angels. That Satan, “the ruler of the demons” according to 3:22, tempts Jesus as long as forty days constitutes a backhanded acknowledgment of Jesus as God’s beloved Son. Satan can’t afford to ignore Jesus. The content of Satan’s prolonged temptation gets no mention. Neither does Jesus’ resisting temptation. So Satan’s backhanded acknowledgment of Jesus makes up Mark’s one and only point. Mark doesn’t say that the wild beasts were with Jesus; rather, Jesus was with them—in their territory. Yet even there he suffered no harm from them, not even an attack. Their passivity gives eloquent witness to his being the stronger one who John predicted was coming. And for forty days angels serve Jesus. The verb for serving usually means to serve food. By such service the angels acknowledge Jesus’ status as the beloved Son of God. Furthermore, by serving him food the angels show him to be superior to the Baptist, who had to forage for himself in the wilderness. All in all, then, Jesus receives a backhanded such acknowledgment from the demonic realm, a pacifistic such acknowledgment from the wild kingdom, and a ministerial such acknowledgment from the angelic world.

THE STRONGER ONE’S ARRIVING ON THE SCENE

Mark 1:14–15

1:14–15: And after John was given over, Jesus went into Galilee preaching the gospel of God 15and saying, “The time has been fulfilled, and the reign of God has drawn near. Repent and believe in the gospel [of God].” “Was given over” refers to John’s arrest, resulting in imprisonment and execution (6:17–29), and sets up a parallel with Jesus’ being “given over” to arrest and execution (9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41). That Jesus goes from the Judean wilderness into Galilee to preach only after John was given over fulfills the temporal meaning of “after me” in John’s prediction that one stronger than he was coming (1:7). “The gospel of God” means the good news about him. Its content consists in the fulfillment of time and the drawing near of God’s reign. In other words, the appropriate time has come for the arrival of God’s reign. (Here “kingdom,” the traditional translation, has to do with the activity of reigning, not with the sphere in which this activity takes place.) As in 14:42–43, “has drawn near” means nearness as a result of arrival. It’s here! And the nearness is spatial as well as temporal because God is about to reign in the person, presence, and activity of Jesus, the Spirit-empowered stronger one (compare 14:42–43 again, where the spatial nearness of Judas Iscariot marks the temporal nearness of his giving Jesus over to his enemies). Jesus’ call to repentance matches John’s (1:4). But Jesus’ additional call to believe in the good news about God replaces John’s baptism with water, because Jesus will baptize people in the Holy Spirit instead of water (1:8; see the comments on that verse for the meaning of Spirit-baptism in Mark). We could paraphrase: “Repent because the time has been fulfilled” and “Believe in the good news because God’s reign has drawn near.” Again, “the time has been fulfilled with the result that God’s reign has drawn near” and “Repent with the result of believing in the good news.”

THE FIRST EXHIBITION OF JESUS’ POWER OF ATTRACTION

Mark 1:16–20

1:16–20: And while going along to the side of the Sea of Galilee, he [Jesus] saw Simon and Andrew, Simon’s brother, casting [nets] in the sea; for they were fishermen. 17And Jesus said to them, “[Come] here—behind me! And I’ll make you become fishers of human beings.” 18And immediately leaving the nets, they followed him. 19And on going a little farther, he saw James the [son] of Zebedee and John his brother, and [he saw] them in a boat preparing nets. 20And he called them immediately; and leaving their father Zebedee in the boat with [his] hired hands, they came away behind him [Jesus]. This paragraph exhibits Jesus’ power of attraction despite the lack of prior contact or present rationale in his command and call. Several items highlight this power: (1) the immediacy of Simon’s and Andrew’s leaving their nets, which immediacy demonstrates the overpowering authority of Jesus’ command (contrast 1 Kings 19:19–21); (2) the immediacy of Jesus’ calling James and John, which immediacy exhibits the constant activity of Jesus’ power; (3) James’ and John’s leaving their father Zebedee in his boat despite the patriarchalism in that culture; (4) the sons’ leaving Zebedee despite the hired hands’ staying with him; (5) both pairs of brothers’ going after Jesus in the thick of practicing their trade, casting nets in the first case and preparing them in the second—indeed without even hauling in the nets in the first case and without finishing the preparing of nets and casting them in the second case; (6) the addition of following Jesus to the leaving of nets; (7) the addition of coming away behind Jesus to the leaving of Zebedee (compare 10:28–30); and (8) Jesus’ promising to make Simon and Andrew fish for human beings, a task much more difficult than fishing for fish (see 3:13–19; 6:7–13, 30 for the fulfillment of this promise through the disciples’ healing the sick, delivering the demon-possessed, and getting people to repent and believe in the gospel of God). Preparing nets complements casting them and included cleaning, mending, and folding them. Unlike regular rabbis, Jesus chose his disciples—not they him. So powerful was his choice that despite their not looking for a rabbi to whom they might attach themselves, they couldn’t help but follow Jesus. Following behind him showed him due respect and had the purpose of their learning from everything they heard him say and saw him do. Regular rabbis and their disciples kept up a trade to earn a living and otherwise led a sedentary life of study. Without difficulty, Jesus attracts his disciples to an itinerant life devoid of earnings.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN TEACHING AND EXORCISM

Mark 1:21–28

1:21–22: And they [Jesus and his newfound disciples] go into Capernaum [on the northwest shore of the Sea of Galilee]. And having entered the [local] synagogue on the Sabbath [Saturday], he immediately started teaching. 22And they [the audience] were awestruck at his teaching, for he was teaching them as [one] having authority and not as the scholars [taught]. “Immediately” stresses the quickness with which Jesus takes didactic charge in the synagogue. His authority widens from calling several disciples in 1:16–20 to teaching a general audience. Mark gives no indication whatever of the content of Jesus’ teaching. He features only its authoritative manner and percussive effect (see also 6:2; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18). “Were awestruck” translates a verb whose literal meaning is to be knocked out. Obviously it carries a figurative meaning here, but a very strong one that underlines the authority with which Jesus taught. His exercise of this authority fulfills again John’s announcement of a coming one stronger than he, one who by stunning his audience with his didactic authority was baptizing them in the Holy Spirit that had entered him at his baptism. The word for “scholars” is usually translated “scribes”; but in contemporary English, “scribes” tends to be limited to copyists. Copying the text of the Old Testament made copyists expert in its contents, so that “scribes” developed the meaning of “scholars” even apart from the practice of copying. In 7:1–13 Jesus will contrast God’s commandment with scholarly tradition. This contrast suggests that the scholars supported their teachings by citing the opinions of past scholars (as happens in rabbinic tradition). But here in chapter 1 Mark is content simply to pit Jesus’ authoritative teaching against the unauthoritive teaching of scholars.

1:23–26: And immediately in their synagogue there was a man with an unclean spirit; and he yelled out, 24saying, “What do we and you have to do with each other, Jesus of Nazareth? You’ve come to destroy us. I know you, [that is,] who you are. [You’re] God’s Holy One.” 25And Jesus reprimanded him, saying, “Be muzzled and come out of him.” 26And convulsing him [the man] and screaming with a loud scream, the unclean spirit came out of him. Just as in 1:21 “immediately” stressed the quickness with which Jesus exercised didactic authority, so here “immediately” stresses the quickness with which he exercises authority over an unclean spirit. Mark calls the spirit “unclean” to contrast him with the Holy Spirit that entered Jesus at his baptism, that constituted Jesus as “God’s Holy One,” and that empowered him to call disciples effectively, to teach in the synagogue authoritatively, and now to exorcise the unclean spirit. Since “spirit” connotes power, as evident in this spirit’s control of a man, we have a contest shaping up. Who’ll win? Who has the greater power? The unclean spirit is speaking through the man; but “we” and “us” refer not to the unclean spirit and the man—rather, to the unclean spirit and others like it. For Jesus came to deliver demoniacs, not to destroy them along with their demons. So a defeat of this unclean spirit would portend the defeat of other unclean spirits too, whereas a victory by this unclean spirit would portend a defeat of the Spirit-filled Jesus by the others as well (compare 1:27).

The present unclean spirit mounts a defense—even an attack, since thus far Jesus hasn’t tried to exorcise the spirit—in a couple of ways: (1) by asking what unclean spirits and he have to do with each other; in other words, by asking why Jesus is interfering with them; and (2) by exhibiting a knowledge of Jesus’ personal name (“Jesus”), hometown (“Nazareth”), purpose in coming (“to destroy us [unclean spirits]”), and title (“God’s Holy One”). Knowledge is power, and by exhibiting such manifold knowledge of Jesus, the unclean spirit thought to overcome him. (As a declaration, “You’ve come to destroy us” fits the spirit’s maneuver; but even translated as a question, “Have you come to destroy us?” implies knowledge as well as fear of Jesus’ purpose.) The switch from “we” and “us” to “I” brings the narrative back to the case of this individual spirit. “Be muzzled” means “Shut up!” But the passive voice of “Be muzzled” shows the muzzling to be, not an act of voluntary obedience, but an act imposed on the spirit by his superior, Jesus. In other words, Jesus defends himself by putting a stop to the spirit’s attempt to control him. Then he goes on offense by telling the spirit to come out. The convulsing of the man and the spirit’s screaming give visible and audible evidence of the effectiveness of Jesus’ double reprimand. The convulsion shows the agony of the spirit’s defeat, and the loudness of the scream shows how utter is its defeat.

1:27–28: And all were astounded, so that they discussed [the matter] with one another saying, “What’s this? A new teaching [in that it’s done] with authority! He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey him.” 28And immediately the news about him went out everywhere into the whole surrounding region of Galilee. Every detail of the text piles emphasis on Jesus’ authority: (1) the astonishment of the onlookers; (2) the universality of their astonishment (“all”); (3) the prompting of discussion by their astonishment; (4) the puzzlement prompted by it (“What’s this?”); (5) the recognition of novelty in Jesus’ teaching; (6) the authority that defines its novelty; (7) the equation of this authoritatively new teaching with an exorcistic command; (8) the inference that this one exorcisim shows Jesus to be in command of other unclean spirits too; (9) their inferred obedience to his command; (10) their inferred obedience to his command despite their power over other human beings (“even the unclean spirits”); (11) the implication that he has been exorcising them all along even though here is the only instance thus far; (12) the immediacy with which the news about him goes out; (13) its going into the surrounding region of Galilee; (14) its going into the “whole” of that region; and (15) its not missing any part of the region—rather, its going “everywhere” in it. Mark puts exorcism under the rubric of teaching, then, to authenticate Jesus’ didactic authority with Jesus’ exorcistic authority.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER SICKNESS, DISEASE, AND DEMONS

Mark 1:29–34

Jesus, the one stronger than John, has proved so powerful as to have compelled men to leave their occupation and father, so powerful as to have outdone the scholars, so powerful as to have defeated a demonic force, and so powerful as to have become the talk of a whole territory. Now he’ll prove so powerful as to heal the sick and diseased and cast out many demons, not just one.

1:29–31: And immediately on coming out of the synagogue, they [Jesus and his first four disciples] went into the house of Simon and Andrew with James and John. 30And Simon’s mother-in-law was lying down, burning with a fever. And immediately they speak to him about her. 31And on approaching [her], he raised her by grasping her hand. And the fever left her, and she started serving them [food (compare 1:13)]. The first “immediately” shows that Mark can hardly wait to report Jesus’ further exercise of a power exceeding that of John. The remention of Simon and Andrew, James and John—and especially of the latter pair, since the house they enter isn’t their own—calls attention back to the effectiveness of Jesus’ having called them. They’re still following him. The lying down of Simon’s mother-in-law shows the severity of her condition (compare 2:4). According to the custom of the day, she should have been serving the men food. But before modern medicine a fever threatened death (see John 4:46–54). So the immediacy of the disciples’ reporting her condition to Jesus combines with the present tense in “they speak to him about her” to underline how desperate is her plight. But they don’t ask him to heal her, because he hasn’t given them any prior examples of healing. He takes the initiative, then, by approaching her and, without even saying a word, by grasping her hand and raising her. Given the threat of death it’s almost as though Jesus raises her from the dead. The action of raising her with a grasp of her hand exhibits his strength and conveys it to her through a physically therapeutic baptism in the Holy Spirit. Her serving the men gives evidence not only of the fever’s departure but also of her restoration to full health and vitality.

1:32–34: And after evening came, when the sun had set, people started bringing to him all who were sick and demon-possessed. 33And the whole city was gathered together at the door [of Simon’s and Andrew’s house]. 34And he healed many who were sick with various diseases; and he cast out many demons; and he wasn’t allowing the demons to speak, because they knew [= recognized] him. For Jews the Sabbath ended at sunset on Saturday. So Mark’s narrowing down “evening” to after sunset explains that people could bring their sick and demon-possessed, often having to carry them, without violating the prohibition of work on the Sabbath. That they started bringing them in the evening rather than waiting till the next morning magnifies the power of Jesus’ attraction. “All who were sick and demon-possessed” shows his power to be limitless. Apparently his healing Simon’s mother-in-law prompted the bringing of sick people, and his exorcising an unclean spirit in the local synagogue prompted the bringing of demoniacs. Word got around. That “the whole of the city was gathered at the door” adds further lustre to Jesus’ magnetism. His healing “many” doesn’t mean that he healed many but not all the sick who were brought to him. It means, rather, that the “all who were sick” and whom he healed were “many”—a further tribute to his power. The variety of their diseases heightens the tribute. Likewise, the demons he cast out were “many.” Their outnumbering him poses no problem to his exercise of authority over them. “They knew him,” just as the unclean spirit in 1:24 said by way of an attempt to thwart him, “I know you.” And just as Jesus muzzled that unclean spirit, so he doesn’t allow these demons to speak. Even with their knowledge of Jesus, they’re defenseless. It may also be that he doesn’t want them to publicize his identity lest such publicity cause such a crush of crowds as to hamper his going elsewhere to minister (see 1:35–39, 45; 3:7–12, 20; 4:1; 7:24; 9:30 among other passages).

JESUS’ EXHIBITING MAGNETIC POWER AGAIN

Mark 1:35–45

1:35–38: And on getting up early in the morning, while it was very dark, he [Jesus] went out [of Capernaum and Simon’s and Andrew’s house there]. And he went away [from the crowd of 1:32–34] into a deserted place, and he was praying there. 36And Simon and those with him pursued him [Jesus]. 37And they found him and say to him, “All [the people] are seeking you.” 38And he says to them, “Let’s be going elsewhere, [that is,] into the surrounding market-towns, in order that I may preach there as well. For I came out [of Capernaum] for this purpose.” Mark shifts from evening after sunset in 1:32 to the following morning before sunrise. The piling up of two temporal expressions, “early in the morning” and “while it was . . . dark,” and the intensification of “dark” with “very” show Jesus’ magnetism to be so great that he must take an extreme measure to avoid the crowd that had gathered where he was staying. Showing the same is his going under cover of darkness to pray in “a deserted place.” His magnetism is such that in populated locations the press of crowds would forestall praying. His praying complements 1:11. There God spoke to him. Here he speaks to God. They’re in communion with each other. Jesus is no charlatan, no magician. He does what he does as the Spirit-empowered, beloved, and God-delighting Son of God. Mark leaves the point at that by not disclosing the content of Jesus’ praying. Simon’s companions are his brother Andrew and the brothers James and John. Their hunting Jesus down shows the continuing effectiveness of his calling them to follow after him. Their statement that all are seeking him reemphasizes his magnetism and its extent in Capernaum, and presumes that by this time the sun has risen and the disciples and townspeople have gotten up only to discover Jesus’ absence. He ignores the townspeople’s seeking him and tells the disciples, “Let’s be going elsewhere.” The present tense in “he says to them” emphasizes this determination to extend the reach of his powerful activity, in particular his preaching. As with Jesus’ praying, Mark doesn’t disclose the content of the preaching Jesus is determined to do (contrast 1:14–15). So the accent lies solely on the extension of Jesus’ preaching. Thus also in the activity of preaching he proves himself the one stronger than John (compare 1:7).

1:39: And he went into the whole of Galilee, preaching in their synagogues and casting out demons. Preaching in their synagogues recalls and complements teaching in a synagogue at 1:21–28. So also does the casting out of demons, for 1:21–28 featured the exorcisim of an unclean spirit. In 1:38 Jesus stated only his purpose to preach elsewhere. Like the exorcism in 1:21–28, then, the present exorcisms support the authority of his verbal ministry. Only here, the plurality of synagogues and “the whole of Galilee” extend the authority of his preaching and exorcisms over a much wider compass (compare 1:14, which lacked the emphatic “whole” and exorcisms, however).

Now Mark adds a miraculous cure to Jesus’ powerful preaching and awe-inspiring exorcisms. The absence of details concerning time and place focuses attention on the cure as such. 1:40–42: And there comes to him a leper, imploring him and falling on his knees and saying to him, “If you’re willing, you can cleanse me [of my leprosy].” 41And feeling sorry [for him], stretching out [his] hand he touched him and says to him, “I’m willing. Be cleansed.” 42And immediately the leprosy left him, and he was cleansed. The word for leprosy covered various skin diseases in addition to Hansen’s disease, to which “leprosy” currently refers. But the desperation of the man in this story—a desperation highlighted by the present tense of “comes”—favors Hansen’s disease over comparatively minor diseases of the skin (though one could think of skin cancer). So let’s stick tentatively with “leper” and “leprosy.” People compared this disease to death itself, so that curing a leper seemed like raising the dead (see Numbers 12:9–12; 2 Kings 5:7). Yet Jesus has such power. It takes two expressions, “imploring him” and “falling on his knees,” to convey the full measure of this leper’s desperation. It’s only Jesus’ willingness that stands in question, for the leper doesn’t question Jesus’ ability. In fact, he affirms it. And he doesn’t ask for cleansing in so many words. So all the emphasis falls on “you can cleanse me.” The cure is put in terms of cleansing because leprosy made its victims ritually unclean, so that they had to keep their distance from other people and warn them by yelling, “Unclean! Unclean!” against the possibility of ritual contamination through physical contact (Leviticus 13:45–46). The failure of the present leper to obey this law demonstrates further his desperation. The ability of Jesus to cleanse the leper refers to his ability to cure the leprosy, not to an ability to declare the man ritually clean. For only priests could do that (see 1:44 with Leviticus 13–14).

The notation of Jesus’ compassion points up the goodness of the news about him (compare 1:1). Your hand represents your strength, for you use it in putting that strength to work (see Genesis 31:29: “It’s in the power of my hand”). Therefore Jesus’ stretching out his hand signals his exercise of strength, miraculous strength. His touching the leper despite the leper’s uncleanness (about which see Leviticus 5:3; 13:1–46; Numbers 5:2–3) confirms the prior notation of Jesus’ compassion, as does also the statement of Jesus, “I’m willing [to cleanse you].” “Be cleansed” adds his powerful word to his powerful touch. This word, underscored by the present tense in “he . . . says to him,” is a command. So the leprosy leaves. Its leaving “immediately” accentuates the authority with which Jesus issued his command. The leprosy can’t stay even an instant longer. The immediacy of its departure rules out an effect of ordinary therapy and demands the recognition of a miracle. “And he was cleansed” shows that Jesus’ power to cleanse exceeded the power of leprosy to contaminate him. It also corresponds to Jesus’ powerful command, “Be cleansed,” just as “the leprosy left him [the leper]” corresponded to Jesus’ powerful touch. The doubling up of these statements reinforces the emphasis on Jesus as the one stronger than John.

1:43–44: And growling at him, he [Jesus] immediately thrust him out 44and says to him, “See [that] you don’t say anything to anyone. Rather, go show yourself to the priest and—for the purpose of a testimony to them—offer for your cleansing the things that Moses prescribed.” Jesus’ growling doesn’t display anger. It displays forcefulness—the forcefulness with which he thrusts out the ex-leper (compare 1:12, where the same verb occurred for the Spirit’s thrusting Jesus out into the wilderness) and with which Jesus commands the ex-leper. “Immediately” and the present tense in “he . . . says to him” add to this forcefulness. So also do the two double expressions “See [that] you don’t say . . .” and “go show . . . .” A simple “Don’t say . . .” and “show” would have sufficed, but the additions of “See” and “go” reinforce Jesus’ commands. Why so much emphasis on forcefulness? To anticipate the answer in 1:45, the greater the forcefulness of Jesus’ commands, the greater the tribute to him in the ex-leper’s giving an even more resounding testimony than Jesus told him to give. The command not to say anything to anyone has the purpose, not of keeping Jesus’ miracle secret, but of getting the ex-leper to a priest as quickly as possible (compare Luke 17:14) in order that the priest might confirm the cure officially and in order that upon this confirmation the ex-leper might offer the sacrifices prescribed by Moses as a testimony to others besides the priest concerning Jesus’ miracle. (The priest’s allowing sacrifices for ritual cleansing would confirm that Jesus had performed a physical cleansing.)

1:45: But he [the ex-leper], on going out, began to preach a great deal [about Jesus’ cleansing him] and to publicize the word, so that he [Jesus] could no longer enter a city openly; rather, he was outside in deserted places. And [even there!] people kept coming to him from everywhere. The ex-leper’s going out to preach duplicates Jesus’ having done so in 1:35–38. Since Jesus has been preaching in synagogues (1:39), it appears that the ex-leper exits a synagogue where Jesus cleansed him. The additions of “a great deal” and “to publicize the word” to the ex-leper’s preaching punctuate the spontaneous effect of Jesus’ healing power. Despite the forcefulness of Jesus’ instructions, the ex-leper can’t contain himself. For a testimony to Jesus, preaching and publicizing beat private sacrificing any day. Mark records no criticism of this happy disobedience. So we should think of superobedience, obedience that surpassed Jesus’ instructions. The publicized “word” may be a report concerning the miraculous cleansing or, more specifically, Jesus’ powerful statement, “Be cleansed,” or, more generally, the good news about God and Jesus (compare 1:1, 14; 2:2). The ex-leper’s preaching and publicizing enhance Jesus’ magnetism so much that for the time being he has to stay outside cities in deserted locations. And when he finally does venture into a city, he’ll enter incognito (as implied in 2:1). Meanwhile, so powerful is his magnetism that because of his presence even those deserted locations become centers of population. People “kept coming to him,” and did so “from everywhere.” He’s a magnet so powerful as to erase the limits of time and distance.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS

Mark 2:1–12

This story of Jesus’ exercising authority to forgive sins starts a string of similar stories. In 2:13–17 he’ll exercise his authority to eat with tax collectors and sinners; in 2:18–22 to disallow fasting; in 2:23–28 to let his disciples pluck grain on the Sabbath; and in 3:1–6 to heal on the Sabbath.

2:1–2: And on [Jesus’] entering again into Capernaum, it was heard after [some] days [had passed], “He’s at home!” 2And many [people] gathered together, so that not even the things toward the door [= the open area outside the door but facing it] had room any longer. And he started speaking the word to them. In 1:45 Mark said that Jesus couldn’t enter a city “openly.” So apparently he entered Capernaum a second time (see 1:21 for the first) incognito and succeeded in staying that way for an unspecified number of days. But then news of his presence leaked out: “He’s at home!” Since according to very early tradition Mark got his information from Peter, this statement probably reflects the standpoint of Simon Peter and therefore refers to his and his brother Andrew’s home. Jesus’ magnetism works again. It’s stronger than ever. The crowd fills not only the house but also the area outside its door. Not having room “any longer” implies an overflow crowd, so that some people can’t even get into the open area, restricted as it apparently is despite being outside. “The word” that Jesus starts to speak is “the good news” about “the reign of God” that Jesus himself is bringing in his Spirit-empowered preaching, healings, and exorcisms.

2:3–5: And they [= the four about to be mentioned] come bringing to him a paralytic, being carried by four. By writing “They come” rather than “they came” Mark dramatizes the bringing of the paralytic. “Paralytic” doesn’t necessarily imply the effect of a stroke, but it does indicate some sort of neuromuscular inability to walk. 4And not being able to bring [the paralytic] to him [Jesus] on account of the crowd, they unroofed the roof where he was [= over the spot where Jesus was speaking]. And on digging out [a big hole in the roof], they lowered the mat where [= on which] the paralytic was lying. 5And on seeing their faith, Jesus says to the paralytic, “Child, your sins are being forgiven.” That the paralytic has to be carried shows the severity of his paralysis. The severity will then magnify Jesus’ power in healing him. The crush of the crowd forces the four to climb an outside staircase onto the roof, dig a big hole through it, and lower the paralytic. This crush, the extraordinary effort of the four, and the exhibition of their faith in that effort give further evidence of Jesus’ magnetism. What vigorous faith it inspires! Digging out the hole implies a roof of mud plastered over a network of branches laid over rafters spaced far enough apart to allow passage of the paralytic once a big enough hole is dug. Lowering him to Jesus constitutes a nonverbal but visible request for healing. With the address “Child,” Jesus puts himself in a position of authority over the paralytic. But Jesus doesn’t grant the request for healing, at least not yet. Instead, he pronounces that the paralytic’s sins are being forgiven—right then and there. (But there’s no indication whether the paralysis came by way of divine punishment for the paralytic’s sins, though people then would usually have assumed that it did.) The present tense in “Jesus says” underlines this surprising pronouncement of forgiveness. But who is forgiving those sins? Some Jewish scholars think they know who isn’t forgiving them!

2:6–7: But some of the scholars were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7“Why is this [guy] talking this way? He’s blaspheming! Who’s able to forgive sins except one, [namely,] God?” In 1:22 the scholars appeared as merely unauthoritative by comparison with Jesus. Here they show themselves antagonistic toward him. Their sitting as antagonistic observers contrasts with the active faith of the four who’ve brought the paralytic. The heart was considered an organ of thought, not just of emotions. So “reasoning in their hearts” indicates thinking without speaking. “Blaspheming” means slandering and defines, in the scholars’ opinion, the “way” Jesus “is . . . talking.” Then the question according to which only God can forgive sins gives a basis for the charge of blasphemy. The scholars take Jesus’ pronouncement as the slanderous pirating of an exclusively divine prerogative by a mere human being (for this divine prerogative see Exodus 34:6–7; 2 Samuel 12:13; Psalms 32:1–5; 51:1–2, 7–9; 130:4; Isaiah 43:25; 44:22; Daniel 9:9; Zechariah 3:4). In Mark 1:40–45 Jesus showed himself able to cleanse a leper, but the scholars deny his ability to forgive sins.

2:8–9: And immediately Jesus, knowing with his spirit that they were reasoning this way within themselves, says to them, “Why are you reasoning these things in your hearts? 9What’s easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are being forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and pick up your mat and walk’?” The scholars have said nothing out loud, but Jesus knows what they’re thinking. So for the first time in this Gospel he displays his power of clairvoyance, which is like God’s (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 7:9; 139:1–2, 6, 23; Jeremiah 11:20; 17:9–10). “Immediately” and the present tense in “says to them” stress this power of Jesus. He needs no time to figure things out. “With his spirit” refers to his human spirit, not to the Holy Spirit, and therefore contrasts with “in their/your [the scholars’] hearts” (2:6, 8) and with “in themselves” (2:8). Mark uses “spirit” instead of “heart” or “himself,” and “with” instead of “in,” because “spirit” connotes power (see Isaiah 31:3) and because “with” indicates the means by which Jesus exercises clairvoyance rather than its mere location. It’s easier to pronounce forgiveness of sins than to command a paralytic to rise, pick up his mat, and walk. Nobody can falsify a pronouncement of forgiveness, but inability to obey the commands would unmask Jesus as a pretender. The piling up of three commands in “Rise and pick up your mat and walk” magnifies the difficulty of making obedience possible.

2:10–11: “But in order that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to be forgiving sins on the earth”—he says to the paralytic, 11“I tell you, rise, pick up your mat, and go to your house.” “Son of Man” is a Semitic way of saying “human being.” “The Son of Man” alludes to a human-like figure that Daniel saw in a vision (Daniel 7:13–14). Contrasting with beasts that appeared earlier in the vision, this figure was coming with the clouds of heaven and receiving dominion and a worldwide kingdom. So Jesus changes a comparison (“one like a son of man” in Daniel) into a self-referential title (“the Son of Man”) and transmutes dominion and a worldwide kingdom into authority to forgive sins. Or, better, God’s reigning through him takes here the form of forgiving sins. “The Son of Man” forgives them in God’s stead, then; and “on the earth” as the place where the Son of Man is forgiving sins contrasts with heaven as the unspoken dwelling place of God, who alone can forgive sins according to the scholars. Jesus aims to prove them wrong. “In order that you may know” addresses the scholars’ incredulous reasoning. Building anticipation of the following three commands are Jesus’ leaving his statement to the scholars unfinished, the sudden shift from the plural “you” that addresses the scholars to the singular “you” that addresses the paralytic, the vivid present tense in “he says to the paralytic,” and the “I tell you” that precedes the commands. The ability to obey these commands will confirm Jesus’ authority to be forgiving sins—not just the paralytic’s sins, but sins in general. Inability would disconfirm such authority. The third command, “go to your house,” replaces “walk” in 2:9 and thus contrasts with the paralytic’s having to be brought earlier, presumably from his house.

2:12: And he rose; and immediately, on picking up his mat, he went out in front of them all, so that all were amazed and were glorifying God saying, “We’ve never seen [anything happen] this way!” Jesus wins! His authority to forgive sins on earth is authenticated just as his exorcising an unclean spirit in 1:21–28 authenticated the authority of his teaching. The paralytic’s getting up contrasts with his earlier lying down. Picking up his mat contrasts with his earlier being lowered on it. The immediacy of his picking up the mat underscores the contrast. We expect “he walked” to correspond to Jesus’ question in 2:9, or “he went to his house” to correspond to Jesus’ command in 2:11. Instead, we read “he went out in front of them all,” so that the emphasis falls on the observability of Jesus’ demonstrating his authority as the Son of Man to forgive sins on the earth. “All” strengthens this emphasis. A second “all” tells who are amazed. Even the scholars can’t—and don’t—miss the demonstration, a demonstration such as none of them have seen before. And so the false charge of blasphemy turns into a glorification of God.

THE MAGNETIC POWER OF JESUS OVER TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS AND HIS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO EAT WITH THEM

Mark 2:13–17

2:13–14: And he [Jesus] went out again [from Capernaum, as in 1:35, 38] to the seaside [as in 1:16–20 to call Simon Peter, Andrew, James, and John]. And all the crowd [that saw him prove his authority to forgive sins by healing the paralytic in 2:1–12] were coming to him. His magnetism draws them “all.” None of them can resist it. And he was teaching them. To teach is to exercise verbal authority. Jesus exercises such authority again, this time in the open air, where a larger crowd can gather than could gather in the synagogue where he taught earlier (1:21–22). Mark’s omitting the content of this teaching leaves the emphasis entirely on Jesus’ didactic authority. 14And going along he saw Levi, the [son] of Alphaeus, sitting at [his] tax booth. Levi was collecting taxes from fishermen and/or merchants in the form of tolls on the goods (fish in the case of fishermen) that they were transporting. And he [Jesus] tells him, “Follow me [compare 1:17–18, 20].” And on standing up, he [Levi] followed him. The present tense of “tells” highlights the forcefulness of Jesus’ command. Levi’s standing up and following him replace sitting at a tax booth. Such is Jesus’ magnetism that even absent prior contact with him, Levi forsakes his occupation right in the middle of pursuing it (compare 1:16–20). And that tax collectors were despised sinners magnifies all the more the magnetic power of “God’s Holy One” (1:24).

2:15: And it happens that he [Jesus] was reclining [at table] in his [Levi’s] house. And many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. For they were many and were following him. At special meals diners reclined on cushions laid on the floor. By itself, reclining could signify this kind of meal; and it does so here, as the next verse will make clear. The house of Simon Peter and Andrew (1:29–31; 2:1–2) doesn’t belong to Jesus; nor has either one of them appeared in the present story, and Mark hasn’t said that Jesus had his own house in Capernaum. But Levi has been working there. So “his house” must be Levi’s. “Were reclining with Jesus” implies, though, that “he” who “was reclining” is Jesus. That his and his disciples’ fellow recliners were “many” calls attention to his power of attraction. Tax collectors were noted for their venality and graft, and “sinners” refers in general to the notably wicked. That even such people followed Jesus to Levi’s house and reclined there with Jesus and his disciples magnifies his power of attraction all the more. Mark’s repeating their description as “many” reinforces this point. He omits any indication that Levi invited these tax collectors and sinners, so that the sole emphasis, intensified by the present tense in “it happens,” lies on Jesus’ magnetism.

2:16–17: And on seeing that he’s eating with the sinners and tax collectors, the scholars of the Pharisees were saying to his disciples, “Why is he eating with the tax collectors and sinners?” 17And on hearing [the question], Jesus says to them, “Those who are strong [= healthy] have no need of a physician, but those who are sick [do have need of a physician]. I didn’t come to call righteous [people]—rather, sinful people.” It was customary for outsiders to stand around observing banqueters, as the scholars do here. Pharisees stressed avoidance of moral and ritual contamination. Naturally, then, it’s their scholars who ask accusatorily why Jesus, whom an unclean spirit called “God’s Holy One” (1:24), is hobnobbing with degenerates. Apparently his putdown of the scholars in 2:1–12 leads the Pharisaical scholars here to address his disciples rather than him. They have no luck, though. Jesus hears their question and performs another powerful putdown, this time a purely verbal one, emphasized by the present tense in “says to them.” In the putdown, righteous people correspond to the strong and healthy in the proverb Jesus cites. Sinners correspond to the sick. (Tax collectors drop out for a cleaner contrast with sinners, who include tax collectors anyway.) And Jesus corresponds to the physician. Implied is a correspondence between Jesus’ calling sinners and a physician’s healing the sick. But Jesus is speaking at a meal. Mark hasn’t said that Levi invited sinners to the meal, yet he has said that they were reclining at table not with Levi but with Jesus and the disciples, whom Jesus had called earlier, including Levi most recently. So Jesus’ calling sinners carries the connotation of inviting them to the banquet of salvation, for which he’s the host (see Matthew 8:11; 22:2–14; Luke 13:29; 14:16–24 for salvation as a banquet). Jesus’ application of a medical proverb to the banqueting metaphor knocks out his critics in one blow. It’s useless to ask who the righteous are, whether they’re only self-righteous or really righteous or don’t exist in any sense of the word. The point has to do with Jesus’ calling sinners, against whom the righteous are only a foil that makes the sinners, and Jesus’ authority to call them, stand out in bold relief.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO FASTING

Mark 2:18–22

To Jesus’ authority to eat with tax collectors and sinners Mark adds the authority of Jesus in regard to fasting. 2:18: And John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. And people come and say to him [Jesus], “Why are John’s disciples and the Pharisees’ disciples fasting, but your disciples aren’t fasting?” This John is the baptizer, of course, not John the disciple of Jesus. A question about fasting follows naturally the preceding question about eating (2:16). Mark may even want us to understand that people came and asked their question about fasting while Jesus and his disciples were eating at Levi’s house (2:13–17). We know that Jews considered fasting a very important part of their religious practice. Mark doesn’t identify the occasion of this particular fasting by John’s disciples and the Pharisees, however. So attention focuses on fasting and non-fasting as such and on Jesus’ authority over the matter. The Pharisees’ disciples are the disciples of Pharisaic scholars. These disciples are fasting along with their scholars just as John’s disciples are fasting (though he’s in prison by now [1:14]), all in contrast with Jesus’ and his disciples’ eating. But the accent, buttressed by the present tense in “people . . . say to him,” falls on the practice of disciples, not on their teachers’ practice. This accent lays groundwork for an emphasis on Jesus’ authority over against that of the Pharisaic scholars and John.

2:19–20: And Jesus told them, “The sons of the bridal chamber [= the bridegroom’s attendants] can’t fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? For as long a time as they have the bridegroom with them they can’t fast. 20But days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they’ll fast on that day.” Jesus’ saying implies that he’s like a bridegroom, that his disciples are like the bridegroom’s attendants at a wedding feast, and that his presence with them is like the presence of a bridegroom with his attendants at the feast. It’s not just inappropriate for the attendants to fast during the feast. They can’t fast during it, for otherwise the feast wouldn’t be a feast. So Jesus’ disciples can’t fast while he’s with them. It’s not his teaching that keeps them from fasting. It’s his mere presence that does. The double mention of his presence underlines this point. But the analogy breaks down. In real life a bridegroom isn’t taken away from his attendants; rather, they leave at the end of the feast and he stays. So Jesus’ nonanalogous talk of the bridegroom’s being taken away hints at a violent end to the feast-like ministry of Jesus. On the day of his being taken away (Good Friday) the disciples will fast. (They’ll have eaten a Passover meal the preceding evening.) And that day will be the start of Jesus’ absence during following days. He doesn’t say whether the disciples will fast during them too.

Now Jesus adds two more analogies. They fit the preceding analogy of a wedding feast, because you have to wear good clothes to such a feast and wine flows freely at wedding feasts. 2:21–22: “No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth onto an old garment. Otherwise, the fulness [the part of the patch that overlaps the old garment and is sewn onto it] takes away from it [the old garment]. The new [overlap of the unshrunk patch takes away from] the old [garment], and the rip [that was supposed to be remedied by the patch] becomes worse [because the patch, when washed, will shrink and pull away from the previously washed-and-shrunk rest of the garment]. 22And no one throws [= pours] new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine [swelling with age] will burst the wineskins [already stretched to their limit through prior use], and both the wine and the wineskins are lost [the wine by spilling out when the wineskins burst]. Rather, [people pour] new wine into new wineskins [still expandable].” Just as the bridegroom’s presence precludes fasting at a wedding feast, so the shrinkage of new cloth precludes using it to patch an old garment. And the expansion of new wine precludes putting it into old wineskins. The irresistible forces of shrinkage and expansion illustrate the absoluteness of Jesus’ authority and its incompatibility with old Judaism. As in 2:17, his pronouncement ends the debate almost before it has begun. Such is Jesus’ verbal power.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH

Mark 2:23–28

Like fasting, observance of the Sabbath formed an important part of the Jews’ religious practice. 2:23–24: And it happened that on a Sabbath he was going along through [fields] sown [with grain], and his disciples began to make [their] way, plucking heads of wheat. Note: Jesus isn’t plucking them. Only his disciples are. 24And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look! Why are they doing on the Sabbath what’s unlawful [to do on a Sabbath]?” Plucking heads of wheat counted as harvesting, harvesting counted as working, and working on the Sabbath was prohibited (see Exodus 20:8–11; 34:21; Deuteronomy 5:12 –15, plus Deuteronomy 23:25 for the Law’s allowing passers-through to pluck heads of grain, so that the disciples aren’t accused of stealing). As usual, the Pharisees speak as guardians of the Old Testament law; and they speak to Jesus because as a teacher he bears responsibility for his disciples’ behavior.

2:25–26: And he says to them, “Haven’t you ever read what David did when he had need and got hungry, he himself and the ones with him, 26how he entered into God’s house [= the tabernacle, because Solomon hadn’t yet built the first temple]—at [the section of the Old Testament represented by] Abiathar the high priest—and ate the loaves of presentation, which it’s unlawful to eat, except for the priests, and gave [the loaves] also to the ones who were with him? [see Exodus 25:30; Leviticus 24:5–9; Hebrews 9:2 on the loaves of presentation].” Of course the Pharisees have read 1 Samuel 21:1–6, which tells what David did without blame so far as that scriptural passage is concerned. So they should know better than to criticize the behavior of Jesus’ disciples, and the present tense in “he says to them” emphasizes that they should know better.

Mostly by inference, Jesus reads into 1 Samuel 21:1–6 a number of elements not mentioned there, at least not explicitly: (1) David’s having companions with him; (2) his and his companions’ being needy and hungry; (3) God’s house; (4) David’s entering it rather than merely asking for bread; (5) Abiathar’s being a “high priest,” not just a “priest”; (6) David’s eating the loaves; and (7) his giving some of the loaves to his companions. Jesus also omits David’s deceiving the priest and mentions Abiathar the high priest rather than Ahimelech, who appears in 1 Samuel 21:1–6. But here Abiathar represents a section of the Old Testament, not the priest who gave David the sacred bread. Hence, the translation “at the time of Abiathar” is wrong (see Mark 12:26 for a similarly locative rather than temporal usage). Jesus mentions Abiathar instead of Ahimelech for a link with the added “house of God,” which for Jesus and the Pharisees stood in Jerusalem, where Abiathar officiated (1 Samuel 22:20–23; 2 Samuel 15:24, 35; 17:15; 19:11), not in Nob, where Ahimelech gave bread to David.

According to Jesus, then, David and his companions broke the law by eating the loaves of bread presented to God in the tabernacle and reserved for the priests to eat. But Jesus himself isn’t breaking the law by harvesting on the Sabbath. So David doesn’t represent Jesus. David and to a lesser extent his companions represent Jesus’ disciples instead. The disciples are breaking the law by harvesting on the Sabbath. Jesus doesn’t deny that they are. But by mentioning the need and hunger of David and his companions, Jesus prepares for a statement that humanitarianism trumps Sabbath-keeping. Meanwhile, though, he doesn’t exonerate the disciples by saying that they, like David and his companions, had need and hungered. And neither Mark nor Jesus even says that the disciples ate the wheat they harvested! Harvesting on the Sabbath and Jesus’ authority to allow such harvesting—whatever the rationale he’ll offer for the allowance—make up the only issue at stake.

Now Jesus states the humanitarian purpose of the Sabbath and claims authority to pronounce on that purpose. 2:27–28: And he was telling them, “The Sabbath came into being on account of [= for the sake of] humanity, and not humanity on account of [= for the sake of] the Sabbath. 28And so the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.” A new introduction, “And he was telling them,” lends gravity to Jesus’ following statements. They wrap up the argument. Jesus infers from Genesis 1–2 that since God established the Sabbath after he created humanity, the Sabbath came into being for the sake of humanity rather than vice versa. But he subordinates the humanitarian purpose of the Sabbath to his own authority as the Son of Man (which means “the Human Being”) to lord it over the Sabbath. Since 1:3 used “Lord” for Jesus, we should capitalize it as a divine title for Jesus here too. And it’s this title rather than “the Son of Man” that gets emphasis. “And so” indicates Jesus’ reasoning: since the Sabbath is subordinate to human needs and since he’s no ordinary human being but “the Son of Man/Human Being,” he’s Lord also of the Sabbath. “Also of the Sabbath” adds Jesus the Son of Man’s lordship over the Sabbath to Jesus the Son of Man’s God-like authority to forgive sins on the earth (2:10). So this passage advances from a question about the disciples’ conduct to an affirmation of Jesus’ authority as Lord.

JESUS’ EXERCISING AUTHORITY TO HEAL ON THE SABBATH

Mark 3:1–6

In the preceding story (2:23–28) Jesus was correctly held responsible for his disciples’ harvesting on the Sabbath. Now he himself heals on the Sabbath. 3:1–2: And he entered again into the synagogue [at Capernaum; see 1:21 for Jesus’ first entry]. And a man [= “a human being”] who had a withered hand was there. 2And they [the Pharisees who accused the disciples of Sabbath-breaking in 2:23–28] were scrutinizing him [Jesus] [to see] whether he will heal him on the Sabbath. [They did so] in order that they might accuse him. “A man who had a withered hand” not only recalls “a man with an unclean spirit” in 1:23. It also points to the sort of being (a member of “humanity”) for whose sake Jesus said in 2:27 the Sabbath came into existence and therefore whose benefit would trump the prohibition of working on the Sabbath. In 2:24 the Pharisees had issued Jesus a warning about violating the Sabbath. A second violation would subject him to the possibility of capital punishment (compare Exodus 31:14). Performing a cure on the Sabbath was considered a violation unless the patient’s life was in immediate danger. If it wasn’t, the cure could wait a day. A withered hand didn’t pose an immediate danger of death. So the Pharisees scrutinize Jesus for the purpose of taking legal action leading, they hoped, to his judicial death should he violate the Sabbath a second time (see 3:6). His past violation leads them to look for another one, and his past healings lead them to look for another healing (hence the future tense in “whether he will heal”).

3:3–4: And he says to the man who had the withered hand, “Get up [apparently he was sitting] in the midst [of the Pharisees].” 4And he says to them, “Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath or to do harm, to save life [on the Sabbath] or to kill?” But they kept silent. With his command to get up, Jesus exercises authority. Nor does the malevolent scrutiny of the Pharisees stop him from doing so. “In the midst” prepares for a public demonstration of his healing power that even they won’t be able to deny. They’d denied legality in 2:24. Now he asks a question of legality. As the present tense in “he says to the man” highlights Jesus’ command, so the present tense in “he says to them” highlights Jesus’ silencing question. The Pharisees wouldn’t deny the legality of doing good rather than harm on the Sabbath, of saving life on the Sabbath rather than killing. But they keep silent out of embarrassment over Jesus’ implied argument: healing a withered hand would count as doing good, not healing it as doing harm; and healing it would count as saving life, not healing it as killing. But how could healing a withered hand count as saving life? Well, death is already invading the man by way of his hand. Its witheredness counts as the onset of death for the whole man. So its healing would count as saving life, which is doing good. Having the power to heal it but not doing so would count as killing, as doing harm by letting death continue its invasion of the man. Killing and doing harm are prohibited on every day of the week, most especially on the Sabbath, since it came into being for the benefit of humanity. Saving life and doing good are required on every day of the week, most especially on the Sabbath, again because it came into being for the benefit of humanity (2:27). With this implied argument Jesus once more shows himself Lord also of the Sabbath (2:28).

3:5: And on looking around at them [the Pharisees] with anger, being deeply grieved because of the hardness of their heart he says to the man, “Stretch out the [withered] hand.” And he stretched [it] out, and his hand was restored. Jesus casts angry glances at the Pharisees because their murderous design against him blots out the sympathy they should have for the man with the withered hand. For them, this man is only a potentially handy tool with which to nail Jesus. And Jesus grieves deeply because of their lack of sympathy. Introduced with an emphatic “he says to the man,” Jesus’ powerful command that the man stretch out his hand effects the healing. The hand was stiff, immobile, limp. Stretching it out demonstrated its restoration to health and vitality, to goodness and life.

3:6: And on going out, the Pharisees immediately started plotting with the Herodians against him [Jesus] as to how they might destroy him. “The Pharisees” identifies “they,” “their,” and “them” in the earlier verses of this episode and links them with the Pharisees in the preceding episode, which deals with the same issue of the Sabbath. Because Jesus’ argument for doing good by saving life on the Sabbath has dealt them a forensic defeat, they can’t take legal action against him by charging him with the capital crime of breaking the Sabbath a second time. Instead, they plot to assassinate him. So far as we can tell, the Herodians with whom they plot are supporters of Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee under Roman sponsorship. Herod Antipas wasn’t a Jew. So ordinarily the Pharisees, who stressed Jewish purity, would be at loggerheads with the Herodians. But they need the Herodians’ political “pull” in an effort to get Jesus killed. “Immediately” indicates that the conspiracy hatches on this very Sabbath. On the day that Jesus does good by saving life they conspire to do harm by assassinating him. That is, on the Sabbath they conspire to kill the “Lord of the Sabbath” (2:28 [compare 11:18; 12:12; 14:1]).

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF MAGNETIC POWER YET AGAIN

Mark 3:7–12

3:7–8: And Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a multitudinous multitude followed [him] from Galilee. And hearing how many things he was doing, a multitudinous multitude came to him from Judea 8and from Jerusalem [south of Galilee] and from Idumea [even farther south] and Transjordan [east of the Jordan River] and [from] around Tyre and Sidon [north of Galilee]. The conspiracy against Jesus’ life in 3:6 leads him to withdraw. But his admirers outnumber his enemies and refuse to let him out of their sight. There’s safety in numbers; and these numbers are humongous, as the two occurrences of “multitudinous multitude” attest. (The phrase sounds humorously odd in English, but it’s true to Mark’s emphatic Greek.) One such multitude follows from the region where he’s been ministering. Another such multitude comes to him from great distances though they’ve only heard of his many exploits. Such is his magnetism. Despite the distances they no sooner hear than they come. The Baptist drew only from Judea and, within it, especially from Jerusalem. Jesus is stronger (1:7).

3:9–10: And he told his disciples that a small boat should be ready for him on account of the crowd, lest they crush him. 10For he had healed many, so that as many as had afflictions were falling on him [= were bearing down on him] in order that they might touch him. The multitudinous multitudes provide safety from the plotting Pharisees and Herodians—yes. But these multitudes themselves pose a danger, a too-friendly one, of crushing Jesus (compare 5:24, 31). This danger highlights his magnetism all the more. And the magnetism rests on the high number of those he has healed, so that without exception (“as many as”) those who were afflicted bear down on him with the understanding that to heal them he won’t even have to touch them. They’ll only have to touch him, so radiant is his power (compare 5:27–34; 6:56).

3:11–12: And whenever they saw him, the unclean spirits were falling toward him [that is, prostrate before him] and shouting out, saying, “You’re the Son of God.” 12And he was insistently reprimanding them that they not make him manifest. Repeatedly and invariably the unclean spirits declare Jesus’ divine sonship. At his baptism God delightedly declared him to be his beloved Son (1:9–11). Here the unclean spirits self-defensively declare Jesus to be God’s Son (compare Satan’s backhanded acknowledgment in 1:13). As in 1:24, the unclean spirits hope that their knowledge of Jesus’ identity will shield them from his power. And to their verbal declaration they add the body language of falling toward him (a wordplay on afflicted people’s falling on him in 3:10). But at this point Mark isn’t interested in exorcisms. He doesn’t quote Jesus as issuing any commands that the unclean spirits come out. Much less does he say that any of them did come out—any more than he had said that Jesus healed sick people on this occasion. In fact, Mark doesn’t even mention the people whom the unclean spirits possessed. His sole point consists in the magnetic power of Jesus that irresistibly draws vast multitudes, including the afflicted, and even obeisant unclean spirits. So powerful a crowd-drawer is he that he has to shut up the unclean spirits repeatedly and insistently. If he doesn’t, their publicizing his divine sonship will heighten the danger of his being crushed by ever larger multitudes. He has to put a limit on his magnetism (compare 1:45; 9:30). The effort succeeds, since he doesn’t have to use for an escape the small boat he told his disciples to get ready for him.

THE APPOINTMENT OF TWELVE APOSTLES AS EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ OVERWHELMING MAGNETISM

Mark 3:13–19

Jesus has attracted so many people that he has to have helpers. 3:13–15: And he goes up a mountain and summons those whom he himself wanted. And they came away [from the multitudes] to him. 14And he appointed twelve (whom he also named “sent ones” [the meaning of the traditional translation “apostles”]) in order that they might be with him and in order that he might send them to preach 15and to have authority to cast out demons. The mountain gives Jesus a position of authority as he surveys the multitudes below. Then he summons those he wants. The addition of “himself” to “he” emphasizes his will as the determining factor. Further emphasis accrues from the present tense in “he goes up a mountain and summons . . . .” The statement that those he wanted “came away [from the multitudes] to him” underscores the powerful effect of his summons. Since in 4:10 the Twelve will appear among a larger group of Jesus’ insiders, it looks as though he here summons more than the Twelve he appointed (see also 6:7 with 6:1; 9:35 with 9:31; 10:32 and 11:11 with 11:1, 9; 14:17 with 14:12). Superiors name inferiors, as when Adam named the animals in Genesis 2:18–20 and when God gave Jacob a new name in Genesis 32:22–32.[1] So Jesus’ naming the Twelve “apostles” exhibits his superiority. To leave the emphasis there, Mark doesn’t say why Jesus settled on the number twelve. As noted, “sent ones” defines “apostles.” But “apostles” connotes in addition the authority to speak and act on behalf of the sender, in this case Jesus, authority rather like our legal power of attorney and the authority of an ambassador plenipotentiary. Such authority therefore amounts to a multiplication of Jesus’ authority via the apostles’ preaching and exorcisms. The content of their preaching isn’t important to Mark here. It’s the multiplication of Jesus’ authority in their preaching that Mark puts forward. The awkwardness of the expression “send them . . . to have authority to cast out demons” emphasizes the same point in regard to exorcisms. (We’d expect the simpler “send them . . . to cast out demons.”) “Also named apostles” underlines this multiplication, necessitated as it is by the throngs attracted to him. And being “with him” will prepare the apostles to carry out their commission.

3:16–19: And he appointed the Twelve. And he put on Simon the name Peter. 17And [he appointed] James the [son] of Zebedee and John the brother of James, and he put on them the names Boanerges, which is [= means] “sons of thunder.” 18And [he appointed] Andrew and Philip and Bartholomew and Matthew and Thomas and James the [son] of Alphaeus and Thaddaeus and Simon the Cananaean 19and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him. To introduce a list of the Twelve, Mark repeats their appointment, first mentioned in 3:14. Strikingly, though, instead of saying that Jesus appointed Simon, he says that Jesus put on him the name “Peter.” As explained in connection with Jesus’ naming the Twelve “apostles,” the act of naming exhibits the superiority of the namer over the named. So Mark is emphasizing Jesus’ superiority. Mark’s Greek-speaking audience would understand the meaning of “Peter,” which is Greek for “stone” (less usually for “rock”). So Mark doesn’t need to translate it. We’d expect Simon’s brother Andrew to be mentioned next (see 1:16). But to reemphasize Jesus’ superiority, Mark follows with James and John, because Jesus puts a name on them too. It’s Boanerges, which Mark translates as “sons of thunder” because it’s Aramaic. His Greek-speaking audience wouldn’t understand it apart from a translation. It’s one name, but Mark uses the plural “names” because of its plural “sons” and because of Jesus’ putting it on two apostles. Thus Mark doubles his emphasis on Jesus’ authoritative act of giving James and John a new name. Mark doesn’t say why Jesus gave new names to Simon, James, and John. The interest focuses solely on Jesus’ exercise of authority as John the baptizer’s “stronger one” (1:7). “Cananaean” is Aramaic for “zealot” (whether religious or political or both), but Mark doesn’t translate it, because Jesus didn’t give that name to this other Simon. Not representing Jesus’ exercise of authority, then, it doesn’t interest Mark except for its helping distinguish this Simon from Simon Peter. Similarly, “the [son] of Alphaeus” distinguishes a James from James the son of Zebedee and brother of John; and “Iscariot” distinguishes Judas the betrayer of Jesus from Judas the brother of Jesus (6:3, where the name is traditionally brought into English as “Jude,” though in Mark’s Greek it’s the same as “Judas”). “Who also betrayed him” doesn’t imply that others, too, betrayed Jesus. It only sets the treachery of this Judas’s coming betrayal of Jesus over against Jesus’ trust in appointing him.

THE DERIVATION OF JESUS’ POWER FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT

Mark 3:20–35

Jesus has just appointed the twelve apostles to send them with his authority to preach and cast out demons. But where does this authority come from? 3:20–22: And he goes home [that is, to Peter’s home; see the comments on 1:29 and especially 2:1]. And the crowd comes together again, so that they [Jesus and the Twelve, whom he has just appointed to be “with him” (3:14)] couldn’t even eat bread [= a meal]. 21And on hearing [of Jesus’ arrival at Peter’s home in Capernaum], his [Jesus’] kinfolk came out [from Nazareth] to seize him; for they [the kinfolk] were saying, “He’s gone out of his mind.” 22And the scholars who’d come down from Jerusalem were saying, “He has Beelzebul” and “He’s casting out demons by the ruler of the demons.” Mark can’t let go of Jesus’ magnetism. Nor does he want to, for it illustrates Jesus’ power. So he highlights the magnetism with the present tense in “[Jesus] goes home” and “the crowd comes together again.” The crowd here is the same as the one that gathered earlier at Peter’s home in Capernaum (1:29–34; 2:1–4). Inability even to eat a meal because of the crowd heightens the effect of Jesus’ magnetism. Mark doesn’t tell just how the crowd kept Jesus and the Twelve from eating. It would be easy to speculate, but doing so would hazard our missing that the omission centers attention on the magnetism as such. In 3:31–32 the kinfolk will turn out to be members of his immediate family, his mother and brothers. But for now their attempt to seize him sets up a contest of power, theirs versus his. Again Mark omits to say just what it was that made them say Jesus had gone out of his mind. But the scholars from Jerusalem supplement the kinfolk’s statement by saying that Jesus has Beelzebul. In other words, Jesus’ having gone out of his mind according to his kinfolk left a void that according to the scholars Beelzebul now fills. And since Beelzebul rules the demons, the scholars go on to say that Jesus casts them out by exercising Beelzebul’s authority over them. Despite the scholars’ antagonism toward Jesus, their having come down from Jerusalem (“down” because Jerusalem was situated in the hill country of Judea and Jesus is presently located in Capernaum, well below sea level) pays tribute again to his magnetism.

3:23: And on summoning them [the scholars, but not the kinfolk (see 3:31) or the crowd, who are already gathered around Jesus (3:20, 32)], he was telling them in parables [= speech that deals in comparisons], “How can Satan cast out Satan?” So Jesus identifies Beelzebul, ruler of the demons, with Satan, and also identifies Satan with the demons that Jesus has been casting out. That is to say, Satan is bonded with the demons subject to him. Otherwise Jesus would have said, “How can Satan cast out the demons he rules over?” instead of “How can Satan cast out Satan?” It’s as though the bond between Satan and the demons is something like the bond between God and members of his kingdom. So it’s just as absurd that Satan would use Jesus to cast out Satan’s own demons as it’s absurd that God would use Jesus to cast out God’s own subjects. Jesus therefore goes on to say in 3:24: “And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom can’t stand.” Civil war makes a kingdom easy prey for invaders. And since kingdoms are ruled by royal households, Jesus continues in 3:25: “And if a [royal] household be divided against itself, that household can’t stand.” Strife within a royal family makes it easy prey for usurpers.

Now Jesus applies the comparisons that constitute those parables. 3:26: And if Satan has [in fact] risen up against himself and been divided, he can’t stand [that is, he can’t survive as the demons’ ruler]; but he has an end [that is, his time as their ruler is finished].” So Jesus argues that Satan has not risen up against himself in Jesus’ performance of exorcisms, nor does that performance give evidence of a self-defeating division within Satan’s domain. He’s suffering a downfall, though, one that portends his end. He’s coming to an end, but not because of internal strife—rather, because of incursion from without. 3:27: “But no one is able on entering into the house of a strong man [that is, the household and kingdom of Satan] to plunder his property [that is, demon-possessed people] unless he ties up the strong man first [as Jesus the stronger one has done]. And then he’ll plunder his house [by rescuing demoniacs from their possessor].” The undeniable fact that Jesus has performed exorcisms therefore proves three things: (1) Satan’s rule is coming to an end; (2) it’s not coming to an end because Jesus is casting out demons by Satan; and (3) it’s coming to an end because as Satan’s antagonist Jesus is stronger than Satan just as he’s stronger than the Baptist.

3:28–30: “Amen I tell you that all will be forgiven for the sons of men, [that is,] the sins and the blasphemies (however many [sins] they may commit by uttering blasphemy [= slander]); 29but whoever utters a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit has no forgiveness for eternity. Rather, he’s guilty of an eternal sin.” [He said this] 30because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Jesus has shown the scribes the absurdity of their charge that he casts out demons by the ruler of the demons. Here he shows them the seriousness of their charge that he has Beelzebul. “Amen I say to you” stresses this seriousness. The charge itself attributes the power of the Holy Spirit at work in Jesus to the power of Beelzebul, whom he earlier called “Satan” but now calls “an unclean spirit” to contrast him with “the Holy Spirit.” Since the scholars should have been saying, “He has the Holy Spirit,” such a scurrilous attribution constitutes slander against the Holy Spirit. And this slander will never, ever be forgiven. Jesus doesn’t say why it won’t. His authority is such that it’s enough to know that he said so. “The sons of men” means human beings. “However many [sins] they may commit by uttering blasphemy” shows that “the sins and the blasphemies” means “the sins consisting in slanders apart from the one against the Holy Spirit.” And in view of Jesus’ call to repentance and belief in the gospel (1:15; 2:17), “all will be forgiven” means that all the blasphemous sins of those who repent and believe will be forgiven. “All” and “however many” highlight by contrast the one kind of blasphemy that will never be forgiven. Earlier scholars accused Jesus of blasphemy (2:6–7). On a far higher register and with unmatched authority he returns the compliment on the present scholars. Since forgiveness of sin means a sending away of sin from the sinner, “has no forgiveness for eternity” means that the sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit sticks to the blasphemer forever and ever. By applying Jesus’ declaration to the scholars’ charge, Mark implies that Jesus has consigned these scholars to eternal unforgiveness much as he exercised the divine prerogative of forgiving sins in 2:1–12. The scholars have no answer. He has beat them at their own game. So the one unforgivable sin—that of interpreting in the worst possible way the Holy Spirit’s working through Jesus—arises out of a determination not to repent and believe the gospel.

3:31–32: And his mother and his brothers come; and standing outside, they sent [word] to him, calling him. 32And a crowd was sitting around him; and they say to him, “Behold, your mother and your brothers outside are seeking you!” “His mother,” “his brothers,” and “his sisters” now identify the kinfolk mentioned in 3:21 as Jesus’ immediate family. (Since Jewish men usually married women a number of years younger than they, Joseph the husband of Mary and foster father of Jesus is presumably dead by now; for otherwise he’d probably be mentioned.) The present tense of “come” points up the surprise in their arrival. Literally, their standing “outside” means outside the house. Symbolically, it means outside the circle of Jesus’ disciples, consisting of the Twelve plus the crowd sitting around him (see 4:10–12). By sending word to him and calling him, these kinfolk try to usurp his role; for he’s the one who calls people to himself (1:16–20; 2:14, 17; 3:13). But because they lack his authority, their call will prove ineffective. At first those who inform Jesus of his family’s seeking him seem to be the just-mentioned crowd sitting around him. But in 3:33–35 he seems to be speaking to others about the crowd. So the informers are probably the scholars from Jerusalem (3:22), whom he has been addressing since 3:23 and whose own words have been quoted as recently as 3:30 (“because they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’ ”). They and his family act in concert. Naturally, they don’t tell him his family have come “to seize him” (3:21) and consequently leave the impression that the family are seeking him innocently. Unknowingly to the scholars, their echoing Mark’s “outside” reemphasizes the family’s not belonging to the circle of Jesus’ followers.

3:33–35: And answering them [probably the scholars], he says, “Who is my mother, and [who are] my brothers?” 34And looking around at those sitting in a circle around him [“the crowd” of 3:32], he says, “Look! My mother and my brothers, 35for whoever does the will of God—this person is my brother and sister and mother.” “In a circle” indicates a closed group which Jesus’ mother and brothers have failed to penetrate and to which as nondisciples they don’t belong. They’re outsiders, and their calling him has proved ineffective, their seeking to seize him unsuccessful. He’s stronger than they are. The strength of biological family ties in ancient Jewish culture highlights by contrast Jesus’ authority to declare for himself a family of a different kind. He doesn’t say what God’s will is that these insiders are doing. So the accent stays on the authority of Jesus’ pronouncement. Though some manuscripts mentioned his biological sisters in 3:32, he doesn’t mention them in 3:33. So his mentioning a new kind of sister in 3:35 looks like an addition. His biological sisters hadn’t come calling; but the insiders crowded around him did include younger women. So he includes them. But “father” is missing in Jesus’ family of disciples, not only because his probably deceased foster father hadn’t come with his biological mother and brothers, but also because God is the sole Father in this new kind of family. All in all, then, Jesus has the Holy Spirit, not the unclean spirit Beelzebul, and therefore has the authority to form a supernatural family rather than having to submit to search and seizure by his natural family.

JESUS’ SPEAKING IN PARABLES TO ESTABLISH GOD’S REIGN AMONG THE DISCIPLES AND TO SHUT OUT NONDISCIPLES

Mark 4:1–34

Jesus’ use of several parables in 3:23–27 now prompts Mark to introduce a large batch of parables. After an introduction in 4:1 we hear a parable about seeds and soils in 4:2–9, a statement about the meaning and purpose of parables in 4:10–12, an explanation of the parable about seeds and soils in 4:13–20, parables about a lamp in 4:21–23, about a measure in 4:24–25, about a growing seed in 4:26–29, about a mustard seed in 4:30–32, and an editorial conclusion in 4:33–34.

4:1: And again he began to teach beside the sea [see 2:13 for Jesus’ first teaching at seaside]. And a huge crowd gathers together to him, so that on getting into a boat he was sitting in the sea; and all the crowd were on the land [facing] toward the sea. “Began to teach” forecasts extensive teaching and puts more emphasis on the teaching than a simple “was teaching” would have done. Jesus’ taking the authoritative posture of a teacher in antiquity—that is, sitting—suits Mark’s emphasis on the didactic authority of Jesus (compare 1:22, 27). Mark’s description of the crowd as “huge” joins the present tense of “gathers” to emphasize Jesus’ magnetism and prepare for a distinction within the crowd between insiders (the Twelve plus others making up Jesus’ true family according to 3:31–35) and outsiders (nondisciples [see 4:10–12 for the distinction]). That “all the crowd” turn their attention toward him adds to the emphasis on his magnetism. His sitting “in the sea” sounds odd, but it makes a nice contrast with the crowd’s being “on the land,” which in turn portrays the crowd as the soil of the upcoming parable and its explanation (4:5, 8, 20). That is to say, by teaching in parables Jesus will be sowing the seed of “the word” on “the land/soil” of the crowd.

4:2–7: And he was teaching them much in parables and saying to them in his teaching, 3“Hear! Behold, a sower went out to sow [seeds].” Mark piles up two more references to teaching for further emphasis on Jesus’ didactic authority. “Much” adds to this emphasis yet further and means “extensively” (till evening, as will become clear in 4:35). Appropriately for the didactic authority with which Jesus fills this day, he starts with a command: “Hear!” In other words, “Listen to the parable I’m about to tell you.” “Behold” reinforces the command. 4“And it happened that in the sowing, a [seed] fell on the edge of a path; and birds came and devoured it.” The sower didn’t deliberately sow any seed on the path; but in sowing as close to it as possible, a seed fell on its edge. There the hardness of the soil, packed down by human traffic, left the seed exposed to voracious birds. 5“And another [seed] fell on rocky [ground], where it didn’t have much soil; and immediately it rose up out of [the ground] because of not having depth of soil. 6And when the sun rose up, it [the sprout of the seed] was scorched; and because of not having root, it was dried out [by the sun].” Rocky soil doesn’t mean soil strewn with stones. It means soil that thinly covers a substratum of rock. It’s disputed whether thinness of soil leads to rapid growth because heat from the sun concentrates in the thin layer, whether nourishment concentrates in the upper part of the plant because of lack of space for a root, or whether dew saturates the thin layer of soil and causes rapid growth. Either the sower doesn’t know that rock lies immediately below the surface, or the seed falls accidentally on the rocky ground. With depth of soil (and rainfall), sunshine would have made for healthy growth. 7“And another [seed] fell into thorns; and the thorns came up and choked it, and it didn’t bear fruit.” Seed of last year’s thorns may lie buried in this patch of soil, or the sower’s seed accidentally falls among dried up thorns from the previous year. But the stress falls so much on the present thorns’ coming up and choking the sprouted seed that the sprouting of the sower’s seed doesn’t even get mentioned. For the first time a failure to bear fruit does get mentioned, though; and its mention prepares for a contrastive result in the last stage of the parable. The first seed never got a chance to “grow.” The second started growing but died. The third grew but didn’t produce any grain.

4:8–9: “And other [seeds] fell into good soil and were bearing fruit by coming up [breaking through the soil] and growing [reaching maturity], and one [seed] was yielding thirtyfold and one sixtyfold and one a hundredfold.” The other seeds turn out to be three in number (“one . . . one . . . one”) for a contrast with the three seeds that fell on bad soil. The contrast defines good soil as receptive rather than hard like that of the path, as deep rather than thin like that overlying some rock, and free of competition rather than infested like that containing thorns. Jesus mentions the yielding of fruit before he mentions the seeds’ breaking through the soil and reaching maturity. This reversal of chronological order underlines the happy circumstance of fruit-bearing. The thirtyfold yield is good, the sixtyfold yield better, and the hundredfold yield best of all—a crescendo of success. 9And he was saying, “[The person] who has ears to hear [with] had better hear!” Jesus started with a direct command to his audience that they listen to this parable: “You [plural]—hear!” Now he both individualizes the command (“who has” [singular]) and makes it indirect (“who has” [rather than “You”]) to include anyone outside as well as inside his immediate audience, so that anyone in the audience of Mark’s Gospel is included, for instance. Such a person is supposed to put his ears to good use by listening to the parable, which in 4:13–20 Jesus will interpret as a parable about different kinds of hearing. Having ears to hear with doesn’t imply there are people without ears. It only emphasizes the usefulness of ears for hearing.

4:10–12: And when he [Jesus] came to be alone [as regards the crowd of outsiders, nondisciples], the ones around him with the Twelve were asking him about the parables. 11And he was telling them, “To you has been given the secret of God’s reign; but to those outside, all things are happening in parables 12in order that ‘though seeing they may see and not perceive [what they’re seeing] and though hearing they may hear and not understand [what they’re hearing], lest they turn back [from their unbelief in the gospel of God (compare 1:15)] and it [their unbelief] be forgiven them’ [see Isaiah 6:9–10 for the quoted phrases].” The description of Jesus as alone—despite the presence of the Twelve and other disciples surrounding him as his true family (3:33–35)—calls attention to his excluding the outsiders. “Those” stresses this exclusion by indicating the distance that separates them from Jesus and his insiders. It was the outsiders’ as well as insiders’ presence that made the earlier crowd “huge” (4:1). The insiders ask Jesus about the parables because as his true family they do God’s will, because to do it they must know it, and because to know it they have to understand the parables Jesus tells about it. But he has told only one parable on this occasion and to this crowd. Why then do the insiders ask him about “the parables [plural]”? The plural anticipates some further parables in this chapter and implies that Mark advances the insiders’ inquiry out of chronological order. He does so to emphasize Jesus’ judgmental purpose—so far as outsiders are concerned—in speaking these parables to them. Parables to be spoken by Jesus on future, dissimilar occasions, like the one in 12:1–12, will be understood even by outsiders. But they haven’t repented and believed his plain speech about the gospel of God (see 1:15 again). So for the present, Jesus uses unexplained figurative language to keep the secret of God’s reign hidden from them. Such is the penalty for not hearing the plain speech correctly. An equal emphasis falls on the giving of this secret to those who have heard correctly by doing God’s will as expressed in Jesus’ earlier plain preaching and teaching. This giving consists in Jesus’ explaining the parables in private to the insiders. For them the secret turns into an open secret. There’s no such “giv[ing]” to the outsiders, though. It’s just that “all things happen” to them in parables—“all things” rather than “the secret” to stress the completeness of Jesus’ judgment on outsiders. He won’t give them even a shred of truth beyond what they’ve already rejected.

4:13–19: And he [Jesus] says to them [the insiders], “You don’t understand this parable, do you? And [as a result] how will you understand all the parables?” The present tense of “says” stresses the point of these questions, which is that understanding the parable about different kinds of soil holds the key to understanding other parables spoken on this occasion. 14“The sower sows the word [= ‘the good news of God’s reign’ (1:14–15; compare 1:45)].” So if you don’t understand the parable that tells you how to hear this word, and how not to hear it, how will you understand the parables that tell you what the word says? 15“But these [people represented by the first kind of soil] are the ones on the edge of the path where the word is being sown; and whenever they hear [it], Satan comes immediately and takes away the word that was sown in them.” So act on the word as soon as you hear it, for Satan will take advantage of even the slightest delay. 16“And these [people represented by the second kind of soil] are the ones being sown [in the sense of receiving seed] on the rocky [places], who whenever they hear the word receive it immediately with joy.” Their immediate reception of the word contrasts with Satan’s immediate removal of the word in the preceding case of people who don’t receive the word immediately. “With joy” reflects the goodness of the news about the arrival of God’s reign, gives the reason for immediate reception of this news, and suggests that the preceding folk didn’t receive it immediately because they missed its goodness and therefore failed to see in it anything to be glad about. The switch from “rocky [ground]” (singular) to “rocky [places]” (plural) is due to the plurality of the people represented. 17“And they have no root in themselves; rather, they’re temporary. Then, when affliction or persecution comes about because of the word, they’re immediately tripped up.” They have no root in themselves because they themselves are the thin soil into which the seed falls. Their thinness represents the superficiality of the reception they give to the word, a superficiality that translates into temporariness. “Tripped up” translates into apostasy so as to escape the antagonism of unbelievers. Sadly, the immediacy of this apostasy cancels the immediacy of their joyful reception of the word. 18“And others are the ones being sown among thorns. They’re the ones who’ve heard the word; 19and the concerns of this age [as opposed to concern for their eternal fate] and the seductiveness of wealth and the cravings for the remaining things [that characterize worldly success], by entering into [the lives of these people], choke the word; and it becomes unfruitful.” So the thorns stand for this-worldly concerns.

4:20: “And those are the ones sown on the good soil, who as such hear the word and welcome [it] and bear fruit, one [seed bearing] thirtyfold and one sixtyfold and one a hundredfold.” “Those” distances the people who not only hear the word but also welcome it and bear fruit from the people who upon hearing the word dilly-dally, wilt under pressure, or let other matters crowd in and don’t bear fruit. The crescendo in the rate of fruit-bearing indicates abundant success when the word is heard well. But Jesus doesn’t identify the fruit with anything, such as good works, evangelism, or eternal life. The emphasis lies solely on welcoming the word immediately, then, so that Satan doesn’t get a chance to snatch it away; on welcoming it deeply, so that persecution because of it doesn’t induce apostasy; and on welcoming it exclusively, so that other concerns don’t stifle it. The secret consists, then, in the current establishment of God’s reign, not by conquest, but by speaking the good news, so that a person gets on the right side of God’s reign by hearing the word in right ways.

4:21–23: And he was saying to them, “A lamp isn’t brought to be put under a peck-measure [a two-gallon basket or bowl used to measure dry goods] or under a bed, is it? [A lamp is brought] to be put on a lampstand, isn’t it? 22For nothing is hidden [in a parable] except that it might be disclosed [by way of explanation to the disciples]. Neither does anything get concealed [in a parable] except that it might come into the open [again by way of explanation to the disciples]. 23If anyone has ears to hear [with], he’d better hear!” Mark jumped ahead both to Jesus’ explanation of the purpose of the parables (4:10–12) and to his explanation of the meaning of the parable concerning seeds and soils (4:13–20). Jesus gave those explanations to his disciples in private. As will come out in 4:33–34, Mark now goes back to Jesus’ addressing the huge crowd that included nondisciples in addition to disciples, just as when Jesus told the parable of the seeds and soils. The command to hear at the tail end of this parable about a lamp repeats the command at the tail end of the parable about seeds and soils and thus revives the theme of hearing. But this time the point is that you’d better hear Jesus’ plain speech in the right ways (explained in 4:13–20) if you want to get an explanation of the parables. Jesus tells the parables in order to shed light on the secret of God’s reign; but they shed such light only when Jesus explains them, and he explains them only in private to his disciples. So become his disciple by repenting and believing his plain speech about the arrival of God’s reign, that is, by hearing the plain speech in right ways. Otherwise you’ll be left in the dark when it comes to the secret of that reign.

4:24–25: And he was saying to them, “Watch out what way you hear! With the measure that you measure with, it’ll be measured to you.” In other words, Jesus will treat you according to the way you treat—that is, hear—his plain speech about God’s reign. “And it’ll be added to you.” In other words, Jesus will add an explanation of his parables to the parables themselves if you’ve heard his plain speech in right ways. 25“For [the person] who has [enough]—it’ll be given to him.” Just as it takes some money to make more money (to use a modern analogy), it takes the right hearing of Jesus’ plain speech to get an explanation of the parables in addition to the parables themselves. “And [the person] who doesn’t have [enough], even what he has will be taken away from him.” In other words, just as if you don’t have enough money to invest you’ll lose what little money you do have by spending it on necessities, you’ll lose the meaning of the parables (by being excluded from the audience of their explanation) if you don’t hear Jesus’ plain speech in right ways.

4:26–29: And he was saying, “God’s reign is like this—as if a man were to throw seed on soil 27and sleep and rise night and day, and [as if] the seed were to sprout and become long. How [this happens] he himself doesn’t know. 28By itself the soil yields fruit, first a stalk, then an ear, then full grain in the ear. 29And whenever the fruit is ripe, immediately he [the man] sends the sickle, because the harvest has arrived.” Jesus doesn’t need to explain this parable to the disciples any more than he needed to explain the parables of a lamp and a measure in 4:21–25. For the explanation of the parable of soils carries over well enough. As in that parable, throwing seed on soil represents preaching the word (4:3, 14). Since it produces fruitful growth, the soil in this parable matches the good soil in that parable and therefore implies hearing the word in right ways. But implication isn’t emphasis. Here the emphasis falls on the mysterious power of the soil and seed—that is, of the well-heard word of the gospel—to produce a fruit-bearing plant. Jesus spells out its stages of growth, eventuating in a harvest, to highlight this power. Jews usually counted nighttime as the first part of a twenty-four hour day, daytime as its second part. So Jesus puts sleeping before rising and night before day. And to distance the man from any contribution to the growth of the seed into a harvestable plant, Jesus doesn’t even call him a sower or say that he sows the seed. Jesus calls him only “a man,” reduces sowing the seed to “throw[ing]” it, and has the man merely sleeping throughout the night and rising throughout the day rather than tending the crop during its growth. “By itself” locates the power of the soil and seed entirely outside the man’s activity; and sending the sickle, where we’d expect the man to wield the sickle himself, distances him yet again. Nor does he determine the time of harvest. The ripeness of the fruit does, so that he sends the sickle “immediately.” He’s under compulsion. It’s hard to imagine how Jesus could have laid more emphasis on the unaided power of God’s reigning through the well-heard word of the gospel. The parable of the soils stressed different ways of hearing this word. The parable of the lamp stressed the purpose of revealing the hidden meaning behind the word to those who hear well. The parable of the measure stressed the means of revelation, that is, the adding of explanations to parables for those who have heard Jesus’ plain speech well. And now the parable of the growing seed has stressed the marvelous process of fruition resulting from Jesus’ well-heard word.

4:30–32: And he was saying, “How should we liken God’s reign, or in what parable [= comparison] should we put it? 31[It’s] like a grain of mustard, which [grain] when it’s sown on soil, though it [the mustard] is smaller than all the seeds on the earth—32and when it’s sown it comes up and gets larger than all the vegetable plants and produces large branches, so that the birds of the sky can take shelter under its shade.” Again the interpretation of the parable of the soils (4:13–20) carries over well enough to eliminate any need for an interpretation of this parable. Just as in that interpretation, the sown seed stands for the heard word; and the large size of the mustard plant and its branches stands for the success of God’s reign through its being preached just as the thirty-, sixty-, and hundredfold harvest stood for that same success. Only here the accent doesn’t fall on hearing the word rightly as the ground of success. The accent falls, rather, on the current magnitude of this success in Jesus’ preaching—and this by way of contrast with the small beginning of God’s reign at the start of Jesus’ preaching. In the land of Israel a mustard seed was the smallest seed that could be seen with the naked eye. But Jesus doesn’t even call the mustard “a seed.” He calls it “a grain” that’s “smaller than all the seeds on the earth,” not “the smallest of all the seeds on the earth.” Similarly, “it . . . becomes larger than all the vegetable plants,” not “the largest of all the vegetable plants.” The hyperbole of making the mustard grain less than a seed and the grown mustard more than a vegetable plant highlights the contrast between a small beginning and the large outcome. The absence of a sower, and even of a thrower of seed (contrast 4:26–29), concentrates attention on this contrast. The double use of both “all” and “large(r)” and the added reference to birds’ taking shelter from the sun under the mustard plant’s shade top off the contrast (compare Daniel 4:12, 21; Ezekiel 17:23; 31:6).

4:33–34: And with many such parables he was speaking the word to them as they were able to hear. 34But apart from a parable he wasn’t speaking to them, but privately he was explaining all things [in the parables] to his own disciples. “Many” implies more parables than Mark records here, and “such” implies that they—like the ones he has recorded—also had to do with Jesus’ bringing the reign of God through his powerful preaching and teaching. Speaking the word about God’s reign corresponds to the parabolic sowing of seed. The limitation of private explanations to the disciples (a larger group than the Twelve [4:10]) shows that “them” to whom Jesus spoke many such parables consisted of the huge crowd, which included nondisciples as well as disciples, and therefore revives the theme of Jesus’ judging with obscure speech those who hadn’t believed his plain speech. Since it took private explanation for even the disciples to understand these parables, the ability of the huge crowd to hear can’t mean an ability to understand. It must refer to their ability to listen, that is, to their attention span or to the time they could afford for listening. The description of Jesus’ disciples as “his own” reminds us that in contrast with unbelieving outsiders, they’re insiders who as those who believed his plain speech got an explanation of his obscure, parabolic speech. That the explanation covered “all things” in the parables contrasts with Jesus’ judgmentally hiding “all things” in parables from outsiders.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE WIND AND SEA

Mark 4:35–41

4:35–36: And he [Jesus] says to them [“his own disciples” of 4:34] on that day, when evening had come, “Let’s go through [the Sea of Galilee] to the other side [the east side].” 36And on leaving the crowd they take him along, just as he was, in the boat [from which he’d spoken to the huge crowd on shore (4:1–2)]; and other boats were with him. Since these other boats contain disciples in addition to the Twelve, who presumably have joined him in the boat from which he told parables, the phrase “with him” stresses the insider status of these additional disciples even though they’re in boats other than the one in which Jesus and the Twelve are traversing the lake. The boatloads of disciples in addition to the Twelve testify again to his magnetism, as though they like the Twelve have left all to follow him. And the present tense in “they take him along” points up the obedience of all of them to his exhortation, “Let’s go . . . ,” just as the present tense in “he says to them” stresses the exhortation itself.

4:37–38: And a great gale of wind came about, and waves were breaking over into the boat, so that the boat was already being filled. 38And he [Jesus] himself was in the afterdeck sleeping on a headrest. And they arouse him and say to him, “Teacher, you care that we’re perishing, don’t you?” Magnifying the threat of death by drowning are (1) the description of the windstorm as “a great [that is, powerful] gale”; (2) the breaking of waves over into the boat; and (3) the boat’s being filled with water “already” (that is, quickly). So overwhelming are the elements that the Twelve appear unable to bail out the water and ride out the storm. But Jesus sleeps the sleep of utter calm, neither because he’s tired (so far as Mark is concerned) nor because he trusts in God (for Jesus will still the storm himself). He sleeps because he knows his own ability. The afterdeck being elevated, Jesus could sleep there above the hold that was already being filled with water. The present tense in “they arouse him and say to him” highlights the disciples’ alarm. “Teacher” reflects Jesus’ having just taught in parables and explained them. The disciples assume that he does care that they, including him, are perishing; but their failure to ask him to do anything—even to pray God for deliverance—betrays their lack of faith in his divine power. They don’t yet recognize his deity.

4:39–40: And on rising up [to his full height], he reprimanded the wind and told the sea, “Be quiet! Be muzzled and stay that way [so we can complete this voyage]!” See the comments on 1:25 for “Be muzzled!” And the wind abated, and a great calm came about. 40And he said to them, “Why are you craven? Don’t you have faith yet?” We’d expect Jesus to ask these questions before stilling the storm. So stilling the storm first puts emphasis on his reprimanding the wind and commanding the sea, on the stilling effect of the reprimand and commands, and on the disciples’ not needing to have cowered through lack of faith. Adding to this emphasis are (1) Jesus’ speaking to both the wind and the sea and commanding the sea twice; (2) Mark’s doubling the effect by writing both about the wind’s abatement and about the coming of calm; and (3) Mark’s description of the calm as “great” for a counterpoint to his having described the gale as “great.” Literally, the command that the sea shut up means, “Be muzzled and stay that way [so we can complete this voyage]!” (compare 1:25). Since the Old Testament portrays God as the one who reprimands and stills the stormy sea, which represents the power of chaos, Jesus’ doing the same exhibits his deity (see Job 26:11–12; Psalms 65:7; 66:6; 106:9; 107:29–30; Nahum 1:4). No wonder the following reaction of the disciples!

4:41: And they feared a great fear and were saying to one another, “Who then is this, [seeing] that both [or ‘even’] the wind and the sea obey him?” For lack of faith the Twelve had been scared of the storm. Now they react with a reverential fear of Jesus. The combination of a verb, “feared,” and its noun-object, “fear,” and the description of the fear as “great” highlight this reaction of theirs. The greatness of the fear matches the greatness of the calm that reversed the greatness of the gale of wind. The Twelve’s speaking to one another rather than to Jesus gives further evidence of how great was their fear of him. “Then” draws a deduction from the wind’s and the sea’s obeying him and underscores the Twelve’s recognition of his authority. They’ll get an answer to their question, “Who . . . is this . . .?” in 5:7 (“Son of the Most High God”), though Mark’s audience already know this answer from 1:1, 11 and though the Twelve should have known it from what was narrated in 3:11. At the moment, however, Jesus looms too large for their comprehension. To still the storm he didn’t even need to pray or adjure it in God’s name. He has successfully exercised his authority over demons, over diseases, and over what modern people call nature. He’s the Godman.

JESUS’ WINNING A DOUBLE VICTORY OVER LEGION

Mark 5:1–20

5:1: And they came to the other [east] side of the sea, [specifically,] to the region of the Gergasenes. Early manuscripts are divided between the readings “Gergasenes,” “Gadarenes,” and “Gerasenes.” But the city of Gadara lies about five miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee, and Gerasa even farther—about thirty miles—southeast of the sea, whereas this story requires a location having a hillside sloping steeply into the sea (5:13). Gergasa meets this requirement. Moreover, the going “away” and preaching “in the Decapolis” (5:20) fits Gergasa because it isn’t part of the Decapolis (a league of ten cities), whereas both Gadara and Gerasa are part of it and therefore wouldn’t require a going away from the region. Furthermore, copyists would find it easy to substitute the better known cities of Gadara and Gerasa for the relatively obscure Gergasa.

5:2–5: And when he [Jesus] had come out of the boat, immediately a man with an unclean spirit, [coming] out of the tombs, met him—3[a man] who had his dwelling in the tombs. And no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain, 4both because of his having been bound many times with shackles [on his feet and legs] and chains [on his hands and arms] and [because of] the chains’ having been torn apart by him and the shackles’ having been shattered [by him]. And no one was strong enough to subdue him. 5And continuously, night and day, he was yelling and lacerating himself with stones in the tombs and in the mountains. The immediacy of this demoniac’s confronting Jesus signals the drama to follow. The description of the demon as an “unclean spirit” suits the demoniac’s dwelling in tombs and coming out of them, for corpses and bones of the dead convey ritual uncleanness. (Tombs were cave-like rooms naturally or artificially formed in rock, or small room-like structures.) Tombs represent death; and ancient people regarded mountains as places of peril (not as places of refuge from the pressures of civilization as in much modern thinking). The demoniac’s yelling evinces torment, and his lacerating himself evinces the life-destroying aim of the spirit that possesses him. The night-long and day-long continuity of the yelling and self-lacerating sharpens this aim. So the story is building up to a life-and-death struggle over the demoniac between Jesus and the unclean spirit. John the baptizer had proclaimed the Holy Spirit-empowered coming one—Jesus, as it turned out—to be stronger than he. But will Jesus prove himself stronger than this man possessed by an unclean spirit? Jesus has done so with previous demoniacs, but Mark takes multiple pains to stress the unusually great power of this demoniac by indicating (1) the inability of anyone to bind him; (2) the uselessness even of chains on the hands and feet and shackles on the feet and legs; (3) the failure of past efforts at binding him; (4) the large number of those failed efforts; (5) his having torn the chains apart and shattered the shackles; and (6) his having grown stronger in that nobody can now subdue him well enough to bind him again with shackles and chains. This confrontation will test Jesus’ strength, then.

5:6–8: And on seeing Jesus from a distance, he ran and prostrated himself before him. Even at a distance he recognizes the threat to him that Jesus poses. The spirit inspires this recognition, of course, and prompts the demoniac’s running to Jesus. The running indicates desperation to get rid of Jesus. Yet right off the bat the demoniac’s bowing face down to the ground toward Jesus shows recognition of Jesus’ superiority. The immediately preceding stress on the great power of this demoniac gives his prostration a sharp point. 7And yelling with a loud voice, he says, “What do I and you have to do with each other, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God not to torture me.” The demon has been torturing the man but wants not to be tortured by Jesus. The loudness of outcry displays further desperation, and the present tense of “says” dramatizes it. Since knowledge is power, by indicating a knowledge of Jesus’ name and status as the Son of the Most High God (that is, higher than all other supposed gods), the demoniac’s question constitutes an attempt to disempower Jesus and thus disengage him. The unclean spirit’s adjuring Jesus by God not to torment it consists in its trying to make Jesus swear in God’s name that he won’t torment the spirit by casting it out. (Though the spirit is personal, the use of “it” for the spirit avoids confusion with the possessed man.) Usually, adjuring occurs in formulas of exorcism, so that by using this verb the unclean spirit is trying to turn the tables on Jesus by exorcising him out of the region, and in the attempt is using the most potent name possible, “God,” short for “the Most High God,” which immediately precedes. The attempt will fail, though, because—as this unclean spirit itself knows—Jesus is God’s Son. And not only God’s Son but also, as Mark’s audience know, God’s beloved Son, in whom he’s delighted (1:11). 8For he [Jesus] had been saying to him, “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.” That the spirit hadn’t yet come out despite Jesus’ having commanded it to do so shows how difficult a case he’s dealing with. The spirit isn’t just resisting. It’s counterattacking with an adjuration. But the greater the difficulty, the greater will be Jesus’ victory.

5:9–10: And he [Jesus] was asking it [the unclean spirit], “What [is] your name?” And it says to him, “Legion [is] my name, because we’re many.” 10And it was imploring him urgently that he not send them outside the region. Now we find out the reason for the difficulty of this case and for the demoniac’s unusually great strength: the unclean spirit is in fact “many.” Many indeed, as stressed by the present tense of the introductory “says.” For a legion in the Roman army normally consisted of about 6000 footmen, 120 horsemen, and a number of auxiliaries. Small wonder that nobody has been able to bind or subdue this demoniac successfully! The spirits hadn’t come out, then, because Jesus had addressed them as though they were only one (“you unclean spirit” [5:8]). By irresistibly forcing them to reveal their name, and thereby their number, Jesus gains the advantage over them. Realizing he has gained it, they resign themselves to being cast out of the man and are reduced to begging that Jesus not send them outside the region. How different this groveling from their bold adjuration of Jesus earlier on!

5:11–13: And there on the mountain [in our terms, the hillside] a large herd of pigs was feeding. 12And they implored him, saying, “Send us into the pigs in order that we may enter them.” Though the ritual uncleanness of the pigs fits the uncleanness of the spirits, Mark makes nothing of the fit; nor does he explain how it was that such unclean animals were feeding on the mountain. His only point is that their presence gives the spirits hope of gaining a new host, the herd of pigs, whose large number would accommodate the spirits’ large number. As recognized even by them, Jesus has the authority not only to exorcise them but also to tell them where to go next. He grants their request, and by now they’re so cowed that he doesn’t even have to repeat his earlier command to come out. They just do. 13And he permitted them. And on coming out, the unclean spirits entered the pigs; and the herd rushed down the slope into the sea, about two thousand [of them], and were drowning in the sea. The spirits almost succeeded in an effort to destroy the life of their human host. Now they succeed fully in an effort to destroy the lives of their porcine hosts. Though this success displays an exercise of great power over the pigs, it also highlights Jesus’ exercise of even greater power over the spirits—this for the benefit of their former victim’s life.

5:14–17: And those who’d been herding them [the pigs] fled and reported [the incident] in the city [of Gergasa] and in the [nearby] hamlets. And they [the people of Gergasa and hamlets] came to see what it was that had happened. 15And they come to Jesus and see the demoniac, the one who’d had Legion, sitting clothed and sane. And they feared [Jesus]. 16And those who’d seen [the incident] related to them how it had happened to the demoniac and about the pigs. 17And they [probably the herdsmen, plus the city- and countryfolk] started imploring him to go away from their borders. The herdsmen’s flight and report and the city- and countryfolk’s fear show them all awestruck at Jesus’ exercise of power. The present tense in “they come . . . and see” dramatizes the effects of the report and of the coming. It’s as though we’re viewing those effects in real time. The ex-demoniac’s sitting contrasts with his former breaking loose from chains and shackles. His being clothed contrasts with the nakedness implied by his lacerating himself formerly. And his sanity contrasts with his earlier incessant yelling as he dwelt among the tombs and roamed the mountains. The herdsmen have already reported to the city- and countryfolk the incident as such. Now they relate how it happened. We’re tempted to think that the people of the region implore Jesus to leave because they fear further loss in addition to that of the pigs if Jesus sticks around. But Mark doesn’t say so. He states only the people’s fear at seeing the man de-demonized by Jesus. The awesome power of Jesus leads them to implore him just as the unclean spirits had implored him, and imploring him to leave their borders recollects those spirits’ trying to exorcise him out of their region. But such is his authority that he can’t be ordered about. He can only be implored.

5:18–20: And as he [Jesus] was getting into the boat, the ex-demoniac was imploring him that he [the ex-demoniac] might be with him [compare Jesus’ choosing the Twelve “in order that they might be with him” (3:14)]. 19And he didn’t let him, but says to him, “Go home to your [family] and report to them how many things [the details of deliverance from demon-possession and of restored tranquility, attire, and sanity] the Lord has done for you and how much he had mercy on you.” 20And he [the ex-demoniac] went away and began proclaiming in the Decapolis how many things Jesus had done for him. So the Lord who had done these things is none other than Jesus (see 1:2–3 for another equation of the Lord with Jesus). And all marveled. The ex-demoniac’s imploring to be with Jesus contrasts with his earlier attempt to ward off Jesus and with the people’s imploring Jesus to leave. The contrast exhibits how marvelously and mercifully Jesus has acted as the Lord by delivering him. Apparently the ex-demoniac’s family haven’t come with the others to see for themselves; so Jesus commands him to tell them. The present tense in “he . . . says to him” underlines Jesus’ command to go tell them over against the ex-demoniac’s plea to stay with Jesus. But he exceeds Jesus’ command by going off and making proclamation throughout the ten cities called the Decapolis. Such is the effect on the man of Jesus’ mercifully powerful deed. And its effect on those who heard it proclaimed was that they marveled—not just some of them, but all of them.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER DEATH

Mark 5:21–43

This section starts with an introduction to the story of Jairus’s daughter, proceeds to the story of a woman with a continuous flow of blood, and ends with a conclusion to the story of Jairus’s daughter.

5:21–24: And when Jesus had crossed again in a boat to the other side [the west side of the Sea of Galilee], a large crowd gathered to him; and he was at seaside. So strong is Jesus’ magnetism that no sooner does he come ashore than a large crowd meets him. They make up for the Gergasenes’ imploring him to quit their borders. 22And one of the synagogue rulers, Jairus by name, comes and, on seeing him, falls at his feet 23and implores him urgently, saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death. Come so as to lay [your] hands on her in order that she may be saved [from dying] and live [= get well and live a healthy life].” The present tense of “comes,” “falls,” and “implores” highlights the urgency of Jairus’s plea. His daughter will turn out to be twelve years old (5:42); so he uses “My little daughter” as a term of endearment. Death has come so close that saving her will count as saving her life. The combination of salvation and life may carry overtones of the salvation that consists in eternal life (see 9:43, 45; 10:17, 26, 30). 24And he [Jesus] went away with him [Jairus], and a large crowd was following him [Jesus] and crushing him. Jesus’ going away with Jairus shows an intention to save the daughter’s life. Remention of the large crowd revives Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ magnetism. Their following him and crushing him heighten the magnetism and prepare for the next episode, in which the woman with a continuous flow of blood won’t stay incognito despite coming in the crowd behind Jesus.

By interrupting the story of Jairus’s daughter this next episode intensifies the already existing suspense. Will Jesus arrive at Jairus’s home too late to save the daughter’s life? After all, she’s at death’s door. It was nip and tuck even without an interruption. 5:25–29: And a woman who’d had a flow of blood for twelve years 26and suffered much at the hands of many physicians and spent all her resources and was benefited not one bit but rather went [from bad] to worse—27having heard about Jesus, on coming in the crowd from behind [him], she touched his clothing. 28For she’d been saying [to herself], “If I but touch his clothes, I’ll be saved.” As in 5:23, “be saved” may again carry overtones of eternal salvation. Mark piles detail on detail to present a worst case scenario: (1) twelve years of a blood-flow (but not of hemorrhaging, which connotes heavy bleeding such as the woman couldn’t have survived for twelve years); (2) a high degree of suffering at the hands of physicians; (3) exhaustion of all the woman’s resources in payment to the physicians; (4) the lack of any benefit whatever; and (5) her getting worse. The case seems hopeless, but hearing about Jesus gives her hope, and more than hope: faith so strong as to believe that merely touching his clothing will save her from her malady and, because of the crowd and her approaching him from behind, will save her without his even noticing either her or her touch. Such is Jesus’ reputation for power. Sure enough, his power radiates right through his clothing: 29And immediately the fountain of her blood dried up, and she knew with her body that she is healed of her affliction [literally, “of her whip” or “lash” as a figure of speech for the torment caused by her malady]. By contrast with the past twelve years of suffering at the hands of physicians yet going from bad to worse, the immediacy of the woman’s cure underlines Jesus’ power to save. So too does the hyperbolic magnification of her malady from a mere “flow” of blood to a “fountain” of blood and to torment comparable to a whipping—a pretty long one at that! Knowing with her body that she’s healed means that she feels the flow of blood stop. At long last there can be no doubt of her cure. She’s healed for good. The Greek verbal form behind “healed” indicates permanence. Jesus’ power has eliminated any possibility of a relapse.

5:30–34: And immediately knowing in himself the power that had gone out of him, Jesus—on turning around in the crowd—was saying, “Who touched my clothes?” 31And his disciples were saying to him, “You see the crowd crushing you and you’re saying, ‘Who touched me?’ ” 32And he was looking around to see the one [feminine in the original Greek] who’d done this. 33And the woman, fearing and trembling, knowing what had happened to her, came and fell down toward him and told him the whole truth. 34And he said to her, “Daughter, your faith has saved you. Go in peace and be well [= free] from your affliction.” The word behind “power” can also be translated with “miracle,” for by definition a miracle is an act of power. In this case, then, we shouldn’t think of the power as an attribute of Jesus that enabled him to work a miracle. “The power” is the miracle, an act of power. Jesus’ knowing “in himself” the act of power that healed the woman is due to its originating in him. He’s so charged with it that it goes out from him even when he doesn’t will it to do so. But he knows when it goes out, and he knows it goes out through mere contact with his clothing if the contact is accompanied by faith. As indicated by his turning around to see who touched his clothing, he even knows in what direction the act of power went out from him and therefore knows that the woman approached him from behind. The immediacy of all this supernatural knowledge matches the immediacy of the woman’s being supernaturally healed when she touched his clothing. The disciples’ remark could be taken as an astonished exclamation (“and you’re saying, ‘Who touched me?’!”) or as a sardonic question (“and are you saying, ‘Who touched me?’?”) or simply as an ironic observation (“and you’re saying, ‘Who touched me?’ [Hmmm]”). In any case, their incomprehension puts Jesus’ knowledge in bold relief. The woman’s fear, trembling, and prostration before him bear witness to his supernatural knowledge. Her telling him “the whole truth” bears witness to his supernatural act of power. His addressing her with “Daughter” links her story with that of Jairus’s daughter and portrays the woman as a member of Jesus’ true family of disciples, that is, as a daughter of God the Father and therefore as Jesus’ sister (see 3:31–35). “Your faith has saved you” confirms her healing and shows that it wasn’t her touch as such that saved her—rather, her faith that led her to touch his clothing. “Has saved” indicates the permanence of her healing just as “is healed” did in 5:29. The “peace” of well-being replaces her earlier torment. And the commands to go and be well guarantee her future of well-being.

5:35–36: While he [Jesus] was still speaking [to the healed woman], people come from the synagogue ruler’s [house], saying [to him], “Your daughter has died. Why still bother the teacher?” 36But Jesus, on overhearing the word being spoken [the report and the question], says to the synagogue ruler, “Don’t fear. Just believe.” It looks hopeless, as emphasized by the present tense in “people come.” For they come with news of the daughter’s death The episode of the woman with a blood-flow has delayed Jesus’ arrival at the house of Jairus ever so slightly. (Jesus “is still speaking” to her.) In the meantime, though, Jairus’s daughter has died. Too late to heal her now. The people who bring the news don’t use the endearing expression “little daughter”—just “daughter.” She isn’t theirs. Jesus’ overhearing the report and the question leads him to tell Jairus to ignore them. Jesus himself certainly does. Despite the daughter’s death, Jairus has only to believe, as emphasized now by the present tense in “Jesus . . . says.” Jesus doesn’t tell Jairus what to believe. Jesus hasn’t raised anybody from the dead before. So what he’ll do will come as a surprise.

5:37–40a: And except for Peter and James and John the brother of James, he [Jesus] didn’t let anyone follow along with him. 38And they come into the synagogue ruler’s house, and he sees an uproar and [people] weeping and wailing loudly. 39And having gone into [the house], he says to them, “Why are you making an uproar and weeping? The little child hasn’t died; rather, she’s sleeping [and will wake up].” 40aAnd they started laughing him to scorn. Mark doesn’t say why Jesus allowed Peter, James, and John to enter the house with him. But if—as very early church tradition indicates—Mark got the information for his Gospel from Peter, the presence of Peter enabled Mark to include this story. In preparation for a command to secrecy in 5:43, Jesus doesn’t allow the remaining nine of the twelve disciples or the huge crowd following him to enter. For the same reason he’ll throw the weepers and wailers out of the house. Their weeping and loud wailing emphasize the seeming tragedy of a youthful death and also the seeming hopelessness caused by Jesus’ late arrival. He’s so sure of raising her from the dead, though, that he compares her condition to sleep rather than death. Calling her a “little child” picks up on the father’s having called her his “little daughter” (5:23) and thus shows Jesus’ sharing the father’s affection for the girl. The mourners’ scornful laughing indicates they think Jesus has made a ridiculously ignorant diagnosis. The joke will be on them.

5:40b–42b: But on throwing them all out [of the house], he himself took along the little child’s father and mother and those with him [that is, Peter, James, and John] and entered [the room] where the little child was. “He himself” puts Jesus in opposition to those who were laughing him to scorn. Throwing them out exhibits his authority. Just as the father and Jesus endearingly called the child “little,” now Mark does too. 41And on grasping the little child’s hand, he says to her, “Talitha koum,” which translated [from the Aramaic] means, “Little girl, I’m telling you, get up [= ‘rise’]!” 42a–bAnd she stood up immediately and started walking around, for she was twelve years old. Jairus had implored Jesus to come and lay his hands on the girl for her healing (5:23). But she’s no longer sick. She’s dead. So he grasps her hand. Mark doesn’t say Jesus raises her, though. Mere contact is enough, as in the case of the woman with a flow of blood. The gesture of Jesus, plus his commanding the girl to get up, empowers her to do so. In talking about her, Jesus called her “the little child” (5:39). In talking to her he affectionately calls her “Little girl.” Mark’s quoting Jesus’ original Aramaic, introducing it with the present tense in “he says to her,” and inserting “I’m telling you” into the translation accentuate the empowering command. Even a dead person hears and obeys him! The immediacy of her standing up and walking around clamps together as closely as possible—and as cause and effect—Jesus’ handgrasp and command and the girl’s coming back to life. The handgrasp and command generate so much power that they need no time to take effect. “For she was twelve years old” not only links up with the twelve years the woman had suffered a blood-flow. It also rules out that her repeated description as “little” meant she was too young to have learned to walk.

JESUS’ INVALIDATION OF UNBELIEF BY MEANS OF ASTONISHING MIRACLES

Mark 6:1–6a

This next story pits the unbelief of Jesus’ fellow townspeople against the faith of the woman with a blood-flow and of Jairus in the preceding story (5:21–43). In view of Jesus’ miracles, Mark invalidates the unbelief.

6:1: And he [Jesus] went out from there [that is, from Jairus’s house] and comes into his hometown. According to 1:9, 24, Jesus’ hometown is Nazareth. But Mark writes “hometown” instead of “Nazareth” to make the point that the people there should have taken pride in their native son. And his disciples follow him. Because he’ll summon the Twelve for a mission in 6:6b–13, here “his disciples” probably includes a larger group of disciples from among whom he later summons the Twelve (compare the “other boats” of disciples that were with him and the Twelve in a sea-crossing at 4:35–36). In preparation for the unbelief of Jesus’ fellow townspeople, the present tense of “comes” headlines the arrival of Jesus there; and the present tense of “follow” foregrounds the discipleship of his followers for a contrast with the unbelief of the townspeople.

6:2: And when the Sabbath came, he started teaching in the synagogue [compare Jesus’ “going out” to preach “in synagogues” in 1:38–39, 45]. And while hearing [him], many were awestruck, saying, “From where does this [guy] have these things [his wisdom and miracles, as the next two questions make clear]? And what [are] the wisdom that has been given to this [guy] and the miracles such as are taking place through his hands?” As in 1:21–22, 27, Mark highlights the stunning effect of Jesus’ teaching rather than specifying its content. This effect confirms yet again John’s description of Jesus as “stronger” than he (1:7). “Many” doesn’t imply that others weren’t awestruck. It implies, rather, that the awestruck hearers were many, not few, so that all the more emphasis falls on the authority of Jesus’ teaching. Their raising questions about it even before he finishes—that is, while he’s still teaching—heightens this authority by exhibiting the immediacy of its stunning effect. This effect derives in particular from the wisdom Jesus displays in his teaching and from his miracles that accompany it (compare the conjunction of authoritative teaching and exorcism, also with stunning effect, in 1:21–28). Again Mark doesn’t detail Jesus’ wisdom or miracles, but cares only about the power of their effect. But being awestruck doesn’t necessarily equate with faith, or lead to it, and here does not. Each of the fellow townspeople’s first two questions features a contemptuous “this [guy].” The first question implies an outside source (“From where . . . ?”) for Jesus’ wisdom and miracles. The townspeople won’t give Jesus credit for them, so that in the second question they say that the wisdom has “been given” to him and that “his hands” are only an instrument used by the miracles, which “are taking place” by their own effort, not his. Yet “such as” stresses how remarkable these miracles are. And “what [are] the wisdom . . . and the miracles . . . ?” adds consternation over their nature to the earlier question of their source. Because of unbelief the townspeople, awestruck as they are, simply don’t know what to think about the power of Jesus’ wisdom and miracles. Unbelief leaves it unexplainable.

The townspeople’s questions continue in 6:3: “This [guy] is the carpenter, isn’t he, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas [traditionally translated ‘Jude’ to distinguish him from Judas the betrayer of Jesus, though the names are identical] and Simon? And his sisters are here with us, aren’t they?” Familiarity breeds contempt. Surely a local carpenter couldn’t teach authoritatively and work stupendous miracles on his own. We know not only Jesus, but also his mother, brothers, and sisters; and they’re unexceptional. Why then should we attribute his wisdom and miracles to him and therefore believe in him? So his fellow townspeople think. Mark’s audience know that identifying Jesus as a carpenter misses his identity as the one stronger than John (1:7); that identifying him as Mary’s son misses his identity as God’s beloved Son (1:1, 11; 3:11); and that identifying him as Mary’s son (again) and brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon and of unnamed biological sisters misses his identity as the nonbiological son and brother of those who do God’s will (3:31–35). Besides Jesus’ brothers named James, Simon, and Judas, the New Testament mentions two other Jameses, two other Simons, and two other Judases (though one of the Judases will apostatize by betraying Jesus [see 3:31–35 with 3:16–19; Luke 6:16; John 14:22]). And they were taking offense at him spoils with unbelief their being “awestruck” at his wisdom and miracles (6:2). To take offense is to fall into a trap, figuratively speaking. Unbelief has trapped these people. By identifying Jesus as himself the source of his wisdom and miracles (1:21–22; 5:20), Mark tries to rescue people from falling into the trap of unbelief.

6:4–6a: And Jesus was saying to them, “A prophet isn’t dishonored except in his home town and among his relatives and in his house.” So Jesus considers himself a prophet, among other things, or at least compares himself to a prophet so far as being dishonored by his fellow townspeople, extended family, and immediate family is concerned (see 3:20–21, 31–35 for the unbelief of Jesus’ immediate family). 5And he couldn’t do there even one miracle, except that by laying [his] hands on a few sick people he healed [them]. “Not even one miracle” sounds absolute. But just as the townspeople heard stunning wisdom in Jesus’ teaching, they saw stunning miracles. So “not even one miracle except that . . .” implies that Jesus’ healing power has elsewhere demonstrated itself so profusely that the present working of only a few miracles hardly counts (see 6:8; 10:18 for similar exceptions after seemingly universal negatives). Though only few, however, the miracles stunned the townspeople. 6aAnd he was marveling on account of their unbelief. Not lack of power on Jesus’ part, then, but the townspeople’s unbelief kept him from performing the multitude of miracles that he’d been performing elsewhere (see especially 1:32–34). He marvels that familiarity breeds unbelief despite the stunning effect of his wisdom and miracles, which the unbelievers can’t deny and don’t even try to deny. Mark’s point: Jesus’ acknowledged wisdom and miracles invalidate unbelief.

JESUS’ EXTENDING HIS AUTHORITY THROUGH THE APOSTLES

Mark 6:6b–29

After summoning the Twelve and giving them instructions, Jesus sends them on a mission that extends his authority through their preaching, exorcisms, and miraculous healings (6:6b–13). The resultant enhancement of his reputation causes people and King Herod (Antipas, not his father Herod the Great of the nativity stories in Matthew and Luke) to come up with various identifications of Jesus (6:14–16). Herod’s identification of Jesus as John the baptizer risen from the dead leads to a flashback concerning the arrest, imprisonment, and beheading of John by Herod (6:17–29).

6:6b–7: And he [Jesus] was going about the towns in a circuit [around his hometown of Nazareth], teaching [as he went]. 7And he summons the Twelve and started sending them two by two, and he was giving them authority over unclean spirits. Again Mark doesn’t specify what Jesus was teaching and thus showcases the authority with which he was teaching. As emphasized by the present tense of “summons,” he exercises that same authority in summoning the Twelve and sending them. “Two by two” conforms to the law that two or three witnesses suffice to establish a matter (here, the necessity of repentance according to 6:12 [see Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15]). And giving the Twelve authority over unclean spirits shows that Jesus has so much of such authority that he can, and does, dole it out to others for use as his qualified representatives. They will preach and heal as well as exorcise demons (6:12–13), but for the moment Mark singles out the most dramatic extension of Jesus’ authority, its extension through the Twelve over a wider geographical range than Jesus alone can reach.

6:8–9: And he ordered them that they should take nothing for the road [= journey] except a staff only: no bread, no bag, no copper [= small change consisting of copper coins, less valuable than gold and silver coins] for the belt [of cloth in whose twisted folds coins could be kept]. 9Rather, [he ordered them that they should be] shod with sandals. “And you shouldn’t put on two tunics [= robes worn under an outer robe and next to the skin].” These orders display Jesus’ authority over the Twelve. In addition, though, giving his authority to them means that those to whom they minister will be obligated to give them board and room, so that the Twelve shouldn’t take food, a knapsack for carrying it, even small change to buy food or rent a room, or an extra tunic for warmth in case of having to sleep outdoors. Jesus allows only a pair of sandals to protect their feet when walking from place to place, and a staff to steady themselves in mountainous terrain and perhaps also to fend off wild animals that might attack them between towns.

6:10–11: And he was telling them, “Wherever you enter into a home, stay there until you go out from there.” In other words, don’t move from one home to another in a locality. Stay in one home till you leave town. The authority I give you requires your host to keep you as long as you stay there. 11“And whatever locality [meaning the people of the locality] doesn’t welcome you and doesn’t listen to you—for a testimony against them shake out [of your clothing] the dust under your feet as you go out [the dust under your feet that you kicked up with the result that it settled in your clothing].” So the Twelve have Jesus’ authority to pronounce judgment with body language on those who refuse them and their message. And because it’s Jesus’ authority, the judgment is certain.

6:12–13: And on going out [from Jesus’ presence], they preached that people should repent [of their sins (compare 1:4–5, 15)]; 13and they were casting out many demons [for which function as well as preaching he chose the Twelve according 3:14–15] and anointing with olive oil many sick people and healing [them]. Armed with Jesus’ authority, that is to say, the Twelve do exactly what he has been doing and thereby extend the scope and impact of that authority over human behavior, over demonic possession, and over disease. The “many” of both their exorcisms and their healings multiply by twelve the “many” of Jesus’ exorcisms and healings (1:34; 3:10) and counterbalance the fewness of his healings in 6:5 because of people’s unbelief. The Twelve’s use of olive oil, then used not only for cooking and lamp fuel but also as a soothing medicament, makes them healers-once-removed. It’s not by their personal touch that they heal, but only through Jesus’ power, which miraculously speeds up the effect of the olive oil. This episode also shows a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that he’d make the disciples—in particular, two pairs of brothers (compare “two by two” here in 6:7)—“fishers of human beings” (1:16–20). In addition to Jesus’ powers of teaching, exorcism, and healing, his power of prediction will gain more and more prominence as Mark proceeds. Indeed, so great is his authority that his predictions determine the future.

6:14–16: And the king, [namely] Herod [Antipas], heard. Officially, this Herod wasn’t a king; but Mark conforms to popular usage. Herod certainly ruled Galilee (west of the Sea of Galilee) and Perea (east of the Jordan River). Mark doesn’t say what Herod heard. He’s interested in why Herod heard. For his [Jesus’] name [including his reputation] had become prominent; and people were saying, “John the baptizer has been raised from among the dead; and on account of this [his having been raised], miracles are at work in him.” 15But others were saying, “He’s Elijah [come back from heaven, to which he was translated without dying according to 2 Kings 2:1–12 and from which he was to return according to Malachi 4:5].” And others were saying, “[He’s] a prophet, like one of the prophets [in the Old Testament].” So Herod hears because Jesus’ name and reputation have become so publicly prominent that people are making religiously heroic identifications of him. The preaching, exorcising, and healing activities of his representatives, the Twelve, have enhanced that reputation. The identification of Jesus with a raised John shows the great length to which some people have gone for an explanation of Jesus’ miracles. Yet to say that “the miracles are at work in him” is not only to grant the actuality of Jesus’ miracles. It’s also to deny that he himself works them. It’s to say he’s only their instrument (compare 6:2). The identification of Jesus with Elijah is less remarkable, because Elijah was predicted to return and because he hadn’t died. And the identification of Jesus as a prophet similar to earlier prophets is even less remarkable. Herod, though, opts for the first, most remarkable identification: 16But on hearing, Herod was saying, “[The man] whom I myself had beheaded, John—this [one] has been raised.” Herod didn’t behead John, but he had him beheaded. Combined with the reference to beheading, the setting of “I myself” over against “this [John]” betrays alarm on Herod’s part that the man he himself had had beheaded must be alive and well and gaining a reputation that sets abuzz the whole countryside over which Herod rules.

The flashback to John’s beheading now forms a kind of footnote to Herod’s thinking that John has come back to life. 6:17–20: For Herod himself, on sending [some soldiers], had seized [= arrested] John and bound him [presumably with chains] in a prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because he [Herod] had married her. 18For John had been saying to Herod, “It’s unlawful for you to have your brother’s wife” [see Leviticus 18:16; 20:21]. 19And Herodias had it in for him [John] and was wanting to kill him [that is, have him killed], and she couldn’t. 20For Herod feared John, knowing him [to be] a righteous and holy man; and he was protecting him [from Herodias’s murderous intent]. And on hearing him a great deal, he was at a loss [what to do with him]. And he was listening to him gladly. Herodias wasn’t satisfied by John’s imprisonment. She wanted him executed. So Herod was torn between not wanting to displease her and being convinced by hearing John that he should release him. Since Herod identifies Jesus with John, Herod’s having found John to be righteous, holy, and well worth listening to implies—at least for Mark’s audience—that Jesus too is righteous, holy, and well worth listening to.

6:21–25: And a day of opportunity having come, [that is,] when Herod on his birthday put on a banquet for his court officials and military commanders and the foremost [men] of Galilee—22and when Herodias’s daughter entered and danced, she pleased Herod and those reclining with [him at table]. At formal meals the diners didn’t sit on chairs; they reclined on cushions around a low table. Mark doesn’t say what it was about the girl’s dancing that pleased Herod and his fellow diners. It’s only John’s upcoming decapitation that interests Mark. And the king said to the little girl [probably a term of endearment, given the king’s pleasure, as in 5:42], “Ask me whatever you want and I’ll give [it] to you.” Is he drunk? 23And he swore to her [not at her!] vehemently, “I’ll give you whatever you ask me for, up to half of my kingdom.” He must be drunk. 24And on going out [from the dining room], she said to her mother, “What should I ask for?” And she [Herodias] said, “The head of John the baptizer.” Since not even Herodias was dining with her husband Herod and his fellow diners, the birthday banquet was a stag party. Her absence works to her advantage, though; for now she can use her daughter to trap Herod in his oath for the sake of getting John executed. 25And on entering [the dining room] immediately with haste to the king, she [the daughter] asked [him], saying, “I want that you at once give me the head of John the baptizer on a platter.” Herodias hadn’t told her daughter to say “at once” or “on a platter.” But the daughter added “at once” to forestall a later change of mind on Herod’s part, perhaps when he sobered up. And she added “on a platter” to suit the setting of a banquet (a gruesome touch to a grisly request!) and enable her to carry the head to her mother.

6:26–29: And though becoming very sorrowful [given his high regard for John], the king—because of [his] oaths and those reclining [at table with him]—didn’t want to disregard her. He had even higher regard for his oaths to the girl and for his reputation with the guests than for John. 27And immediately sending an executioner, the king commanded [him] to bring his [John’s] head. The girl’s “at once” translates into Herod’s “immediately” and thus underlines his susceptibility to manipulation and fear of losing face. And on going off, he [the executioner] beheaded him in the prison 28and brought his head on a platter and gave it to the little girl. And the little girl gave it to her mother. Now the littleness of the girl doesn’t indicate endearment; rather, it exposes Herod’s weakness in that he has fallen prey to a youngster, a female one at that. How foolish of him, given the patriarchalism and male chauvinism of their culture! 29And on hearing [about the beheading of John], his disciples came and took away his corpse and put it in a tomb. The delivery of John’s head on a platter and the burial of his headless corpse in a tomb provided unmistakable evidence of his death. What mighty powers Jesus must be exercising, then, to have pushed the king into identifying him with a man whose head the king himself had seen delivered on a platter to his own dining room, and then to his wife, and whose corpse had been interred in a different location!

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FIVE THOUSAND MEN WITH ONLY FIVE LOAVES OF BREAD AND TWO FISH

Mark 6:30–44

With the power delegated to them by Jesus, the Twelve have done what Jesus had been doing by way of teaching, casting out demons, and healing the sick. But in the following two so-called “nature miracles”—multiplying bread and fish and walking on water—Jesus displays his deity by topping anything the Twelve have done.

6:30: And the apostles gather together to Jesus and reported to him all things, [that is,] as many things as they’d done and as many things as they’d taught. “Apostles” is the noun related to the verb “send” in 6:7 and describes the Twelve as sent to speak and act with the authority of Jesus himself, the one who sent them. The flashback to John’s beheading has ended. So too has the apostles’ mission. Naturally, they report back to their sender. The present tense of “gather” accentuates the occasion for a report of success. “All things” and two occurrences of “as many things as” provide a triple emphasis on the extension of Jesus’ power through the apostles’ deeds and words. Their deeds consisted in exorcisms and healings according to 6:13. For their words, Mark shifts from preaching (6:13 again) to teaching for an accent on the extension of Jesus’ didactic authority (1:21–22, 27).

6:31: And he says to them, “[Come] here—[I mean] you—to a deserted place [where we can be] by ourselves, and rest a little.” For the people coming and going were many, and they [Jesus and the apostles] weren’t getting an opportunity even to eat. Jesus’ extremely forceful address, introduced with the emphatic present tense of “says,” reminds us that the apostles’ authority derived from him. They’d exercised it so much, though, that they were exhausted and needed a rest. But the traffic of people has created the need for privacy if the rest is to be gotten. The lack of opportunity even to eat shows how congested is this traffic and revives Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ power of attraction.

6:32–33: And they went away by themselves in a boat to a deserted place. 33And many people saw them going and recognized [them] and ran together there [to the deserted place] on foot from all the cities and preceded them [Jesus and the Twelve]. Apparently Jesus and the Twelve are sailing more or less parallel to the shoreline, so that people run along the shore and are already at the deserted place by the time Jesus and the Twelve put ashore. As a result, the place is no longer deserted. So much for “by themselves”! Jesus’ magnetism gains increasing force. Those who see him and the Twelve leave by boat run so as not to lose him. They’re not only “many.” They’re also from “all the cities” thereabouts. And their running “together” from all these cities shows that the many who saw Jesus and the Twelve leave are joined by others along the way. Such is the wide range of Jesus’ magnetism, extended now to the apostles, so that people flock to them as well as Jesus.

6:34: And on coming out [of the boat] he saw a large crowd and felt sorry for them, because they were “like sheep not having a shepherd” [compare Numbers 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17, for instance]. And he started teaching them much [= extensively, as in 4:2]. The large size of the crowd continues Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ magnetism. The compassion of Jesus imbues his power with sympathy. What excites his sympathy isn’t any hunger for food on the crowd’s part. Neither here nor later does Mark say they hungered for food. What excites Jesus’ sympathy is their lack of a teacher. So he teaches them and in this way acts as their shepherd by leading them to pasture on the truth of God’s good news (1:14–15). Both the image of a shepherd and the activity of teaching connote authority, and the extensiveness of Jesus’ teaching intensifies this connotation.

6:35–36: And when the hour had already become late, on approaching him his disciples [the twelve apostles according to 3:14; 6:6b–7, 30] were saying, “The place is deserted [except for them and the large crowd, of course], and the hour is already late. 36Dismiss them [the crowd] in order that on going away into the surrounding hamlets and villages they may buy for themselves something to eat.” The Jews’ main mealtime at the end of the afternoon is fast approaching or has arrived. The lateness of the hour (mentioned twice) and the absence of any food markets on location make the disciples’ suggestion reasonable. But this very reasonableness will make Jesus’ power stand out in bold relief when he feeds the crowd in a way that defies reason. The disciples’ failure to address Jesus respectfully with “Lord” (or the like) betrays as inappropriate their telling him what to do; but “dismiss them” indicates that his hold over the crowd is so strong that, mealtime or not, they’ll not leave unless he tells them to. “Going away into the surrounding hamlets and villages” sets up for a contrast with reclining on green grass right where they are, and “buy for themselves something to eat” sets up for a contrast with Jesus’ giving the crowd for free an overabundance of food.

6:37–38: But he, answering, told them, “You give them [something] to eat.” This command sounds unreasonable and will therefore make Jesus’ power stand out when it enables the disciples to carry out the command. They want the crowd to buy their own food, but he orders them—exercising his authority as usual—to give the crowd the food that they (the disciples) have on hand and hope to eat in privacy if he’ll only dismiss the crowd. Remember, because of many comers and goers, the disciples and Jesus haven’t had an opportunity to eat (compare 6:31 with 6:36). And they say to him, “On going away, should we buy two hundred denarii worth of bread loaves? And shall we give to them [the loaves] to eat?” Their loaves of bread were round and flat, like our pita bread, each loaf enough for one person for a day. The disciples know that the food in their lunchbox isn’t enough to feed the crowd but assume that two hundred denarii worth of loaves would be enough. And so strong is Jesus’ hold on the disciples that they stand ready to do Jesus’ bidding even if it entails doing with their own money what they’d suggested that Jesus let the crowd do for themselves with their own money. Two hundred denarii amounted to about eight months’ wages for a manual laborer. 38But he says to them, “How many loaves do you have [on hand, without having to leave for surrounding communities, buy bread, and bring it back; for it’s already late]? Go see.” And on coming to know [how many], they say, “Five, plus two fish.” Not many! The present tense in “they say to him,” “he says to them,” and (again) “they say to him” enlivens the dialogue in preparation for the following miracle.

6:39–40: And he ordered them [the disciples] to make all [in the crowd] recline group by group [the crowd is so large they have to be organized] on the green grass. Thus the disciples are to exercise on the crowd Jesus’ authoritative will. The green grass reminds us of Psalm 23:1–2 (“The Lord is my shepherd . . . . He makes me lie down in green pastures”) and of Jesus’ acting as a shepherd in 6:34. The green grass also makes a suitable cushion on which to recline for the formal meal, complete with Jesus as host and the disciples as waiters, that he is about to provide. “All” means that despite the large size of the crowd and despite the small number of loaves and fish, nobody’s going to be left out. 40And they reclined in rows by hundreds and fifties [that is, in one large rectangle filled with rows of men (6:44), longways each row containing one hundred and sideways each row containing fifty, so that 100 x 50 will equal 5,000]. Jesus has his work cut out for him!

6:41–44: And on taking the five loaves and the two fish, looking up into heaven he said a blessing [= praised God in thanksgiving for the bread and fish] and broke the loaves and started giving [the pieces] to his disciples in order that they might present [the pieces] to them [the crowd]; and he divided the fish for all. The crowd is so large that Jesus needs helpers, the disciples, to distribute the food. The large size of the crowd magnifies his miracle as well as his power of attraction. Even though the fish are only two in number, nobody in the crowd will lack fish to go with the bread. Breaking the loaves into pieces indicates multiplication of the bread. 42And all ate and were sated [= filled to satisfaction; compare Jesus’ having taught them “much” (6:34)]. No exceptions. No empty stomachs, not even half empty ones. 43And they [the disciples] picked up broken pieces, twelve baskets’ fulnesses [that is, twelve full baskets of leftovers, uneaten pieces that Jesus had broken], and [some uneaten pieces] from the fish. Enough for each of the Twelve to have a basketful! They needn’t have worried about donating their five loaves and two fish for the crowd to eat. As a good host, Jesus provided more than enough. Such is his power and generosity. 44And those who’d eaten the loaves were five thousand men [= adult males]. For a climax, Mark has saved the number of the crowd till last (contrast the less impressive numbers in 2 Kings 4:42–44).

JESUS’ AMAZING FEAT OF WALKING ON THE SEA

Mark 6:45–52

6:45–46: And immediately he compelled his disciples to get into the boat and go ahead to the other side [the east side of the Sea of Galilee], toward Bethsaida, while he himself dismisses the crowd. 46And on taking leave of them [the crowd or, possibly, the disciples], he went away onto a mountain to pray. The present tense of “dismisses” underlines Jesus’ dismissal of the crowd as an exercise of authority over them. “Compelled” implies that he exercised his authority on the disciples against their will. “Immediately” stresses his desire to be left alone for prayer. As in 1:35, his praying shows him to be a godly man. Mark doesn’t say what Jesus was praying for. Certainly he wasn’t praying for power to work miracles, for such power has resided in him as a result of the Holy Spirit’s entering him at his baptism (1:9–11). “Toward Bethsaida” hints that the disciples won’t reach that city (see 6:53). But on the mountain that Jesus ascends he’ll have a vantage point for seeing them at sea.

6:47–48: And when evening came, the boat was in the middle of the sea; and he himself [was] alone on the land. “He himself” underlines the contrast between his solitary location and that of the boat full of disciples. 48And on seeing them straining [literally, “torturing themselves”] in the rowing—for the wind was against them—about the fourth watch of the night [3:00 A.M.–6:00 A.M.] he comes to them walking on the sea. And he was wanting to pass by them. The disciples had started before the onset of evening. By the evening they were already in the middle of the sea. But Jesus doesn’t come to them till the last quarter of the night. So the disciples have been straining at the oars for a long time without making headway. The contrary wind hasn’t endangered them (contrast 4:35–41). It has frustrated them by blowing opposite the direction they want to go, and without Jesus they’re helpless. Though he has a vantage point on the mountain, the darkness of night probably implies supernatural sight when he sees the disciples out at sea. Without question, though, walking on the sea exhibits his deity. For only a divine being (and he’s “God’s Son” according to 1:1, 11; 5:7; 9:7; 14:61–62; 15:39) has such ability (Job 9:8; 38:16; Psalm 77:19). Dramatizing this exhibition of Jesus’ deity is the present tense in “he comes to them walking on the sea”; and enhancing the exhibition is his “wanting to pass by them,” for this phraseology is used for the parading of deity such as characterized appearances of God in the Old Testament (Exodus 33:19, 22; 34:5–6; 1 Kings 19:11; Job 9:8, 11; Amos 7:8; 8:2).

6:49–50: And they, on seeing him walking on the sea, thought, “It’s an apparition [= a ghost]!” and screamed. 50For all [the twelve disciples] saw him and were terrified. But he immediately spoke with them and says to them, “Take courage! I AM! Stop being afraid.” To forestall any notion of an illusion, Mark mentions twice the disciples’ seeing Jesus as he walked on the sea. To certify the point Mark takes pains to note that “all” of them saw Jesus walking on the sea. And the triple reaction of mistaking Jesus for an apparition, screaming, and terror highlights the parading of his deity. The immediacy of his speaking with them stresses both his following self-identification and his commands to take courage and stop being afraid. Speaking “with them” as well as “to them” adds a soft note of assurance. Ordinarily, “I AM!” is written “I am” and carries a simple self-identification, “It’s me,” as in John 9:9. But Jesus’ walking on the sea as only deity can do and thus parading his deity before the disciples favor the divine title, “I AM,” by which God identified himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

6:51–52: And he went up to them into the boat, and the wind died down [compare 4:39]. And they [the disciples] were more than exceedingly amazed within themselves, 52for they hadn’t understood [Jesus’ display of deity] on the basis of the loaves [the multiplication of which should have alerted them earlier to his deity]. Rather, their heart had been hardened. Getting into the boat ends the parade of Jesus’ deity. The disciples’ amazement emphasizes the divine presence of Jesus, evident now in the abatement of the wind as well as in his having walked on the sea. Just as the water provided him firm footing, now the wind’s abatement will provide him, and them, easy boating. “More than exceedingly” heightens the disciples’ amazement to the nth degree. They’re so overawed that though they’d screamed in terror earlier, now they’re speechless. Their amazement is bottled up “within themselves.” Since the heart was considered an organ of understanding as well as emotion, hardness of heart equates here with the disciples’ having failed to discern in the feeding of the five thousand a demonstration of Jesus’ deity that would now have kept them from their more than extreme amazement.

AN OVERFLOWING OF JESUS’ POWER TO HEAL

Mark 6:53–56

6:53–56: And on crossing over [the Sea of Galilee] to the land, they came to Gennesaret and beached [there]. But according to 6:45 they were headed toward Bethsaida, a city on the east side of the sea, whereas Gennesaret is a plain on the west side. Because the contrary wind had blown them off course, indeed backward, their landing site turns out to be different from the one originally intended; and “having crossed over” has to do with a reversal of direction from the midpoint the disciples had reached before being frustrated by the contrary wind. By the time the wind died down, continuance toward Bethsaida had become impracticable or undesirable. 54And when they’d gotten out of the boat, people—immediately recognizing him [Jesus]—55ran around that whole region and started bringing around the sick on mats [to] wherever they were hearing, “It’s he!” A number of items punctuate Jesus’ magnetism and known power to heal: (1) the immediacy of the people’s recognizing him; (2) their running; (3) the wide range of their running; (4) their bringing the sick; (5) the seriousness of the maladies that afflicted these sick (they have to be carried on mats, used as stretchers); and (5) the people’s bringing their sick to “wherever” Jesus is reported to be. 56And wherever he enters into towns or into cities or into hamlets, they put those who were ill in the marketplaces; and they were imploring him that they might touch even the fringe of his [outer] robe. And as many as touched it were being saved [from their illnesses]. The wide range of people’s running around to bring their sick is now matched by the wide range of Jesus’ itineration. It includes towns, cities, and mere hamlets, as emphasized by the present tense in “he enters.” “In [their] marketplaces” suggests numerous healings in serial fashion. These healings occur without his performing a gesture or saying a word (compare the wind’s abatement in 6:51 without his saying a word). So many are the sick and so many are the localities where they’ve been brought that they can only implore Jesus to come close enough for them to touch the fringe of his outer robe as he hurries through. “Even the fringe” will do (in some contrast with 5:27–28). And no matter how many they were, none who touched failed to be delivered from their maladies. For “as many as” rules out any power failures.

JESUS’ DEMONSTRATION OF DOMINANCE OVER PHARISEES AND SCHOLARS AND OF AUTHORITY OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW

Mark 7:1–23

In this passage Jesus powerfully puts down the Pharisees and some scholars (7:1–13) and authoritatively pronounces all foods lawful to eat despite Old Testament laws to the contrary (7:14–23).

7:1–3: And the Pharisees and some of the scholars, having come from Jerusalem, gather to him. So Jesus is still in Galilee, presumably in the plain of Gennesaret (6:53). 2And on seeing some of his disciples, that they’re eating the loaves of bread [left over in broken pieces from the feeding of the five thousand and, because of the crowds, uneaten during the itineration in Gennesaret (6:31, 53–56)] with defiled (that is, unwashed) hands—3for the Pharisees and all the Jews, holding the tradition of the elders, don’t eat unless they wash [their] hands with a fist . . . . In other words, they cup the hand so as to form a fist, but with fingers held slightly apart to allow full coverage with the least possible amount of water. The washing amounts, then, to a light rinse for the purpose of ritual cleansing more than for hygiene. “The tradition of the elders” consists in legal comments and case decisions made by past teachers of the Old Testament law. Holding this tradition means carrying it out in practice. That “all the Jews” as well as the Pharisees among them carry it out will amplify Jesus’ authority when he negates the tradition. Jews living in Galilee made pilgrimages to Jerusalem. But the coming of scholars all the way from Jerusalem to Galilee shows how far and into what important circles the report of Jesus’ mighty acts has spread. The present tense of “gather” underscores the point.

Mark’s explanation of the elders’ tradition and its practice continues in 7:4: and [when the Jews come] from the marketplace, they don’t eat unless they baptize themselves [that is, immerse themselves in water]. And there are many other [practices] that they’ve received [as tradition] to hold, [such as] baptisms [immersions] of cups and pitchers and copper kettles and dining couches—. The Jews might have picked up some ritual impurity in the marketplace—hence their practice of immersing themselves to get rid of the impurity before eating. Otherwise the impurity would contaminate the food. You wouldn’t want to ingest ritually contaminated food, would you? You’d get contaminated on the inside just as you’d gotten contaminated on the outside. So they thought. Archaeologists have discovered in Israel many ritual bathtubs designed for self-immersions and immersions of cooking utensils and dining paraphernalia.

Mark’s long explanation of Jewish ritual practices interrupted the sentence he began in 7:2. But he leaves that sentence incomplete and starts anew in 7:5–8: And the Pharisees and the scholars ask him, “Why aren’t your disciples walking [= conducting themselves] in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but [instead] are eating bread with [ritually] defiled hands?” The present tense of “ask” highlights the confrontational question of the Pharisees and scholars, but their question itself implies correctly that Jesus is responsible for the behavior of his disciples (compare 2:23–28). 6But he said to them, “Beautifully did Isaiah prophesy about you, the hypocrites [described by Isaiah], as it’s written [in Isaiah 29:13]: ‘This people [“the Pharisees and all the Jews” of 7:3] honors me [the Lord is speaking through Isaiah] with [their] lips, but their heart is far away from me. 7And they worship me faultily by teaching commandments of human beings [as though they were] teachings [of God].’ 8Having abandoned the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of human beings.” “Beautifully” makes the introduction to a quotation from Isaiah drip with sarcasm. “You, the hypocrites” interprets the quotation in terms of pretense, the difference between religious talk and irreligious affections. This difference then transmutes into a substitution of humanly originated commandments (the elders’ tradition, which qualifies as honoring God with the lips) for divinely originated teachings (the Old Testament, inspired by God himself). As a result, worship based on the substitution is faulty.

Now Jesus substantiates the charge in 7:8 of abandoning God’s commandment for the tradition of human beings, the elders. 7:9–13: And he was telling them, “Beautifully do you set aside the commandment of God in order that you may establish your tradition.” The correspondence between Isaiah’s prophecy and the Pharisees’ and scholars’ hypocrisy made the prophecy beautiful in its accuracy. But the sarcastic accuracy of “Beautifully” in 7:6 now turns into sarcastic irony: setting aside God’s commandment to establish human tradition makes the tradition beautiful in its piety, which in accordance with the nature of irony means just the opposite: ugly in its impiety. Next, Jesus cites an example of abandoning God’s commandment to establish human tradition: 10“For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother [Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16]’ and ‘The person who badmouths [his] father or mother is to be terminated by death [Exodus 21:17; Leviticus 20:9].’ 11But you say, ‘If a man says to [his] father or mother, “Corban (which means ‘gift’) with reference to whatever you [my father or mother] might benefit from me” ’—12you [Pharisees and scholars] no longer allow him to do anything for [his] father or mother 13[and by disallowing him in this way you’re] nullifying God’s word by your tradition that you’ve traditioned.” Here is an example of badmouthing one’s father or mother. What “you say” nullifies what “Moses said.” And since what “Moses said” counts as “the commandment of God,” what “you say” also nullifies God’s commandment and makes the beauty of legalistic piety ironic rather than admirable. But what is legalistic, and therefore nullifying of God’s commandment to honor your father and mother, about the elders’ traditional teaching of “Corban”? Mark translates the Hebrew or Aramaic “Corban” with the Greek for “gift.” The elders had taught that if you declare something of yours is going to be offered as a gift to God—as a sacrifice at the temple in the case of an ox, for example—nobody else can have it or use it in the meantime, not even your needy parents. And this tradition applies whether or not you ever make good on your declaration, or even intend to. So much for honoring your parents by meeting their needs! Not only do the Pharisees and scholars abandon God’s commandment to hold the tradition of past elders (7:8) and set aside the commandment of God to establish the tradition that has now become their own (7:9). They’ve also handed on this tradition (7:13). Jesus’ final, sweeping statement, “And you’re doing many such things,” makes the foregoing example one of many that might be cited. The Pharisees and scholars don’t retort. They can’t. In debate Jesus is stronger than they are, just as he’s stronger than demons, diseases, wind, and waves (chapters 5–6).

7:14–15: And on summoning back the crowd, he was saying to them, “All of you, hear me and understand [what you hear]. 15There’s nothing outside a human being that can defile him by entering into him; rather, the things proceeding out of a human being are the things that defile the human being.” Mark hasn’t mentioned a crowd of bystanders. But in 6:45–46 Jesus “dismiss[ed] the crowd” of five thousand that he’d miraculously fed. So having returned to the west side of the Sea of Galilee after the disciples encountered a contrary wind on an eastward voyage, and now having addressed the Pharisees and the scribes, Jesus summons “back” the crowd of five thousand that he’d dismissed after feeding them. Mark’s emphasis lies on the summoning as an exercise of Jesus’ authority. “Hear me” intensifies the emphasis. Despite the large number of people indicated by “the crowd,” the address “All [five thousand] of you” forecloses anybody’s exemption from obedience to Jesus’ authoritative command. The command to understand as well as hear gives advance notice that what he’s about to say is puzzling. It’s puzzling because Old Testament food laws, which like the commandment to honor your father and mother count as the word of God—those food laws prohibit the ingestion of certain foods, because they’ll defile the eater (Leviticus 11:1–47; Deuteronomy 14:3–20). Yet Jesus denies such defilement. The change in audience from Pharisees and scholars to the crowd is accompanied by a shift in subject matter from how to eat (whether or not with washed hands in accordance with the elders’ tradition) to what to eat (whether or not with restrictions in accordance with Old Testament law). Jesus’ statement is puzzling also in that he doesn’t identify the things which come out of a human being and defile him. And is this defilement ritual, moral, or both? Just as Jesus punished outsiders by explaining earlier parables only to disciples in private (4:10–12, 33–34), so he’ll do here. The earliest and best manuscripts don’t have 7:16.

7:17–19: And when he’d entered into a house away from the crowd, his disciples were asking him about the parable. 18And he says to them, “In this way [= like the crowd] are you also void of understanding? You perceive, don’t you, that nothing entering into a human being from outside can defile him, 19because it doesn’t enter into his heart—rather, into the stomach and [then] proceeds out into the toilet?” [He said so,] declaring all foods clean [that is, ritually pure and therefore okay to eat]. Here “the parable” isn’t a comparison (as in chapter 4, for example) so much as a puzzle. Jesus solves the puzzle for his disciples by capitalizing on their knowledge of the alimentary process. The present tense of “says” underscores his appealing to what they already know. Then Mark breaks in with the notation that Jesus’ statement rescinded Old Testament food laws—all of them. If as the Son of Man Jesus has authority to forgive sins on the earth (2:10), as God’s beloved Son he likewise has authority to rescind an Old Testament law.

7:20–23: And he was saying, “What proceeds out of a human being—that defiles the human being. 21For from within, [that is,] out of the heart of human beings, proceed evil contrivances: sexual immoralities, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22covetings, malicious acts, treachery, licentiousness, an evil eye [= stinginess], slander, insolence, folly.” “And he was saying” marks a shift from the editorial comment in 7:19 back to Jesus’ words, and also a shift from what doesn’t defile a person to what does. The twofold expression, “from within” and “out of the heart of human beings,” stresses the inner source of various defilements (compare Jeremiah 17:9–10). “The evil contrivances” consist in the following list of defilements. The list eliminates the ambiguity intentionally left in 7:15. The defilements are moral rather than ritual. The nouns in the plural refer to evil deeds. The nouns in the singular, which complete the list, have to do with defects of character. “Sexual immoralities” and “adulteries” relate to each other. “Thefts” and “covetings” relate to each other. So also do “murders” and “malicious acts.” “Treachery” relates to “slander,” “licentiousness” (which means open debauchery) to “insolence,” and “stinginess” to “folly.” The lack of “and” before the final item, “folly,” suggests that the list is open-ended. Further vices could be added, but they too would proceed from within. For “contrivances” are formed in the world of thought, and Jesus and his contemporaries considered the heart an organ of thought as well as of emotions. So he attributes evil acts and evil dispositions to the way a person thinks: “As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” A summarizing statement gives final emphasis to the inner origin and defiling effect of the vices featured in the new law of purity that Jesus has laid down: 23“All these evil things proceed from within and defile the human being.” “All” intensifies the emphasis. So Jesus has changed the laws of purity. The change doesn’t count as human tradition, though. For Jesus is divine, and the elders behind that tradition are not.

JESUS’ EXORCISING A DEMON AT A DISTANCE AND WITHOUT A COMMAND

Mark 7:24–30

7:24–26a: And on standing up [implied is a teacher’s seated position of authority for Jesus’ preceding instruction in 7:17–23], he went away from there into the borders [= region] of Tyre [a Syrian city on the Mediterranean coast north of Galilee]. And having entered into a house, he wanted nobody to know [that he’d come there]. And he couldn’t escape notice; 25rather, a woman, having immediately heard about him—[a woman] whose little daughter had an unclean spirit—on coming [to Jesus], fell at his feet. Again Jesus’ magnetism is on display, and the immediacy of the woman’s hearing about him and coming to him intensifies the magnetism. He has exercised his power so effectively and startlingly that even in this foreign region he’s already known (3:8), and his arrival excites an instant report. The woman’s falling at Jesus’ feet suits not only her desperation but also his dignity. 26aBut the woman was a Greek [by culture], a Syrophoenician by descent. This description prepares for the following dialogue, which hinges on the difference between Jews and Gentiles.

7:26b–27: And she was asking him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27And he was saying to her, “Let the children be sated [filled to satisfaction with food] first.” Neither Jesus nor Mark explicitly identifies “the children” or what their being fed means. But “first” implies that the time isn’t ripe for the exorcism of a demon from the woman’s little daughter, and the description of the woman in non-Jewish terms implies that her being non-Jewish would make untimely an immediate deliverance of her little daughter. By further implication, then, “the children” are Jews—but Jews in general or the Jewish disciples of Jesus? The later statement in 9:30–31 that Jesus “didn’t want anyone to know” his whereabouts, “for he was teaching his disciples,” suggests that here “the children” are his disciples, whom he wants to sate with his teaching and therefore doesn’t want to take time out for an exorcism. The woman’s little daughter can wait. (In the end, though, he performs the exorcism at a distance so as not to take time out.) “For it isn’t good [in the sense of fitting] to take the children’s bread and throw [it] to the little dogs.” Jews called Gentiles “dogs”; but here Jesus uses the diminutive, “little dogs” (that is, puppies), to correspond to the woman’s “little daughter” (though “little” may be a term of endearment rather than an indication of size or age; see the comments on 5:21–23, 35–43). This second statement of Jesus is discouraging. It now seems not so much a question of priority (“first”) as it does a question of Jesus’ granting the woman’s request at all (“it isn’t good”). She refuses to be discouraged, though.

7:28–30: But she answered and says to him, “Lord, even the little dogs under the table eat from the little children’s little crumbs.” Whatever the woman meant by “Lord,” whether merely “Sir” or “Lord” as deity, Mark intends us to understand the higher meaning. The double introduction, “She answered and says to him,” and within it the present tense of “says” call special attention to Jesus’ lordship. The woman exhibits wit along with determination. Capitalizing on Jesus’ comparing her little daughter to a little dog, she compares Jesus’ “children” to “little children” who eat so messily that “little crumbs” fall by accident under the table, where “little dogs” eat them. Jesus admires the woman’s cleverness in conceiving that a little Gentile “dog” might enjoy a little crumb of his mighty power at the same time that some little Jewish “children” are enjoying a full portion. This admiration leads him to respond: 29And he told her, “On account of this statement [of yours], go. The demon has gone out of your daughter.” Strikingly, Jesus doesn’t go with the woman to confront the demon and speak a word of exorcism. Instead, he tells her to go and announces the demon’s exit as having happened. Such is Jesus’ power of wordless exorcism at a distance! And such is his supernatural knowledge that without seeing the exorcism, he knows it to have taken place. 30And on going away into her house, she found the little child thrown on a bed and the demon gone out. To underscore Jesus’ power, “thrown on a bed” gives proof of the demon’s exit (compare 1:26; 9:26). And to underscore his supernatural knowledge, “the demon gone out” echoes Jesus’ announcement.

JESUS’ STUPENDOUS HEALING OF A DEAF-MUTE

Mark 7:31–37

7:31–32: And on going out again, [this time] from the borders [= region] of Tyre, he went through Sidon [another Syrian coastal city twenty miles north of Tyre (compare the comments on 7:24)] to the Sea of Galilee up the middle of the borders of Decapolis. So Jesus goes north, then east and south to the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (see also 8:10, which tells of his getting in a boat to sail to the west shore). “Up the middle of the borders of Decapolis” references the area east of the sea, through which area Jesus travels to reach its eastern shore. 32And people bring to him a [man] deaf and mute and implore him to lay [his] hand on him. The proclamation in Decapolis of the ex-demoniac out of whom Jesus cast Legion (5:20) has prepared for Jesus’ excursion into this region, so that people bring the deaf-mute to him in confidence that the deaf-mute will be healed if only Jesus will lay his hand on him. He has used the gesture so often and effectively before that here it stands for the healing itself. The Greek word translated “mute” means “speaking with difficulty,” that is, with inarticulate grunts; and, of course, deafness caused the muteness. Having never heard, he never learned to talk. The people’s imploring Jesus stresses the helpless plight of the deaf-mute if Jesus refuses to heal him. The present tense of “bring” and of “implore” stresses the deaf-mute’s plight. But the sorrier his plight, the more powerful the effect of a healing.

7:33–35: And after taking him aside—away from the crowd—by themselves, he stuck his fingers into his [the deaf-mute’s] ears and, after spitting [on his own fingers], he touched his [the deaf-mute’s] tongue. 34And on looking up into heaven, he groaned and says to him, “Ephphatha,” which means, “Be completely opened.” 35And immediately his hearings opened, and the bond of his tongue [= what tied down his tongue] was loosened, and he started speaking correctly [= plainly]. Apparently the people who brought the deaf-mute are the crowd. Their large number then testifies to Jesus’ magnetism. His taking the deaf-mute away from the crowd for a private healing isn’t designed to keep the healing secret from them. For in 7:36 he’ll command them to keep it secret. It’s the difficulty of performing a double healing—on ears and on tongue—that creates a need for privacy, which allows better concentration on the effort required (compare 5:40; 8:22–26 and the specially difficult exorcism in 5:1–13, though there not in private). This difficulty also prompts Jesus to use extraordinary means of healing. They consist in sticking two of his fingers in the man’s ears (one finger per ear), then spitting on his own fingers, applying the saliva to the man’s tongue, looking up into heaven, and groaning—all in addition to the usual word of healing and much more than the simple laying on of a hand that the people asked for. Sticking fingers into the ears mimics and thereby aids their being opened to hear. Spitting, as though getting rid of something in your mouth that keeps you from talking plainly, mimics and thereby—along with application of saliva from Jesus’ well-functioning tongue to the man’s bonded tongue—aids the loosening of the bond. Furthermore, physical contact transfers healing power, and saliva is curative (compare John 9:6 and the way human beings and animals lick their wounds).

Mark doesn’t say that Jesus prayed. But his heavenward look indicates that the power to heal derives from the Holy Spirit, who descended into him at his baptism (1:9–11), and that this healing and the others constitute Jesus’ baptizing people in the Holy Spirit, as John the baptizer prophesied “the stronger one” would do (1:7–8). Groaning requires the vigorous exhalation of breath, which has life-force (Genesis 2:7). Here, Jesus’ groaning endues his command, “Be completely opened,” with force enough to enliven the deaf-mute’s “hearings,” a term that refers to the ears but puts emphasis on their auditory function. “Completely” demands perfection of that function, not mere improvement. Without some extra exertion on Jesus’ part, the deaf-mute might not hear Jesus’ command, the hearing of which constitutes the healing. Mark’s retention of the Aramaic original, “Ephphatha,” emphasized by the present tense in the introductory “says to him,” ties in with Jesus’ use of extraordinarily complex means to underscore the difficulty of this healing. Again, though, the greater the difficulty, the greater the exhibition of Jesus’ healing power. “Immediately” emphasizes that despite the difficulty, his power is so overwhelming that it requires no delay to effect an opening of the man’s ears and a loosening of the man’s tongue. What the man said is of no interest. How he said it is what matters for the healing. “Correctly” tells how and thus certifies the other half of this twofold miracle.

7:36–37: And he ordered them [the crowd] that they should tell no one. But however much he was ordering them [to tell no one], they were proclaiming [the miracle] all the more. The crowd would right away pick up the man’s speaking plainly. So it would have been of no use for Jesus to command him not to say anything. In fact, Jesus healed him so that he could speak. But the crowd might keep quiet about the healing, and Jesus orders them to do so. Mark doesn’t say why Jesus wanted them to. For Mark’s point lies in the stupendousness of the miracle. You just can’t keep quiet about something so stupendous, and the crowd didn’t. 37And they were awestruck beyond measure, saying, “He has done all things beautifully. He even makes deaf and dumb people hear and speak” [compare Isaiah 35:5–6]. Though it was twofold, Jesus has performed only one miracle here. So “all things” that Jesus has done “beautifully” make this miracle exemplary of all his miracles in the beauty of their benevolence. Likewise, the plural number of “deaf and dumb people” makes the healing of this one deaf-mute an example of many such healings that Mark hasn’t recorded. Since speaking with inarticulate grunts doesn’t count as true speech, “speaking with difficulty” (7:32) changes here to “dumb,” the literal meaning of which is “unspeaking.” Because of Jesus’ power, deaf-mutes’ unspeaking has turned into “speak[ing].” Jesus spoke sarcastically in describing as beautiful Isaiah’s prophecy concerning hypocrites (7:6–7), and spoke ironically in describing as beautiful the Pharisees’ and scholars’ setting aside God’s commandment in favor of their tradition (7:9). Now the crowd speak sincerely in describing all Jesus’ deeds as beautiful.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FOUR THOUSAND PEOPLE WITH SEVEN LOAVES AND A FEW SMALL FISH

Mark 8:1–9

8:1–3: In those days, because there was a large crowd again and [because] they didn’t have anything to eat, on summoning the disciples he says to them, 2“I feel sorry for the crowd, because they’re staying with me—already three days!—and don’t have anything to eat. 3And if I dismiss them to their home hungry, they’ll faint on the way. And some of them have come from far off [contrast the disciples’ taking initiative in 6:35–36].” “In those days” refers to the period of time Jesus spent on the east shore of the Sea of Galilee (compare 7:31 with 8:10). “Again” compares this “large crowd” (of about four thousand according to 8:9) with the earlier “large crowd” (of five thousand) on the west shore (6:34, 44). Jesus’ proceeding to feed the present crowd as he did the earlier one will make the comparison appropriate. As usual, the large size of the crowd calls attention to Jesus’ magnetism; and his summoning the disciples calls attention to his authority. Intensifying his magnetism is the crowd’s staying with him three days already without having anything to eat, plus the fact that some of them have come from afar. Intensifying his authority is the implication that they can’t go home unless he dismisses them. Apparently they haven’t had lodging for three days any more than they’ve had food, yet they’ve still stayed with him because of his powerful hold on them. But tempering Jesus’ authority is his compassion for the crowd because of their need for food and the consequent danger of their fainting on the way home. The present tense of “says” introduces his statement of compassion emphatically.

8:4–5: And his disciples answered him, “From where will anyone be able to satisfy these people with loaves of bread here on a wilderness?” 5And he was asking them, “How many loaves do you have?” And they said, “Seven.” Jesus doesn’t rebuke the disciples for asking their question, nor does he criticize them for forgetting his feeding the five thousand. To the contrary, he’ll ask a question in 8:18–19 that’s based on their remembering that feeding. So here the point lies in a circumstance worse than the one in which the feeding of the five thousand occurred. Then, reasonably nearby hamlets and towns offered the possibility of buying enough bread (6:36–37). Now, the crowd aren’t merely in “a deserted place” in otherwise populated territory (6:31–32, 35); they’re “on a wilderness.” No hamlets or towns are in easy reach, for the whole territory is unpopulated. And it isn’t merely late afternoon after a partial day’s teaching (6:35), for the crowd have been with Jesus three days without food. It’s a good thing the disciples have seven loaves instead of only five!

8:6–9: And he directs the crowd to recline on the ground. And on taking the seven loaves [first], giving thanks [next], he broke [them in pieces] and started giving [them] to his disciples in order that they might present [them to the crowd]; and they did present [them] to the crowd. 7And they [the disciples] had a few small fish. And on blessing them [= praising God for the fish], he said to present these too. Jesus’ authority over the crowd comes out in his directing them to recline. The present tense of “directs” accents the exercise of authority. The fewness and smallness of the fish will make their multiplication all the more remarkable. 8And they [the crowd] ate and were sated [filled to satisfaction with food]. And they [the disciples according to 8:20] took up leftovers, seven baskets of broken pieces. 9And there were about four thousand [who ate]. And he dismissed them. Again no empty stomachs, not even half-empty ones. Again an abundance of leftovers. And again a multiple of thousands. Now the crowd can go home without fainting, and can go home because Jesus authoritatively dismisses them.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SIGN FROM HEAVEN

Mark 8:10–12

8:10: And immediately getting into a boat with his disciples, he went into the districts of Dalmanutha. After Jesus fed the five thousand, he immediately forced the disciples to get in a boat and leave while he stayed to dismiss the crowd, go up a mountain, and pray (6:45–46). Here, after feeding the four thousand, he immediately leaves by boat with the disciples. In both cases, though, his departure from the crowd frees him for ministry elsewhere. We don’t know for certain exactly where Dalmanutha was located. But its first syllable, Dal-, may derive from the well-known Magdala, just as in the parallel Matthew 15:39 the “Mag-” of “Magadan” may also derive from Magdala. If so, both Dalmanutha and Magadan may be variants of Magdala, situated on the west shore of the Sea of Galilee and south of the Plain of Gennesaret.

8:11: And the Pharisees came out and began disputing with him by way of seeking from him a sign from heaven, thereby testing him. The Pharisees’ testing of Jesus sets up a verbal skirmish between him and them. They think they can expose him as an imposter if he doesn’t produce a sign from heaven. Nobody is present who needs a miracle; so the sign from heaven that the Pharisees seek is hardly another of the miracles such as Jesus has been performing over and over again. “From heaven” indicates that he should persuade God to produce some heavenly display—say, in the sun, moon, stars, or planets (compare 13:24–25)—to prove that Jesus’ power doesn’t come from an alliance with Beelzebul, Satan. Scholars from Jerusalem had, after all, accused Jesus of possession by Beelzebul and therefore of casting out demons by the ruler of the demons (3:22).

8:12: And on groaning forcefully with his spirit, he says, “Why is this generation seeking a sign? Amen I tell you, [I’ll be damned] if a sign will be given to this generation!” Just as groaning intensified Jesus’ word of healing in 7:34, so groaning intensifies the words of Jesus that follow here. “Forcefully” adds to this intensity, and the present tense of “says” adds force to his following words. The question “Why . . . ?” expresses judgmental exasperation. “This generation” doesn’t simply mean Jesus’ contemporaries. It means people of the sort that seek a sign from heaven (compare especially 8:38; 9:19). The present Pharisees are the generation Jesus is talking about. Perhaps, then, we should translate with “this kind” instead of “this generation.” “Amen I say to you” strengthens the judgmental refusal of a heavenly sign, “Amen” being a Hebrew word brought over into Greek (and English) and affirming the truth of something. Ordinarily, “Amen” followed what it referred to, as when Christians say “Amen” at the end of their prayers. But Jesus prefixed it to statements whose truth he wanted to emphasize right from the start. “If a sign will be given to this generation!” is likewise a Hebrew way of denying something very strongly. Implied is the speaker’s calling down a curse on himself if the denial isn’t true (see, for example, Numbers 5:19–22; 2 Kings 6:31; Psalm 7:3–5). So except for its sounding flippant and irreverent, “I’ll be damned if . . .” gives a good English equivalent. All in all, then, Jesus authoritatively denies the Pharisees’ request for a sign from heaven, so that instead of exposing him as an imposter they suffer exposure themselves as wickedly undeserving of receiving such a sign (compare the parabolic withholding of the secret of God’s reign from outsiders [4:10–12]).

JESUS’ PROVING HIS MIRACULOUS POWER TO BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE

Mark 8:13–21

8:13–15: And leaving them, again getting [into the boat], he went off to the other side [the east side of the Sea of Galilee]. 14And they [the disciples] had forgotten to take loaves of bread, and except for one loaf they didn’t have [any loaves] with them in the boat. 15And he was ordering them, saying, “Look! Watch out for the Pharisees’ leaven and Herod’s leaven.” By leaving the Pharisees without producing for them the heavenly sign they’d asked for, Jesus not only puts physical distance between himself and them. He also abandons them to their chosen status of unbelieving outsiders. They’re beyond hope. In this life it’s possible—in their case it was actual—to persist in unbelief beyond the point of redemption. As an old gospel song puts it, “There’s a line that is crossed in rejecting our Lord, where the call of his Spirit is lost . . . . Have you counted the cost?” Getting into the boat “again” harks back to 8:10, where Jesus got into it for the voyage to the district of Dalmanutha. Since this new voyage “to the other side” will end up in Bethsaida, on the northeastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (8:22), he’s starting from Dalmanutha on the west side. The repetition of the disciples’ having no loaves of bread, except for one, underscores their need for more (contrast their having had five and seven loaves, plus fish, on previous occasions). One loaf isn’t nearly enough for all of them. Their talk of bread leads naturally to Jesus’ talk of leaven. Leaven consists of a portion of fermenting dough which, when mixed with a batch of fresh dough, makes the batch rise, much as yeast is used nowadays. But we expect Jesus to address the insufficiency of their one loaf, not switch to the topic of leaven. He has multiplied bread before, though; and it’s more important for him to warn the disciples against the leaven of the Pharisees, whom he has just abandoned, and against the leaven of Herod Antipas, ruler of Galilee and beheader of the Baptist. Mark describes the warning as an order to stress the authority with which Jesus issues it. Strikingly, however, neither Jesus nor Mark defines these two kinds of leaven. The lack of definition leaves the emphasis entirely on Jesus’ exercise of authority in issuing the order and on the following reference to his power.

8:16–21: And they were discussing with one another [the fact] that they don’t have [enough] loaves. 17And knowing [what they were saying to each other], he says to them, “Why are you discussing [the fact] that you don’t have [enough] loaves? Don’t you yet understand or comprehend? Do you have your heart hardened [compare Isaiah 6:10]? 18‘Having eyes, you see, don’t you? And having ears, you hear, don’t you?’ [Jeremiah 5:21; Ezekiel 12:2]. And you remember, don’t you, 19when I broke [in pieces] the five loaves for the five thousand how many baskets full of broken pieces you picked up?” They say to him, “Twelve.” 20“[And you remember, don’t you,] when [I broke in pieces] the seven [loaves] for the four thousand you picked up fullnesses of how many baskets of broken pieces?” And they say to him, “Seven.” 21And he was saying to them, “Don’t you yet comprehend?” The verb “were discussing” connotes reasoned conversation. The disciples seem to reason falsely that Jesus doesn’t want them to buy additional loaves from the Pharisees or the supporters of Herod Antipas, just as Jewish rabbis might say to beware of the leaven or meat of the Samaritans, in case it be ritually contaminated. But Mark’s point doesn’t lie in a misunderstanding of Jesus’ warning by the disciples. It lies rather in their misunderstanding of Jesus’ feedings of the five thousand and four thousand. Those feedings should have kept the disciples from thinking Jesus was alluding to their not having enough bread. “Don’t you yet understand or comprehend?” implies that the doubling of the miracle of feeding should by now have caused them to understand he wouldn’t be concerned over their having only one loaf. “Do you have your heart hardened?” implies that only the dullest sensibilities could have failed to detect the miraculous element in those feedings. Yet incredible as it may seem, that’s exactly what Jesus’ questions indicate the disciples had failed to grasp! Hence their failure to apply to their present need the magnitude of Jesus’ power to multiply bread. The collective singular of “heart” unites the disciples in hardheartedness. They do remember how many baskets full of leftovers they picked up, though, and they did indeed see and hear what Jesus did and said when he fed the two multitudes. But seeing, hearing, and remembering haven’t added up to a comprehension of the miracles that should have eliminated a concern over failure to bring enough bread for the present boat trip. Emphasis falls not so much on the feedings of the five thousand and four thousand with only five and seven loaves, respectively, as on the huge surpluses. The baskets of leftovers were “full” as well as many in the case of the first feeding; and in the case of the second feeding the strikingly inverted phrase “fullnesses of baskets,” where we expect an unexceptional “baskets full of . . . ,” puts extra emphasis on the superadequacy of Jesus’ miraculous power. Mark says nothing about a multiplication of the one loaf for the present voyage. So the emphasis stays on the superadequacy of Jesus’ power in the prior feedings. Throughout, the present tense in “he says to them,” “They say to him,” “And they say to him,” plus the absence of an introduction to Jesus’ question concerning the seven loaves, adds to the dialogue a vigor that underlines its import. So too does the absence of “And” before the first “They say to him.”

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF HEALING POWER IN A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT CASE OF BLINDNESS

Mark 8:22–26

8:22–24: And they come into Bethsaida [on the northeast shore of the Sea of Galilee]. And people bring to him a blind man and implore him [Jesus] to touch him [the blind man]. 23And on taking hold of the blind man’s hand, he led him outside the town; and on spitting into his eyes, laying his hands on him he was asking him, “Do you see anything?” 24And on seeing again, he was saying, “I see the people, in that I see [them as looking] like trees [and I see them as] walking about.” The present tense in “they come into Bethsaida” and in “people bring to him a blind man and implore [Jesus]” introduces this particularly difficult case with an element of drama (compare 7:32). The blind man can’t see to touch Jesus; so Jesus is implored to give the blind man a healing touch. But just as in 7:31–37 Jesus took a deaf-mute aside from a crowd to perform a particularly difficult miracle with the use of extraordinary means, so here Jesus takes the blind man outside town for the same reason. Again Jesus uses saliva as a healing agent, but this time spits directly into the blind man’s eyes, because they’re exposed (contrast Jesus’ spitting on his own fingers, sticking them into the deaf-mute’s mouth, and touching his tongue). Jesus then lays his hands on the saliva-soaked eyes of the blind man. The combination of these two therapies, saliva and the laying on of hands, is designed to produce a miraculous result. And it does; but Jesus suspects that it hasn’t, or at least that the result isn’t good enough. Hence his question, “Do you see anything?” Well, the man does see people milling about in the town. But they look so indistinct to him that he compares them to a clump of trees whose many branches and leaves make them hard to distinguish from one another, especially when they’re milling about like branches waving in the wind. He sees, in other words; but he’s nearsighted. Things in the distance look blurry to him.

8:25: Then he [Jesus] laid [his] hands on his [the man’s] eyes again. And he [the man] opened [his eyelids] wide, and he was restored, and he was seeing all things distinctly at a distance. “Then” forcefully identifies a second stage of healing. A second application of Jesus’ hands, one hand for each eye, implies greater than usual difficulty in the effecting of a full cure and thereby magnifies such a cure once Jesus has effected it. The man’s eyes are still moist from Jesus’ having spit into them at first; so there’s no need of further saliva. Mark sets out the effect in three distinct steps: (1) opening the eyelids wide; (2) restoration (which implies he’d gone blind rather than having been born blind); and (3) seeing all things distinctly at a distance. The measured pace of the narrative prolongs attention to the fullness (“all things,” not just the people in town) and long-range clarity (“distinctly at a distance”) of vision that Jesus effected. Heroic deeds often require prolonged, strenuous effort to overcome special difficulties. So we shouldn’t think that the prolongation of this miracle degrades Jesus’ power. On the contrary, the special difficulty of this case makes the miracle especially impressive.

8:26: And he [Jesus] sent him to his home, saying, “You shouldn’t even go into the town.” Going home on his own rather than into town (presumably the public square or, as we’d say, “downtown”) will demonstrate to the distant townspeople that, thanks to Jesus, the man can see again. He needs no one to lead him, as they’d led him to Jesus at the beginning of this episode. Nor does the ex-blind man need to go into town to beg anymore. (A blind man’s having to beg went without saying [see John 9:1 with John 9:8].) “Not even into the town” stresses the man’s not needing to take back his old occupation.

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF POWER TO PREDICT HIS OWN FATE AND THAT OF OTHERS

Mark 8:27–9:1

Peter’s confession of Jesus as the Christ takes up the first section of this passage (8:27–30). The next section shows Jesus responding to that confession with a prediction of his passion and resurrection (8:31–33). The third section deals with discipleship in view of Peter’s confession and Jesus’ response (8:34–9:1).

8:27–30: And Jesus and his disciples went out [of Bethsaida, mentioned in 8:22] into the towns of Philip’s Caesarea [that is, towns in the vicinity of the Caesarea built by Herod Philip about twenty-five miles north of the Sea of Galilee, as distinguished from Caesarea on the Mediterranean coast and to the south]. And on the road he was asking his disciples by saying to them, “Who do the people say I am?” 28And they spoke to him, saying, “[Some say you are] John the baptizer, and others [say you are] Elijah. But others say, ‘[He’s] one of the prophets’ [see 6:14–15 for these same three popular identifications of Jesus].” 29And he himself [Jesus] was asking them, “But who do you say I am?” Answering, Peter says to him, “You are the Christ.” 30And Jesus issued them an ultimatum that they should tell no one about him. The emphatic “he himself” sets Jesus apart from the popular identifications of him. They’re wrong. The emphatic “you” sets his disciples apart from the people who are making those wrong identifications. The present tense in “Peter says to him” and the prefixing of “Answering” add emphasis to Peter’s confessing Jesus to be the Christ. “The Christ” emphasizes the use of “Christ” as a title, meaning “the Anointed One.” God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit to establish God’s reign among human beings (1:9–11, 14–15). The ultimatum not to tell anybody about him—that is, about his being the Christ—has the purpose of gaining privacy for predicting to the disciples his coming passion and resurrection. He’s about to make the first such prediction (8:31–33). More will follow (9:9, 12, 30–31; 10:32–34). By mobbing him, the crowds have been bothersome and dangerous enough even under their views that Jesus is John the baptizer, Elijah, or one of the prophets (1:35–37, 45; 2:1–2; 3:7–12, 20; 4:1; 6:31–33; 7:24). What would they do if they believed him to be no less a personage than the Christ? In the balance of Mark, as a matter of fact, the disciples won’t tell anyone that Jesus is the Christ. The accent rests so heavily on Jesus’ ultimatum, and therefore on his authority, that Mark doesn’t even say whether Jesus accepts Peter’s designation of him as the Christ. That he does accept it comes only by inference from his ultimatum not to tell. And he’ll now refer to himself as “the Son of Man” rather than as “the Christ.”

8:31–32a: And he began teaching them that the Son of Man must suffer severely, and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scholars, and be killed, and after three days rise [literally, “stand up,” as opposed to lying in the supine position of a corpse]. 32aAnd he was speaking this statement plainly. Mark puts this prediction in terms of teaching to emphasize its authority and to distinguish it from the Jewish expectation that the Messiah, or Christ, would not suffer and die but only reign in great glory. The switch from “the Christ” in 8:29 to “the Son of Man” here in 8:31 helps the distinction; and sharpening it are the severity of the suffering, the rejection by none lower than the highest Jewish authorities, and the consequent killing of Jesus. The elders, chief priests, and scholars constitute the Sanhedrin, based in Jerusalem and amounting to the Jews’ Supreme Court. Rising after being killed—and only three days afterwards—makes the most astonishing part of the prediction. (“After three days” doesn’t mean “on the fourth day”; for Mark puts Jesus’ resurrection on the third day, Sunday, after Good Friday, so that “after three days” equates with “on the third day.”) And “must” puts every part of the prediction in the sphere of divine necessity as expressed in Scripture (see especially Psalm 118:22–23 in relation to Mark 12:10–11, and the use of “must” at Mark 9:11 in relation to Malachi 4:5). It’s all part of God’s plan. Mark’s detailed narrative in chapters 14–16 will put on display both the carrying out of this plan and Jesus’ power to have predicted accurately his own fate. This power and God’s plan erase the shame that would otherwise be attached to Jesus’ crucifixion. For ordinarily crucifixion was considered the most shameful way to die. Originally it was reserved for slaves convicted of a crime. Then it was used to execute rebels and others convicted of high crime. It had all the associations, and worse, of an electric chair or a gas chamber in our culture (compare 1 Corinthians 1:18). Mark’s unusual comment that Jesus spoke this prediction of his passion and resurrection “plainly” (here is the only passage where Mark uses this expression) lays all possible stress on Jesus’ power to predict his own fate. He really did, and there was no mistaking what he said or meant.

8:32b–33: And on taking him aside, Peter started reprimanding him. For the moment Peter stops being a disciple, for disciples respectfully follow behind their teacher at a little distance. Moreover, Peter compounds his error by reprimanding Jesus for predicting that he (Jesus) will have to undergo intense suffering, rejection, and an execution which will necessitate his resurrection. Jesus has the authority to reprimand his disciples, but not they him. Mark doesn’t quote Peter’s reprimand of Jesus. So the emphasis stays on the plainness with which Jesus made his prediction and which therefore evoked the reprimand by Peter. 33But on turning around and seeing his disciples, he reprimanded Peter and says, “Go behind me, Satan, because you’re not thinking the things of God; rather, [you’re thinking] the things of human beings.” Jesus’ turning around and seeing his disciples points up that they’re following him as disciples should do whereas Peter is not, and Jesus’ reprimanding him shows who really does have the authority to engage in reprimand. He tells Peter to go back to his position among the disciples, where he belongs, following behind Jesus rather than taking him aside as though he had the right to lead Jesus and reprimand him. The plainness with which Jesus made his prediction justifies his reprimanding Peter; and the divine necessity (“must” in 8:31) justifies the shocking epithet “Satan” with which Jesus addresses Peter. Since Peter is “thinking the things of human beings,” Jesus doesn’t mean that Peter is Satan. For then he’d have said that Peter is thinking “the things of Satan.” Jesus means, then, that in reprimanding him Peter was acting like Satan. The comparison frighteningly highlights the seriousness of allowing yourself to be scandalized by Jesus’ passion. “The things of God” consist in the divinely necessitated suffering, rejection, killing, and resurrection of Jesus as the Son of Man. To think these things is to accept them as divinely necessitated, so that they regulate your belief and conduct. This kind of thinking is attitudinal and behavioral as well as intellectual. “The things of human beings” consist in the repudiation of Jesus’ suffering, rejection, killing, and resurrection. To think these things is to deny the divine necessity of Jesus’ suffering, rejection, killing, and resurrection—as Peter has just done, with the attitudinal and behavioral result that he inexcusably left his position behind Jesus, took him aside, and reprimanded him.

8:34: And on summoning the crowd along with his disciples, he told them, “If anyone wants to come behind me, he has to disown himself and pick up his cross and follow me.” The authority of Jesus comes out in his summoning the crowd along with his disciples. Mark hasn’t mentioned a crowd since he noted Jesus’ departure from Bethsaida (see 8:27 with 8:22). So the present introduction of a crowd without saying where they came from points again to Jesus’ magnetism. “Along with his disciples” indicates that except for Peter they’ve been following Jesus at a distance which prevented them from hearing the conversation between Peter and him. But the disciples have already been following Jesus. So his saying that anyone who “wants” to come behind him has to “disown himself,” “pick up his cross,” and “follow [Jesus]” applies to would-be disciples in the crowd. “Come behind me” echoes Jesus’ reprimand to Peter, “Go behind me” (8:33). Disowning yourself doesn’t mean practicing asceticism. It means putting your very life at risk (see 8:35–37). “Pick up” has to do with the start of discipleship, that is, conversion. Literally, “his cross” means the horizontal beam of a cross, not the whole cross, which would be too heavy to carry. Besides, the vertical pole of a cross—or it could be a living tree—was a fixture at the place of crucifixion. It wasn’t to be picked up. “His cross” isn’t Jesus’ cross. It’s the disciple’s cross and, figuratively, means allegiance to Jesus despite the hostility of others to him and his disciples. He has predicted that he’ll be rejected and killed (8:31–32a). But he has said nothing about crucifixion as the method by which he’ll be killed. Nor will he later. And in Mark (as well as in Matthew and Luke) he won’t carry his cross. Simon of Cyrene will (15:21). So to pick up your cross and follow Jesus doesn’t mean to follow his example, as though he picked up his cross and, carrying it, went to the place of his crucifixion. No, to pick up your cross and follow him means to expose yourself to shame, ridicule, persecution, and—in dire circumstances—martyrdom because of open discipleship to him. His suffering, rejection, and execution were divinely necessitated. A disciple’s suffering, rejection, and execution are voluntarily risked.

8:35–37: “For whoever would want to save his life will lose it.” Merely wanting to save your life by avoiding the risks of discipleship will make you lose it in the world to come, whether or not you succeed in saving it now. “But whoever will [in fact] lose his life [now] on account of me and the gospel [that is, the good news that God’s reign has arrived in Jesus’ activities (1:14–15)] will save it [for the world to come].” Jesus doesn’t command his hearers to lose their lives on his and the gospel’s account, or even to want to. But if they do lose them—not to worry! They’ll have saved their lives for the coming world. Wanting to save your life now, and consequently refusing discipleship because of its risks, has the woefully opposite effect hereafter. 36“For in what way does gaining the whole world and forfeiting his life profit a man?” In no way, of course. The answer is so obvious that Jesus doesn’t have to state it. You can’t enjoy the whole world you’ve gained if you’re dead. 37“For what would a man give [as] an exchange for his life [that is, to keep it rather than lose it]?” Implied answer: everything he could, even the whole world if he had it. But he can’t—therefore “would give” rather than “does give.” “Life” shifts in meaning between present life and eternal life. Saving your present life for this world results in losing the eternal life that you might have had. Losing your present life in this world on account of Jesus and the gospel results in saving eternal life for yourself. Gaining the whole world isn’t worth losing your present life, much less worth losing your eternal life. And nothing will buy back even your present life, much less your eternal life, once you lose it. Because of “an exchange,” “the whole world” means the world of wealth, not the world of human beings.

8:38: “For whoever would be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, also the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” “Would be ashamed” holds out a possibility but discourages it. Jesus’ “words” are his prediction that he must suffer severely, be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scholars, be killed, and rise again (8:31). To be ashamed of him and those words is to dismiss that he can be the Christ if he undergoes such a fate, because it would be humiliating to believe in such a Christ. “In this adulterous and sinful generation” identifies the circumstance in which a person has to decide whether to become a disciple of Jesus. It consists of people whose wickedness will lead them to abuse that person if he or she does become Jesus’ disciple. As the ultimately judgmental Son of Man, Jesus will be ashamed of such a person. In other words, he’ll dismiss that such a person could be his disciple. It would be humiliating for Jesus to accept the person as one of his own. “When he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” adds the second coming of Jesus to the resurrection that he predicted for himself in 8:31. The glory in which he’ll come will be no less than that of God his Father, for it will be his Father’s glory. He isn’t ashamed of his Son! And the accompaniment of the holy angels, an angelic escort that contrasts with this sinful and adulterous generation, helps the statement as a whole to compensate for Jesus’ prior suffering, rejection, and execution. Nothing to be ashamed of here—but much to fear!

In summary of 8:34–38, why should you disown yourself, pick up your cross, and follow Jesus? (1) Because you’ll save your life for eternity even if you lose it now. Here’s a savings account better than you ever dreamed of. (2) Because your life, whether present or future, is much more valuable than even the whole world. So don’t be duped into making a foolish deal. (3) Because once you’ve lost your life, there’s no buying it back, no matter how much you offer. The opportunity to invest in futures is now. Don’t let it slip by. (4) Because when the tables are turned on this wickedly hostile world, when the glorious Son of Man comes with the approval of God his Father and with the holy angels as his army, you’ll want to be on his side, not the world’s.

9:1: And he was saying to them, “Amen I tell you that there are some standing here who as such [that is, as standing here] will by no means taste death [a figure of speech for dying] until they see God’s reign [as] having come with power.” The prediction in 8:38 of the Son of Man’s glorious coming leads to a prediction involving the powerful coming of God’s reign. “Amen I tell you” emphasizes the truthfulness of this prediction (compare 8:12). Along with its fulfillment (for which see 9:2–8), the prediction will demonstrate Jesus’ ability to forecast the future; and by taking place before the fulfillment of his earlier prediction of the passion and resurrection, the fulfillment of this present prediction will lend credibility to the earlier one. From now on, to counteract the scandal of the crucifixion Mark will capitalize on Jesus’ predictive power whenever he can.

A SUPPLYING OF VISUAL AND AUDITORY EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD’S SON

Mark 9:2–13

This passage divides into Jesus’ transfiguration (9:2–8) and a conversation between him and three of his disciples on the way down the mountain where they’d seen him transfigured (Mark 9:9–13).

9:2–4: And after six days Jesus takes along Peter and James and John, and he takes them up onto a high mountain by themselves—alone. And he was transfigured in their presence, 3and his clothes became glistening, exceptionally white, such [clothing] as a launderer on the earth can’t whiten them thus. 4And there appeared to them [Peter, James, and John] Elijah with Moses, and they were speaking with Jesus. “After six days” links the transfiguration of Jesus to his prediction in 9:1, so that the transfiguration fulfills the prediction and thereby displays his power to forecast the future. “By themselves—alone” stresses that Peter, James, and John are the “some . . . who’ll by no means taste death till they’ve seen God’s reign [as] having come with power” (9:1 again). Mountains symbolize power and dominion, as in Daniel 2:35, 44–45: “The stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth. . . . The God of heaven will set up a kingdom that won’t ever be destroyed . . . . It’ll crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end and stand forever, just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands . . . .” So the “high mountain” on which Peter, James, and John see Jesus transfigured symbolizes the power of God’s reign; and the transfiguration itself shows these three disciples that in Jesus the reign of God has come with power. The glistening and unearthly, unmatchable whiteness of Jesus’ clothing also shows the disciples that God’s reign originated in heaven but has come to earth in Jesus’ activities. It’s not that God’s reign came with power in the transfiguration. It’s that the transfiguration enabled these disciples to see that Jesus’ miracles (literally, “acts of power”), exorcisms, and authoritative teaching constituted the coming of God’s powerful reign. “In their presence” underlines the disciples’ seeing, yet again in fulfillment of 9:1 (“until they see . . .”). In accordance with Malachi 4:5–6, Elijah’s appearance signals to the three disciples that God’s reign has come with power also in fulfillment of the long-prophesied Day of the Lord, at which time human history reaches its divinely appointed end and God’s will is done on earth as it is in heaven (see too 9:11–13). Despite Moses’ coming before Elijah in the Old Testament, Mark mentions Elijah first to highlight this signal. Moses accompanies Elijah, because they’re the only Old Testament figures to have heard God on a mountain (Exodus 19:1–25; 24:1–18; 32:1–20; 34:1–35; 1 Kings 19:11–18); and Peter, James, and John are about to hear God speak on this mountain. Elijah along with Moses appears to these disciples, but Elijah and Moses converse only with Jesus. They aren’t transfigured as he is, though, because God’s reign has come with power only in Jesus’ activities. He’s the center of attention. So some of those who heard the prediction in 9:1 saw that God’s reign had come with power even before the Son of Man’s coming “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (8:38), a yet future event of which the transfiguration—along with his miracles, exorcisms, and authoritative teaching—is a preview and guarantee.

9:5–6: And answering [in the sense of responding, since no question has been asked], Peter says to Jesus, “Rabbi, it’s good we’re here” and “Let’s make three tents, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6For he didn’t know what [or “how”] he should answer [= respond]. For they’d become terrified. This terror emphasizes the three disciples’ seeing that God’s reign has come with power before their very eyes, and thus emphasizes the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction and therefore his foreknowledge. Though the locations differ, “here” connects this fulfillment with that prediction (“it’s good we’re here” [9:5] and “some of the ones standing here” [9:1]). Apart from the prediction in 9:1, Peter’s statement, “Rabbi, it’s good we’re here,” would mean that the presence of Peter, James, and John is good for the making of three tents. But because of Jesus’ prediction the statement means that their presence is good because they are seeing the fulfillment of his prediction. So “we” refers only to Peter, James, and John as “some of the ones standing here” in Jesus’ prediction. The same goes for the “us” who Peter suggests should make tents for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. Peter puts Moses before Elijah to conform to their chronological order in the Old Testament and to link his suggestion with Moses’ having made a tent, traditionally called “the tabernacle,” for God’s dwelling in the wilderness (Exodus 26:1–37; 35:4–35; 39:32–40:38). The limitation to three tents—one each for Jesus, Moses, and Elijah and therefore none for the three disciples—shows that Peter has in mind places of honor, as though Moses and Elijah were transfigured along with Jesus. But they weren’t. And though the present tense in “Peter says to Jesus” underlines Peter’s enthusiasm, to keep his audience from overlooking Peter’s error Mark explains that Peter didn’t know how to respond. God himself will shortly correct the error. Meanwhile, the disciples’ terror gives the reason for the error and underscores the overpowering glory of God’s reign that they’re seeing in fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.

9:7–8: And there came a cloud, overshadowing them; and a voice came out of the cloud: “This is my beloved Son. Hear him!” [compare Deuteronomy 18:15]. 8And suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone; rather, [they saw] Jesus alone with themselves [but not with Elijah and Moses]. The cloud signals God’s presence, as in Exodus 16:10; 19:9; 24:15–16; 34:5; 40:34–35; Numbers 9:15–22; 1 Kings 8:10–11 and other passages. The overshadowing eliminates any need for tents and therefore corrects Peter’s suggestion of making three of them. The location on a high mountain indicates complete envelopment rather than just shade overhead (compare Exodus 40:34–38). So everybody on the mountain is enveloped by the cloud. In it the disciples lose sight of Jesus, Elijah, and Moses. But they hear God’s voice, which replaces Elijah’s and Moses’ speaking with Jesus. God tells the three disciples that Jesus is his beloved Son (compare God’s similar statement in 1:11 to Jesus himself) and that they should listen to Jesus—not to Elijah and Moses, it’s implied. Despite the evident pleasure the three disciples took in Elijah’s and Moses’ speaking with Jesus, whatever they’d been saying to him doesn’t compare with what he says (see his own command in 7:14: “Hear me” and compare 4:3, 9, 13–20, 23–24, 33). “Looking around’ implies that the cloud has lifted and that the disciples are looking to see Elijah and Moses with Jesus. But with the exception of Jesus they see no one, for Elijah and Moses have left under cover of the cloud. The suddenness of seeing Jesus alone underlines visually what they’d heard God say to them audibly. “With themselves” complements Jesus’ choosing the apostles to be “with him” (3:14). The declaration that Jesus is God’s beloved Son counteracts Peter’s (and anybody else’s) taking offense at Jesus’ predicted passion and at his consequent command to take up your cross and follow him (8:31–38). Since the disciples have already heard that prediction and that command, though, the present command to hear him looks forward to Jesus’ coming command not to relate what they’ve seen till after the resurrection.

9:9–10: And as they were coming down from the mountain, he ordered them not to relate to anyone the things they’d seen—except when the Son of Man had risen from among the dead. 10And they kept the saying [in obedience to Jesus’ order], though discussing with one another what the rising from the dead [that Jesus predicted for himself] meant. As in 5:43; 7:36; 8:30, Jesus orders silence to avoid the danger of being mobbed by his admirers. After the resurrection, which will issue in the ascension, that danger will have passed. Here, moreover, a premature publicizing of the transfiguration, glorious as it was, would undermine both the teaching that the Son of Man must suffer humiliatingly and the general summons to shameful cross-taking (8:31–38). And after his resurrection, these disciples’ telling about the transfiguration would combine with a proclamation of the resurrection to counteract the scandal of his crucifixion. His having predicted both these events will lend weight to this counteraction. “The things they’d seen” reminds us again of the prediction in 9:1 that some of Jesus’ audience at that time wouldn’t die “until they’d seen God’s reign [as] having come with power.” It will now come out that Peter, James, and John were discussing the meaning of Jesus’ predicted resurrection in relation to the expected return of Elijah—a natural topic of discussion in view of Elijah’s appearance at the transfiguration.

9:11–12: And they were asking him, saying, “Why do the scholars say, ‘Elijah must come first’?”—that is, before the Day of the Lord and therefore, in the disciples’ view (since resurrection is associated with that day), before the Son of Man’s resurrection. A combination of several factors gives rise to this question: (1) the scholars’ teaching in accordance with Malachi 4:5–6 that God will send Elijah before the Day of the Lord; (2) Jesus’ recent mention of the scholars in his first passion-and-resurrection prediction (8:31); (3) Elijah’s appearance at the transfiguration; and (4) the immediately foregoing mention of the Son of Man’s resurrection (9:9–10). 12And he told them, “Indeed on coming first, Elijah restores all things.” Jesus doesn’t answer the disciples’ question why the scholars say Elijah must come first by saying, “Because Malachi prophesied that he would.” Instead, Jesus vaults over scholarly opinion, and even over Malachi’s prophecy, not only by accepting that Elijah must come first but also by predicting that “Elijah restores all things.” The futuristic present tense of “restores” stresses the certainty of the fulfillment. Malachi predicted only that Elijah was going to “turn the heart of fathers to children, and the heart of children to their fathers.” “Restores all things” enlarges Elijah’s coming ministry to include everything needed for the consummation, the Day of the Lord—but not before Jesus’ passion, as now becomes clear in a rhetorical question of his own: “And how [is it that] it’s written against the Son of Man in order that he may suffer severely and be treated with contempt [if indeed Elijah, having come beforehand, restores all things]?” In other words, an earlier restoration of all things would leave no room for Jesus’ maltreatment. “It’s written against the Son of Man” in the sense that the Old Testament says people will turn against him. And “it’s written . . . in order that he may suffer severely [and so on]” in the sense that the Old Testament expresses God’s purpose that the Son of Man should suffer, a purpose the writing of which in Holy Scripture ensures achievement. Jesus has asked a question: “And how [is it that] . . . ?” But he doesn’t answer it. His nonanswer leaves it to be inferred that since the Son of Man’s suffering hasn’t yet occurred, neither has Elijah’s restoration of all things. For the restoration has to follow the suffering.

9:13: “Nevertheless I tell you that even Elijah has come; and they did to him as many things as they wanted, just as it’s written against him.” “Nevertheless I tell you” calls attention to the authority of Jesus’ teaching and sets his implication that Elijah is yet to restore all things over against Jesus’ present affirmation that Elijah has already come and suffered maltreatment in accordance with God’s purpose as expressed in the Old Testament. “Even Elijah” shows that Jesus is referring to John the baptizer in terms of Elijah; that is, Elijah has already come in the person of John. The many things they did to him consisted in Herod Antipas’s arresting, binding, and imprisoning him, Herodias’s plotting his execution, her daughter’s requesting his head, and Herod’s having him beheaded (6:17–29). But neither Malachi nor any other Old Testament prophet predicted maltreatment of the coming Elijah. So “just as it’s written against him” refers to the maltreatment of Elijah in Old Testament history (1 Kings 18–19). Like the old Elijah, so John the baptizer as the new Elijah (compare the old Elijah’s persecutors, Ahab and Jezebel, with the new Elijah’s persecutors, Herod and Herodias). But the old Elijah’s persecutors failed to kill him. The new Elijah’s persecutors succeeded in doing “as many things as they wanted,” including the taking of his life. But though he came as Elijah in fulfillment of Malachi’s prediction (see the comments on 1:6 for John’s Elijah-like appearance), John’s maltreatment not only paralleled the coming maltreatment of Jesus but also prevented his restoring all things. Apparently Jesus looks forward to a yet further coming of Elijah for such a restoration (see Matthew 17:11). Mark’s interest centers, however, on God’s scripturally indicated plan that both the Johannine Elijah and the Son of Man Jesus suffer first. For that plan shows the crucifixion not to have been a tragic, shameful accident.

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF SUPERPOWER IN A SPECIALLY DIFFICULT EXORCISM

Mark 9:14–29

9:14–15: And on coming to the disciples, they [Jesus, Peter, James, and John] saw a large crowd around them [that is, around the remaining nine of the Twelve] and scholars arguing with them. It’ll turn out that the scholars are arguing over the nine disciples’ inability to exorcise a spirit. 15And immediately on seeing him, all the crowd were utterly amazed and were hailing him as they ran toward [him]. Utter amazement seems too strong for mere surprise at seeing Jesus turn up on the scene. Could it be that his garments are still glistening from the transfiguration? Perhaps not, since he told Peter, James, and John not to tell anyone what they saw on that occasion (9:9). On the other hand, the crowd didn’t see the transfiguration in process and the three disciples don’t tell them about it, so that an afterglow wouldn’t have publicized it. In any case, Mark stresses the impact of Jesus’ appearance. Heightening this impact are its immediacy, its affecting the whole of a large crowd, and their running toward him and hailing him. The running and the hailing add Jesus’ magnetism to the impact of his appearance.

9:16–18: And he asked them [the scholars], “Why are you arguing with them [the nine disciples]?” 17And one of the crowd [instead of one of the scholars] answered him, “Teacher, I brought you my son, who has a mute spirit.” The spirit keeps him from speaking during seizures, so that the ability to speak between seizures will eliminate any need to mention a restoration of speech in 9:27 once the spirit is exorcised and no more seizures are in the offing (contrast 7:35). Furthermore, the coming descriptions of the seizures don’t include the usual shrieking and adjurations (contrast 1:23–26; 3:11; 5:6–10). The spirit will let out a shriek in 9:26, but that shriek will signal Jesus’ defeat of the spirit. The father’s addressing Jesus with “Teacher” reminds us of Jesus’ “new [kind of] teaching with authority” since “he even commands unclean spirits, and they obey him” (1:27). “I brought you my son” indicates that the father supposed Jesus would be where he found the nine disciples. Presumably the large crowd had gathered there under the same supposition. The father continues, 18“And wherever it [the spirit] takes possession of him [my son], it dashes [him] to the ground; and he foams [at the mouth] and grinds [his] teeth and stiffens up. And I told your disciples to cast it out, and they weren’t strong enough [to do so].” The spirit’s dominion over the son goes beyond dumbness. The further details describing the seizures—and more are to come—will make Jesus’ exorcism all the more impressive in its superior power. Despite their successful exorcisms earlier on (6:12–13), the disciples weren’t strong enough to cast out this spirit (compare 5:4). Their powerlessness, too, will make Jesus’ exorcism of the spirit all the more impressive. He is truly “the stronger one” of whom John the baptizer spoke (1:7).

9:19: But he, answering them, says, “O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him to me.” Though the father has just been speaking to Jesus, Jesus answers “them.” So the father represents the crowd, including the scholars, in his unbelief (compare 9:24, where the father will say, “Help my unbelief”). The disciples aren’t included in the unbelieving generation, though, because they stood opposite the crowd in the foregoing argument; and Jesus won’t mention unbelief on their part when they ask him why they failed to exorcise the spirit (9:28–29). It looks as though he condemns the crowd for making the disciples’ failure a reason to disbelieve in the power of Jesus himself. The present tense of “says,” the prefixing of “answering,” and “O unbelieving generation” lend gravity to Jesus’ exasperated questions (compare 8:12). And the questions themselves, “How long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you?” hint at his being killed before long without actually predicting it in public (see 8:31–33 with comments). “Bring him to me” shows Jesus’ determination to expose the baselessness of unbelief in him. (A plural “you” is hidden in “Bring” as its subject.}

9:20: And they brought him [the son] to him [Jesus]. And on seeing him [Jesus], the spirit immediately convulsed him [the son]. And falling on the ground he started rolling around, foaming [at the mouth]. The spirit convulses the son to intimidate Jesus with a demonstration of its power, but the demonstration will serve only to heighten the superiority of Jesus’ power. Sharpening this point are the immediacy of the convulsion and the details of falling on the ground, rolling around, and foaming at the mouth. Because the spirit causes muteness during seizures, there’s no verbal attempt to ward off Jesus (contrast 1:24; 5:7).

Not content with the already vivid details concerning the spirit’s power over the son, Mark incorporates a dialogue between Jesus and the father. The dialogue adds further details that will make a successful exorcism all the more impressive. 9:21–22: And he asked his [the son’s] father, “How long a time is it since this has happened to him?” And he said, “From childhood. 22And many times it has thrown him both into fire and into water to destroy him. Nevertheless, if you’re able [to do] anything, help us by having compassion on us.” “From childhood” makes the possession nearly lifelong and therefore difficult to break (compare 5:25–26 in regard to a long illness). “Many times” adds frequency to duration—with the same effect of difficulty. The destructive purpose of the spirit comes out in its throwing the son sometimes into fire, for incineration, and sometimes into water, for drowning. The very variety of fire and water highlights this destructive purpose and by contrast will therefore highlight equally well the life-saving power of Jesus. The father’s question whether Jesus can help arises out of the nine disciples’ failure. If their ability derives from his, their failure casts doubt on his ability. “Nevertheless” puts emphasis on the father’s appeal for help, however. He believes in Jesus’ compassion more than he disbelieves in Jesus’ ability. And whereas he asked the nine disciples for an exorcism (9:18), because of disbelief in Jesus’ ability he now asks him to help only by way of “anything” he can do. Since the father has a stake in the welfare of his son, he includes himself (“help us”) as a possible co-beneficiary of Jesus’ help.

9:23–24: But Jesus told him, “As to the [phrase], ‘If you’re able,’ all things [are] able [to be done] for the person who believes.” This answer neatly shifts the focus from Jesus’ ability, about which there should be no question, to a petitioner’s belief. The dropping of “[to do] anything” from the father’s appeal, which Jesus here quotes in part, allows emphasis to fall now on “all things.” They include the particularly difficult exorcism at hand. Even it can be performed for the believer in Jesus. 24Immediately shouting out, the father of the little child was saying, “I believe. Help my unbelief.” “From childhood” in 9:21 implied the son’s adulthood, or at least his young manhood. As before, then, and in line with a common use of diminutives, “the little child” reflects the son’s endearment to the father (compare 5:23, 39–42). Mark’s description of the father’s response as a shout, and an immediate one at that, portrays Jesus as worthy of belief. Apparently the father brought his son with belief in Jesus’ ability to exorcise the spirit; but the failure of the disciples, who represent Jesus, crushed his belief in Jesus’ ability—hence Jesus’ outburst (“O unbelieving generation . . .”). And now the father’s belief revives, but accompanied by some vestigial unbelief, for the overcoming of which he asks for Jesus’ help. The present tense of the request for help (literally, “Be helping . . .”) stresses the need for Jesus’ help in getting rid of some unbelief that lingers because the disciples’ recent failure has raised the spectre of failure on Jesus’ part too.

9:25–27: And on seeing that a crowd is running together, Jesus reprimanded the unclean spirit by saying to it, “Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never again enter into him.” It has been assumed that deafness underlies the muteness; but deafness is now mentioned explicitly. 26And on shrieking and convulsing [the son] severely, it [the spirit] came out. And he became as if dead, so that the many were saying, “He died.” 27But Jesus, on grasping his hand, raised him; and he stood up. Back in 9:15 the crowd was running toward Jesus. To reemphasize his magnetism, Mark mentions their running again. Jesus wanted privacy to perform this very difficult exorcism of a spirit that causes muteness and deafness just as he’d wanted privacy to perform the very difficult healing of a deaf-mute (7:33–35). By now, though, the crowd running toward him is congealing around him. So seeing that they are, as stressed by “is running together,” Jesus reprimands the spirit before things get too crowded for comfort. “Unclean” describes the spirit as deserving of exorcism, and Jesus’ addressing it as “deaf” as well as “mute” heightens the difficulty of the exorcism and thus its success. The reprimand consists in the command to come out and never reenter. Jesus addresses the spirit as “mute and deaf” because it causes muteness and deafness. But the spirit itself can hear and speak. So it shrieks in despair and, though making a final attempt to destroy the son with a severe convulsion, comes out in obedience to Jesus’ command. “And never again enter into him” contrasts with the frequency of the son’s earlier seizures and raises Jesus’ success to the level of permanence. Mark’s saying that “the many” were saying the son was dead doesn’t imply that others in the crowd drew a different conclusion. It means that the crowd consisted of many people, all of whom were inferring the son’s death. They’re still the “unbelieving generation” of 9:19. They believe the spirit has succeeded in killing the son rather than that Jesus has succeeded in exorcising the spirit. But no, he grabs the son’s hand and raises him with the result that he stands up—alive. A marvelous victory for Jesus and defeat of the spirit after all! The raising of the son from seeming death and his standing up may look forward to the raising of Jesus from actual death and his resurrection, for “resurrection” means quite literally a “standing up” (compare 5:41–42; 8:31; 9:9).

9:28–29: And when he’d gone into a house, his disciples were asking him privately, “Why weren’t we able to cast it out?” 29And he told them, “This kind [of spirit] is able to come out by no means except by prayer.” The disciples’ question recalls their failure as a foil against which Jesus’ success stands out. But he didn’t pray so as to exorcise the mute and deaf spirit (= “This kind”). So what does he mean by citing the necessity of prayer? He means that they must pray to be successful in so difficult a case. But he’s John the baptizer’s “stronger one” (1:7). He was able to exorcise the spirit without praying. The disciples’ needing to pray in such a case therefore provides another foil for Jesus’ superior strength.

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT HIS OWN DEATH AND RESURRECTION

Mark 9:30–32

9:30–32: And on going out from there [that is, from the house mentioned in 9:28], they [Jesus and the Twelve] were traveling along through Galilee. And he didn’t want anyone to know [hence the lack of ministry along the way]. 31For he was teaching his disciples and saying to them, “The Son of Man is being given over into the hands of men, and they’ll kill him. And on being killed, he’ll rise [literally, ‘stand up’] after three days.” 32But they didn’t understand the pronouncement and were afraid to ask him [what it meant]. Jesus’ teaching the disciples about his death and resurrection gives the reason for their traveling incognito (compare the private setting of his first such teaching and the command to keep it secret [8:27–33]). Historically, he was redefining his messiahship in a way the disciples needed to accept but that the general Jewish populace were sure to reject. They were all looking forward to freedom from Roman dominance and to their own dominance, under the Messiah’s leadership, over other nations. Jesus was taking the role of a suffering and then vindicated messiah. But Mark is writing for Gentiles, not Jews, as evident from his explanation of Jewish traditions in 7:3–4. So he doesn’t mention Jewish nationalistic messianism as the backdrop against which Jesus sets his teaching. It’s the teaching as prediction that interests Mark, for as such it carries great apologetic value in defanging Jesus’ crucifixion. His ability to predict it and the resurrection to follow—this ability takes away the shame of his crucifixion by making the crucifixion an exhibition of his predictive power and God’s plan. “Is being given over” refers to Judas Iscariot’s coming betrayal of Jesus to the Jewish authorities (14:10–11, 18, 21 and so forth), to their giving Jesus over to Pontius Pilate (15:1, 10), and to Pilate’s giving him over to the soldiers who crucified him (15:15). The use of the present tense for these future events shows the events to be certain of fulfillment. There’s a wordplay between “the Son of Man” and “hands of men.” This latter phrase connotes oppressive, violent treatment in contrast with God’s mercy (see 2 Samuel 24:14 among many other passages; also Genesis 31:29 for the connotation of power). Despite the connotation of crucifixion as the execution of a criminal, then, Jesus will die not as a criminal but at the hands of criminals. “After three days” indicates the quickness of his vindication through resurrection. The disciples’ failure to understand his prediction despite its clarity makes his foreknowledge stand out, and their fearing to ask him for an explanation shows him to be awesome. Just what it is about the prediction that they don’t understand Mark doesn’t say. So his emphasis falls on ignorance and fear as such, because they provide foils for Jesus’ foreknowledge and awesomeness.

JESUS’ TEACHING WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE

Mark 9:33–50

This long passage, consisting mainly of Jesus’ sayings, is set in Capernaum. Its first section grows out of a dispute over greatness (9:33–37). Its second section grows out of a rivalrous confrontation (9:38–50). Just as Jesus’ power of prediction proved frightfully awesome in 9:30–32, here the power with which he shatters norms proves explosive.

9:33–34: And they entered Capernaum. And on coming to be in the house [Peter’s (see the comments on 2:1)], he was asking them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept silent, for on the road they’d discussed with one another who [of them was] greater [than the others]. “On the road” implies that Jesus had made his preceding passion-and-resurrection prediction on the road just as he’d made the first such prediction on the road (see 8:27 with 8:31; also 10:32–34). The disciples’ failure to understand the preceding prediction shows up now in an argument over which of them is greater than the others. Had they understood the coming fate of their awe-inspiring teacher, such an argument would hardly have arisen. It’s easy to think they keep silent out of sheepishness over discussing a self-centered issue, but Mark leaves the reason for their silence unidentified. For him, it’s enough that their silence will enable Jesus to display his supernatural knowledge of the argument (compare 2:8) just as he displayed supernatural knowledge of his coming death and resurrection. He’s equally aware of what has taken place and will yet take place. Such knowledge undercuts the notion that in his passion he’ll be a victim. He’ll be, rather, a victor.

9:35–37: And on sitting down, he called the Twelve and says to them, “If anyone wants to be first [in rank], he shall be last of all and servant of all.” 36And on taking a little child, he had him stand in their midst. And on hugging him to himself, he told them, 37“Whoever welcomes one of such children [as I’ve hugged this one] on the basis of my name [for this child represents others likewise acceptable to me] welcomes me [in that I’ve welcomed the child]. And whoever welcomes me doesn’t welcome me; rather, [he welcomes] the one who sent me [for I’m that one’s messenger].” Jesus’ sitting puts him in the authoritative posture of a teacher (see the comments on 4:1–2). “He called the Twelve” indicates the vigor with which he exercises his teacherly authority over them. “The Twelve” provides a numerical framework for the upcoming contrast between first and last, that is, between first and twelfth. Then Jesus says that “if anyone wants to be first, he shall be last of all”—“shall be” not as a prediction but as a command (compare 10:30, for example: “You shall love the Lord your God . . .”). The present tense in “he . . . says to them” lends force to the command, which shows Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of their unconfessed argument (compare 10:41–44). “Of all” commands the wisher for firstness to demote himself to utter lastness, and “servant of all” defines this utter lastness in terms of subservience to the other disciples as well as to Jesus. Presumably the little child whom he takes, makes to stand in the midst of the Twelve, and hugs to himself lives in the house where they are. As before, then, “little” may connote endearment rather than toddlership. Since Jesus is sitting, he doesn’t have to bend down to hug the child, whose standing posture enables Jesus to reach out and envelop the child in his embrace. Just as by sitting he took the authoritative posture of a teacher, so he has the child take the reverential posture of standing, as suits a representative of all children who according to 9:42 “believe in [him].” Hugging represents visually his welcoming such a child, and welcoming means acceptance into his new family of those who do God’s will (3:31–35). The disciples’ welcoming such a child entails welcoming Jesus himself, and welcoming Jesus entails welcoming God, who sent him. “Not me . . . rather, the one who sent me” is an emphatic way of saying “not me so much as the one who sent me.” “One of such children” emphasizes the obligation to welcome even a single child who believes in Jesus. “On the basis of my name” specifies the ground of welcoming such a child. It’s that Jesus has welcomed the child and thus associated his own name with that child. So adult believers shouldn’t pursue greatness. For if they do pursue it, they’ll shut out child-believers—hence Jesus himself and God. Thus Jesus turns the question of greatness inside out by shifting attention from greatness among the Twelve to their welcoming of children, which shows humility in contrast with the self-exalting pride that gave rise to their arguing who of them was greater than the others. The “all” whom the Twelve are to serve and with whom Jesus associates his name include children as well as the Twelve. Mark’s point graduates from Jesus’ supernatural knowledge of the Twelve’s argument to the explosive force of Jesus’ upsetting the societal norms of trying to be first and of denigrating children (as was done in that culture, contrary to current western culture). He even makes himself an example of welcoming children who believe in him.

9:38: John [the apostle] told him, “Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name and were telling him not to, because he wasn’t following us.” “Teacher” calls to mind Jesus’ didactic authority, represented in 9:35 by his seated position; and the unnamed exorcist’s use of Jesus’ name recalls the receiving of children on the basis of his name (9:37). That his name effects exorcisms even when used by an independent exorcist highlights Jesus’ power. It’s ironic that the Twelve had been telling this exorcist to stop doing successfully what they themselves recently tried and failed to do in 9:14–29. Their having told him to stop contrasts with the reception of children that Jesus has just told them to exercise and displays the same pretensions that had caused them to argue who of them was greater than the others. We expect John to say to Jesus, “because he wasn’t following you.” Instead he says, “because he wasn’t following us.” Since the “we” who were forbidding the exorcist didn’t include Jesus, but only the Twelve, “us” probably excludes Jesus. In any case, the Twelve’s pretension of greatness stands out: just as they follow Jesus, they too want to be followed. Highlighting this pretension is the abruptness of “John told him” (there’s no preceding “And,” “But,” or “Then”).

9:39–42: But Jesus said, “Don’t tell him not to [cast out demons in my name].” Now Jesus backs up his prohibition with three reasons, the last of which is double-barreled: (1) “For there’s no one who’ll perform a miracle on the basis of my name and be able to badmouth me quickly.” (2) 40“For the person who isn’t against us is for us.” (3) 41“For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink in name that you are Christ’s [= that you’re in the category of belonging to Christ]—amen I tell you that he’ll by no means lose his reward; 42and whoever trips up one of these little ones who believe in me—it’s good for him, rather, if an upper millstone collars his neck and he’s been thrown into the sea.” The expansive phrase, “there’s no one who,” makes for a stronger negation than the shorter, usual “no one.” Jesus uses “miracle” to include acts of supernatural power in addition to exorcisms. He means that using his name to work a miracle and turning around right away to badmouth him can’t go together, because a person who thinks so highly of Jesus’ name as to use it in working a miracle won’t badmouth Jesus, the owner of that name. “Quickly” leaves open the possibility of later apostasy, however. In giving his second reason, Jesus expands John’s “us,” if limited to the Twelve in 9:38, to include himself (Jesus) and changes John’s reference to “following” to being for or against them all. As a result, Jesus remains the only one to be followed, though he associates the Twelve with himself in the battle against evil powers. He doesn’t make the self-evident point that the person who’s for them isn’t against them—rather, the not-so-evident point that since the independent exorcist isn’t against Jesus and the Twelve (after all, he uses Jesus’ name), he’s for them. So don’t try to stop him. He’s on our side.

Two “whoever”-statements make up Jesus’ third reason. In the first of these statements he says that the extension of minimal hospitality to the Twelve (giving them a cup of water to drink) because they belong to Christ is enough to ensure the reward of entrance into God’s kingdom. For such hospitality gives evidence of believing in the good news of that kingdom. General humanitarianism isn’t in view. Jesus is speaking about treatment of the Twelve in their evangelistic travels. If giving them even minimal hospitality ensures eternal reward, then following the Twelve mustn’t be required. So don’t tell the independent exorcist to stop just because he’s not following you. “You are Christ’s” implies Jesus’ acceptance of Peter’s calling him “the Christ” (8:29) and casts the giving of a cup of water in the mold of an acted-out confession of Jesus as the Christ.

In the second “whoever”-statement, “one of these little ones who believe in me” alludes to the children represented by the child that Jesus had stand in the midst of the Twelve (9:36–37) and limits his reference to children who believe in him. He isn’t talking about children in general. “Trips up” means “makes to sin” or, more probably, “makes to apostatize/lose faith,” as the Twelve are liable to do if they strive for greatness rather than receiving and serving all, even children, in the circle of believers. Literally, “upper” means “having to do with a donkey” and therefore describes the millstone as so heavy that it has to be turned by donkey-power. (A millstone is large, flat, round, and used of course for grinding grain.) Such a stone, lying around the neck, not only ensures drowning but also kills all hope of the drowned body’s rising to the surface and floating ashore for burial. People of the Bible looked with horror on any kind of death that precluded burial. The unrealism of having your head shoved through the center hole of an upper millstone, worn like a collar, intensifies the horror. The un-Jewishness of execution by drowning also intensifies it. “He’s been thrown into the sea” stresses permanence. The fate that Jesus thus describes contrasts sharply with the reward promised in 9:41. Yet he describes this fate as emphatically “good” in comparison with the fate of the adult who trips up a believing child. So this latter fate must be horrible beyond description. Well, not quite beyond description. For Jesus is about to describe it in terms of hellfire (9:43–49). He hasn’t said that having an upper millstone laid around your neck and being thrown into the sea “would be” good by comparison. It “is” good by comparison. Jesus is speaking about a matter of fact.

In summary, the independent exorcist isn’t to be hindered, (1) because suspecting fellow believers outside one’s close circle underestimates the number of people on Jesus’ side (9:39b); (2) because a sense of rivalry makes believers fail to recognize their friends (9:40); and (3) because welcoming a messenger of the gospel amounts to believing for salvation (9:41), whereas causing a mere child who believes to lose faith brings horrible judgment on the culprit (9:42).

Now comes a series of three sayings beginning “And if [a part of your body] is tripping you up,” followed by a command, and ending with “it’s good that you . . . .” 9:43, 45, 47–48 (9:44, 46 being absent from the earliest and best manuscripts and present as unoriginal additions in other manuscripts): “And if your hand is tripping you up, cut it off. It’s good [again with emphasis] that you go into [eternal] life maimed rather than that having two hands you go away into gehenna, [that is,] into the unquenchable fire.” Again sinning is in view, but now sinning caused by a member of your own body, not by someone else (as in 9:42). And again eternal judgment is in view, but this time for self-made sinners, not for those who cause others to sin. “Gehenna” refers to the Valley of Hinnom along the south side of Jerusalem. It was used as a garbage dump, where fire was constantly burning up combustible trash and maggots were constantly feeding on organic matter. But here “gehenna” stands as a figure of speech for the eternal torment of sinners. Jesus designs his warning not only to keep the Twelve (and us) from self-induced sinning, but also by deflating them to keep them from forbidding the independent exorcist and from rejecting children who believe in Jesus. Insiders and grownups like the Twelve have their own danger to avoid. 45“And if your foot is tripping you up, cut it off. It’s good that you go into [eternal] life lame rather than that having two feet you be thrown into gehenna. 47And if your eye is tripping you up, throw it out [= gouge it out]. It’s good that you go into God’s kingdom [here equivalent to eternal life in the future] rather than that having two eyes you be thrown into gehenna, 48where ‘their worm doesn’t come to an end and the fire isn’t quenched’ [Isaiah 66:24].” “Their worm” is a collective singular for the maggots that, so to speak, will endlessly feed on sinners; and the unquenching of the fire likewise stands for the eternality of their punishment. Thus Jesus raises the glories of God’s kingdom and the miseries of hell to almost unimaginable degrees.

9:49–50: “For everyone will be salted with fire. 50Salt [is] good. But if the salt were to become saltless, with what will you season it? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with one another.” “For” (in the sense of “because”) makes the future salting of everybody with fire the reason for obeying now the commands in 9:43–48. To be salted is to have salt thrown on you. To be salted “with fire” is to have fire thrown on you as if the fire were salt being thrown on you (compare the turning of Lot’s wife into a pillar of salt when the Lord threw fire down on Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 19:24–26]). So having fire thrown on you complements your being thrown into the fire of gehenna—two ways of portraying the punishment of sinners. But Jesus says that “everyone will be salted with fire,” whereas not everyone will be thrown into the fire of gehenna. Some will enter eternal life instead. So for them the fire with which they’ll be salted will be a test, which they’ll pass, rather than a punishment, such as sinners will suffer (compare 1 Corinthians 3:12–15). The figure of being “salted with fire” then leads to salt itself. Unlike the fire of eternal punishment, salt is “good,” because it stands for peaceful relations between believers (contrast the Twelve’s arguing with each other who of them was greater than the others, also their forbidding the independent exorcist [9:33–34, 38]; and compare the use of salt, because of its preservative power, for the perpetuity of a covenantal relationship [Exodus 30:35; Leviticus 2:13; Numbers 18:19; 2 Chronicles 13:5; Ezra 4:14; Ezekiel 43:24]). Salt can become saltless if sodium chloride dissolves away from impure salt, if unscrupulous dealers adulterate salt with cheaper ingredients, and if an admixture of gypsum masks the taste of salt. These possibilities stand for the breakdown of peace among disciples. There wasn’t any substitute for salt as a seasoning, so that the impossibility of restoring saltiness to salt that has lost its saltiness underlines the need for disciples to keep peace with one another. For without such peace, hostility from unbelievers will lead believers to apostatize. Thus Jesus has crushed with overpowering authority the disciples’ contentiousness.

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN A PUTDOWN OF PHARISEES ON THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE

Mark 10:1–12

10:1: And on standing up [from the seated position Jesus took in 9:35], he goes from there [the house in Capernaum (9:33)] into the borders of Judea and Transjordan [the east side of the river, so as to avoid going through Samaria, whose inhabitants could be antagonistic toward Jewish pilgrims passing through their territory]. And again crowds travel together to him; and as he was accustomed [to do], he was teaching them again. The present tense in “he goes” stresses the determination of Jesus to meet his fate, for he now enters the region where his passion-and-resurrection predictions will come true (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34). Even though Jesus goes through Transjordan before entering Judea, Mark mentions Judea first because it’s there in particular that the fulfillments will take place. More particularly, in 11:1 he’ll put Jerusalem first and work backward through Bethphage and Bethany, though Jesus will go through them in the reverse order. “Travel” suits what pilgrims do. But Mark won’t mention the Festival of Passover till 14:1; and here in 10:1 he describes the crowds as traveling to Jesus rather than to Jerusalem, where they’ll celebrate the festival. This surprising—we might even say odd—turn of phrase joins the present tense of “travel” to highlight Jesus’ magnetism, which Mark never tires of emphasizing. “Together” suits the plural of “crowds.” The plural adds to the emphasis on Jesus’ magnetism. And “again” recalls his attracting crowds on prior occasions too (most recently in 9:25). Mark doesn’t say what Jesus was teaching the crowds. So quite apart from subject matter, the accent reverts to Jesus’ didactic authority that amazed people and drew them to him (1:21–22, 27–28, 35–39). His teaching “again” and “as he was accustomed [to do]” underlines this authority with frequency and sets the stage for some Pharisees’ testing him. The teacher will get tested (compare 7:5; 8:11; 12:13–15)!

10:2–4: And on approaching [Jesus], by way of testing him [some] Pharisees were asking him if it’s lawful [according to the Old Testament] for a husband to divorce [his] wife. 3But answering, he said to them, “What did Moses command you?” 4And they said, “Moses permitted writing a certificate of dismissal and divorcing [the wife].” These Pharisees should know better than to test Jesus. But they do it anyway. Mark doesn’t specify what was difficult or controversial about their question (contrast the qualification “for any cause” in Matthew 19:3). It’s enough for him that Jesus will pass the test over the effort of the Pharisees to expose ignorance on his part. He starts outfoxing them by answering their question with one of his own: “What did Moses command you?” They’d asked indefinitely about “a husband.” He could have asked in return, “What did Moses command?” But by adding “you,” and by adding it rather than “him” (the husband) or “us,” Jesus puts the onus on his interrogators. In effect, he’s testing them rather than they him. “You” also distances Jesus from these Pharisees to prepare for his opposition to the Pharisaically held command of Moses. To emphasize divorce as a husband’s privilege (which a Jewish wife lacked), they replace Jesus’ verb of command with a verb of permission. They also avoid his pointed and distancing “you” by omission of a corresponding “us”; and they quote directly from Deuteronomy 24:1, which reads in part that a husband “writes for her [his wife] a certificate of dismissal and gives [it] into her hand and sends her out of his house.” To emphasize further a husband’s privilege, the Pharisees omit the Deuteronomic phrase “for her,” omit the Deuteronomic clause “and gives [the certificate] into her hand,” and summarize sending her out of her husband’s house with a simple “divorcing.”

10:5: But Jesus told them, “[With a view] toward your hardheartedness he [Moses] wrote this command for you.” Jesus corrects the Pharisees’ emphasis on husbandly privilege by describing Deuteronomy 24:1 as a command. In its Deuteronomic context, however, the quoted words are not a command—rather, a reference to what was customary. The custom of giving the wife a certificate of dismissal had the purposes of protecting her from a false accusation of desertion and of authenticating her right to remarry, which she would need to do for economic support. In his typically authoritative way, though, Jesus treats the custom as a command and by doing so elevates women’s rights and protection above husbandly privilege. At the same time, he says Moses wrote the command with a view toward the Pharisees’ hardheartedness, so that husbandly privilege not only yields to women’s rights and protection. It will now drop into the sinkhole of a male chauvinistic failure to recognize God’s purpose in creating male and female.

So Jesus continues in 10:6–9: “But from the beginning of creation [compare Genesis 1:1] ‘he [God] made them [human beings] male and female [Genesis 1:27].’ 7‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother [some manuscripts, though not the best, add “and cleave to his wife”], 8and the two shall be one flesh [Genesis 2:24].’ And so they’re no longer two; rather, [they’re] one flesh. 9Therefore what God has yoked together [by commanding male and female to be one flesh in marital coitus, the leaving of father and mother implying marriage rather than a casual liaison] a human being is not to separate [compare Malachi 2:15–16].” The human being who isn’t to break up the marriage is the husband, who alone had the right of divorce under Moses’ law. According to Jesus, then, the husband, who’s a mere human being in contrast to God, has no right of divorce—the Mosaic law’s permitting it to the contrary notwithstanding. We’d expect Jesus to say “those whom God has yoked together.” The surprising “what God has yoked together” stresses the oneness of fleshly union in marriage. Genesis 1:27, quoted by Jesus, doesn’t deal with the question of divorce, but with fruitfulness—that is, with propagation of the human race so as to fill the earth, subdue it, and rule over other creatures in it (Genesis 1:28). And in Genesis 2:24, “For this reason” doesn’t refer to God’s making the first human beings “male and female,” but to his making Eve out of Adam’s side. So the reason for a man’s leaving his father and mother to be one flesh with his wife has to do with Eve’s origin in Adam: since woman came from man, he should unite himself with her to recapture their original unity. Jesus goes beyond Genesis, however, by inferring that marital coitus, commanded as it is by God himself, makes divorcing a wife fundamentally illegitimate despite the Mosaic command. Speechless in view of Jesus’ authoritative pronouncement, the Pharisees fade from view.

10:10–12: And [when he’d gone] into the house again, the disciples were asking him about this [Jesus’ pronouncement on divorce]. “The house” can’t refer in particular to the house in Capernaum, Galilee, into which he last entered in 9:33; for Jesus has now come into the borders of Transjordan and Judea (10:1). So the house refers to a house that typifies the class of buildings in which he converses with his disciples. Their inquiry underlines the unexpectedness of his pronouncement on divorce. Mark doesn’t specify the point of the inquiry, so that attention concentrates on unexpectedness as such. 11And he tells them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another [woman] commits adultery against her [his earlier wife]. 12And if she, on divorcing her husband, marries another [man], she commits adultery.” Remarriage constitutes adultery because the one who remarries still belongs to the earlier spouse. So divorce leads to adultery through another marriage. It doesn’t free from adultery in another marriage. Thus God’s ordinance, evident since creation, makes divorce an instrument of sin rather than a way to avoid it. “Against her” heightens the explosive force of Jesus’ pronouncement; for a man was thought to commit adultery only against the husband of the woman with whom he had sex, but not against his own wife. It’s not so much that Jesus elevates women to equality with men (though his pronouncement tends toward such an effect) as that he elevates divine ordinance over husbandly privilege. The present tense in “he tells them” stresses this elevation.

The possibility of a wife’s divorcing her husband reflects Gentile rather than Jewish culture. In a male-dominated culture it went without saying that if a man commits adultery against his wife by divorcing her and marrying another woman, then a woman certainly commits adultery against her husband by divorcing him and marrying another man (compare Romans 7:2–3). So there’s no reason for Jesus to add “against him” for a match with “against her.” But Gentiles didn’t consider a woman who divorces her husband and marries another man an adulteress any more than Jews considered a man who divorces his wife and marries another woman an adulterer. Jesus’ pronouncement is countercultural across the board, then. He has upset norms and expectations by saying that the Son of Man must be killed and rise after three days, that a person must lose life to save it, that Elijah has already come, that anyone who wants to be first must make himself last, that entering God’s kingdom with a maimed body is better than going to hell with a whole body, and that the remarriage of a divorced man or woman is adulterous. Now he’ll continue to upset one norm after another by blessing children, describing wealth as a disadvantage impossible for anyone but God to overcome, and advocating a life of voluntary servitude. Even on his way to crucifixion, especially on it, Mark’s Jesus dumbfounds disciples and silences enemies with iconoclastic force.

JESUS’ MAKING LITTLE CHILDREN AN EXAMPLE OF MEMBERSHIP IN GOD’S KINGDOM

Mark 10:13–16

10:13: And people were bringing little children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples reprimanded them. Presumably it was parents who were bringing their little children, but Mark doesn’t say so. Presumably the touch people were seeking for the children was a touch of blessing, but again Mark doesn’t say so. And presumably the disciples reprimanded the parents, not the children; but yet again Mark doesn’t say so. He doesn’t even say why the disciples engaged in reprimand. His interest lies solely in Jesus’ astonishing response.

10:14–15: And on seeing [what was happening], Jesus got indignant and told them [the disciples], “Let the little children come to me. Stop forbidding them [to do so]. For God’s kingdom belongs to [little children] such as these [that is, to little children who like these ones come to Jesus]. 15Amen I say to you, whoever doesn’t accept God’s kingdom [in the sense of submitting now to his reign] as a little child [accepts it] will by no means enter into it [in the sense of entering into the sphere where at the end God’s reign will have defeated Satan, sin, and death and brought salvation and eternal life].” The disciples’ taking it on themselves to engage in a wrongheaded reprimand angers Jesus. His command, “Let the little children come to me,” shows that the disciples have been succeeding in their effort to keep the children from coming to him. Astonishingly, he not only accredits the possession of God’s kingdom to children who come to him. In this respect he also makes them exemplars for adults. The kingdom is God’s in that he reigns in it, and it belongs to such children in that they will own its benefits. “Come to me” signals a shift from the children’s being brought by others to the children’s approaching Jesus themselves, and this shift leads into his interpreting their coming as an acceptance of God’s rule, evident in Jesus’ activities. So the children belong to the class of “little ones” who “believe” in him (9:42) and therefore deserve reception on the basis of his name (9:37). Though the children are little, then, they’re old enough to believe in Jesus. Parents loved their children then as now, but society at large disregarded them for the most part. So Jesus’ making children’s acceptance of God’s reign an example for adults to follow—on pain of nonentrance into God’s kingdom if their example isn’t followed—needed extra emphasis. Hence the introduction, “Amen I say to you.”

10:16: And on hugging them [the little children], he was blessing [them] while laying [his] hands on them. The hugging goes beyond the touching for which the children were brought and thereby heightens with body language Jesus’ verbal approval of their coming to him. Subsequently, blessing them while laying hands on them combines spoken language with body language in a single act. It’s as though the spoken words of blessing flow down through his hands onto the children. To bless (in Mark’s original Greek) is to speak well of. Having addressed the disciples, then, Jesus addresses the children by way of speaking well of their coming to him.

JESUS’ SHATTERING THE ACCEPTED ECONOMICS OF SALVATION

Mark 10:17–31

The first part of this passage consists in a dialogue between Jesus and a rich man (10:17–22), the second part in a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples (10:23–27), and the third part in a dialogue between Jesus and Peter (10:28–31).

10:17: And as he [Jesus] was going out to a road harks back to his having entered a house (10:10) and confirms that his blessing the children (10:13–16) took place in the house. One [man], on running to him and falling on his knees, was asking him, “Good teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?” The man’s running to Jesus and kneeling exhibits both Jesus’ magnetism and the man’s desperation (compare 1:40; 5:22). The kneeling surpasses the reverence shown to an ordinary teacher and thus reminds us of Jesus’ divine sonship (1:1, 11; 5:7). “Good teacher” shows recognition not only of Jesus’ didactic authority but also of his moral virtue (a point not to be lost on Mark’s audience, who might draw an opposite inference from their knowledge that Jesus died by crucifixion, a method of execution used on criminals). The man’s question what he should do to inherit eternal life therefore seeks an authoritative answer from a morally reliable source. Describing the man as “one” makes for a wordplay with “no one” and “except one” in Jesus’ response.

10:18–19: But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? There [is] no one good except one, [that is,] God. 19You know the commandments: ‘You shouldn’t murder. You shouldn’t commit adultery. You shouldn’t steal. You shouldn’t give false testimony. You shouldn’t defraud [anybody]. Honor your father and mother [Exodus 20:12–16; Deuteronomy 5:16–20].’ ” Nobody would be surprised to hear that God is good. But the Old Testament calls some human beings good (Proverbs 13:22; 14:14, 19), and neither the Jews nor the Gentiles of Jesus’ day would say that God alone is good. Jesus says so, however. Here we have, then, another of his revolutionary pronouncements.[2] That God alone is good lays groundwork for the inadequacy of keeping commandments, even his commandments (see 10:19–21). “Except one, [that is,] God,” echoes a phrase in the scribes’ question at 2:7: “Who can forgive sins except one, [that is,] God?” There, Jesus proceeded to work a miracle for a demonstration of his divine prerogative to forgive sins. The present echo makes his following words (which will display omniscience) a demonstration that he likewise possesses divine goodness. And this latter demonstration lays groundwork for following him, rather than keeping commandments, as the only way to inherit eternal life, have treasure in heaven, and enter God’s kingdom (10:21). Jesus doesn’t say, “Keep the commandments to inherit eternal life.” He says, “You know the commandments,” and goes on to recite some of them, starting with the second table of the Decalogue. But for the tenth commandment, “You shouldn’t covet,” Jesus substitutes a variant on the prohibition of stealing: “You shouldn’t defraud [anybody].” It’s easier to keep from defrauding others (an evil deed) than it is to keep from coveting their possessions (an evil desire). So Jesus leaves the door open for the man’s coming claim to have “guarded all these things” (10:20). But before the man does make that claim, Jesus doubles back to the commandment to honor your father and mother, another commandment relatively easy to keep and, like the other ones quoted, dealing with interpersonal relations. He selects these commandments because of the damage wealth often does to such relations. Though Mark hasn’t yet indicated that the man is wealthy, Jesus omnisciently knows of his wealth. In the meantime, the prohibition of coveting looks conspicuous by its absence; and in the end, the man’s reaction will show him guilty of covetousness.

10:20–21: But he [the man] said to him [Jesus], “Teacher, I’ve guarded all these things since my youth.” 21But Jesus, gazing intently at him, loved him and told him, “One thing is lacking so far as you’re concerned. Go, sell however many things you have, and give [the proceeds] to the poor; and you’ll have treasure in heaven. And [come] here! Follow me!” In addressing Jesus, the man no longer calls him “good.” He has failed to catch the implication that Jesus’ union with God as God’s Son makes him share God’s goodness just as he shares God’s prerogative of forgiving sins. The man also refers to “all these things,” the activities referenced in the commandments rather than the commandments as such, and thus calls attention to his not murdering, not committing adultery, and so on. The man claims to have guarded such activities in the sense of being careful to avoid the prohibited ones and to engage in the required one. You can almost hear him breathe a sigh of relief when saying he has guarded “all these things.” “Since my youth” implies he’s now an adult and probably takes its starting point from his having become fully obligated to keep the commandments at thirteen years of age.

The intensity of Jesus’ gazing at the man and the recency of Jesus’ having hugged children and laid hands on them in a physical demonstration of blessing them—these factors favor that loving the man includes another physical demonstration, such as putting his arm around him or patting him on the shoulder. The verb “love” can include a demonstration of that sort (see, for example, Luke 7:47 with Luke 7:38, 44–46). Jesus’ loving the man exhibits divine goodness. “One thing is lacking so far as you’re concerned” doesn’t mean that the man’s past obediences need the addition of one more thing, but that the man is lacking the one and only thing necessary for him to inherit eternal life. Jesus upsets the notion that keeping commandments brings eternal life. The “one thing” that the man lacks contrasts with “all these things” that he has guarded. “So far as you’re concerned” pinpoints the lack as his. He mustn’t ignore it. In Mark’s original Greek text there’s a wordplay between “is lacking” and “You shouldn’t defraud.” The wordplay doesn’t come out in English translation; but it points up that the man’s coming failure to go sell however many things he has and give the proceeds to poor people will amount to a covetousness that defrauds the poor by stealing from them what rightfully belongs to them. The prohibition of covetousness keeps lurking in the background despite its not being mentioned explicitly.

“However many things you have” underlines the stunning comprehensiveness of Jesus’ command to go and sell. But “you’ll have treasure in heaven” provides a motive for obedience which outweighs that comprehensiveness. Since the man asked about eternal life, “treasure in heaven” stands for eternal life, not for a reward above and beyond eternal life, and puts eternal life in terms of wealth far more abundant and desirable than this-worldly possessions (compare 8:35–37). “And [come] here! Follow me” implies that charity as such won’t suffice to inherit eternal life any more than keeping some of the Ten Commandments will. The only charity that will count is what comes as the price of discipleship to Jesus. And it will count not as merit but as evidence of following him. But what charity! Some rabbis forbade selling all your property lest you be reduced to poverty and dependence on others. Jesus sovereignly reverses that prohibition.

10:22: But he [the rich man], frowning at the statement [of Jesus], went away sorrowful. For he had many acquisitions. The man reacts outwardly with a frown and inwardly with sorrow. As a net effect, he goes away without saying a word. In 10:21 the expression “however many things you have” didn’t tell the amount of his possessions, whether few or many. Now Mark describes them as “many” and calls them “acquisitions.” This word contrasts with the selling that Jesus had told him to do and alludes to the underlying theme of covetousness. For covetousness means the desire to have more, which leads to acquisitiveness. Thus the story sets the stage for Jesus’ revolutionary teaching on wealth as a hindrance to entering God’s kingdom.

10:23–24a: And on looking around, Jesus says to his disciples, “How hardly will those having means [= money gotten from the sale of prior acquisitions] enter into God’s kingdom!” 24aAnd the disciples were astounded at his sayings [what he’d said to the rich man and now to them]. According to Deuteronomy 28:1–14; Job 1:10; 42:10; Proverbs 10:22, wealth combined with piety signals God’s favor. Jesus upsets that view by exclaiming that moneyed people will have a hard time entering God’s kingdom. The present tense of “says” intensifies this exclamation, which arises out of the rich man’s having gone away gloomy and sorrowful. Even if he had sold all his acquisitions, he wouldn’t have wanted to part with the proceeds by giving that money to the poor. To enter into God’s kingdom means the same as inheriting eternal life (10:17), which is to have treasure in heaven (10:21), but the shift to entrance prepares for the impossibility of going through a needle’s eye (10:25). The disciples’ astonishment underlines Jesus’ turning the economics of salvation upside down.

10:24b–25: And Jesus, answering, says to them again, “Children, how hard it is [for those having means] to enter into God’s kingdom! 25It’s easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye than for a rich person to enter into God’s kingdom.” The disciples haven’t asked a question. So Jesus’ “answering” indicates a response to their astonishment. “Again” signals a repetition of his foregoing exclamation. But this time he introduces it with the address, “Children,” which adds stress to the exclamation, shows affection, and puts Jesus in the role of a father explaining something that the disciples have naively failed to understand. And the present tense of “says” underlines Jesus’ exclamation. “How!” echoes 10:23, but the shift from “will enter” in that verse to the present tense of “it is” transforms a prediction into an axiom. In the following amplification, “a needle’s eye” comes into Jesus’ answer as the smallest of openings, and “a camel” both as the largest beast of burden known in first-century Israel and as a figure of speech for a human being burdened with wealth. A burdenless camel couldn’t go through a needle’s eye. (There was no narrow gate in Jerusalem called “The Needle’s Eye,” nor do the best manuscripts have “a rope” instead of “a camel.”) Much less could a camel saddled with burdens do so, and it goes without saying that it would be saddled with burdens. Since such a camel can’t go through a needle’s eye but it’s “easier” for a camel to do so than for a rich person to enter God’s kingdom, with humorously ironic hyperbole the entrance of a rich person into the kingdom turns out to be not nearly impossible or even wholly impossible, but more than impossible.

10:26–27: And they [the disciples] were extremely dumbfounded, saying to themselves [probably = “to one another”], “And who can be saved [= enter into God’s kingdom as opposed to going to hell, on which see 9:43–48]?” “Extremely” escalates the disciples’ dumbfoundedness to such a degree that they doubt anyone’s possibility of salvation, and their doubt heightens the revolutionary force of Jesus’ teaching. The introduction of their question with “And” implies that what they perceive to be the impossibility of anyone’s salvation follows as a logical carry-over from Jesus’ last statement: if a pious person, like the rich man, whose wealth is a sign of God’s favor, won’t be saved, what hope of salvation does someone without that sign have? Now starts a dialogue whose vigor, marked by the absence of an introductory “and” or “but” and in the first instance by a historical present tense in “Jesus says,” highlights the hindrance of wealth and the rewards of discipleship: 27Gazing intently at them [as he had at the rich man in 10:21], Jesus says, “For human beings—impossible! But not for God, because all things are possible for God.” The intensity of Jesus’ now gazing at the disciples (he’d already looked around to address them in 10:23) adds visual impact to the verbal impact of his affirming the power of God to do the humanly impossible, not only to save a rich person but also to do anything God wishes. Thus Jesus doesn’t answer the disciples’ question who can be saved, but points them to the only one who can do the saving because he’s all-powerful.

10:28–31: Peter began saying to him, “Behold, we’ve left all and followed you.” 29Jesus said, “Amen I tell you, there’s no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields on my account and on account of the gospel 30but that he’ll receive a hundred times as much now at this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields, with persecutions—and in the coming age eternal life. 31But many [who are] first will be last; and the last, first.” Peter speaks on behalf of all the Twelve. His emphatic “we” contrasts their having left all and followed Jesus with the rich man’s sad departure upon Jesus’ telling him to sell all, give to the poor, and follow him. Peter’s statement also recalls Jesus’ magnetism and carries factual truth, so that Jesus doesn’t criticize Peter for a sense of self-sacrifice. Rather, he makes two predictions, first of present compensation and second of future compensation. “Amen I say to you” adds credibility to the predictions. The universal negative, “There’s no one who has left . . . but that he’ll receive . . .” makes the predictions more emphatic than the expected “you who have left . . . will receive . . .” would have been. The list of things the Twelve have left defines the “all” in Peter’s statement. “House” leads to those with whom one has lived in it. Jesus lists them in an ascending order of closeness to the one who has left them: siblings, parents, and children. The omission of “wife” suits his having cited a man’s becoming “one flesh” with his wife, so that they shouldn’t be separated (10:6–9). At the end of the list “fields” complements “house” at the top of the list. The order in the list also reflects increasing value in a rural society. A house is of least value, because it offers no prospect for profit, provides no income, and costs to repair or—in cases of natural disaster—to rebuild. Brothers come next, but they compete for the family inheritance. Sisters are of more value, because they can be married off at a profit, though they drain family resources in the meantime. The mother is of even greater value because of her labors in the family’s behalf; and the father of truly great value, because in addition to his labors the inheritance comes from him. Fields are of the greatest value, though, because they constitute the land that makes possible the family’s existence from one generation to another. The connective “or” makes allowance for people whose “all” doesn’t include everything on the list—like people with no brothers or sisters or children that they can leave, for example.

Jesus’ switching from “or” to “and” in the following list of compensations means that those who didn’t have a brother or a sister or children to leave will get such in the families of their fellow disciples. “On my account” harks back to his command to follow him (1:16–20; 2:14; 8:34; 10:21). “On account of the gospel” harks back to his command, “Repent and believe in the gospel” (1:15 [compare 8:35]) and implies that the disciples too will preach the gospel (as in 13:9–10). For the present time of persecutions, which discipleship and evangelism will incur, Jesus promises a hundredfold reward of houses, brothers, sisters, mothers, children, and fields. If they have to flee from their persecutors to as many as a hundred different places, they’ll find a hundred different houses and families and fields through the hospitality of fellow disciples (compare 3:31–35). In this second list, “father” drops out, probably because Jesus’ disciples have only one father in this new family. That father is God. Best of all, Jesus promises eternal life in the age to come. The many who are now first but will then be last are those who, like the rich man, don’t heed Jesus’ call to leave all and follow him. Those who are now last but will then be first are those who do. Final lastness means exclusion from God’s kingdom, not leastness in it. Correspondingly, final firstness means entrance into that kingdom, not preeminence in it.

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO FORECAST HIS OWN DESTINY

Mark 10:32–34

10:32a–d: And people were on the road, going up to Jerusalem; and Jesus was proceeding on ahead of them. And they were astonished, but the ones following [him] were afraid. The “people . . . on the road” are pilgrims who, like Jesus, are going up to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. But he’s proceeding on ahead of them at some distance, and they’re astonished at his pushing ahead like this. They don’t know why he’s doing so. Mark means us to infer Jesus’ resolve to meet his self-predicted and divinely necessitated fate in Jerusalem (see 8:31 for its necessity). “The ones following” are pilgrims traveling close behind him. They’re afraid, but not because they understand he’s going to be killed in Jerusalem. They don’t understand. Not even the Twelve do (see 9:32). These pilgrims’ fear grows out of ignorance just as the distant pilgrims’ astonishment grows out of ignorance. Why Jesus’ onrush? It’s unsettling as well as surprising—unsettling especially if you’re trying to keep pace with him. Something’s up. But what is it?

10:32e–34: And on taking along the Twelve again, he began to tell them the things that were going to happen to him: 33“Behold, we’re going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be given over to the chief priests and the scholars, and they’ll condemn him to death and give him over to the Gentiles. 34And they [the Gentiles] will make fun of him and spit on him and flog him and kill [him]. And after three days he’ll rise.” Jesus reserves his passion-and-resurrection predictions for the Twelve alone (compare upcoming references to “James and John” plus “the ten” in 10:35, 41, and see 8:31; 9:31 for earlier such predictions). “Taking along the Twelve” separates them from other followers. “Again” harks back to Jesus’ other dealings with the Twelve (though he hasn’t taken them along before). “Going to happen to him” stresses the certainty and nearness with which Jesus’ prediction will be fulfilled. He has the ability to forecast his own destiny. “Going to happen to him” shows that he can forecast even events that aren’t of his own making. “Behold” adds a note of drama suitable to nearness and certainty. “Will be given over to the chief priests and the scholars” looks toward betrayal by Judas Iscariot without naming him. The chief priests and the scholars had their base of power in Jerusalem. The rest of the prediction is loaded with details which, when they come to pass, will retroactively magnify Jesus’ powers of prediction and thereby obliterate the shame of his crucifixion and the humiliations preceding it in that the chief priests and scholars as well as the Gentiles will make fun of him (15:20, 31), some members of the Sanhedrin as well as the Gentiles will spit on him (14:65; 15:19), and Pontius Pilate, a Gentile, will have him scourged as an extreme form of flogging (15:15). “After three days” calls attention to the quickness with which Jesus will rise after the Gentiles have killed him (compare 8:31).

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE DESTINY OF HIS DISCIPLES

Mark 10:35–45

This passage falls into halves: a dialogue (10:35–40) and a monologue (10:41–45). The dialogue also subdivides into halves: a request by James and John (10:35–37) and Jesus’ answer (10:38–40). In response to the other disciples’ indignation at James and John, Jesus delivers the monologue on servanthood (10:41–45).

10:35–37: And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, approach him, saying to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask you [to do for us].” 36And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37And they said to him, “Give us [the following:] that we may sit in your glory, one [of us] on your right and one [of us] on your left.” In its disregard of Jesus’ immediately preceding passion-and-resurrection prediction, this request—highlighted by the historical present tense of “approach”—recalls Peter’s protest after Jesus’ first such prediction (8:31–33) and also the disciples’ arguing after the second one which of them was greater than the others (9:30–37). So the present request doesn’t arise out of the two brothers’ looking beyond Jesus’ passion to the resurrection. It arises instead out of their cluelessness concerning the passion, as explicitly noted in 9:32. Jesus’ predictions of it haven’t registered in the disciples’ thinking, so that the brothers’ cluelessness provides a foil against which Jesus’ predictive power stands out and helps erase the scandal of the cross. The address, “Teacher,” implies Jesus’ authority. The following request, though, is unintendedly humorous in its solicitation of a signed blank check. What James and John “want” recalls Jesus’ prediction that whoever “wants” to be first will be last of all and servant of all (9:35). In view of that prediction, do James and John omit at first to say what they want? Whether or not they do, Jesus refuses to sign a blank check and asks what they want. Their reference to his glory stems from their having heard him speak of the Son of Man’s coming “in the glory of his Father” (8:38), from their having transmuted the Father’s glory into the Son of Man’s glory and identified Jesus with the Son of Man, and from their having seen him transfigured (9:2–8).

10:38–40: But Jesus told them, “You don’t understand what you’re asking for. Can you drink the cup that I’m drinking or be baptized with the baptism that I’m being baptized with?” 39And they said to him, “We can!” And Jesus told them, “You will drink the cup that I’m drinking, and you will be baptized with the baptism that I’m being baptized with. 40But to sit on my right or left isn’t mine to give; rather, [it’ll be given] to those for whom it has been prepared.” Jesus’ explicit indication of their misunderstanding brings out yet again his foreknowledge by way of contrast. Contrary to their desire and expectation, they’ll have to drink the bitter dregs of suffering and feel a flood of woe overwhelming them, just as Jesus has to do, if they’re to share his later glory. Even then, though, the assigning of honorary positions on his right and left doesn’t belong to him. Implied is the prerogative of God his Father to make those assignments. Jesus doesn’t identify those for whom those positions have been prepared. Even if he knows, think what envy such an identification would have stirred up among the disciples. “Can you . . . ?” implies a fate for James and John that is foreboding and also a danger of inability to endure it. “Can you drink the cup that I’m drinking or be baptized with the baptism that I’m being baptized with” implies the ability of Jesus to endure his fate. The present tense of his drinking and being baptized is used for a future event to emphasize the certainty and nearness of fulfillment, as also in his response to the brothers’ “We can!” Jesus doesn’t criticize their “We can!” It simply provides him an opportunity to display foreknowledge of both their fate and their endurance in addition to his own.

Now Jesus stops predicting his death and interprets it as a model for disciples. The interpretation will contradict any notion that he died the death of a hapless criminal. 10:41–44: And on hearing [the dialogue between the two brothers and Jesus], the ten began to get indignant over James and John. “Over James and John” makes clear that the ten get indignant at them for what the two requested, not at Jesus for what he answered the two. 42And on summoning them [the ten, for James and John have already been talking with Jesus], Jesus says to them, “You know that the ones recognized to be ruling the Gentiles wield lordship against them, and [that] their great ones wield authority against them.” The summons and a use of the present tense in “Jesus says to them” reflect Jesus’ own authority and knowledge of the ten’s indignation. “You know” contrasts with “you don’t know” in 10:38 and points to the disciples’ knowing something true in society at large that unbeknown to them does not hold true among themselves. Ironically, then, even what they “know” highlights their ignorance, which in turn highlights the superior knowledge of Jesus. The Gentiles’ “great ones” recalls the disciples’ disputing which of them was “greater” (9:34). The rulers’ and great ones’ wielding of lordship and authority “against” the Gentiles connotes conquest by violence and government by oppression as opposed to the beneficial service that Jesus now talks about: 43“But it isn’t this way among you” states a principle. “Rather, whoever is wanting to become great among you shall be your servant; 44and whoever is wanting to be first among you shall be a slave of all.” This pair of statements forms not so much a prediction as a command, what grammarians call an imperatival future (like “You shall love the Lord your God . . .” [12:30]). “Whoever is wanting” poses the possibility that the ten might entertain a selfish ambition like that of James and John. For emphasis, “great” escalates to the superlative “first,” and “servant” de-escalates to “slave,” the latter pair also in opposition to the Gentiles’ rulers and great ones. And “your servant”—that is, “a servant of the rest of you ten”—escalates to “a slave of all.” Whether “all” means “all the rest of you ten” or “all disciples in general,” the escalation from “your” to “all” intensifies and expands the notion of slavery; for ordinarily a slave serves only one master. Servanthood and slavery give a revolutionary new definition of greatness and provide a new way of attaining it.

10:45: “For even the Son of Man didn’t come to be served—rather, to serve, even to give his life [as a] ransom in substitution for many.” Jesus’ service as the Son of Man provides a model, which because of his authority is also a reason, for this sort of behavior among the disciples. “Even the Son of Man” underlines his behavior as a service to many others despite his future coming as “the Son of Man . . . in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (8:38). “Even to give his life [as a] ransom in substitution for many” specifies his service as the ultimate in self-sacrifice. Not for many as opposed to all, but many because the all are many. Jesus will die in their place to ransom them from slavery to Satan, sin, and death. His slavery spells their liberation from slavery if they’ll believe in him. And his death will constitute the ransom price.

JESUS’ SHOWING MERCY AS DAVID’S SON IN THE RESTORATION OF SIGHT TO BARTIMAEUS

Mark 10:46–52

10:46: And they come into Jericho sets the stage for a healing on the road leading out of Jericho and marks Jesus’ progress toward Jerusalem, along the road to which lies Jericho. This progress, underscored by the present tense in “they come,” heightens the sense that a fulfillment of Jesus’ passion-and-resurrection predictions is about to take place. Mark is playing up the power of Jesus to predict the destiny that awaits him in Jerusalem (see especially 10:33–34). Since Jesus took along the Twelve in 10:32, here “they” seems limited to him and them. On the way out from Jericho, though, a probably larger body of disciples and a crowd come into view: And as he and his disciples and a considerable crowd were traveling out of Jericho, the son of Timaeus—[namely,] Bartimaeus [“Bar-” meaning “son of” in the Aramaic language commonly used by Palestinian Jews in the first century], a blind beggar [What other than begging could blind people do in that culture?]—was sitting on the edge of the road. Many pilgrims flocked to Jerusalem for the Passover. But Mark describes this crowd of pilgrims as “considerable” in its size to revive his emphasis on Jesus’ magnetism. “The son of Timaeus—[namely,] Bartimaeus” prepares for “Son of David, [namely,] Jesus” in 10:47. The blindness of Bartimaeus sets the stage for a miracle that will restore his sight. His begging sets the stage for a request that will procure the miracle. And his sitting on the edge of the road sets the stage for his following Jesus on the road.

10:47–48: And on hearing, “It’s Jesus the Nazarene,” he started shouting and saying, “Son of David, [namely,] Jesus, have mercy on me.” 48And many were reprimanding him [to the effect] that he should be quiet. But he was shouting all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me.” “Jesus the Nazarene” means “the Jesus from Nazareth” as distinguished from many other Jesuses (for “Jesus,” Greek for the Hebrew “Joshua,” was a popular name because Joshua, Moses’ successor, led Israel into the promised land of Canaan and generaled its conquest). “Began shouting and saying” stresses the loudness and insistence of Bartimaeus’s plea. His putting the honorific title “Son of David” (that is, descendant of David) ahead of the personal name “Jesus” shows respect for Jesus and suits a plea for mercy. “Many” reflects the considerable size of the crowd, indirectly renews attention to Jesus’ magnetism, and both heightens the pressure of the reprimand that Bartimaeus should be quiet and highlights the loudness and insistence of his continued shouting. “All the more” intensifies the shouting of his plea.

10:49–50: And on standing still, Jesus said, “Call him.” And they call the blind [beggar], saying to him, “Take courage! Get up! He’s calling you.” 50And he, flinging away his cloak, jumping up, went to Jesus. Jesus’ standing still and commanding the reprimanders to call Bartimaeus overturns their self-supposed authority in favor of Jesus’ truly divine authority and implies that because of the considerable crowd, he hears but doesn’t see Bartimaeus. Their calling Bartimaeus indicates capitulation to Jesus’ authority. The present tense of “call” underscores the capitulation. “Take courage!” promises something good and issues in Bartimaeus’s flinging away his cloak. “Get up!” issues in his jumping up, the doing of which his now discarded cloak would have impeded. And telling him that Jesus is calling him issues in his going to Jesus. In other words, Bartimaeus’s actions exceed what the crowd tells him to do. His going to Jesus answers to Jesus’ calling him. We might ask how he could go to Jesus since he was blind. Mark doesn’t say. But his not saying highlights Bartimaeus’s exceeding what the crowd tells him to do; and this excess of action adds body language to the verbal pleas, all of which provide a basis for Jesus’ coming notation of Bartimaeus’s faith. Jesus told the crowd to call Bartimaeus. But they tell him that Jesus is calling him. Ironically, then, they play the role of Jesus’ agents to carry out his merciful will despite their earlier reprimand of Bartimaeus. How quickly Jesus’ exercise of authority turns things about! The rat-a-tat-tat of the commands to Bartimaeus and of his flinging away his cloak and jumping up dramatizes this turnabout.

10:51–52: And answering him [= responding to Bartimaeus’s plea and actions], Jesus said, “What do you want [that] I should do for you?” And the blind [beggar] said to him, “Rabbouni, that I should see again.” 52And Jesus told him, “Go. Your faith has saved you.” And immediately he saw again and started following him on the road. Jesus asks what Bartimaeus wants him to do for him. Give him some money? Bartimaeus has been begging. Or does he want Jesus to do something else for him? Mark’s calling Bartimaeus “the blind [beggar]” rivets attention on the malady that Jesus will cure and prepares for a request that he cure it. “Rabbouni” introduces the request with a heightened form of “Rabbi” and thus emphasizes Jesus’ authority. The command that Bartimaeus “go” implies that he doesn’t have to sit on the edge of the road begging any more. His faith has saved him from blindness; but because Jesus has used “save” for eternal salvation in 8:35 and as recently as 10:26, Bartimaeus’s salvation from blindness represents salvation from hell. “Immediately” emphasizes the effectiveness of Jesus’ power. Bartimaeus’s following him on the road contrasts with Jesus’ command that he go. But the contrast doesn’t damage Jesus’ authority; rather, it enhances his magnetism and demonstrates his power to heal. For Bartimaeus couldn’t be following Jesus unless he were seeing again.

JESUS PROVED TO BE AN UNERRING PREDICTOR AND ACCLAIMED TO BE THE COMING ONE

Mark 11:1–10

In this passage Mark narrates a triumphal procession outside Jerusalem, not a triumphal entry into Jerusalem. When Jesus enters Jerusalem in 11:11, the celebrating crowd of 11:1–10 go unmentioned. The present procession starts with a prediction that Jesus gives in his instructions on getting a colt (11:1–3), continues with the fulfillment of that prediction (11:4–6), and reaches its goal in Jesus’ sitting on the colt to much acclaim (11:7–10).

11:1–3: And when they draw near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and Bethany—[that is, when they come] to the Mount of Olives [or “of Olive Trees”]—he [Jesus] sends two of his disciples 2and says to them, “Go into the village opposite you. And as you enter into it you’ll immediately find a tethered male colt [compare Genesis 49:11] that no one of human beings has yet sat on. Untie him and bring [him]. 3And if anyone should say to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘His owner has need [of him, that is, of the male colt].’ And immediately he [the owner] sends him [the colt] back here [to the entrance into the village].” A succession of verbs in the historical present tense—“draw near,” “sends,” and “says”—creates a sense of excitement for Jesus’ coming triumphal procession. Mark mentions Jerusalem first, because Jesus’ passion-and-resurrection predictions will be fulfilled there. Then Mark works backward through Bethphage, probably situated on the west slope of the Mount of Olives just across the Kidron Valley on the east side of Jerusalem, to Bethany, situated lower down on the south slope and farther east from the city. Pilgrims coming from Jericho would go past (but not through) Bethany and Bethphage in that order. “Opposite you” describes the village as off the road they’re taking and probably points to Bethany, farther off the road than Bethphage and, as the first to be by-passed, farther from Jerusalem. So the triumphal procession will be very long, as befits Jesus God’s Son.

The command to go fetch a colt contains a prediction, and the prediction contains a number of details whose fulfillments will contribute to Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ predictive power. Here are the details: (1) The two sent disciples will find a colt. (2) The colt will be male. (3) They’ll find him immediately while entering the village (not just right after entering it). (4) The colt will be tethered. (5) No one will ever have sat on it, much less ridden it, before. (6) Someone might ask why the two disciples are untying the colt. What Jesus tells them to say carries not only a promise that he’ll return the colt right away but also a claim that as the colt’s owner he needs to use the colt. So Jesus is exercising a lordly prerogative by requisitioning the colt as a means of transportation. As God’s Son, his ownership trumps ownership by any merely human being. Mark won’t narrate the colt’s return, for narrating it would weaken the story’s climax in the acclamation of Jesus. But by qualifying the promised return with “immediately” and putting the return in the present tense (“sends,” as though the return were already taking place), Mark compensates in advance for not narrating the return. “Of human beings” qualifies “no one” so as to emphasize no one’s having sat on the colt before and to imply that Jesus will sit on him as the more-than-human Son of God. In view of his having repeatedly done what others can’t do, there may also be an implication that he’ll sit on the unbroken male colt with such mastery as to eliminate the need of breaking him. In any case, no one’s having sat on the colt before will bring great honor to Jesus as the first one to do so. This won’t be a used, secondhand colt.

11:4–6: And they [the two disciples] went off and found a male colt tethered at a gate [into the village], outside on the street [leading into the village]. And they are untying him; 5and some of the ones standing there were saying to them, “What are you doing by untying the colt?” 6And they spoke to them just as Jesus had told [them to speak], and they [the bystanders] allowed them [to finish untying the colt and take him to Jesus]. The disciples obey Jesus’ instructions. The present tense of “are untying” underlines the obedience, and Jesus’ prediction comes to pass in detail. The fulfillment is magnified in its details, though. The chronologically general “immediately” in the prediction (11:2) transmutes into the locally specific “at a gate [into the village], outside on the street [leading into the village]” to emphasize just how soon it is that the disciples find the colt. The possibility of being asked what they’re doing by untying the colt (11:3) escalates into the actuality of being asked. And the multiplication of a singular questioner (“someone” [11:3]) into the plural (“some of the ones standing there”) casts the fulfillment in spades. The disciples’ speaking to the questioners “just as Jesus had told [them to speak]” exhibits his lordship over the disciples as well as over the colt. And the questioners’ allowing the disciples to proceed exhibits his lordship over the questioners, too; for the disciples have told them they’re untying the colt because the colt’s owner needs him. The fact that the Greek word behind “owner” also means “master” and “Lord” suits the lordship of Jesus as God’s Son.

11:7–8: And they bring the male colt to Jesus and throw their garments on him [the colt], and he [Jesus] sat on him. The disciples’ continuing obedience, expressed again in the present tense (“bring”), underlines Jesus’ lordship over them. They don’t ride the colt, but save him for first use by Jesus; and they throw their garments on the colt to honor Jesus with a saddle. The present tense of “throw” likewise underlines their paying him honor in this way. By sitting on the colt he takes the posture of a dignitary. Ordinary pilgrims go on foot. Mark doesn’t make clear that the colt is a humble young donkey (as in Matthew 21:4–5), but leaves the impression of a young male horse, a steed fitter for the sort of figure Jesus cuts in this Gospel. 8And many [not just the two disciples] spread their garments in the road [to honor Jesus with a kind of pavement, like our rolling out a red carpet for some VIP (compare 2 Kings 9:13, though there on a much smaller scale)], and others [spread] straw [in the road], having cut [it] from the fields. The addition of “others” to the “many” makes for a very large number of people honoring Jesus, and the spreading of straw in addition to the garments heightens the honor paid to Jesus by doubling the pavement (like doubling the thickness of a red carpet, we might say). This double-paving of the road from a point farther away from Jerusalem than Bethphage and even Bethany makes for a “red carpet” whose astounding length (about two miles) magnifies the VIP that Jesus is. But red carpets are for pedestrians. Jesus doesn’t need one. He doesn’t need any pavement at all. He’s sitting on a colt, not walking on foot. So the superfluity of spreading garments and straw adds to the astoundingness of length.

11:9–10: And the people going ahead and the ones following were shouting, “Hosanna! Favored [is] he who’s coming in the Lord’s name! 10Favored [is] the coming reign of our father [= ancestor] David! Hosanna in the highest [places]!” Some of the crowd precede Jesus and others follow so as to form an honorary escort for him. Those who go ahead do so not to lead him but to lay the honorific double pavement. The acclamation of Jesus heaps further honor on him. The first and last parts of the acclamation come from Psalm 118:25–26. Originally “Hosanna” was a prayer for this-worldly deliverance (“Please save . . .”), so that “Favored [be] . . .” meant “May God show favor to . . . .” By the time of the New Testament, though, “Hosanna” had come to mean something like “Hurray!” (compare the evolution of “God, save the king” to “God save the king!”), so that “Favored [is] . . .” means “God has shown favor to . . . .” “In the Lord’s name” describes Jesus as coming with authority to act on behalf of the Lord. This authority is to be displayed in a revival of King David’s kingdom (though doubtless the crowd misconstrued that kingdom as immediately political [compare 2 Samuel 7:16], whereas Jesus delays it as such till his coming in the glory of his Father [8:38] and also universalizes it [13:24–27]). “The highest places” are heavenly places. So heaven rings with the angels’ acclamation of Jesus just as earth rings with human beings’ acclamation of Jesus.

JESUS’ ISSUANCE OF A STRONG CURSE

Mark 11:11–14

11:11: And he entered into Jerusalem, into the temple [not the sanctuary proper, into which only priests could go, but the larger complex of courts and cloisters]; and on looking around at all things [in the temple], because the hour was already late he went out to Bethany with the Twelve. The crowd at Jesus’ triumphal procession is now missing. Though Jesus will leave with the Twelve, Mark mentions only Jesus as entering Jerusalem and, within it, the temple. So we have an uneventful entry by a private pilgrim, not a triumphal entry by a crowd-accompanied celebrity. Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem sets the stage for departure to Bethany. His entry into the temple and looking around at all things there sets the stage for his cleansing the temple the next day. “Looking around at all things” signals his irritation, for “all things” will turn out to be, or at least to include, commercial traffic going on in the temple and passing through it (11:15–16). Jesus told “the Twelve” that he’d be killed in Jerusalem (10:32–34). So his going out to Bethany “with the Twelve” reminds us of that prediction and thereby indicates that because of the threat posed by Jerusalem he doesn’t stay there overnight. (Later, he’ll even pray for release from the fate awaiting him there [14:35–36, 39].)

11:12–14: And after they’d gone out from Bethany the next day, he got hungry. 13And on seeing at a distance a fig tree that had leaves, he went [to it]—if then he will find something [on it to eat]. And on coming to it he found nothing except leaves. For it wasn’t the season for figs. 14And answering [= responding to the tree’s not having something for him to eat], he said to it, “May no one eat fruit from you any more—forever!” And his disciples were listening. “He got hungry” tells why the fig tree caught Jesus’ eye. “At a distance” tells why he didn’t yet notice the tree had nothing he could eat. “That had leaves” gives the reason why despite the distance, he went to the tree expecting he’d find something to eat. “Then” makes the leaves a basis for his expectation, and “if he . . . will find” (as opposed to “if he . . . might find”) indicates a strong expectation. Mark does not say Jesus went expecting to find “figs” or “fruit,” that is, ripe figs. Of course not. It wasn’t the season for them. He could only hope to find “something” edible; and that would be buds which form just before and as the tree leafs, so that the leaves on this tree presented a realistic hope of finding such buds. They’re not very good to eat, but they can be eaten—and sometimes people do eat them. Furthermore, Jesus’ finding nothing but leaves fits the circumstance that these buds fall off before the real fruit appears. “For it wasn’t the season for figs” doesn’t explain why Jesus didn’t find buds. It steps back to explain why he went to find “something” rather than “figs” or “fruit.” Since Jesus hadn’t expected to find mature fruit but only buds, “May no one eat fruit from you” makes for a strong curse. “Any more—forever!” adds further strength to the curse and implies that apart from Jesus’ cursing it the tree would have produced figs later on. The expectation of buds was reasonable; so the curse is appropriate. No buds now in March–April (the time of Passover)? Well, then, no fruit in June—or ever afterwards. The leaves of the tree make a fulfillment of Jesus’ curse (which comes close to a prediction) unlikely, especially in the immediate future. But the fulfillment will have taken place before twenty-four hours have elapsed (see 11:19–25). Such is the power of Jesus’ words. The fact that the disciples were listening leaves no room for doubting a fulfillment once it has occurred. Their listening also prepares for Peter’s remembering (11:21).

THE AWE-INSPIRING TEACHING OF JESUS AT HIS CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE

Mark 11:15–18

11:15–16: And they [Jesus and the Twelve] come into Jerusalem. And on entering into the temple, he started throwing out those who were selling and buying in the temple; and he overturned the moneychangers’ tables and the chairs of those who were selling doves; 16and he wasn’t allowing anyone to carry a vessel [presumably containing something-or-other] through the temple [that is, through its courts and cloisters]. Mark doesn’t say what the doves were for. (They were for sacrifice.) Nor does he say what else people were selling and buying. (They were selling and buying sacrificial animals.) Nor does he tell why money was being changed. (It was being changed into currency acceptable for payment of a temple tax.) Nor does Mark say what people were carrying through the temple in vessels. And not having mentioned sacrificial animals, he doesn’t say that Jesus drove them out (contrast John 2:15). Despite mentioning the doves, Mark says nothing about taking them away (contrast John 2:16). Instead, he concentrates attention on Jesus’ ferocious exercise of authority over the human beings who were commercializing the temple, as apparently he’d seen them doing when he looked around its precincts late on the previous day.

11:17: And he was teaching and saying to them, “It’s written, isn’t it, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations [Isaiah 56:7],’ but you’ve made it ‘a den of bandits [Jeremiah 7:11].’ ” By connecting “he was teaching” with “saying,” Mark emphasizes Jesus’ exercise of authority in what he says as well as in what he does. In fact, Mark casts this whole episode in the mold of a lesson taught by Jesus in deed and word. The authoritative condemnation here parallels the authoritative curse in the preceding episode. “It’s written, isn’t it?” implies that it is written. But Jesus doesn’t identify God as the speaker in the quoted Old Testament passages. So “my house” appears to mean Jesus’ house. If it does mean Jesus’ house, he’s claiming authority to cleanse it of the predatory commercialism that has taken away its proper use for prayer by all the nations.

11:18: And the chief priests and the scholars [who constituted the hierarchy] heard [what Jesus was saying to the traffickers in the temple]. And they were seeking how they might destroy him [and therefore unwittingly set going the fulfillment of his passion-and-resurrection predictions]. For they were afraid of him. And why were they afraid of him? For all the crowd was awestruck at his teaching. “His teaching” refers to what he taught in 11:17: “It’s written, isn’t it?” plus quotations of Isaiah 56:7 and Jeremiah 7:11. Just as people were awestruck at Jesus’ teaching in 1:21–28 because he’d backed it up by casting out an unclean spirit, so here the crowd are awestruck at his teaching because he has backed it up by casting out the traffickers. By attaching “all” to the crowd Mark displays the effect of Jesus’ didactic authority at its highest power. Nobody in the crowd escapes that effect. So the main point consists in the awe-inspiring power of Jesus’ teaching, backed up as it is by his strong actions. He strikes fear even in the hearts of the hierarchy who are seeking to destroy him. In fact, they’re trying to destroy him because they fear him; and they fear him because he has a powerful hold on the crowd—all of them. He’ll be crucified, then, not because of any weakness in him. On the contrary, he’ll be crucified because of his power. Furthermore, the power on account of which he’ll be crucified is a power he exerts for the benefit of all the nations, Gentiles and Jews alike. For his crucifixion, then, Jesus deserves honor and worship, not scorn and ridicule.

THE STARTLING FULFILLMENT OF JESUS’ CURSE AND HIS STARTLING ANSWERS

Mark 11:19–25

11:19–21: And whenever it got late they’d go outside the city. So the exit of Jesus and the Twelve from Jerusalem late on the day of the triumphal procession (11:11) becomes habitual during Passion Week. As a result, the chief priests and scholars can’t seize Jesus at night while his admiring crowd are sleeping. 20And as they were passing by in the morning [on their way back into Jerusalem], they saw the fig tree withered from [its] roots [up]. Jesus had cursed the tree only one day earlier, and because of the sun’s rays a tree or plant usually withers from the top down. His word is so powerful, though, that the withering started with the roots despite the soil’s shielding them from the sun and surrounding them with moisture soaked in from the spring rains of Passover season. The withering has proceeded so fast that above ground the tree is already visibly dead, and withered roots means there’s no chance of revival. So Jesus’ curse, “May no one eat fruit from you any more—forever!” (11:14), is sure to be fulfilled. 21And on remembering [Jesus’ curse], Peter says to him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree that you cursed is withered.” As emphasized by a vivid present tense in “says,” Peter gives Jesus honor by addressing him with “Rabbi.” “Look!” stresses how startling was the speedy and permanent withering of the fig tree. And “that you cursed” puts emphasis on the power of Jesus’ word.

11:22–25: And answering, Jesus says to them [the Twelve], “Have faith in God. 23Amen I tell you that whoever says to this mountain [the Mount of Olives, which they’re traversing to Jerusalem], ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea [the Dead Sea, visible from the Mount of Olives on a clear day],’ and doesn’t doubt in his heart but believes that what he’s saying is happening, it will be [= occur] for him.” This promise of Jesus, highlighted by the present tense in the introductory “says,” is more startling than the fulfillment of his curse, so startling that lest the disciples disbelieve his promise he introduces it with “Amen I say to you.” Just as his curse against the fig tree came to pass, so a curse against the Mount of Olives will come to pass for anyone who believes without doubt that God is so sure to carry out the curse that it’s as good as happening already. To tone down Jesus’ promise, we’re disposed to fasten on the condition of believing without doubt and thus to say, in effect, “Well, nobody believes without at least some doubt that God would do such a thing; so the promise is only academic.” But Mark wants us to fasten on the startling character of Jesus’ promise, not on its condition as an escape valve. The promise is doubly startling in that ancient people believed that mountains reach down to the very foundations of the earth, yet Jesus speaks of an uprooting and removal so complete that the mountain disappears in the depths of the sea. But he makes an even more startling promise: 24“On account of this I tell you, all things that you pray for and ask for—however many [they are]—believe that you have received [them], and they’ll be yours.” “On account of this” implies that if believing in God without doubt guarantees the effectiveness of a curse, such as one addressed to the Mount of Olives, how much more will such faith guarantee the effectiveness of prayer requests addressed to God. “All things” is more startling than a mountain’s being taken up and thrown into the sea and would have been startling enough. Adding to the startlingness is “however many [things you pray and ask for].” And believing that what you say “is coming to pass” (11:23) escalates to believing that you “have received,” as though the answer to your prayer preceded the prayer. Again we’re disposed to treat the condition of such faith as a way of weakening Jesus’ promise, but Mark wants us to be awestruck by Jesus’ teaching (see 11:18). 25“And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive [him] in order that also your Father in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” It was normal to stand when praying. Standing showed respect for God, seated on his heavenly throne. But finally—and this is the main point—what could be more startling than Jesus’ telling disciples who have anything against anyone to exercise forgiveness as they pray rather than praying for vindication and retribution, and to exercise forgiveness in order that God may forgive them? His forgiving them requires their forgiving others even though those others are in the wrong! The earliest and best manuscripts don’t contain 11:26, a later insertion by copyists of Mark.

A Special Note on the Cursing And Withering of the Fig Tree

Jesus curses the fig tree between his looking around the temple and cleansing it a day later, and another day later the fig tree is seen to have withered. Therefore many commentators treat the cursing as symbolic of God’s displeasure with Israel because of Israel’s failure to repent and believe the gospel as preached by Jesus. The Old Testament often portrays Israel under the figure of a fig tree. The withering of the fig tree is then treated as symbolic of the consequent destruction of Jerusalem and its temple that Jesus is going to predict (13:1–2) and that his cleansing of the temple is likewise supposed to symbolize. But in 7:3–4 Mark had to explain Jewish practices to his audience. So he’d hardly expect them to connect a fig tree with Israel no matter how much the Old Testament uses that tree as a figure of speech for Israel. Moreover, only a failure of Jesus to find fruit—that is, figs—could well symbolize a failure to repent and believe. But Mark carefully avoids saying that Jesus went to find fruit and failed to find any. He was seeking only buds, hardly a good figure of speech for repentance and belief. And Jesus equally carefully avoids saying that the curse of future inability to bear fruit corresponds to past failure to bear fruit. If this episode did symbolize Israel’s failure to bear the fruit of repentance and belief, Mark’s explanation that “it wasn’t the season for figs” would absolve Israel of blame and thus take away any reason for a coming destruction! Finally, Jesus makes out of his cursing the fig tree and its withering a lesson of faith, not a symbol of coming destruction for Jerusalem and the temple.

JESUS’ OUTWITTING ALL THREE CLASSES OF THE SANHEDRIN

Mark 11:27–12:12

This passage divides into a dialogue between the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Supreme Court (11:27–33), and a parable spoken by him to and about them (12:1–12). This confrontation starts a series of verbal victories that he wins over these opponents of his (12:13–27). The last of them will turn into an admirer of Jesus (12:28–34). Then Jesus will expose to a large crowd his opponents’ ignorance (12:35–37) and their dangerousness and doom (12:38–40). Having earned the crowd’s admiration, then, he’ll display to the disciples his insight (12:41–44) and foresight (13:1–37). With this preparation, Mark will portray the following passion of Jesus as a backlash against Jesus’ defeat of opponents who were dangerous to society as well as to him. He wasn’t crucified for any danger that he himself posed to society—rather, out of spite.

11:27–28: And they [Jesus and the Twelve] come again into Jerusalem. And as he was walking around in the temple [= its courts and cloisters], the chief priests and the scholars and the elders [= the three classes making up the Sanhedrin] come to him 28and were saying to him, “By what sort of authority are you doing these things [putting a stop to selling, buying, moneychanging, and transport in the temple (11:15–17)]? Or who gave you this authority to do these things?” “Again” marks a third entry into Jerusalem (compare 11:11, 15). The present tense in “come to him” headlines the Sanhedrin’s confronting Jesus upon his entry. They’re worried about his having cleansed the temple. By failing to address him respectfully—say, with “Rabbi” or “Teacher”—they show their contempt for him. “What sort of . . . ?” centers attention on the nature of the authority they ask him to cite, “or who . . . ?” on its source—if he has any. The Sanhedrists don’t think he does, of course. Their questions aren’t designed to elicit information—rather, to embarrass Jesus, to expose him as an imposter. They also imply that he has usurped the Sanhedrin’s authority over the temple; for they’d been controlling its traffic—indeed, sponsoring it. The combination of “these things” with “are doing” suggests, and perhaps implies outright, that he continues to have stopped commercial traffic in the temple.

11:29–33: But Jesus said to them, “I’ll ask you one word [= one question, as opposed to the two questions they’d asked him]. And answer me, and I’ll tell you by what sort of authority I’m doing these things. 30John’s baptism [that is, baptism as administered by John the baptizer]—was it from heaven [and therefore from God, ‘heaven’ being a reverential substitute for God’s name, as when careful speakers say ‘for heaven’s sake’ rather than ‘for God’s sake’] or from human beings [‘from’ in the sense of derivation and consequent authority, or lack thereof]? Answer me.” Jesus’ double demand for an answer shows that he’s taking charge in the game of public embarrassment that the Sanhedrin started. They’ll be sorry they did. “By what sort of authority” alludes to the Sanhedrin’s first question in 11:28 (using the very same phrase). The alternatives “from heaven or from human beings” in Jesus’ counter question allude to the Sanhedrin’s second question in 11:28 (“Or who gave you this authority . . . ?”). So pointed is the dilemma posed by these alternatives, so insistent is his demand for an answer, that the Sanhedrin fall into disarray: 31And they were reasoning to themselves [= consulting with one another], saying, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he’ll say, ‘Why then didn’t you believe him [John, who predicted that one stronger than he, as Jesus has proved to be, was coming (1:7–8)]?’ ” According to 1:5 “all the Jerusalemites” were getting baptized by John. The Sanhedrin is made up of leading Jerusalemites. To escape the dilemma into which Jesus’ question has put them, then, by refusing to affirm the divine authority of baptism by John they’ll silently crawfish out of their own submission to his baptism. From the quotation of Scripture in 1:2–3, of course, Mark’s audience know that baptism by John had divine authority behind it. 32“But [if] we say, ‘From human beings’ [to the effect that John had no authority from God to baptize people]—they feared the crowd. For all [the crowd] held John to have really been a prophet. Because Jesus has fulfilled John’s prediction that someone stronger than he was coming (1:7–8), the Sanhedrin didn’t dare assign divine authority to baptism by John—and by implication to Jesus’ actions—even though they might otherwise have regarded John as the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5 according to their own interpretation of that passage (see Mark 9:11–13). They omit “if” before “we say, ‘From human beings,’ ” though we have to carry over “if” from the first alternative to make good sense. This striking omission and the Sanhedrin’s leaving the second alternative incomplete show that they don’t even want to contemplate it seriously. Mark tells why: they feared antagonizing the crowd by denying the crowd’s universal conviction that John practiced baptism as a true prophet of God. 33And answering Jesus, they say, “We don’t know.” So with a single question he has reduced them to the embarrassment their two questions were designed to bring him. And Jesus says to them, “Neither am I telling you by what sort of authority I’m doing these things.” The present tense in “they say” and “Jesus says” enlivens this dialogue. The dialogue itself ends with Jesus’ outwitting the Sanhedrin. Because they don’t dare answer the one question he asked, he needn’t answer their first question—much less their second question, to which he doesn’t even allude. The shame to which he puts the very ones who’ll get him crucified cancels out what would otherwise be the shame of his crucifixion.

Now Jesus follows up his refusal to answer the Sanhedrin’s questions with parables concerning them and their predecessors’ behavior as leaders of the Jewish people. 12:1: And he started speaking to them in parables. But only one parable follows, so that it represents others that Mark doesn’t record. Though not recording them, Mark mentions them to imply that Jesus overwhelms the Sanhedrin with parables like the one Mark does record. “A man ‘planted a vineyard and put a fence around [it] and dug a vat [under the winepress] and built a [watch-]tower’ and gave it [the vineyard] out to farmers [= leased it to them] and went on a journey.” The phrases in single quotation marks come from Isaiah 5:1–2. As in Isaiah, the vineyard stands for the Jewish people; and the man who plants the vineyard stands for God. But Isaiah stressed that the vineyard failed to yield good grapes despite the planter’s lavishing a capital investment on it—in other words, that the Jewish people failed to live righteously despite God’s good treatment of them. Jesus shifts the emphasis, first by omitting the vine that according to Isaiah 5:2 was planted in the vineyard and expected to yield good grapes but yielded sour ones instead. Then Jesus brings in a new element, namely, tenant farmers (who don’t figure in Isaiah). The planter-owner’s leasing the vineyard to them stands for God’s putting the Jewish people under leaders such as the Sanhedrin and their predecessors. So the large capital investment now tells why the planter-owner will repeatedly try to get something back from his investment. No longer does the quality of the vineyard’s fruit stand in the center; rather, the behavior of those put in charge of the vineyard does.

12:2–5: “And at the season [of harvest] he [the owner] sent a slave to the farmers in order that he [the slave] might take from the farmers some fruits of the vineyard [that is, the portion of harvest owed to the owner]. 3And on taking him, they beat [him] and sent [him] away empty[-handed, not because the vineyard hadn’t yielded fruit, but because the farmers rejected the owner’s right to be paid for their use of the vineyard].” So the intention of the owner that his slave “take” from the farmers some fruits of the vineyard turns into the actuality of the farmers’ “taking” the slave, beating him, and sending him away empty-handed. The rental fee they were supposed to pay stands for justice and righteousness in Isaiah 5:7–12, so that the slave whom Jesus injects into the parable stands for prophets like Isaiah who tried to collect moral rent for God by calling his people to justice and righteousness. 4“And again, he sent another slave to them; and they hit that one on the head and insulted him. 5And he sent another [slave], and they killed that one. And [he sent] many other [slaves], some [of whom] they beat, and others [of whom] they killed.” The fates of the slaves represent rejections suffered by the Old Testament prophets, and the fates of the individually mentioned slaves show increasing maltreatment—from a beating and empty-handed send-off to getting dangerously hit on the head and insulted, and finally to getting killed. The addition of “many others,” with another progression from getting beaten to getting killed, heaps more guilt on the tenant farmers and, through them, on the Sanhedrin and their predecessors. Their behavior is inexcusable. The unrealism of the owner’s sending many other slaves after the maltreatment and murder of the first three intensifies the guilt by highlighting the owner’s giving the farmers further opportunity to pay him.

At this point we don’t expect the owner to send anyone else, but to go himself. It therefore comes as a surprise to read in 12:6–8: “He still had one [that he could send], a beloved son. He sent him to them last [of all], saying, ‘They’ll respect my son.’ ” We’re surprised not only that the owner sends one more, but also that the one more is his beloved son. “Still one” implies he has run out of slaves to send, and “beloved” suits an only son. This beloved son stands for Jesus, whom God called his “beloved Son” at Jesus’ baptism and transfiguration (1:11; 9:7). From our standpoint the owner is risking his beloved only son despite the farmers’ maltreatment and murder of all his many slaves, and this risk adds pathos to our surprise. But the owner says the tenant farmers will respect his son, and in that culture it would be expected that peasants such as the tenant farmers would accede to someone of the son’s status. After all, he’s the son of the owner. But for us the owner’s saying that the tenant farmers will respect his son heightens the pathos and sets the stage for their attempt to seize ownership of the vineyard by killing its heir (who therefore has to be an only son). 7“But those farmers said to themselves [= to one another], ‘This is the heir. [Come] here! Let’s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’ ” “Those” puts the farmers at a moral distance to stress the wickedness of their plot, which represents the Sanhedrin’s plot to kill Jesus (11:18; 12:12; 14:1). The law allows the son to act on his father’s behalf by evicting the tenant farmers, by taking legal action against them for their refusal to pay rent and for their crimes against the father’s slaves, and by reclaiming the vineyard. On the other hand, the tenant farmers will be able to lay their own legal claim to the vineyard if the father has died and they kill the only heir. Not that killing him would legalize their claim, but it would make possible a legal claim by right of possession (“squatters’ rights,” so to speak). They wouldn’t think that by killing the son the inheritance will be theirs unless they also think his father, the owner, has died. Their very words “heir” and “inheritance” arise out of a mistaken deduction that the son’s coming signals the owner’s death and the son’s purpose to claim the vineyard for himself. This delusion imbues the parable with irony. 8“And on taking [him], they killed him [as Jesus has predicted he’ll be killed at the instigation of the Sanhedrin (10:33–34)] and threw him outside the vineyard.” “Throwing him outside the vineyard” shows how utterly the tenant farmers reject him: they don’t even give his corpse a decent burial. “Throwing him outside the vineyard” shows their rejection of his authority over the vineyard and therefore of Jesus’ having had authority to cleanse the temple (compare 11:28).

The tension that has been mounting with each increase in the tenant farmers’ crimes has reached a breaking point. So in 12:9–11 Jesus switches first to a question: “What then will the owner of the vineyard do?” Jesus answers his own question by saying, “He’ll come and destroy the farmers and give the vineyard to others.” He won’t destroy the vineyard, as God does in Isaiah 5:5–6. He’ll destroy the tenant farmers, as God will see to it that the members of the Sanhedrin are destroyed in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in A.D. 70 (compare 13:1–2). The Greek word for “owner” doubles for “Lord” and implies the right to destroy those farmers. But whom do the “others” to whom the owner will give the vineyard represent? They represent Jesus and the Twelve, to whom God will give leadership over the new people of God, that is, whoever does his will (compare 3:31–35). But if the killing of the son represented the killing of Jesus, how can Jesus be given the vineyard as his inheritance? He’s dead. 10“But you’ve read this Scripture, haven’t you [implied answer: Of course you have, especially the scholars among you]: ‘The stone that the builders rejected—this has turned into the head of an angle. 11This [head of an angle] has come on the scene from the Lord and is marvelous in our eyes [Psalm 118:22–23]’?” Jesus is “the head of an angle,” which means either a cornerstone or a key- or capstone, but probably a cornerstone in that it’s laid as the first stone of a foundation, so that the rest of the foundation is laid out angularly from it (at a right angle, for example). Thus the rejected stone, representing Jesus as rejected by the Jewish leaders (“the builders”), has turned into the cornerstone. (The metaphor representing God’s people has changed from a vineyard to a building, and the past tense of verbs treats future events as sure to happen.) Jesus turned into the cornerstone by rising from the dead, just as he predicted to the Twelve in 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34. (The present metaphor veils his meaning from the Sanhedrin, though.) Once risen, Jesus can inherit the vineyard—that is, take charge of God’s new people—despite his having been killed. The Sanhedrin’s knowledge of the Scripture that Jesus quotes should have led them to expect the Lord would thwart their plot to destroy Jesus. (Incidentally, there’s a wordplay in that the Hebrew for “stone” in Psalm 118:22–23 [eben] is very like the Hebrew for “son” [ben], so that Jesus is both “the son” and “the stone.”) In the psalm, “this” that’s “from the Lord” and “marvelous” refers to the rejected stone’s having turned into the cornerstone. In Mark “this” refers to that stone itself—in other words, to Jesus himself. He’s both “from the Lord” and, as resurrected, “marvelous.”

12:12: And they [the Sanhedrin] were seeking to seize him, and they feared the crowd. For they knew that he’d told the parable in reference to them. And leaving him, they went away. The Sanhedrin’s fearing the crowd contrasts with their seeking to seize Jesus, tells why they didn’t seize him on the spot but skipped out (they feared his parable would turn the crowd against them), and recalls the strength of Jesus’ hold on the crowd. He’s John the baptizer’s “stronger one” (1:7) even in the events leading immediately to his crucifixion.

JESUS’ MARVELOUS ESCAPE FROM THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA

Mark 12:13–17

12:13–14: And they [the Sanhedrin] send to him some of the Pharisees and [some] of the Herodians to trap him in regard to a word [that is, in a statement that he might make]. Because people in general esteemed the Pharisees highly on account of their religiosity, the Pharisees could use a theologically self-damaging statement by Jesus—such as one that he’s subverting the Jewish religion—to kill his popularity. Because the Romans sponsored the Herods as rulers, the local supporters of the Herods could use a politically self-damaging statement by Jesus to lodge an accusation against him—such as one that he’s subverting Caesar’s government—with the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The Pharisees and Herodians plotted together against Jesus in 3:6. So they make natural emissaries of the Sanhedrin here. The attempt to trap Jesus begins with a fulsome flattery designed to mask the purpose of entrapment and punctuated by Mark with the present tense of “say” to spotlight the flattery: 14And on coming, they say to him, “Teacher [a respectful address], we know that you’re truthful [contrast the Sanhedrin’s untruthful claim in 11:33 not to know the origin of John’s baptism] and [that] it doesn’t matter to you about anyone, for you don’t look into a face of human beings [in other words, you don’t care what people think about you, because you’re not impressed by their appearance, superficial as it is]; rather, you teach God’s way [for us to conduct our lives] on the basis of truth [as opposed to currying human favor or showing favoritism].” Ironically, what the Sanhedrin’s emissaries intend as flattery is actually true of Jesus. Since their society was highly stratified, not at all egalitarian, the proneness of ordinary people to fawn on eminent ones makes all the more remarkable Jesus’ teaching God’s way truthfully rather than massaging the teaching so as to curry favor or show favoritism. Now a theoretical question: “Is it lawful to give [= pay] a poll tax [levied by the Roman government on adult males] to Caesar or not?” Next a practical question: “Should we give [it], or should we not give [it]?” The emissaries hope Jesus will advocate either paying the unpopular tax, so that the Pharisees can use his advocating its payment to kill his popularity, which has kept the Sanhedrin from arresting him, or will advocate not paying the tax, so that the Herodians can accuse him of sedition, which would lead the Romans to arrest him regardless of his popularity. Roman law required payment of the tax, but contrary to Exodus 20:4; Deuteronomy 5:8 it had to be paid in Roman coins stamped with an image of Caesar and an inscription proclaiming his supposedly divine ancestry.

12:15–17: But he, recognizing their hypocrisy [their pretense of wanting to know the true answer to serious questions but really wanting to entice Jesus into a self-damaging statement], said to them, “Why are you testing me?” This question exposes their flattery as hypocrisy. “Bring me a denarius [the kind of coin required for paying the tax] in order that I may see [it].” 16And they brought [a denarius to him]. And he says to them, “Whose image [on the denarius is] this, and [whose] inscription?” And they said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17And Jesus said to them, “Give Caesar’s things back to Caesar, and God’s things back to God.” It’s usually thought that by producing a denarius the Sanhedrin’s emissaries, including the Pharisees, acknowledge Caesar’s ownership of the coin and right of taxation. But people use a coin for its value in exchange whether or not they acknowledge the sovereignty of the ruler whose image and inscription is stamped on the coin. And the coin belongs to the person who earned it or gained it in some other lawful way, not to the ruler whose image and inscription appear on its face. So Jesus’ argument, introduced with a vivid present tense (“says”), isn’t logically compelling. But in Jewish culture of the time, what counted as argumentatively persuasive didn’t have to have logical validity. It was enough, or better, to display cleverness, wordplay, one-upmanship. So the shift from Caesar’s image and inscription on the coin to Caesar’s “things,” that is, to the coin itself and others like it, entails a leap of imagination whose artistry convinces that paying the tax is giving back to Caesar what belongs to him. And giving him back his things leads to giving back to God the things that belong to him. Thus Jesus seizes both horns of the dilemma by satisfying both Roman law and divine law. The Sanhedrin’s emissaries had asked whether to “give” the tax. Jesus answers with “give back,” so that payment both to Caesar and to God is obligatory. Caesar and God own what’s owed them. But what are “the things of God”? For Jesus they’re the divine necessity of his suffering, rejection, and being killed (see 8:33 with 8:31). And right after mentioning them in chapter 8 he called on the crowd to disown themselves, take up their crosses, and follow him at the possible cost of their lives (8:34–38). So “the things of God” that people are obligated to give back to him in the present passage consist in following Jesus according to his earlier call. A tailpiece now highlights the ability he has to defeat his enemies in verbal combat: And they were marveling at him. Even those who came to trap him in his speech succumb to admiration of his person.

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SADDUCEES’ IGNORANCE

Mark 12:18–27

In this passage Sadducees, aristocrats centered in Jerusalem, try to overpower Jesus in debate now that some Pharisees and Herodians have failed to trap him. In particular, the Sadducees try to get Jesus, a non-Sadducee, to admit that the doctrine of resurrection, which they deny, is absurdly unscriptural. He has predicted his own resurrection, but only to his disciples (8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34). As readers of Mark we know about those predictions, though. So for us the theological stakes surpass those of the Sadducees, who are interested only in embarrassing Jesus. His resurrection in chapter 16 will prove the Sadducees wrong, but in the meantime they try to outwit him in the way he outwitted the Pharisees and Herodians.

12:18–23: And Sadducees, who as such [that is, as Sadducees] say there’s no resurrection, come to him. They accept as authoritative only the law of Moses (Genesis–Deuteronomy) and don’t find the resurrection taught there. So they deny the doctrine. And they were questioning him by saying, 19“Teacher, Moses wrote to us, ‘If some [man’s] brother were to die’ and leave behind a wife ‘and not leave a child’—[he wrote] that ‘his brother should take [= marry] the wife and raise up seed for his brother [that is, produce offspring to be his brother’s heir]’ [Deuteronomy 25:5; Genesis 38:8 (compare Ruth 4:5, 10)].” “Teacher” introduces a scriptural question suitably but feigns respect for Jesus. “Moses” comes forward to set up a possible conflict between Jesus as a teacher and Moses as a legislator. Since the Sadducees accept Moses’ law (which doesn’t refer explicitly to resurrection) but not the rest of the Old Testament (which does refer explicitly to resurrection, most clearly in Daniel 12:2; but see also Isaiah 26:19; Ezekiel 37:11–14), the Sadducees quote what’s known as the law of levirate marriage. By wordplay, “raise up” in the quotation relates also to the question of resurrection; for this verb is used for God’s raising up the dead as well as for a man’s raising up offspring (in the sense of procreation, not in the sense of child-rearing). 20“There were seven brothers.” This statement sounds like an actual case but looks made up for the purpose of argument. “Seven” connotes completeness, as though this case will seal the conclusiveness of the Sadducees’ argument against resurrection. “And the first took a wife and left no seed [offspring] when he died. 21And the second took her and died not leaving seed behind. And the third likewise. 22And the seven didn’t leave seed. Last of all, the woman died too. 23In the resurrection [if there is one], when they rise [literally, ‘stand up’], whose wife of them will she be? For the seven had her as a wife.” That is to say, resurrection would make shambles of Moses’ law by giving to the woman at one and the same time the seven husbands whom the law had required her to have one after another during her mortal life. A man might practice polygamy. Many did, including the patriarchs. But a woman? In the resurrection? Absurd! So the law of levirate marriage rules out the doctrine of resurrection. How will Jesus resolve this conundrum without joining the Sadducees in a denial of resurrection—including his own, already predicted to the Twelve?

12:24–25: Jesus said to them, “Because of this you’re deceived, aren’t you, not knowing the Scriptures nor [knowing] God’s power.” “Because of this” makes the Sadducees’ ignorance of the Scriptures and of God’s power the reason for their being deceived. The plural of “Scriptures” contrasts with the singular of “Scripture” in 12:10, referring there to a single passage, and may therefore cast a slur on the Sadducees’ rejecting all the Old Testament except for Moses’ law. 25“For when people rise from among the dead they neither marry [as men do] nor are they given in marriage [as happens to women].” “Nor are they given in marriage” puts women in the plural, so that “they neither marry nor are they given in marriage” can’t be limited to the seven brothers and the one wife they all had in succession. “Rather, they are like angels in heaven [the existence of whom the Sadducees also denied according to Acts 23:8, but see the comments on that passage for these denied angels as disembodied human spirits awaiting the resurrection of their bodies, not as ‘God’s angels’ (Genesis 28:12)].” Rising “from among the dead” suggests a resurrection of the righteous, who’ll be like heavenly angels, as distinct from resurrection of the unrighteousness, consigned to hell (compare Revelation 20).

12:26–27: “But concerning the dead, that they’re being raised [as though God is so sure to raise them that he might as well be doing so right now], you’ve read, haven’t you, in the book of Moses [the Pentateuch, which you as well as I accept as authoritative] at [the passage about] the bush [that was burning but wasn’t burning up], how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I [am] the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob [Exodus 3:6].’ 27He’s not God of dead people—rather, of living people. You’re much deceived.” The Sadducees’ ignorance of God’s power consists in a failure to understand not only that he can raise the dead but also that he can change conditions of life, and that he will change them at the resurrection so as to discard the institution of marriage since immortality will make procreation and the rearing of children needless. Consequently, levirate marriage now will pose no difficulty then. “You’ve read, haven’t you?” implies that the Sadducees have indeed read Exodus 3:6 and therefore should know better than to deny the resurrection. But what kind of argument does Jesus draw out of Exodus 3:6? His inference, “He’s not God of dead people—rather, of living people,” doesn’t follow as a logical deduction from God’s statement to Moses, “I [am] the God of Abraham . . . .” For God was only stating that at the time of his speaking to Moses, God was the one whom the patriarchs had worshiped during their mortal lifetimes—no implication of an afterlife, much less of a bodily resurrection, favored or even hinted at. So just as in 12:15–17, Jesus’ argument is artistically compelling. How so? By way of drawing a surprising inference never before thought of. “Concerning the dead” includes the patriarchs among those who are presently dead. God’s being God not of dead people but of living people means then that presently dead people will have to come back to life by virtue of resurrection. In other words, Jesus transfers God’s statement from its original timeframe, the past, to a new timeframe, the future. Just as that statement, when pointed backwards, demanded past physical life for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so too when pointed forward the statement demands future physical life for them even though they’re now dead. What counted argumentatively between Jesus and the Sadducees was ingenuity at playing with words by such means as transferring them to new frames of reference where they could be made to say new things—much as preachers still do! Notably, Jesus grounds the resurrection in the nature of God, not in that of human beings. “You’re much deceived” gives an outright affirmative answer to the question, “You’re deceived, aren’t you?” “Much” makes this answer stronger than the question, as though to say, “You’re dead wrong!” Thus Jesus exposes the smart-alecky Sadducees’ ignorance with a powerful putdown.

A SCHOLAR’S COMING TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH OF JESUS’ TEACHING

Mark 12:28–34

Jesus’ dialogue with a scholar is the first of a pair of passages dealing with scholars. The two passages go from good (Jesus commends a scholar here in 12:28–34) to bad (Jesus condemns the scholars in 12:35–40).

12:28: And on approaching [Jesus], one of the scholars, having heard them [Jesus and the Sadducees] debating with [each other], having seen that he answered them well, asked him, “What sort of commandment is first of all [= most important]?” Mark notes that even a scholar had to admit that Jesus had bested the Sadducees in debate. But we have no good reason to think this scholar approached Jesus less antagonistically than the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees had just done (11:27–12:27). The scholar doesn’t address Jesus respectfully at first. Even the antagonistic Pharisees, Herodians, and Sadducees addressed Jesus respectfully with “Teacher” (12:14, 19), but like the Sanhedrin in 11:28 this scholar doesn’t. And the final statement in the present passage, “And no one was daring to question him [Jesus] any more” (12:34c), shows that with his question the scholar is daring to challenge Jesus antagonistically. Apparently he thinks he can succeed, where his predecessors haven’t, in embarrassing Jesus by dragging him into a theological quagmire. “What sort of” suits a question of “first” in the sense of most important. The question then allows Jesus to display, not his cleverness in outwitting his opponents by posing them a dilemma (as in 11:27–12:12), or by overcoming a dilemma posed to him (as in 12:13–17), or by using a part of Scripture to defend a doctrine that doesn’t seem to be taught there (as in 12:18–27). No, here the question allows Jesus to identify the most important element in God’s law.

12:29–31: Jesus answered, “The first [commandment in importance] is [the following]: ‘Listen, Israel. The Lord our God [is] one Lord [not many lords]. 30And you shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul’ and with your whole mind ‘and with your whole strength [Deuteronomy 6:4–5].’ 31This [next commandment] is second [in importance]: ‘You shall love your neighbor as [you love] yourself [Leviticus 19:18].’ No other commandment is greater [in importance than these].” The lack of “And” before “Jesus answered” indicates a certain abruptness on Jesus’ part because of the scholar’s failure to address him respectfully. Adherence to many gods results in divided loyalty, but adherence to one God in exclusion of other gods entails a demand for undivided loyalty. Hence the command to love God with the “whole” of heart, soul, mind, and strength. “Heart” connotes both feelings and thoughts. “Soul” connotes physical and psychological energy and life itself, to the point of martyrdom if necessary. “Mind” connotes reasoning. And “strength” connotes physical and material capabilities, including property and other forms of wealth. “And with your whole mind” doesn’t appear in Deuteronomy 6:4–5, but here it suits Jesus’ replying to a scholar. To love God with the whole of all these includes a feeling of fondness for him but demands much more. It demands sacrificial service of every possible sort. But Jesus goes beyond the scholar’s question by quoting what Jesus says is the second most important commandment. This addition makes the point that you mustn’t stop at loving God, even that you can’t love him without loving your neighbor as well, and that loving your neighbor grows out of loving God. Again, loving has to do with sacrificial service as well as feelings of fondness. “As [you love] yourself” neither commands, commends, nor condemns self-love. It only uses the love you naturally have for yourself as a standard for loving your neighbor. Love for God isn’t the standard for loving your neighbor, for the command to love God outranks the command to love your neighbor. But loving yourself doesn’t outrank loving your neighbor, for self-love isn’t even commanded. So you should love your neighbor as much as you love yourself. You should meet his or her needs in the same way you meet your own needs. Thus the element of love unites the two commandments cited by Jesus and satisfies the demand to know “what sort of commandment is first of all.”

12:32–33: And the scholar told him, “Well [said], Teacher!” The disrespectful abruptness of the scholar’s question in 12:28 now gives way to a respectful address, preceded by an exclamation that lauds Jesus’ theological discernment. “You’ve spoken on the basis of truth” echoes the Pharisees’ and Herodians’ phraseology in 12:14. But they were flattering Jesus to trip him up. By now he has so overpowered the bullying Sanhedrin, the tricky Pharisees and Herodians, the blundering Sadducees, and the enquiring scribe that the phraseology has lost every tinge of flattery and carries the tones of total assent and pure admiration—so total and pure that the scholar now paraphrases what Jesus has said: “ ‘He [the Lord our God] is one [Deuteronomy 6:4 again]’ and ‘there’s no other [God] besides him [Deuteronomy 4:35].’ 33And ‘loving him with the whole heart and with the whole understanding and with the whole strength [that one has (Deuteronomy 6:5 again)]’ and ‘loving the neighbor as [one loves] himself [Leviticus 19:18 again]’ is more [important] than all the whole burnt offerings [sacrifices that the Law commanded to be burned on the altar in their entirety] and sacrifices [of other sorts].” By omitting “Listen, Israel” and adding “there’s no other [God] besides him” the scholar brings out more clearly the connection between belief in one God and undivided love. The “soul” and “mind” in Jesus’ quotation of Deuteronomy 6:5 collapse into “understanding” to chime in with the scholar’s display of understanding. “More [important] than all the whole burnt offerings and sacrifices” displays the scholar’s understanding what other commandments might wrongly vie with the two most important ones, and also displays his understanding that Jesus has ruled out both the existence of commandments equally important as the first two and the existence of more important ones.

12:34: And on seeing him, that he’d answered thoughtfully, Jesus told him, “You’re not far from God’s kingdom.” From the primacy of love the scholar has correctly deduced the inferiority of sacrifices in the temple. This deduction displayed thoughtfulness and showed that he’s at least beginning to love God with his mind. Since the scholar started out antagonistic to Jesus, Jesus’ saying the scholar isn’t far from God’s kingdom means he’s not now far from it. He has come close to entering it during the course of his dialogue with Jesus. But Mark puts his final accent, not on the scholar’s having come close to God’s kingdom—rather, on the effect of Jesus’ verbal conquests: And no one was daring to question him any more. From here on the initiative will shift to Jesus now that he has passed every test and won every contest. After all, one of his enemies’ own experts—a scholar—has just confessed the truth of his teaching.

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SCHOLARS’ IGNORANCE, PRETENTIOUSNESS, AND RAPACITY

Mark 12:35–40

Now that Jesus’ enemies have failed miserably in their interrogations of him, he himself turns interrogator. 12:35: And answering, Jesus was saying while teaching in the temple, “How come the scholars say that the Christ is David’s son?” Jesus has already answered the scribe in 12:28–33, and according to 12:34 nobody is daring to question Jesus any more. So here, his “answering” means his responding to the lack of further questions by asking his own question about the scholars. “While teaching in the temple” revives the contrast between Jesus’ teaching with authority and the scholars’ teaching without authority (1:21–22, 27), for he’s about to attack them. The redundancy of “teaching” after “saying” exhibits Mark’s desire to revive this contrast. Since he hasn’t mentioned a departure from the temple since Jesus’ returning to it in 11:27, “in the temple” implies that he has stayed there since then. His question not only presupposes that the scholars call the Christ “David’s son,” that is, a descendant of David. “How come?” in the question also presupposes that the Old Testament never uses “David’s son” as a designation of the Christ. So on the basis of this lack Jesus is challenging the scriptural accuracy of that designation by the scholars.

Jesus continues in 12:36–37: “In the Holy Spirit David himself said, ‘The Lord [= God] said to my Lord [the Christ], “Sit at my right [hand] till I put your enemies under your feet [Psalm 110:1].” ’ 37David himself says him [to be] ‘Lord.’ ” “In the Holy Spirit” attributes divine inspiration to David’s scriptural statement; and “David himself, ” which occurs twice for emphasis, sets his designation of the Christ as his “Lord” in sharp, damaging contrast with the scholars’ uninspired, unscriptural designation of the Christ as “David’s son.” “Till I put your enemies under your feet” spells out the Christ’s lordship. The heavily emphasized designation of the Christ as “Lord” now leads to Jesus’ challenging question, “And from where is he his son?” In other words, from where in the Old Testament do the scholars get “David’s son” as a designation of the Christ? Answer: from nowhere. So the scholars stand exposed. They pass for experts in Scripture, but their designation of the Christ doesn’t even appear in it. Though not in connection with “the Christ,” Bartimaeus had addressed Jesus with “Son of David” (10:47–48); and Jesus, though having referred to himself as “Christ” when speaking to the Twelve, didn’t object to Bartimaeus’s address. So here Jesus’ point is not that he isn’t a descendant of David, but that the scholars have no scriptural support for using “David’s son” as a messianic title. And the large crowd was hearing him gladly. “Large” and “gladly” stress the extent and power of Jesus’ grip on the crowd.

In 12:35–37 Mark laid out Jesus’ exposé of what the scholars say (“How come the scholars say . . . ?”). Now in 12:38–40 Mark lays out Jesus’ exposé of what they do: And in his teaching he was saying, “Watch out for the scholars, who like walking around in long robes and greetings in the marketplaces 39and prestigious seats in the synagogues and prestigious couches at banquets, 40who devour widows’ houses and for show pray a long time. These [scholars] will receive prodigious judgment.” “In his teaching” echoes Jesus’ “teaching in the temple” (12:35) and reemphasizes Mark’s contrast between Jesus as a teacher with authority and the scholars as teachers without authority (1:21–22, 27). Only now Jesus himself goes further by portraying them as pretentious and positively dangerous in that their pretensions bring them an influence that masks their evil activities—hence the warning to “watch out” for them. Their walking around in long robes and being greeted in marketplaces make a pair, because they’re greeted as they walk around in the marketplaces. Since the crowd are those who fawningly greet the scholars, Jesus’ denunciation must have shocked the crowd. Seats and couches make another pair, because both are “prestigious.” Those seats in the synagogue were located up front and facing the congregation, so that the scholars occupying them enjoyed much visibility. Those couches, consisting of floor pillows on which diners reclined, were the ones closest to the host. The reference to “banquets” leads to “devour[ing].” But it’s not food that the scholars devour. It’s “widows’ houses.” That is, Jesus charges the scholars, who were not to accept wages for their teaching, with sponging off the hospitality of widows. (There were widows aplenty to take advantage of, for adolescent girls were often married off to men a number of years their senior.) As was customary, the scholars prayed aloud and in public (compare Matthew 6:5). But they extended their prayers to an unusual length to make themselves look good, all the while freeloading at the widows’ expense. Jesus closes his warning to watch out for the scholars with a forceful prediction that in the end they’ll receive a prodigious judgment.

JESUS’ UPSETTING OF POPULAR OPINION ON THE SIZE OF GIFTS

Mark 12:41–44

The true piety of a widow now contrasts with the pretended piety of the scholars who “devour widows’ houses” according to 12:40. 12:41–42: And on sitting down [Jesus has been “walking around in the temple” since 11:27] opposite the treasury [which contained receptacles for cash offerings], he was observing how the crowd is throwing money [in the form of coins] into the treasury [= into the receptacles located there]. “How” has to do with different amounts of money. And many rich people were throwing [in money] voluminously. The large number of rich people now contrasts with the singleness of a widow, and her poverty contrasts with their wealth: 42And on coming, one widow—a poor one—threw [into the treasury] two lepta, which are [= amount to] a quadrans. Lepta were the smallest coins in circulation among the Jews. A quadrans was the smallest Roman coin. Two lepta were worth 1/4 cent, or 1/144 of a manual laborer’s daily wage at the time of Jesus. Mark emphasizes the widow’s poverty. It’s naturally taken as due to a scholar’s having “devoured” her “house” in accord with 12:40.

12:43–44: And on summoning his disciples, he said to them, “Amen I tell you that this poor widow has thrown [money into the treasury] more voluminously than all those who are throwing [money] into the treasury. 44For they all threw [money into the treasury] out of their surplus, but this [widow] out of her lack threw [in] absolutely everything she had, [that is,] her whole livelihood.” “Summoning his disciples” shows Jesus exercising authority over them. “Amen I say to you” assures them of the accuracy of his following estimate, incredible though it may seem. “More voluminously” puts the poor widow’s giving on a grand scale. “Than all” and “they all” emphasize that the volume of her giving surpasses not only the average giving of the crowd but also the heavy giving of the rich, even the heaviest of their giving. Thus the generosity of her giving for public benefit—that is, for support of worship in the temple—contrasts with the scholars’ plundering for their private gain the assets of widows. Since the widow had two lepta, she could have given one and kept the other for her own needs. But she didn’t. She gave not only out of her lack in contrast with those who gave out of their surplus. She gave “absolutely everything she had,” as emphasized by the addition of “her whole livelihood”—as if “absolutely everything she had” weren’t already emphatic enough! Jesus doesn’t commend the widow or tell his disciples to follow her example. So Mark doesn’t present him as teaching them, or us, how to give. As usual throughout this part of his Gospel, rather, Mark is putting on exhibit Jesus’ power to revolutionize the usual view of things, to upset traditional norms, to establish superior criteria.

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FATES OF THE TEMPLE, THE WORLD, AND THE SELECTED ONES, AND TO PREDICT HIS COMING AS THE SON OF MAN

Mark 13:1–37

This chapter is generally known as the Olivet Discourse because of its setting on the Mount of Olives. The discourse starts with a dialogue (13:1–4) that shades into a long monologue (13:5–37). The dialogue breaks down into an exclamation by an unnamed disciple (13:1), a responsively menacing prediction by Jesus (13:2), and a consequent inquiry by Peter, James, John, and Andrew (13:3–4). After a narrative introduction (13:5a), the monologue breaks down into two main sections. The first centers on what precedes the coming of the Son of Man (13:5b–23). The second centers on his coming (13:24–37). Both as a whole and in detail this chapter lends great weight to Mark’s stress on Jesus’ power of prediction, a stress that has already been growing, that will keep on growing right to the end of this Gospel, and that insulates the coming story of Jesus’ crucifixion against deductions damaging to him, such as that the sufferer of so shameful an execution can’t possibly be the world’s Savior or the stronger one of John the baptizer’s prediction (1:8).

13:1–4: And as he’s going out of the temple [see 11:27 for Jesus’ last entrance into the temple], one of his disciples says to him, “Teacher, look! What magnificent stones and what magnificent buildings!” The present tense of “says” suits the disciple’s admiring exclamation. “Stones” refers to Herodian masonry, admirable for its massive dimensions and handsome style. “Buildings” refers to surrounding structures along with the sanctuary proper, all of which make up the temple complex. Recent archaeological excavations favor the addition of this complex to the traditional “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World” so as to make eight of them. The magnificence of its stones and buildings now makes Jesus’ menacing prediction both striking and unlikely of fulfillment. (But, of course, we know that it was indeed fulfilled in A.D. 70.) 2And Jesus said to him, “You’re looking at these large buildings. By no means will a stone be left here on a stone that for sure won’t be torn down.” Some translations have Jesus ask whether the unnamed disciple is looking at the buildings. But of course he’s looking at them. Otherwise he wouldn’t have broken out in an exclamation over them and told Jesus to look. So it’s better to say that Jesus prepares him for a dire prediction by observing that this disciple is looking at the buildings. Jesus’ description of them as “large” adds to the unlikelihood that they’ll be torn down in fulfillment of his prediction. The utter destruction of not one stone’s being left on another increases this unlikelihood yet further and therefore makes the fulfillment—and with it, Jesus’ power of prediction—all the more impressive. “Here” pinpoints the prediction in a way that makes its meaning and fulfillment unmistakable. And “by no means . . . for sure” underlines the certainty of fulfillment. 3And as he was sitting on the Mount of Olives across from the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew [compare 1:16–20; 3:16–19] were asking him privately, 4“Tell us, when will these things be [= occur] and what [will be] the sign when all these things are about to be consummated?” So these four disciples must have heard what Jesus predicted to the unnamed disciple in 13:1–2. “Privately” excludes the rest of the disciples. “When will these things be?” asks about the time of the temple’s coming destruction. “And what [will] be the sign . . . ? ” asks for a forewarning signal. The addition of “all” to “these things” suits the multiplicity of the magnificent stones and buildings. It’s as though the tearing down of each stone and building will be an event in and of itself, the totality of which will bring Jesus’ prediction to fulfillment. Caution: since he hasn’t yet predicted the events to be described in 13:5b–27, the four disciples don’t yet know about them and therefore can’t be asking about their fulfillment. They’re asking about the temple’s destruction, which Jesus has predicted in 13:2 but won’t mention again, not even in 13:14.

13:5–6: But Jesus started telling them, “Watch out lest someone deceive you. 6Many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am,’ and deceive many.” We might expect that the greater the number of charlatans, the fewer the number of people taken in by their competing and therefore contradictory claims. But the deception will be so clever as to produce the opposite effect: an increase in the number of deceived people with each increase in the number of deceivers. “My name” refers to Jesus’ name, of course. But to his personal name “Jesus” or to his titular name “Christ”? The expression “in name that you are Christ’s” in 9:41 and Jesus’ predicting shortly that false christs will arise (13:21–22) favor that here “my name” refers to Jesus’ titular name “Christ” (see also 8:29; 14:61–62). So the deceivers’ coming “on the basis of” Jesus’ name and saying, “I am,” means that they’ll claim, “I am Christ,” just as in answer to the question, “Are you the Christ . . . ?” Jesus will say “I am [the Christ]” (14:61–62). For a believer in Jesus to be deceived by some false christ would be to believe that the false christ is Jesus come back to earth.

13:7–8: “And whenever you hear battles [so near that you can hear their noise] and reports of battles [so distant that you only hear about them], don’t be alarmed. It’s necessary that they take place. The end isn’t yet, however. 8For nation will rise up [in arms] against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There’ll be earthquakes from place to place. There’ll be famines. These [are] the beginning of birth pains.” All these disasters belong to God’s plan. So don’t think that history has gotten out of his control. And don’t think that these disasters signal the end of the age any more than you should think that the appearance of this or that false christ constitutes the end of the age. The disasters and the appearance of false christs constitute only “the beginning of birth pains,” that is, of the horrors whose intensity will subsequently increase until the coming of the Son of Man (13:14–27). So Jesus wants to keep his disciples from deception and alarm. Notably, he’s not answering the disciples’ question when the destruction of the temple will take place and what will signal that it’s about to take place. In keeping with a theme that runs throughout his Gospel, on the other hand, Mark wants to exhibit Jesus’ ability to predict coming disasters, including those that because of the Roman peace (Pax Romana) seemed at the time unlikely of fulfillment.

13:9–11: “But you—watch out for yourselves.” Here Jesus turns the disciples’ attention from the cosmic events just described to their own persons. The preceding warning had to do with the danger of deception. The present warning has to do with the danger of persecution—in particular, the danger that persecution will cause the disciples to disown Christ. Evangelism would then be thwarted. Yet in allowing them to be persecuted, God purposes that they bear witness to the good news before people and among nations that wouldn’t otherwise hear it. “People will give you over to sanhedrins [scattered, lesser Jewish courts in addition to the Great Sanhedrin, or Supreme Court, in Jerusalem] and to synagogues. You’ll be beaten [a Jewish form of disciplinary punishment (compare Deuteronomy 25:1–3; Acts 22:19; 2 Corinthians 11:24)], and you’ll be stood before governors and kings [who’ll be Gentiles, since at that time the Jews didn’t have their own governors and kings] for a testimony to them [= in order that you may preach the gospel to them].” It seems unlikely that nobodies like the disciples will bear witness before the high and mighty. But Jesus predicts they will. And they did. The further prediction, 10“And it’s necessary that the gospel first be preached to all nations,” seems even more unlikely. But again in accordance with God’s plan (“it’s necessary”), the gospel was so preached (Romans 1:5, 8–17; 11:11–36; 15:14–21, 26; Ephesians 2:11–3:21; Colossians 1:6, 23, 27; 1 Timothy 3:16). “First” means “before the end” (compare 13:7). 11“And whenever people lead you [to the aforementioned authorities] by giving [you] over [to them], don’t worry beforehand about what you should say; rather, whatever is given you [to say] in that hour—say this. For you’re not the ones speaking; rather, the Holy Spirit [is speaking through you].” So nobodies like the disciples needn’t be overawed by the high and mighty, for Jesus has baptized his followers in the Holy Spirit (1:8).

13:12–13: “And brother will give over [his] brother to death; and father [will give over his] child [to death]; and children will rise up against [their] parents and get them put to death; 13and you’ll be hated by all because of my name [see the comments on 9:41: ‘in my name that you’re Christ’s’]. But the [disciple] who perseveres to an end—this one will be saved” [compare Micah 7:7; Daniel 12:12–13]. With the phrases that Jesus borrows, Micah 7:6 described a general breakdown in family life. But Jesus makes discipleship to him the reason for betrayals of his disciples by members of their own families. The specificity of this prediction, plus its eventual fulfillment, makes it remarkable in that the family forms the most fundamental and stable unit of society. Betraying the members of one’s own family to the point of getting them put to death shows the extreme either of desire to escape persecution oneself, or of hatred toward the gospel, or of both. Even persecution so severe as this won’t signal the end, however. But persecution will come from “all,” not just from within one’s own family. “Because of my name” alludes to the disciples’ confessing Jesus as the Christ and using his name in exorcism and miracle-working (compare 9:38–39). “An end” in 13:13 differs from “the end” in 13:7 and therefore refers to a disciple’s own end in case of martyrdom, not to the end of the age (see also being “give[n] over . . . to death” and “put to death” in these very verses). Perseverance means loyalty to the point of martyrdom, if necessary, and proves genuineness of discipleship. To buttress his disciples against this possibility, Jesus assures martyrs of eternal salvation. “This one” gives special recognition to martyrs.

Jesus’ earlier warning, “But you—watch out for yourselves” (13:9), now focuses on a severer danger than he has described so far, one that does start a series of events immediately preceding and signaling the end. 13:14: “But whenever you see ‘the abomination of desolation’ [Daniel 9:27; 11:31; and especially 12:11, to whose phraseology Jesus’ statement comes closest] standing where he shouldn’t [stand] (the one who’s reading is to understand), then the ones in Judea are to flee into the mountains!” “The mountains” are those of the Judean wilderness, a traditional hideout. But what, or who, is “the abomination”? Where is it, or he, “standing”? What does “desolation” mean? Who’s the one “reading”? What’s he reading? And what is he supposed to “understand”? “The abomination” is a sacrilege. “He” personalizes the sacrilege. “Standing where he shouldn’t” identifies the sacrilege as the image of a pagan god or of a deified ruler set up in the sacred precincts of the temple, where the one true God alone ought to be worshiped (compare 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4; 1 John 2:18; 4:3; Revelation 13). “Of desolation” describes the abomination as causing worshipers of the one true God to desert the temple, to abandon it, because it has been profaned by the abomination. (“Desolation” can hardly refer to destruction; for then the abomination wouldn’t be standing there, and it would be too late to flee.) The disciples in Judea are to flee into the nearby mountains so as to escape persecution for not worshiping the abomination. So Jesus is still ignoring the four disciples’ questions about the temple’s coming destruction. “The one who’s reading” is the reader of Mark’s Gospel, usually a public reader to an audience of listeners. For prior to the invention of the printing press, private copies for private reading were few and far between. And the public reader is to understand that “he” shouldn’t be changed to “it” even though “the abomination” is neuter. “The abomination” is grammatically neuter but refers to a personal object—therefore “he.” So Jesus makes the abomination of desolation a sign, not of a soon destruction of the temple, but of the Son of Man’s soon coming (13:24–27).

13:15–17: “And the [man] on the roof [of his house in the city] isn’t to come down or enter [his house] to take anything out of his house; 16and the [man] in the field isn’t to turn back to take up his cloak [which he shed for fieldwork but needs for warmth at night]. 17And woe to [women] who are pregnant and [women] who are nursing [their babies] in those days.” The man lounging on the flat roof of his house is at leisure. The man out in the field is at work. Neither one is to spend time to retrieve anything, not even a supposed necessity. Get out and away as fast as you can, even jumping from roof to roof if you’re on a housetop. Too bad for women who are pregnant or nursing, for pregnancy and nursing will hamper or preclude a speedy escape. Such women will suffer a higher risk of getting caught.

13:18–20: “But be praying that it [the abomination of desolation] not occur during winter [when heavy rains in Judea make flight into the mountains difficult or impossible because of flooded roads and ravines]. 19For those days will be [= consist in] affliction [in the sense of persecution] such as hasn’t occurred since the beginning of the creation that God created until now and will by no means occur [afterwards, for the Son of Man’s coming will put an end to persecution of the disciples]. 20And if the Lord hadn’t cut short the days [of unprecedented and final affliction], no flesh would have been saved [from martyrdom].” The context of instructions for Jesus’ disciples living in Judea, mainly in Jerusalem, limits “no flesh” to those of them living there. For they’re the ones exposed to persecution for refusal to worship the abomination in the temple. “But because of the selected ones, whom he selected, he has cut short the days.” That is, to preserve from martyrdom at least some of Jesus’ Judean disciples, the Lord has cut the period of unprecedented persecution shorter than it otherwise would have lasted. (In effect, Jesus is saying that the Lord will mercifully not allow the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3; 12:6 to run their full course [compare the cancellation of the seven thunders in Revelation 10:1–7].) The cutting short is future, but it’s so sure to happen that like the Old Testament prophets, Jesus uses the past tense. Most translations have “the elect” or “the chosen ones.” But in contemporary English “elect” suggests democratic voting, and “chosen” doesn’t connote selection out of a larger number so strongly as the term used by Jesus does. This term describes the disciples as selected for eternal salvation.

Now Jesus gives another warning against deception, deception that if successful would keep his disciples in Judea from fleeing to the mountains for safety. The last time he warned against their being deceived by those who’ll come claiming to be the Christ and against being alarmed by warfare and supposedly natural disasters so as to think the end has come (13:5–8). At this point, though, the abomination is standing in the temple, where he shouldn’t; and unequaled affliction has set in. So the end is near, and its nearness results in a heightened danger of deception. 13:21–23: “And then, if anyone should say to you, ‘Look, here [is] the Christ! Look, there [is the Christ]!’ don’t ever believe [him]. 22For false christs and false prophets will arise and give signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, the selected ones.” The danger of deception comes now not so much from the false christs as from their false prophets, who proclaim that the Christ is here or there. The backing up of their proclamations with the performance of signs and wonders will heighten the danger of deception. Since in contrast with 13:5–6 the false christs are being proclaimed rather than proclaiming themselves, the performance of signs and wonders is probably limited to the false prophets (compare Revelation 13:1–18; 16:13; 19:20; 20:10). “If possible, the selected ones” puts a final emphasis on the danger of deception. 23“But you—watch out!” tells how they’re to avoid deception. “I’ve told you all things beforehand.” In other words, the disciples now know ahead of time all they need to know for avoiding deception—if only they watch out for the events Jesus has foretold. For Mark, this statement fits nicely into his emphasis on Jesus’ predictive power.

13:24–27: “In those days, however, after that affliction [persecution] ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon won’t give its light, 25and the stars will be falling’ out of heaven, ‘and the powers in the heavens’ will be shaken [see Isaiah 13:10; 34:4]. 26And then people will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with much power and ‘glory’ [Daniel 7:13]. 27And then he’ll send the angels and have them gather his selected ones out of the four winds, from the extremity of earth to the extremity of heaven.” The succession of phrases, “In those days . . . after that affliction . . . . And then . . . . And then . . . ,” displays both Jesus’ knowledge of God’s timetable and, again, Jesus’ predictive power. The celestial disasters add detail to that knowledge and power and provide a dark backdrop against which the glory of the Son of Man’s coming shines out all the more. Those disasters feature a darkening of our primary luminaries, the sun and the moon. Jesus doesn’t say what will darken them, so that the point lies solely in a contrast between their darkening and the glory of the Son of Man’s coming. “The powers in the heavens” equate with “the stars” and personalize the stars as heavenly beings whose power is so shaken by the Son of Man’s coming “with much power” (compare 9:1) that they’ll totter and fall out of the sky, as in a shower of meteorites. Further details highlight the awesome manner of Jesus’ coming again as the Son of Man: (1) the seeing of this event by people in general (compare 14:62; Revelation 1:7) or possibly by the fallen heavenly powers; (2) his coming in clouds, a divine mode of transport (9:7; 14:62; Exodus 34:5, and many other biblical passages); (3) his coming with glory (compare 8:38; 10:37); and (4) his sending angels to gather his selected ones, believers in him. As the Son of Man, Jesus will have angels at his disposal. The ones selected for salvation belong to him, and they’ll number so many that the angels will have to go to the farthest horizons of earth and sky to gather them all. Since according to 13:20 “the Lord” selected them, their belonging to the Son of Man makes Jesus as the Son of Man also the Son of God and thus heir to the selected ones. His coming won’t need any announcement from others, such as “Look, here’s the Christ! Look, there’s the Christ!” It will announce itself in the heavens and across the expanse of the earth. Only false christs will appear in a corner and need prophets to advertise their whereabouts. And the gathering of the selected ones from everywhere will further eliminate any need for invitations to come and see. “However” stresses the contrast between the deceptive, private way in which false christs will come and the overpowering, open way in which the Son of Man will come.

13:28–31: “And learn a parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and is putting out leaves, you know that summer is near. 29So also you—when you see these things happening, know that he [the Son of Man] is near, at the doors.” The introductory command to learn the parable anticipates the closing command to understand (“know”) the point of the parable. “These things” doesn’t refer to the destruction of the temple, for Jesus has ignored that topic ever since Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him about its timing and a prior signal. Nor can “these things” mean the events Jesus predicted in 13:5–13, because they won’t indicate the nearness of the Son of Man’s coming. So “these things” must mean the events Jesus predicted in 13:14–23, for they will indicate its nearness. Concerning fig trees, see the comments on Matthew 24:32–33. 30“Amen I tell you that by no means will this generation pass away till all these things happen [compare Daniel 12:7]. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but by no means will my words pass away [= fail to be fulfilled].” With “Amen I tell you” and two occurrences of “by no means,” Jesus gives the firmest possible assurance of fulfillment. At first glance “this generation” looks like a reference to his contemporaries. And well it might have turned out to mean them (hence “this generation” rather than “that generation”). But the preceding parable defines “this generation” as those living at the time of the unprecedented affliction leading up to the Son of Man’s coming and, in the disciples’ case, as those who recognize the events of that time as heralding the nearness of his coming. The addition of “all” to “these things” brings into view his coming itself alongside those preceding events. As soon as those events transpire, the Son of man will assuredly come.

13:32: “But concerning that day or hour, no one knows—not even the angels in heaven or the Son—except the Father.” Jesus has predicted what will signal the nearness of his coming as the Son of Man and has stressed the certainty of fulfillment once the warning signs start taking place. Now he denies that anyone except God the Father knows the exact time of his coming, apparently because the Lord has cut off the foregoing days of unprecedented affliction and hasn’t revealed how many of them he has cut off (13:20). “Day” represents the smallest unit of time on the calendar, “hour” the smallest unit of time in a day. (Ancients didn’t deal in minutes or seconds.) The pairing of “day” and “hour” therefore confirms the distinction between the nearness of the Son of Man’s coming, known by the occurrence of premonitory events, and its exact time, unknown to all but God the Father. Since “the Father” complements “the Son” yet the preceding statements have referred to “the Son of Man,” the Son of God the Father equates with the Son of Man. Theologically, we may say that just as Jesus didn’t exercise his divine omnipotence except to further the kingdom (compare, for example, his refusal to make stones into bread for himself), so he didn’t exercise his divine omniscience except to further the kingdom. To have known and made known the exact time of his coming would have damaged the work of the kingdom by encouraging carelessness during the interim. What Jesus could have done because he was divine didn’t predetermine what he did do as also a human being. The incarnation didn’t lessen his divine potencies, but it did lead him to limit the use of them.

13:33–37: “Watch out [because you don’t know the exact time of the Son of Man’s coming, and you don’t want to be caught unawares]! Keep alert [so as to recognize the events that signal its nearness]! For you don’t know when the time [of his coming] is.” It has been set, but the Father has kept it secret. 34“[It’s] like a man away on a journey, having left his house and given authority to his slaves, to each his task. And he commanded the doorkeeper to stay awake. 35Therefore [in view of this parable] stay awake; for you don’t know when the owner of the house [a figure of speech for Jesus] is coming, whether during evening or midnight or cockcrowing or early morning [the four watches into which Romans divided the night (though they didn’t name them as such), each watch lasting three hours, more or less, so that “midnight” doesn’t refer to our 12:00 midnight, or “cockcrowing” to the particular moment of a rooster’s crowing, or “early morning” to the hour(s) right after dawn], 36lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping [a figure of speech for carelessness in one’s professed discipleship]. 37And what I’m saying to you [Peter, James, John, and Andrew, to whom Jesus has been speaking according to 13:3–5] I’m saying to all [my disciples]: Stay awake!” The parable pinpoints the doorkeeper to echo Jesus’ reference to the Son of Man’s being “at the doors” once the unprecedented affliction starts (13:29). But the parable doesn’t mention the doorkeeper’s task of opening the housedoor when his master returns at an unknown day and hour. So the accent falls on readiness, not on the unmentioned task. And this readiness requires staying awake, a figure of speech for alertful recognition of the events that will indicate the nearness of the Son of Man’s coming, the events that will begin with the abomination of desolation (“But when you see the abomination of desolation . . .” [13:14]). The difficulty of staying awake at night matches the danger that even the Lord’s selected ones might be deceived (13:22). Jesus stops the parable with the master’s command that the doorkeeper stay awake and jumps immediately to his own command that the disciples stay awake. When did the slavemaster/houseowner return? Was the doorkeeper awake at the time? What reward or punishment did he receive? Jesus doesn’t say and thus leaves exclusive stress on watchfulness. Incidentally, the word for “owner” (of the house) also means “master” (of the slaves) and “Lord” (in a figurative reference to Jesus). That Jesus speaks of night watches even though he has mentioned the “day” of his coming emphasizes the incalculability of its exact time. Since travelers don’t usually arrive home at night, the comparison to arrival during one of the night watches adds further emphasis on incalculability. A final addition to this emphasis comes in Jesus’ reference to suddenness: if you’re sleeping you’ll have no time to get ready.

JESUS’ MAKING OF FURTHER PREDICTIONS AND THE STARTING OF FULFILLMENTS

Mark 14:1–11

This passage puts on exhibit Jesus’ power of prediction in that the details of his passion predictions now start to be fulfilled. The passage also shows that he didn’t suffer the disgrace of burial without the customary anointing beforehand, though such a disgrace was to be expected for someone crucified as a heinous criminal. And Jesus gets better than an anointing. He gets a perfuming.

14:1a: And the Passover and [Festival of] Unleavened Bread were [going to occur] after two days. The Passover commemorated the exodus of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses. This festival started with the slaying of sacrifices in the afternoon and ended with the eating of a meal in the evening. The weeklong Festival of Unleavened Bread followed immediately. Since unleavened bread was to be eaten at the Passover meal, though, Passover was often referred to as “the first day of [the Festival of] Unleavened Bread” (see 14:12). But what does Mark mean by saying that these festivals were going to occur “after two days”? Well, Jesus predicted he’d rise from the dead “after three days” (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). He died on Good Friday and rose on Easter Sunday. So if we count fractions of a day as a whole day, as Jews commonly did, “after three days” comes out to mean “on the third day” (see Matthew 16:21; 17:23; 20:19; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 21, 46; 1 Corinthians 15:4). In our present passage, then, “after two days” means “on the second day,” that is, “the next day” rather than “the day after the next day” (as in the case of Good Friday and Easter Sunday). Here’s the resultant chronology of Passion Week: Palm Sunday—the triumphal procession at the end of a day’s walk from Jericho; Monday—the cursing of the fig tree and the cleansing of the temple; Tuesday—discovery of the fig tree withered, debates in Jerusalem, and the Olivet Discourse; Wednesday—the plot against Jesus, his being perfumed, and Judas Iscariot’s offering to betray him (= our present passage, 14:1–11); Thursday—Passover; Good Friday—Jesus’ arrest, trials, crucifixion, and burial; Saturday—Jesus’ lying in a tomb. Easter Sunday will begin a new week with Jesus’ resurrection.

14:1b–2: And the chief priests and the scholars were seeking how, by seizing him with cunning, they might kill him [compare 11:18; 12:12]. Thus Jesus’ predictions in 8:31; 9:31; 10:32–34 are starting to come true. “With cunning” underlines the chief priests’ and scholars’ murderous intent and prepares for Jesus’ nighttime arrest, made possible by Judas Iscariot’s betrayal of him. 2For they were saying, “[Let’s not seize him] in the festal assembly, lest there’ll be a riot of the people” [see 12:12 again for their not arresting Jesus earlier because “they feared the crowd”]. Their certainty of the people’s rioting in Jesus’ behalf if he’s arrested in their midst plays into Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ hold over the masses.

14:3–5: And while he was in Bethany [see the comments on 11:1] in the house of Simon the leper, while he was reclining [at table], a woman came having an alabaster flask of perfume, [which was] very expensive, unadulterated nard [the best of perfumes]. On breaking the alabaster flask, she poured it [the perfume] on his head. 4But some were indignantly saying to themselves [= to one another], “For what purpose has this waste of perfume taken place? 5For this perfume could have been sold for over three hundred denarii [that is, for more than a whole year’s wages for a fully employed manual laborer (see Matthew 20:1–16)] and [the denarii] given to the poor.” And they were growling at her. “The leper” distinguishes this Simon from Simon Peter (3:16), Simon the Cananaean (3:18), Simon the brother of Jesus (6:3), and Simon of Cyrene (15:21). We don’t know anything more about this Simon (for example, whether Jesus had healed him of his leprosy), because Mark turns immediately to the actions of a woman in relation to Jesus. Nor does Mark name the woman or say anything else about her. All his attention focuses on her pouring perfume on Jesus’ head, and doing so as he was eating a meal! (Ordinarily, people would have anointed themselves before going out [Matthew 6:17]; or a host might anoint them on their entry as guests into his house [Luke 7:46].) Details concerning the perfume—its being contained in an alabaster flask, consisting of unadulterated nard, and costing a lot—enhance the honor paid to Jesus and give apparent justification to the criticism that this woman wasted the perfume when it might have been sold for a high price and the proceeds given to the poor. Pouring out the perfume exceeds smearing on a bit of it; and the woman’s breaking the flask punctuates the unexpected lavishness of the outpouring, makes the flask unusable in the future, and therefore dramatizes the completeness of the outpouring. Not a drop is held back. This seeming excess of honor counteracts the shame of Jesus’ coming crucifixion. Mark doesn’t say who growled at the woman after becoming indignant, for he wants to focus next on Jesus’ reaction and interpretation of her act.

14:6–9: But Jesus said, “Leave her [alone]. Why are you causing her troubles [= bothering her by growling at her]? She has worked a good work [in contrast with “this waste” that you’ve talked about; also in contrast with the dastardly plot that Mark mentioned in 14:1–2 and with Judas Iscariot’s upcoming offer of betrayal in 14:10–11] in me [in my very body, as distinct from “the poor” that you referred to]. 7For you always have the poor with yourselves; and whenever you want, you can do well for them. But me you don’t always have [= a predictive allusion to his soon-coming death and therefore also a hint of his supernaturally knowing about the plot just now hatched against him (14:1–2)].” The allusion to his soon-coming death now becomes more than an allusion: 8“She has done what she could.” In other words, what she had she used. “She has anticipated perfuming my body in preparation for burial.” Burial implies death. Jesus’ interpretation of the woman’s deed doesn’t necessarily imply she had in mind the meaning he gives it. On the contrary, she perfumed only his head, whereas he speaks of his body; and Jews ordinarily used cheap olive oil, not expensive perfume, for corpses. But Jesus’ interpreting the pouring out of costly perfume on his head as an anticipatory preparation of his body (the word for “body” can also mean “corpse”) for burial gives him a dignity in burial that will erase the shame of what turns out to be crucifixion. Anticipatory preparation adds a detail that hasn’t appeared in earlier passion predictions—namely, that Jesus’ corpse won’t be prepared in the usual manner between death and burial. 9“And amen I tell you, wherever in the whole world the gospel is proclaimed, also what this [woman] has done will be told with the result of her being remembered.” Here Jesus adds two further predictions: (1) that the gospel will be proclaimed throughout the whole world and (2) that the woman’s good deed will be told along with the gospel, so that she’ll be remembered. Her anonymity and “the whole world” make a fulfillment of these predictions unlikely and therefore the fulfillment more impressive when it actually happens (as it has!). “Amen I tell you” gives Jesus’ disciples assurance of the unlikely fulfillment.

14:10–11: And Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went away to the chief priests to give him [Jesus] over to them. 11And on hearing [Judas’s purpose], they rejoiced and promised to give him money. And he started seeking how he might give him [Jesus] over [to the chief priests] conveniently [that is, apart from the crowded festal assembly, where a riot in Jesus’ behalf would be sure to break out]. “One of the Twelve” harks back to 3:19. This addition to Judas’s name highlights the treachery he’s about to exhibit. Imagine! One of Jesus’ chosen twelve purposes to give him over to those who are plotting his execution. Judas’s going away from Jesus reverses his former discipleship, which entailed going away to Jesus in order to be with him (see 3:13–14). “To give him over” to the chief priests starts the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions that he’ll be given over to his enemies (9:31; 10:33). They joyfully promise to give Judas money; but he doesn’t get it yet, and—in contrast with prior mention of the more than three hundred denarii worth of perfume used to prepare Jesus’ body for burial—Mark doesn’t mention the amount of money they promised Judas. The Sanhedrin’s seeking how to seize Jesus with cunning now yields to Judas’s seeking how to give him over to them “conveniently.” But Mark doesn’t attribute to Judas any reason or motive, whether disgruntlement with the seemingly wasteful perfuming of Jesus’ body, with Jesus’ defense of it, or with a desire for money. (The chief priests promised him money without his asking for it.) So the accent falls entirely on this beginning of the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions and on the treachery of Judas’s offer and effort.

JESUS’ MAKING OF PREDICTIONS CONCERNING A PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER, AND THEIR FULFILLMENTS

Mark 14:12–16

14:12: And on the first day of [the Festival] of Unleavened Bread, [that is, on the day] when they [the Jews] sacrificed the Passover [lamb], his disciples say to him, “Where [in Jerusalem] do you want us, on going away [presumably from Bethany (see 11:11, 12; 14:3)], to prepare for you to eat the Passover [a meal featuring above all a roasted lamb]?” This “first day” is the Thursday before Good Friday and the beginning of the Passover Festival, which lasts into the evening and thus equates with the beginning of the Festival of Unleavened Bread (see the comments on 14:1). The disciples’ asking Jesus where he wants them to prepare the Passover meal underlines his authority. We expect them to say “for us [the Twelve plus Jesus] to eat.” Instead they say “for you to eat,” though in fact they’ll all eat the meal (14:17–25). The concentration on preparing for Jesus to eat, plus the present tense of “say” in the introduction to the disciples’ questions, puts further emphasis on his authority.

Now Jesus exercises both his authority and his predictive ability. 14:13–16: And he sends two of his disciples and says to them, “Go into the city, and there’ll meet you a man carrying a jar of water. Follow him; 14and wherever he enters, say to the houseowner, ‘The teacher says, “Where’s my guest room where I may eat the Passover [meal] with my disciples?” ’ 15And he’ll show you an upstairs room—large, furnished, prepared [for our use]. And there prepare [the Passover meal] for us.” Again, the vivid present tense of “sends” and “says” headlines this first prediction by Jesus. He fills it with details, so that its fulfillment will be astonishing. A man will meet the two disciples Jesus sends. The fact that he’ll meet them rather than they him makes fulfillment extremely unlikely, for it would be remarkable enough if Jesus knew the two were going to meet a man by virtue of their approaching him at Jesus’ instructions. But Jesus’ knowing that a man is going to meet them by virtue of his approaching them—what a testimony to Jesus’ foreknowledge! Not only that, but also the man will be carrying a jar of water—what a woman would usually do in those days, for a man would normally carry water in a skin. It’s a mistake to think that Mark wants us to imagine prearrangements on Jesus’ part, for (1) prearrangements would have required a time of meeting set by Jesus beforehand, whereas the disciples happen at the moment to have taken the initiative with their question; (2) Jerusalem is big and thronged with tens of thousands of Passover pilgrims as well as with tens of thousands of permanent residents, so that Jesus would have had to prearrange a particular place of meeting—but his instructions mention no such place; and (3) prearrangements would probably have eliminated any need for the question, “Where’s my guest room where I may eat the Passover [meal] with my disciples?” and led instead to a different question: “Where’s the guest room where my disciples may prepare the Passover [meal]?” We have a prediction, then, not prearrangements. It stays unknown whether the houseowner is expected to recognize “the teacher” as Jesus, or whether he’s expected to provide out of respect for teachers in general a room without knowing that Jesus is the teacher. The lack of information on this point leaves the stress on Jesus’ predictive power and on his authority. “My guest room” implies that as the teacher he has authority to commandeer the room. “My disciples” highlights his authority further. The second prediction is as remarkably detailed as the first. The room will be upstairs, large, furnished, and ready for use. That the houseowner will neither refuse nor hesitate to show the room makes the prediction and Jesus’ authority yet more impressive. 16And the [two] disciples went out and came into the city and found [things] just as he’d told them. And they prepared the Passover [meal]. The disciples’ discovery exhibits the accuracy of Jesus’ predictions, details and all. And since every matter is to be legally established by the testimony of at least two witnesses (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15), the twoness of the disciples who made the discovery provides sufficient testimony to the fulfillment of these unlikely predictions by Jesus. Obedient preparation of the Passover meal calls attention back to his authority and sets the stage for the meal itself.

JESUS’ EXHIBITING FOREKNOWLEDGE OF HIS BETRAYAL, VIOLENT DEATH, AND ULTIMATE VICTORY

Mark 14:17–25

Mark’s account of the Last Supper divides into Jesus’ prediction that one of the Twelve will give him over (14:17–21) and predictions of his violent death and ultimate victory (14:22–25).

14:17–18: And when evening came, he comes with the Twelve [to the upstairs room]. The present tense of “comes” introduces vigorously this account of Jesus’ further predictions. Jews usually ate their late meal toward the end of the afternoon, but evening was the proper time for a Passover meal (Exodus 12:8). 18And while they were reclining [at table, as was customary at formal meals, whereas sitting was customary at ordinary meals] and eating, Jesus said, “Amen I tell you that one of you ‘who’s eating with me’ [Psalm 41:9] will give me over [to those plotting to kill me (14:1)].” This prediction is shocking, because although Jesus has spoken before of being given over to his enemies (9:31; 10:33–34), up till now he hasn’t identified the betrayer as one of his disciples, much less as one of his intimates, the specially chosen Twelve. Adding to this pathos is the expression “who’s eating with me,” for in that culture eating with someone connoted an almost sacred bond of friendship. The unlikelihood of betrayal from within the ranks of the Twelve, who are eating the Passover with Jesus, will make the fulfillment of his present prediction all the more impressive. “Amen I tell you” underlines certainty of fulfillment despite this unlikelihood.

14:19–21: And they began to be saddened and to say to him one by one, “Surely I [am] not [the betrayer], [am] I?” 20But he said to them, “[The betrayer is] one of the Twelve who himself is dipping with me into the one bowl [which we all share], 21because on the one hand the Son of Man is going away [to his enemies as a result of being given over to them], just as it’s written concerning him [see Psalm 41:9 again]. On the other hand, alas for that man through whom the Son of Man is being given over! [It would be] good for him if he—that man—hadn’t been born.” The disciples’ sadness heightens the pathos. All of them are dipping with Jesus into the one bowl. So his answer to their question doesn’t identify which one of them will betray him. Instead, it deepens the betrayer’s treachery by adding “who himself is dipping with me into the one bowl” to the earlier “who’s eating with me.” “Who himself is dipping with me . . .” deepens the betrayer’s treachery yet more by describing the dipping as intentionally false-friendly. The lack of information concerning what was being dipped, what was contained in the bowl, and therefore what was being eaten—this lack directs attention solely to the treacherous intimacy of dipping with Jesus into one and the same bowl. The ignorance of eleven of the Twelve as to who will betray Jesus lets Jesus’ foreknowledge stand out by contrast. He cites Scripture as the reason for being given over, so that his fate carries out God’s plan. “Through whom” describes the betrayer as God’s unwitting agent in the carrying out of that plan as revealed in Scripture. A pronouncement of woe on the betrayer (“alas for that man . . . !”) categorizes him as the true criminal and exonerates Jesus of any guilt that people might attach to him because of his crucifixion. “That man” puts the betrayer at a moral distance from “the Son of Man,” and repetition of “that man” magnifies the distance. Its being “good for him if he . . . hadn’t been born” exposes the enormity of treachery by headlining the horror of his fate, worse than that of the Son of Man, who’ll be resurrected to come again in glory. “Is going away . . . is being given over”: so sure is Jesus to be going away as a result of being given over that the fulfillment of his prediction is in process right now (14:10–11).

14:22–25: And while they were eating, on taking bread, on saying a blessing [= praising God for the bread], he broke [it into pieces, as was especially appropriate for unleavened bread, its being cracker-like] and gave [the pieces] to them and said, “Take [these pieces of bread]. This [bread] is my corpse.” In the context of Jesus’ being given over to death, the word for “body” is better translated “corpse” (compare the use of this same word in references to Jesus’ burial in 14:8; 15:43). 23And on taking a cup, after giving thanks he gave [it] to them; and they all drank out of it. 24And he said to them, “This is my covenant-blood [compare Exodus 24:8] that’s being poured out for many [people]. 25Amen I tell you that by no means will I any more drink from the produce of the vine till that day when I drink it anew in God’s kingdom.” Still alive and well, Jesus is reclining bodily with his disciples and, as just noted, “corpse” better suits the context of his coming death and burial than “body” does. So “This represents my corpse” correctly interprets “This is my corpse.” Similarly, since Jesus’ blood has yet to be poured out (though “is being poured out” makes the outpouring as good as happening already), “This represents my covenant-blood . . .” correctly interprets “This is my covenant-blood . . . .” The separate mention of blood indicates a violent death, as in our term “bloodshed.” So we have a symbolic as well as verbal prediction of Jesus’ passion. The covenantal character of the blood and its “being poured out for many” indicate the sacrificial character of Jesus’ approaching death, not only its violence but also its atoning value for others—an indication of divine approval in opposition to human condemnation and otherwise shameful crucifixion. That “all” drank out of the cup exacerbates the treachery of Judas Iscariot. The passage ends with another prediction by Jesus, that of abstaining from wine till he drinks it in God’s kingdom. “Amen I tell you” and “by no means” stress the abstinence. But drinking afterward strikes a final, happy note. Jesus speaks of drinking in the kingdom rather than of the kingdom’s coming and thus highlights his vindication in a celebration of final victory. He doesn’t say he’ll drink with his disciples, only that he will drink, so that attention centers on that vindication. “Anew” implies he has drunk in the past and perhaps on this occasion (though probably not the wine of the Eucharist; for he gave the cup to the Twelve for drinking that wine, nor would it do for him to drink wine that symbolized the outpouring of his blood for others). The betrayed one will celebrate victory in God’s kingdom—a happy prediction sure to be fulfilled in view of Jesus’ many predictions already fulfilled.

A CONTEST OF PREDICTIVE ABILITY: JESUS VERSUS PETER AND THE OTHER DISCIPLES

Mark 14:26–31

The Passover meal had to end by the middle of the night; so Jesus and his disciples now leave the guest room for the Mount of Olives. Mark doesn’t tell at what point Judas Iscariot leaves the rest for the betrayal. 14:26–28: And after hymn-singing [probably some of Psalms 114(or 113)–18], they went out to the Mount of Olives. 27And Jesus tells them [apparently as they’re going along], “You’ll all be tripped up, because it’s written, ‘I’ll strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered [Zechariah 13:7].’ 28Nevertheless, after I’ve been raised, I’ll go ahead of you into Galilee.” The present tense of “tells” emphasizes Jesus’ predicting that the disciples will be “tripped up.” To be tripped up is to stumble into sinning because of some baneful influence. The Old Testament quotation defines the sinning that Jesus predicts his disciples will stumble into. It’ll consist in allowing fear to scatter them when he’s arrested. To save their necks they’ll leave him in the lurch. It seems unlikely that those closest to Jesus will forsake him. But Scripture must be fulfilled (the scattering will happen “because it’s written”), so that the passion and its effect on the disciples will happen according to God’s plan as well as according to Jesus’ prediction. It seems even more unlikely that “all” these disciples will forsake him. But the fulfillment of this element in his prediction (an element that he adds to the Old Testament prediction) will enhance the impressiveness of his predictive ability. The original text of Zechariah 13:7 reads a command: “Strike the shepherd.” Jesus tweaks the wording so as to create a prediction, “I’ll strike the shepherd,” that supports his own prediction. But he doesn’t identify the “I” whom he imports into Zechariah’s text. As a result, the emphasis falls entirely on prediction as such, and therefore on the agreement between Jesus’ and Zechariah’s predictions. “The shepherd” stands for Jesus, his being struck for his Passion (in the first instance, his being arrested), “the sheep” for his disciples, and the sheep’s being scattered for the disciples’ fleeing (14:50). “Nevertheless” sets Jesus’ going ahead of the disciples to Galilee after his resurrection in strong contrast with his being “struck” in Jerusalem, and also sets the disciples’ regrouping in Galilee in strong contrast with their being scattered at Jerusalem. The regrouping in Galilee is only implied by Jesus’ preceding them there, though. So the emphasis rests on his predicting his earlier arrival as the resurrected one. The disciples won’t leave him in a tomb when they go back to Galilee. He’ll arrive before they do (see 16:7).

Peter has shown loyalty to Jesus by confessing him to be the Christ (8:29), by reprimanding him for predicting the Passion (8:32), and by joining the rest of the Twelve in asking, “Surely I [am] not [the betrayer], [am] I?” (14:19). His loyalty rises to the present occasion with a prediction counter to Jesus’ prediction. 14:29–31: But Peter told him, “Even if they’ll all be tripped up, yet I won’t [be tripped up].” That is to say, “Your ‘all’ won’t include me.” Because of his demonstrated loyalty to Jesus, the prediction by Peter seems likely to falsify Jesus’ prediction. But this very likelihood will elevate Jesus’ predictive ability if he turns out to be right and Peter wrong. The contest intensifies with another prediction by Jesus: 30And Jesus says to him, “Amen I tell you that today, this night, before a rooster crows twice, you [Peter] will disown me three times.” The present tense of “says” and “Amen I tell you” set the certainty of this prediction’s fulfillment emphatically opposite Peter’s counterprediction. The emphatic “you” underlines that the apostle most likely to falsify Jesus’ first prediction will in fact fulfill Jesus’ second prediction as well. “Today” (in the sense of a twenty-four hour day) dramatizes this fulfillment by bringing it close at hand and thus displays the acuteness of Jesus’ predictive ability. The successive expressions “this night,” “before a rooster crows twice,” and “three times” sharpen this acuteness with the addition of increasingly specific and therefore astonishing detail, the fulfillment of which will immeasurably heighten the impressiveness of Jesus’ predictive power. Furthermore, the apostle most unlikely to forsake Jesus will also do worse. He’ll even disown Jesus—three times for good measure! Similar but larger increases in the unlikelihood and therefore greater impressiveness of fulfillment accrue from Peter’s adding a second counter prediction and from all the other disciples’ chiming in: 31But he [Peter] was saying vehemently, “If it should be necessary for me to die with you, by no means will I disown you.” And also they were all speaking similarly. Strengthening this second counter prediction by Peter are his speaking “vehemently,” adding dying with Jesus if necessary, escalating his (Peter’s) earlier “not” to the emphatic “by no means,” and getting the support of all his fellow disciples. The “all” that identifies those who counterpredict their loyalty equate with the “all” who Jesus initially predicted will be tripped up. Who’ll win this contest of predictive ability? The question is silly, because Mark has already laid out so much evidence of Jesus’ abilities, including this kind, that we know the answer in advance. No contest!

THE FLOWERING OF FULFILLMENT FOR JESUS’ PREDICTIONS

Mark 14:32–52

This passage contains an unusually high concentration of verbs that appear in the present tense for events that occurred in the past: “come” (14:32), “tells” (14:32), “takes along” (14:33), “tells” (14:34), “comes” (14:37), “finds” (14:37), “says” (14:37), “comes” (14:41), “tells” (14:41), “arrives” (14:43), “says” (14:45), and “seize” (14:51). The vividness of these verbs displays the excitement of Mark over Jesus’ entrance into the passion, for with that entrance the fulfillment of the passion-and-resurrection predictions starts coming to full flower. On the other hand, verbs that introduce Jesus’ praying in Gethsemane don’t appear in the present tense, because Mark isn’t very interested in the praying as such. He’s interested, rather, in Jesus’ being given over to the Jewish authorities and in the disciples’ failure of loyalty, both in fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions.

14:32–34: And they come into a parcel of land whose name [was] Gethsemane; and he tells his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33And he takes along Peter and James and John with him and began to be alarmed and dismayed. 34And he tells them, “ ‘My soul is very sad, to [the point of] death [Psalms 42:5, 11; 43:5; Jonah 4:9].’ Remain here and stay awake.” Jesus’ taking along his three closest disciples shows him to be seeking their help and thus builds up to the initial breakdown of even their loyalty. They’ll not stay awake. Ultimately, they’ll abandon him altogether by fleeing with the rest (14:50). Mark’s description of Jesus as “alarmed and dismayed,” plus Jesus’ describing himself as “very sad, to [the point of] death,” is designed to excite sympathy for Jesus. In 13:33–37 staying awake had to do with watching for his glorious coming as the Son of Man. Here it has to do with watching for the coming of Judas the betrayer; for when in 14:41 he discovers for the third time that they’re sleeping rather than staying awake, he tells them to sleep on. Why? Because it won’t be long before the betrayer arrives; so they might as well get as much rest as they can. Jesus had wanted the three to stay awake watching for Judas’s coming in order that he (Jesus) might give himself entirely to praying through his emotional distress.

14:35–36: And on going forward a little, he was falling on the ground and praying that if it were actually possible the hour might pass away from him. 36And he was saying, “Abba, Father, all things [are] possible for you. Take this cup away from me [as though Jesus is at table with God the Father as host]. Nevertheless, [I request] not what I want—rather, what you [want].” Jesus’ “going forward a little” allows Peter, James, and John to see before they fall asleep what he does and to hear what he prays. (In that culture even private prayer was usually spoken out loud.) “Was falling on the ground and praying” probably includes Jesus’ second and third prayers in addition to this first prayer. “The hour” will turn out to be “the hour” of his being given over “into the hands of sinners” (14:41). His asking to be spared from this hour exhibits foreknowledge of the betrayal. “This cup” stands for the poison of death (compare 10:38–39). “This” describes the cup as near (this here as opposed to that over there). No wonder, then, that Jesus falls on the ground. Standing was the normal posture for prayer (11:25). Kneeling was abnormal. But “falling on the ground”—that goes beyond kneeling and displays alarm (compare Hebrews 5:7). It’s the nearness of the cup that causes alarm, which excites further sympathy for Jesus and dramatizes his foreknowing that betrayal and death are soon to happen. “Nevertheless, [I request] not what I want—rather, what you [want]” shows Jesus’ betrayal and death to be God’s will. That God can take away the cup (“all things [are] possible for you,” Jesus says to him) but won’t do so shows all the more that Jesus’ betrayal and death will carry out God’s will. In other words, Jesus’ crucifixion is not to be mocked. It’s to be admired, not least because in it he subordinates his will to that of God his Father. “Nevertheless” emphasizes this subordination. So also does the use of both “Abba” (Aramaic) and its translation “Father,” for a son is supposed to carry out his father’s will.

14:37: And he comes and finds them sleeping recalls Jesus’ seeking the help of his three closest disciples (see the comments on 14:33–34). He interrupts his praying to see whether according to his instruction they’ve remained nearby and stayed awake. His finding them asleep highlights the breakdown of loyalty that he predicted, that starts here, and that he goes on to speak of: And he says to Peter, “Simon, you’re sleeping! You weren’t strong enough to stay awake for one hour!” Many translations have it that Jesus asks questions: “Simon, are you sleeping? Weren’t you strong enough to stay awake for one hour?” But if these are questions, the second one should really be translated, “You were strong enough to stay awake for one hour, weren’t you?” with the implied answer, “Yes.” Jesus’ upcoming statement that “the flesh is weak” (14:38) implies, though, that Simon Peter was not strong enough, whereas Jesus was. So it’s better to take Jesus’ words as accusatory exclamations that call attention to the start of a breakdown in loyalty, the breakdown that will fulfill Jesus’ predictions and falsify Peter’s. Though James and John, too, were sleeping, Jesus singles out Peter because more than all the rest, Peter made predictions counter to those of Jesus.

Now Jesus addresses all three disciples in 14:38: “Stay awake and pray lest you enter into temptation. On the one hand, the spirit [is] eager. On the other hand, the flesh [is] weak.” Earlier, Jesus told them only to stay awake (14:34). Now he tells them also to pray. In that culture people prayed with their eyes open, not with their eyes closed. Praying would help the disciples stay awake, then, so as not to enter into—that is, succumb to—the temptation of sleep. This temptation is a test of their strength. The spirit of the disciples may be eager to help Jesus, but their flesh is weak in the sense of tired. (The hour is very late, and they’ve had an unusually full meal.) Only prayer can help their eager spirit win its tug-of-war with their weak flesh. As in Psalm 51:12, to which Jesus alludes, we should think of their human spirit, not God’s Spirit.

14:39–42: And on going away again, he prayed speaking the same statement [as in 14:35–36]. 40And on coming again, he found them sleeping; for their eyes were weighed down. And they didn’t know what they should answer him. 41And he comes a third time and tells them, “Sleep for the remainder [of the time till the betrayer has drawn near] and rest. He’s distant [so you might as well sleep on and rest while you can]. The hour has come. Behold, the Son of Man is being given over into the hands of sinners. 42Rouse yourselves! Let’s go. Behold, the one who’s giving me over has drawn near!” Mark refers to Jesus’ second prayer but doesn’t quote it, and he doesn’t even refer to Jesus’ third prayer but only leaves it to be inferred from Jesus’ coming “a third time.” So Mark shows comparatively little interest in Jesus’ prayers and instead goes directly to Jesus’ finding the disciples asleep again. Mark also stresses the fleshly weakness of the disciples by noting that “their eyes were weighed down,” so that “they didn’t know what they should answer him [Jesus].” Their weakness furthers Mark’s emphasis on the breakdown in loyalty that’s beginning to fulfill Jesus’ predictions and falsify the disciples’ predictions, especially Peter’s. For Peter, falling asleep three times forecasts his three disownings of Jesus, again in fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction. The disciples’ weakness also makes Jesus look strong by contrast. He has stayed awake. To counteract the scandal of Jesus’ coming crucifixion, Mark wants a strong Son of God, strong in flesh as well as eager in spirit—“the stronger one” of John the baptizer’s prediction (1:7), so physically strong that he’ll die with a loud shout (emphasized twice by Mark in 15:34, 37) rather than lapsing into unconsciousness. Jesus shows exasperation in telling the disciples to sleep on and rest while “he” (identified almost immediately as “the one betraying me”) is still distant. But the remaining time to do so doesn’t last long, because the hour of betrayal has struck, the betrayal is already in progress, and then the betrayer comes so close it’s time to get up and meet him. So the disciples have to rouse themselves. “Let’s go” doesn’t mean “Let’s get away from here and escape.” It means “Let’s go to meet the betrayer and the ‘sinners’ into whose ‘hands’ he’s giving me over” (see 9:31 and the comments on it for the connotation of violence in “hands”). “Sinners” highlights the injustice Jesus will suffer, but going to meet the betrayer and the sinners shows him carrying out his Father’s will, not his own. Now the “sinners” who make up the Sanhedrin’s posse can arrest Jesus in the dead of night apart from the festal assembly, where in view of his popularity an arrest would have caused a riot.

14:43: And immediately, while he was still speaking, there arrives Judas, one of the Twelve, and with him a crowd with swords and clubs, [a crowd coming] from the chief priests and the scholars and the elders. “Immediately” stresses the speed with which Jesus’ prediction is proceeding toward final fulfillment. “While he was still speaking” reinforces this speed by indicating that Judas comes right as Jesus is saying, “Behold, the one who’s giving me over has drawn near” (14:42). As already in 14:10, 20, the identification of Judas as “one of the Twelve” helps Mark portray Jesus’ coming crucifixion as stemming from an act of treachery rather than from a pursuit of justice. Stressing this treachery is the addition that with Judas, who as an apostle should have been with Jesus (3:14), arrives “a crowd with swords and clubs” who have come from the Sanhedrin. The reference to weapons and the listing of all three classes that compose the Sanhedrin, who have been plotting to kill Jesus (14:1–2), present the crucifixion as stemming from hellbent animosity.

14:44–47: And the one giving him over had given them [the crowd with swords and clubs] a signal, saying, “Whomever I kiss—it’s he. Seize him and lead [him] away securely.” The signal intensifies Judas’s treachery by exposing how carefully planned it was. A simple pronoun would have identified Judas well enough (“And he had given them a signal”). But Mark designates him with the phrase, “the one giving him over,” to highlight yet more both the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction and Judas’s treachery. Kissing Jesus as a signal to seize him and lead him away deepens the treachery with a show of affectionate homage. “Seize him and lead him away” exposes the show as a charade. In view of Jesus’ submission to God the Father’s will (14:36) and going out to meet the betrayer (14:42), there’s irony in Judas’s instruction to lead Jesus away “securely.” He would go with them willingly. 45And on coming [to Gethsemane], immediately approaching him [Jesus], he [Judas] says, “Rabbi,” and kissed him. “Immediately” calls attention again to the speed with which Jesus’ prediction is reaching fulfillment (see also 14:43). Judas’s addressing Jesus respectfully with “Rabbi” deepens the treachery yet further. And Mark uses a strengthened form of the verb “kiss,” which means either that Judas kissed Jesus affectionately or kissed his hand or feet rather than his face. So Judas was feigning affection or humility. His treachery has reached its nadir, so that he now disappears from Mark’s account. Mark isn’t interested in Judas’s fate (for which see Matthew 27:3–10; Acts 1:15–20). He’s interested only in the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction of betrayal by one of the Twelve. Judas has played his part in that fulfillment and from Mark’s standpoint deserves no more notice. 46And they [the crowd] laid hands on him [in fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions that he’d be given over “into the hands of men” (9:31) and “into the hands of sinners” (14:41)] and seized him [in fulfillment of the Sanhedrin’s desire (12:12; 14:1) and Judas’s instruction (14:44)]. 47But a certain one of the bystanders, on drawing [his] sword, struck the high priest’s slave and lopped off his ear. Mark has said the crowd came “with swords” (14:43). Jesus will respond to the present incident by pointing to their having come “with swords” (14:48). Several further references to “bystanders” never include his disciples (14:69, 70; 15:35, 39). In Mark, Jesus says nothing about the swordplay; nor does he restore the victim’s ear. It seems, then, that in this account the lopping off of an ear isn’t a disciple’s act of defending Jesus, but an accident in which one member of the crowd injures another member of the crowd with a misdirected swing of his sword (compare Psalm 37:14–15: “The wicked have drawn the sword . . . to slay those who are upright in conduct. Their sword will enter their own heart”). This bit of grim humor then leads into Jesus’ response, which highlights the weapons of those who have seized him.

14:48–49: And answering [= responding], Jesus said to them, “As against a bandit have you come out with swords and clubs to take me with [you]?” This question could be repunctuated as an indignant statement: “you have come out.” But either way, Jesus’ response foreshadows the crucifixion of two bandits with him (15:27) and exposes the injustice of his arrest by indirectly and ironically calling to mind his beneficial healings and exorcisms instead of banditry. It’s the Sanhedrin, who sent the crowd to arrest Jesus, that sponsored banditry—in the temple no less (11:17). 49“Day by day [as opposed to a bandit’s nighttime raids and to your arresting me at night] I was with you in the temple [courts], teaching, and you didn’t seize me.” This sarcastic observation refers to the preceding week of Jesus’ public ministry, beginning at 11:15, and exposes the discrepancy between the Sanhedrin’s launching against him a kind of military expedition, as though he were a bandit to catch whom they’ve had to arm themselves and come out into the countryside—the discrepancy between that and Judas’s having just called him “Rabbi” and kissed him. “Day by day,” “with you,” and “in the temple [courts], teaching” emphasize this discrepancy by indicating face-to-face closeness, frequency, and therefore plenty of opportunity for them to have arrested Jesus earlier. “But [this has happened] in order that the Scriptures might be fulfilled.” “The Scriptures” include at least Zechariah 13:7, quoted by Jesus in 14:27 (but see also Exodus 24:8; Psalms 22:1, 7–8, 18; 37:14; 41:9; 69:21; 71:11; 109:25; Isaiah 53:12; Lamentations 2:15 with Mark 14:18, 24, 41, 44, 46; 15:14, 29, 34, 36). Despite the injustice, then—and even through it—God is achieving his purpose of salvation for humankind

14:50–52: And leaving him, all [the disciples] fled. Thus the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that the disciples would “all be tripped up” and “scattered” (14:27). “All” in this fulfillment not only matches “all” in the prediction. It also contrasts the fleeing of these “all” with the protestations of loyalty and the drinking from the eucharistic cup by the very same “all” in 14:23, 31. Mark doesn’t say what motivated the disciples to flee. His omission of their motive leaves only Jesus’ earlier prediction as an explanation for their fleeing. 51And a certain young man, clothed with a linen cloth on [his] naked [body], was following with him [that is, close behind Jesus as opposed to Peter’s later following “at a distance” (14:54)]. And they seize him; 52but leaving the linen cloth behind, he fled naked. Who is this young man? What’s his name? Why is he wearing only a linen cloth? How come he’s following with Jesus when the disciples have fled? Why do the crowd seize him prior to his slipping out of the linen cloth? Mark leaves all these questions unanswered; so the young man’s significance lies elsewhere. The crowd’s seizing the young man parallels their having seized Jesus (14:46). The young man’s wearing a linen cloth anticipates the linen cloth in which Jesus will be buried (15:46, where “the linen cloth” recalls the mention here of “a linen cloth”). The young man’s leaving behind the linen cloth anticipates Jesus’ resurrection, portrayed as a leaving behind of his linen burial cloth. And Mark will call the angel who in Jesus’ empty tomb announces Jesus’ resurrection—Mark will call that angel “a young man” (16:5–7) to recollectively associate the present young man with Jesus’ resurrection. The closeness of the young man’s following (“with Jesus”) supports this association. All in all, then, this episode symbolically anticipates a reversal of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial by virtue of the resurrection. Mark’s mentioning the young man’s following with Jesus before mentioning that the crowd led Jesus away shows how eager Mark is to anticipate this reversal.

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTIONS OF HIS REJECTION BY THE SANHEDRIN AND OF PETER’S DISOWNINGS OF HIM

Mark 14:53–72

In this passage Mark narrates both Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin (14:53–65) and Peter’s denials of him (14:66–72). A brief introduction sets the stage for both events, which take place simultaneously (14:53–54). By putting Jesus’ trial alongside Peter’s denials and giving the trial and the denials a common introduction, Mark produces a double appeal to Jesus’ power of prediction. For what happens in each case corresponds exactly to what Jesus foretold.

14:53–54: And they led Jesus away to the high priest, and all the chief priests and the elders and the scholars come together. The high priest chaired the Sanhedrin; so it was natural for Jesus to be taken to him and for the Sanhedrin to convene at the high priest’s residence, especially in the middle of the night. The coming together of the three classes that made up the Sanhedrin begins to fulfill Jesus’ prediction that he’d be rejected and condemned by them (8:31; 10:33). “All” stresses completeness of fulfillment. 54And Peter followed him [Jesus] at a distance, as far as inside, [that is,] into the high priest’s courtyard; and he [Peter] was sitting with the servants and warming himself, [facing] toward the light [of a fire]. Peter’s following Jesus at a distance contrasts with the young man’s following “with” Jesus—that is, close behind him—in 14:51. The distance at which Peter follows avoids a contradiction with his having fled and thus preserves the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that “all” the disciples would be scattered (14:27, 50). Though Peter’s flight has put him at a distance, his following shows a determination to die with Jesus if necessary, as Peter predicted contrary to Jesus’ prediction (14:30–31). This determination makes it look unlikely that Peter will disown Jesus three times this very night, before a rooster crows twice, in fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction (14:30). Making it look even more unlikely is Peter’s following Jesus right inside the high priest’s courtyard, sitting with the high priest’s servants, and disclosing himself in the light of a fire that enables them to identify him as one of Jesus’ disciples. Such courage! Such loyalty to Jesus! The chances for a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction look dim. But the greater the unlikelihood that Jesus will win the contest of predictive ability, the greater the victory if he does win.

14:55–59: And the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were seeking testimony against Jesus for the purpose of putting him to death, and they weren’t finding [any testimony to support a capital verdict]. 56For many were testifying falsely against him, and the testimonies weren’t equivalent [that is, didn’t agree with each other]. 57And on standing up, some were testifying falsely against him by saying, 58“We ourselves heard him saying, ‘I myself will tear down this handmade [= manmade] sanctuary [= the temple proper, excluding the surrounding courts and cloisters], and in three days build another [sanctuary], not handmade.’ ” 59And not even in this respect was their testimony equivalent [self-consistent]. “The whole Sanhedrin” stresses once again the completeness with which Jesus’ predictions are coming to pass. Their seeking testimony “for the purpose of putting him to death” is also beginning to fulfill those passion predictions. At the same time, their “seeking” such testimony creates sympathy for Jesus in that they show themselves so bent on his death that they’ve hauled him to trial before finding testimony against him. Their finding no testimony because false witnesses are contradicting each other implies that the Sanhedrin are seeking true testimony. Their failure to find true testimony serves Mark’s defense of Jesus by showing that Jesus doesn’t deserve condemnation, much less crucifixion. The large number of false witnesses (“many”) and the plurality of their “testimonies” underscore the Sanhedrin’s failure to find true testimony, for the agreement of only two witnesses would have been enough to establish the truth of an accusation (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). The false testimony of “some” merits particular attention. We know from 13:1–4 that only some of Jesus’ disciples heard him predict a destruction of the temple and that though he predicted destruction of its whole complex, he didn’t at all say he was going to tear down the sanctuary. Nor did he disparage it as “manmade,” or say he was going to build another sanctuary in three days, or say this other sanctuary wouldn’t be manmade, or imply that since it wouldn’t be manmade yet he himself was going to build it he must be divine. On the contrary, we know from 11:15–17 that Jesus called the whole temple complex “my house” and cleansed it of commercial traffic so as to make it “a house of prayer for all nations.” The false witnesses don’t agree with each other even when restricted in number (“some” as opposed to “many”) and even when testifying on the same topic (what Jesus purportedly said about the sanctuary).

14:60–62: And on standing up in the midst [of the whole Sanhedrin], the high priest questioned Jesus by saying, “You’re making no answer at all, are you? What [is it that] these [witnesses] are testifying against you?” 61But he kept silent and gave no answer at all. Again the high priest was questioning him and says to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62And Jesus said, “I am [the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One], and you [plural] will see the Son of Man sitting at the right [hand] of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven” [Psalm 110:1; Daniel 7:13]. The high priest’s standing up parallels the false witnesses’ standing up (14:57) and thus puts him, like them, in a prosecutorial role as opposed to his rightful role as a judge. As a judge he should have pronounced Jesus “not guilty” because of the admittedly false testimonies brought against him. Mark doubles Jesus’ refusal of the high priest’s demand for an answer—“but he [Jesus] kept silent and gave no answer at all”—to emphasize Jesus’ strength in withstanding the attempt to browbeat him into an admission of guilt. He does answer the high priest’s next question, however; for though he’s no criminal, he is the Christ and God’s Son. (In the question, “the Blessed One,” which means “the One who is to be praised,” is a reverential substitute for “God.”) Mark emphasizes the question of Jesus’ christhood and divine sonship by introducing it doubly with (1) “the high priest was questioning him” and (2) “[the high priest] says to him.” Jesus’ affirmative answer feeds into Mark’s writing this Gospel to argue for Jesus as the Christ and God’s Son (1:1) despite the scandal of his crucifixion. And true to Mark’s emphasis on the predictive ability of Jesus, especially the ability to predict his own fate, Jesus proceeds to predict that the whole Sanhedrin will see him, the Son of Man, sitting at the right hand of “the Power” (another reverential substitute for a divine name) and coming with the clouds of heaven. Naturally, this will happen by way of vindicating him after his death and resurrection. The current fulfillment of his passion predictions ensures the future fulfillment of this prediction of vindication. Notwithstanding the apparent shame of crucifixion, Jesus will sit (the posture of authority) at the right hand (the position of highest favor) of none less than God himself, who is “the Power.” Sharing God’s power (compare 13:26) will erase any supposed weakness in the crucifixion. And Jesus’ coming “with the clouds of heaven” clothes him with God’s own regalia (see the comments on 13:26). The prediction refers to a seeing of Jesus the Son of Man at the Last Day. At his coming he’ll be seated at God’s right hand in the chariot that Ezekiel saw carrying God’s throne in a great cloud (Ezekiel 1). Jesus will come again, no longer subject to the Sanhedrin’s judgment.

14:63–65: And the high priest, tearing his undergarments [as a sign of horror], says, “Why do we still have a need of witnesses? 64You’ve heard the blasphemy. How does it appear to you?” And they all condemned him [as] being liable to death [that is, Jesus as deserving the death penalty]. The present tense of “says” underlines the charge against Jesus. We expect the high priest to tear only his outer garments. Tearing his undergarments down to the bare skin and the Sanhedrin’s unanimity in condemning Jesus to death stress the high degree of fulfillment reached by the prediction of Jesus that the Sanhedrin would reject him and condemn him to death (8:31; 10:33). Blasphemy is slander, in this case Jesus’ supposedly slandering God by predicting that he, a mere human being, will sit at God’s right hand and come again in God’s own regalia, the clouds. So they condemn Jesus out of his own mouth. But we know that his prediction contains no blasphemy, for God himself twice declared Jesus his own beloved Son, the second time in a followup to Jesus’ predicting he’d come “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (1:11; 9:7). Leviticus 24:10–16 prescribes stoning as the method of execution for blasphemy. But the Sanhedrin have pronounced Jesus as only “liable” to the death penalty, and he has predicted that they’ll give him over to the Gentiles for execution (10:33–34). For the fulfillment of this prediction, then, to the Gentiles he must go. But first some indignity perpetrated on Jesus: 65And certain [members of the Sanhedrin] started spitting on him and covering his face all around and punching him and saying to him, “Prophesy.” And the servants treated him to blows. These indignities put the Sanhedrin and the servants in a bad light and excite sympathy for Jesus as a victim of gross injustice. Mark doesn’t say why some cover Jesus’ face or what they challenge him to prophesy. It’s their actions as such that interest Mark, because those actions fulfill Jesus’ predictions that the Sanhedrin would reject him. In particular, the challenge to prophesy—this challenge itself ironically fulfills what Jesus has already prophesied about his fate, namely, rejection by his challengers. Mark’s reference to “the servants” leads nicely into the account of Peter’s denials—that is, disownings of Jesus—because at the servants’ previous mention Peter was sitting with them at fireside (14:54). By framing the challenge to prophesy between fulfillments of Jesus’ predictions of condemnation by the Sanhedrin and of Peter’s denials, Mark shows Jesus to be the prophet that the Sanhedrin think he isn’t.

14:66–68a: And while Peter was below in the courtyard [so Mark is moving his narrative backward to pick up what Peter was doing during Jesus’ trial before the Sanhedrin], one of the high priest’s maids comes 67and, on seeing Peter warming himself [in “the light” of a fire (14:54)], gazing intently at him, says, “You too were with the Nazarene, Jesus.” 68aBut he denied [that he’d been with Jesus], saying, “I neither know nor understand what you’re saying.” The present tense of “comes” and “sends” headlines the start of the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that Peter would disown him three times this very night. The maid would be a slave girl, and a lone one at that. Her comment—and it’s only a comment—prompts the first denial by Peter, so that his babbling weakness strikes a contrast with the quiet strength of Jesus, who resisted pressure from a personage no less imposing than the high priest. The contrast makes more impressive the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction, for it didn’t seem as though Peter was liable to disown him under pressure from a mere slave girl. Mark’s mentioning that she belonged to the high priest supports a contrast between Peter’s behavior toward her and Jesus’ behavior toward her master. Peter’s second denial will feature this same slave girl and therefore double the contrast between Peter’s and Jesus’ behaviors—all to the damage of Peter’s predictive ability and to the demonstration of Jesus’ predictive ability (see 14:27–31, 69–70a). Her observation and statement were correct, of course. Jesus was from Nazareth and, more importantly, Peter had been with him. Indeed, Jesus had chosen Peter and the rest of the Twelve to be “with him” (3:14). Mark doesn’t say how it was that the slave girl recognized Peter as one of Jesus’ disciples. It’s enough for Mark that Peter’s denial, and two more denials to follow, are demonstrating the accuracy of Jesus’ predictions. This first denial takes the form of feigned ignorance, emphatic in its doubling: “I neither know nor understand . . . .”

14:68b–70a: And he [Peter] went outside into the forecourt [= an outer courtyard as distinct from the inner courtyard], and a rooster crowed. 69And on seeing him, the maid started again to say to the bystanders, “This one [Peter] is [one] of them [Jesus’ disciples].” 70aBut again he denied [that he was]. Peter exits from the courtyard into the forecourt to escape the pressure. But Jesus’ prediction will catch up with him. Before it does, though, Mark notes the first crowing of a rooster as a reminder of Jesus’ prediction that a rooster wouldn’t crow twice before Peter disowned Jesus three times (14:30). You get the feeling that events are going to transpire exactly as Jesus foretold. And so sure is his prediction to be fulfilled in detail that the first rooster crow fails to warn Peter off from his second and third denials. Nor does his exit rid him of the maid. Instead of addressing him, this time she addresses bystanders; and instead of observing his having been with Jesus she pronounces him one of a number of Jesus’ disciples. Peter overhears what she says, and the “again” of this denial both matches the “again” of her second observation and marks this denial as his second. Two down, one to go. Mark is counting.

14:70b–72: And again, after a little [while], the bystanders were saying to Peter, “Truly you are [one] of them, for you too [like the other disciples] are a Galilean.” 71But he began cursing and swearing [in the sense of speaking under oath]: “I don’t know this guy that you’re talking about.” “After a little [while]” shows that the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction is hastening toward completion. “Again” marks the third and final test of his predictive accuracy and refers to this third test as such, not to the bystanders’ speaking to Peter (for they haven’t spoken to him before). “Truly” reinforces the test and puts Peter’s false denials in a contrastively bad light. “For you too are a Galilean” reinforces the test by giving a reason for the identification of Peter as one of the disciples (and probably alludes to a difference in accent [so Matthew 26:73], though Mark is interested only in the test as such and Peter’s fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction). Peter’s starting to curse and swear corresponds to this reinforcement of the third test and leaves no doubt that Jesus’ prediction of Peter’s denials has reached fulfillment, all the more so in that “cursing” seems to imply Jesus as the object of Peter’s cursing. Speaking under oath strengthens the denial yet further. The first denial was private and evasive, the second one still evasive but public. This third denial is direct, public, and immeasurably stronger. At first Peter only denied knowing what the maid was talking about. Now—in a far cry from his earlier confession of Jesus as the Christ (8:29) and from Jesus’ confessing himself at this very time to be the Christ, God’s Son—Peter denies knowing whom the bystanders are talking about. “This guy” is disparaging, as fits a cursing of Jesus. But the bystanders haven’t said anything about Jesus! They’ve spoken only about the disciples as Galileans. So the incongruity between their statement and Peter’s response goes to show that he is indeed fulfilling Jesus’ prediction by disowning him even when—and though—the interlocuters haven’t mentioned Jesus. 72And immediately, for the second time, a rooster crowed. And Peter remembered the word, how Jesus had told him, “Before a rooster crows twice, you will disown me three times.” And he proceeded to weep. “And immediately” dramatizes the fulfillment of the sole remaining detail in Jesus’ prediction: the second crow of a rooster. “For the second time” notes the exactitude of fulfillment. The unusualness of “the word” for a saying of Jesus and the combination with “how Jesus had told him” emphasize Mark’s requotation of Jesus’ prediction. Peter’s remembering the prediction gives Mark an opportunity to requote it and provides a basis for Peter’s emotional reaction. “Today” and “this night” drop out of the requotation (contrast 14:30) to let emphasis concentrate on the numerical exactitude of the prediction and its fulfillment. Peter’s weeping dramatizes the fulfillment with pathos and amounts to lamenting to Jesus, “You win.” In adding the agony of defeat to this contest of predictive ability that Peter has lost to Jesus, the weeping replaces the bravado that characterized Peter’s counter predictions and unbelief in Jesus’ prediction. The absence of information on Peter’s purpose in going to the high priest’s courtyard, on the reason for the maid’s presence, on the way she knew Peter had been with Jesus and the other disciples, on what the bystanders did when Peter was unmasked, and on his departure, plus the absence of any condemnation and restoration of Peter—all these absences leave the emphasis solely on the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT HE WOULD BE GIVEN OVER TO THE GENTILES AND FLOGGED

Mark 15:1–15

15:1: And immediately, early in the morning, after holding a consultation the chief priests along with the elders and scholars—even the whole Sanhedrin—on binding Jesus [= tying him up], carried [him] off and gave [him] over to Pilate. “And immediately” hurries Mark’s story line to the next point of emphasis, namely, the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that “the chief priests and the scholars . . . will give him over to the Gentiles” (10:33). “Holding a consultation” pinpoints the activity which will bring that prediction to fulfillment. Mark’s emphasis on the completeness of fulfillment is so strong that he not only echoes Jesus’ references to the chief priests and the scholars. He also adds the elders for good measure and, backing up, refers to them all as “the whole Sanhedrin.” Mark doesn’t tell the ins and outs of their consultation. Only its outcome interests him, for that’s what fulfills Jesus’ prediction. The consultation issues first in a binding of Jesus. This binding starts a parallel with the later-mentioned Barabbas, who was also bound (15:7; compare 15:6, where the word for “prisoner” literally means “a bound person”). The binding of Jesus also prepares for a contrast with Barabbas’s later release (literally, an “unbinding” or “loosening of bonds” [15:6–15]). In Gethsemane Jesus was only “seized” and “led away” (14:43–53). Here, binding (not just seizing) causes Mark to use the stronger verb “carried off” (not just “led away”). Not necessarily that they carried Jesus off on their shoulders or on a stretcher, but Jesus’ being bound required at least that they give him assistance on his way to Pilate. Mark assumes we know that Pilate is a Gentile with Gentiles under his command, but he doesn’t bother to mention Pilate’s position as the Roman governor of Judea. This omission and Mark’s total silence on the Sanhedrin’s reason for giving Jesus over to Pilate rather than stoning Jesus themselves focus all possible attention on the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction in 10:33. For Mark, it’s the necessity that that prediction be fulfilled, not any jurisdictional incompetence of the Sanhedrin, that determines Jesus’ being given over to the Gentiles (see John 18:31 for the Sanhedrin’s jurisdictional incompetence in capital cases).

15:2: And Pilate questioned him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” This question implies that to portray Jesus as an insurrectionist the Sanhedrin have converted what they judged to be his blasphemous claim to be the Christ, God’s Son, who was going to sit at God’s right hand and come with the clouds of heaven (14:61–64)—that they’ve converted that claim into a treasonous claim to be the Jews’ king. Pilate would care nothing about blasphemy, of course; but he would care a lot about any threat to Caesar’s authority. So taken up is Mark with the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that he’d be given over to the Gentiles, however, that Mark omits the charge of insurrectionism implied by Pilate’s question. And he, answering him, said, “You yourself are speaking.” Jesus’ answer simultaneously admits “the king of the Jews” as a given designation (compare Pilate’s later statement to the crowd, “whom you call the king of the Jews” [15:12]), and rejects the phrase as a self-designation, as if to say, “That’s not what I’ve called myself” (therefore Pilate’s coming effort to release Jesus rather than execute him as an insurrectionist).

15:3–5: And the chief priests were accusing him much. Mark highlights the vigor of their accusation, because its vigor goes to show just how thoroughly Jesus’ predictions that the chief priests would reject him are being fulfilled (9:31; 10:33). The vigor of their accusation leads to the following: 4And Pilate was questioning him again, saying, “You’re making no answer at all, are you? Look, how many things they’re accusing you of!” So Pilate joins Mark in noting the vigor of the chief priests’ accusation, the content of which remains only implied. It’s as though Mark subpoenas Pilate to testify to the thoroughness with which Jesus’ predictions regarding the chief priests’ rejection of him are being fulfilled. The chief priests continue pressing their charge, because Jesus has refused to tell Pilate he’s the king of the Jews. 5But Jesus no longer answered in respect to anything at all [as he had answered Pilate’s opening question], so that Pilate marveled. The reason Jesus now refuses to answer is that the chief priests are pressing a charge to which he has already responded. Pilate’s marveling at Jesus’ silence testifies to the strength of Jesus in withstanding efforts to elicit from him an admission of guilt (compare the comments on 14:60–61a). Furthermore, his silence will make Pilate’s upcoming questions to the crowd all the more impressive; for if Pilate sees no crime in Jesus despite Jesus’ refusal to defend himself further, how flimsy must be the case against him (15:9, 12, 14a).

A short explanation now introduces the next episode. 15:6–7: And at each festival [of Passover] he [Pilate] used to release to them [“the crowd” of 15:8–15] one prisoner whom they were asking for. 7And the [man] called Barabbas was bound with insurrectionists who as such had committed murder in an insurrection. The annual release of “one” prepares for the release of Jesus or Barabbas, but not of both. And “called Barabbas” sets up for Pilate’s referring to Jesus as the one whom the crowd “call the king of the Jews” (15:12). Barabbas’s being bound “with insurrectionists who as such had committed murder in an insurrection” makes him an insurrectionist and a murderer. “As such” stresses his insurrectionism. Against this foil Jesus’ innocence stands out in bold relief: Barabbas deserves to be bound and crucified, Jesus does not. Mark avoids obscuring this contrast with details concerning the insurrection, about which we know nothing from other sources, either.

15:8–10: And on going up [to Pilate], the crowd started asking [him to do] as he used to do for them [by way of releasing a prisoner of their choice every Passover]. 9And Pilate asked them, saying, “Do you want me to release to you the king of the Jews?” 10For he knew that the chief priests had given him over because of envy. Who are “the crowd” that go up to Pilate? Not the crowd that came to arrest Jesus in Gethsemane (14:43), because they wouldn’t need stirring up shortly to ask for Barabbas’s release and Jesus’ crucifixion (15:11–14). Nor would the chief priests be envious of Jesus’ popularity with those who arrested him. He was not popular with them, and they arrested him as the chief priests’ own agents. This crowd, then, is the one with which Jesus is popular, much to the envy of the chief priests and much to their fear of arresting him in the festal assembly, where an uprising in his behalf would have occurred if they had arrested him there (14:1–2). The crowd seem not to have a particular prisoner in mind when they request the customary release of a prisoner. For even though Mark has introduced Barabbas, he avoids mentioning him as the object of the crowd’s request. Nor do they appear to have in mind the release of Jesus. For Mark gives no indication that they even know as yet of Jesus’ standing trial before Pilate or of the Sanhedrin’s having condemned Jesus as liable to the death penalty. And Mark avoids making Jesus the object of the crowd’s request just as he avoids making Barabbas such an object. It’s Pilate who insinuates Jesus into their request; and he doesn’t give them a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, or even mention Barabbas. The chief priests will be the ones to insinuate Barabbas into the crowd’s request.

Pilate asks whether they want him to release to them the king of the Jews. It’s a test question which implies not only the Sanhedrin’s charge that Jesus claims to be the king of the Jews. It also implies the Sanhedrin’s warning to Pilate that a large number of Jews, represented now by the very crowd that asks Pilate to release a prisoner, regard Jesus as their king. Pilate might have said “your king,” but that would have prejudged their attitude toward Jesus’ putative claim of kingship over them. “Of the Jews” better preserves the testing character of Pilate’s question. He asks it because he knows that the chief priests have given Jesus over to him on account of envy, that is, envy of Jesus’ hold on the crowd. Now that the chief priests have given him over to Pilate in consequence of a secret arrest and trial, it becomes appropriate to speak of their envy instead of their fear. “On account of envy” revives Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ magnetism. If the crowd do ask Pilate to release Jesus to them, Pilate will conclude that in agreement with the chief priests’ implied charge against Jesus, a large number of Jews consider Jesus their king because he really does claim to be such.

15:11–12: And the chief priests stirred up the crowd that he should release to them Barabbas instead. 12But Pilate, answering again, was saying to them, “What then do you want me to do with the one whom you call the king of the Jews?” The chief priests are unaware of Pilate’s knowledge of their envy. So they mistakenly fear he’ll grant a request by the crowd for Jesus’ release rather than regarding such a request as evidence validating the chief priests’ implied charge that Jesus claims to be the Jews’ king, has a large following, and therefore should be crucified. So the chief priests stir up the crowd to combat the popularity that Jesus has had with them. By asking Pilate to follow the festive custom of releasing one prisoner of their choice, this very crowd have given the chief priests an opportunity to manipulate them in this way. Thus the preceding identification of Barabbas comes into play and accomplishes Mark’s purpose of making a foil against which the injustice of Jesus’ crucifixion stands out. Emphasizing this foil is “rather.” At the chief priests’ incitement, we may infer, the crowd lodge a request for Barabbas’s release. But to emphasize the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions that the chief priests would reject him, Mark omits the crowd’s request and leaves only the purpose of the chief priests’ incitement of them. “Whom you call the king of the Jews” confirms the implication that the chief priests have warned Pilate of a large following ready to rebel against Caesar and make Jesus their king. But Pilate is also puzzled over what the crowd want him to do with Jesus if they consider him their king yet want to release Barabbas instead of Jesus—especially since the custom is to release only one prisoner.

15:13–14: But they yelled again, [this time saying,] “Crucify him!” 14But Pilate was saying to them, “Why? What bad thing has he done?” [= What crime has he committed?] But they yelled vehemently, “Crucify him!” “Again” implies that the crowd’s previous request for Pilate to release Barabbas took the form of yelling. Pilate is in the right to follow a custom of releasing to the crowd a prisoner of their choice, and the crowd are in the right to make their choice known by acclamation. Yet Mark’s having mentioned the chief priests’ envy of Jesus and incitement of the crowd turns the yelling into a feature of Jesus’ trial that smacks of a “kangaroo court” and contrasts both with the crowd’s mild-mannered initial request in 15:8 and with their yelling “Hosanna! Favored [is] he who’s coming in the Lord’s name” at the triumphal procession less than a week earlier (11:9). “Crucify him!” brings into view the horrid method of Jesus’ execution that causes Mark to write his Gospel as an apology for the cross. And it adds to the look of a kangaroo court that a crowd of Jews should yell for imposition of a Roman method of execution on a fellow Jew. By yelling for his crucifixion, the crowd now give the lie to the chief priests’ implication that the crowd call Jesus their king. Pilate is disabused of suspicion both that Jesus wants to lead an insurrection and that the crowd want him to lead one. So Pilate asks what crime Jesus has committed. In contrast with the committing of murder by Barabbas and his fellow insurrectionists, Jesus has done nothing bad to which the crowd can point. So they only repeat their demand for his crucifixion instead of answering Pilate’s question. Thus is exposed a miscarriage of justice. The addition of “vehemently” to the final yelling strengthens this exposé.

15:15: And Pilate, wanting to do the thing satisfactory to the crowd, released Barabbas to them and, after having Jesus flogged, gave him over to be crucified. The miscarriage of justice shows up again in Pilate’s wanting to satisfy the crowd despite knowing that the chief priests have incited them out of envy. The miscarriage of justice shows up yet again in Pilate’s releasing Barabbas, the very one who deserves crucifixion for insurrection and murder. The giving of Jesus over (to soldiers according to 15:16–27) to be crucified after a flogging completes this miscarriage of justice. Jesus goes to his execution without even the formality of a verdict, false though a verdict of guilty would have been. Being given over to Roman soldiers completes the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that he’d be given over to the Gentiles (10:33). And the flogging of Jesus fulfills the detail of his prediction that the Gentiles would whip him.

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT THE GENTILES WOULD MOCK HIM

Mark 15:16–20c

15:16: And the soldiers led him away [from Pilate] into the courtyard, which is [part of Pilate’s] official residence; and they called together the whole cohort. The soldiers are Gentiles. Their leading Jesus away (as in 14:44, 53) rather than carrying him off (as in 15:1) implies that after his flogging, Jesus was untied in preparation for mocking him. Because it was surrounded by buildings of the official residence, the courtyard was part of that residence. That the soldiers call together “the whole cohort” points forward to a large-scale fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that Gentiles would mock him (10:33–34). Normally, a cohort of soldiers numbered about six hundred.

15:17–20c: And they dress him up with purple [probably a soldier’s cloak in mock imitation of a royal robe] and on braiding a thorny crown [in mock imitation of Caesar’s woven wreath], they put [it] around him [that is, around Jesus’ head]. 18And they started saluting him: “Hail [literally ‘Rejoice’ or, as we’d say, ‘Have a nice day’], king of the Jews!” 19And they were hitting his head with a reed and spitting on him and, kneeling, they were prostrating themselves before him [in mock homage]. 20a–cAnd when they’d mocked him [that is, made fun of him], they disrobed him of the purple and put his clothes [back] on him. The present tense in “dress him up” and “put [the thorny crown] around [his head]” introduces the Gentiles’ mocking of Jesus on a note of emphasis. The details add thoroughness of fulfillment to large scale. The salute, “Hail, king of the Jews!” adds verbal mockery on top of sartorial mockery and heaps insult on his falsely reported claim to kingship. A reed is too flimsy to inflict pain, so that the soldiers’ repeatedly hitting Jesus on the head with a reed simply heaps insult on Jesus’ thorny crown. Furthermore, the reed is a mock sceptre. But instead of having Jesus hold it to mock his supposed kingship, the soldiers double the mockery by using the reed to hit him on the head. The repeated spitting on him heaps insult on his pseudoroyal robe, itself another instrument of mockery. The spitting also fulfills a particular detail to this effect in Jesus’ prediction (10:34; compare 14:65). Putting his own clothes back on him prepares for the next episode, which will include their dividing up his clothes among themselves.

JESUS’ EXPIRING IN A WAY THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS DIVINE SONSHIP

Mark 15:20d–27, 29–41

Much as in 14:32–52, a concentration of verbs in the present tense for past events will dramatize the fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions that he’d be killed: “leads,” (15:20), “requisition” (15:21), “bring” (15:22), and “crucify” (15:24, 27). 15:20d–21: And they [the soldiers] lead him out to crucify him. This statement headlines the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that the Gentiles would kill him (10:33–34). 21And they requisition a certain passer-by coming from a field [outside Jerusalem], [namely,] Simon—a Cyrenian, the father of Alexander and Rufus—to take up his cross [= the beam to be affixed horizontally to a permanently planted upright stake or to a living tree]. Cyrene was a city in North Africa. Mark doesn’t say whether this Simon was visiting Jerusalem as a Passover pilgrim or had emigrated from Cyrene. But identifying Simon as “a Cyrenian” distinguishes him from Simon Peter, among others (see the comments on 14:3); and identifying him also as “the father of Alexander and Rufus” seems to imply that Mark’s originally intended audience knew personally the two sons but not their father. Mark has put Jesus in contrast with the fleshly weakness of Peter, James, and John in Gethsemane (14:32–42) and will yet emphasize twice the loudness of Jesus’ last outcry (15:34, 37). It seems doubtful, then, that Mark wants us to think that Simon was requisitioned to take up Jesus’ cross because Jesus was too weak to carry it. Rather, it’s to dignify Jesus that Mark notes the taking up of Jesus’ cross by Simon of Cyrene. Mark’s Jesus doesn’t even take up his cross, much less carry it and then relinquish it. Omission of a reason for the requisition of Simon focuses attention on this dignifying of Jesus rather than on whatever weakness or suffering of his might have prompted the soldiers to requisition Simon.

15:22–23: And they bring him to the Golgotha place, which is translated “Skull’s Place.” “Bring” (present tense) and the topographical detail portend the imminent fulfillment of Jesus’ predictions that he’d be killed (8:31; 9:31; 10:34). We don’t know why the place was associated with a skull, whether because of its shape, nearby graves, use as a polling place (that is, for counting heads), or some other reason; but “Golgotha” probably doesn’t mean the dried-out skull of a skeleton. 23And they were trying to give him myrrhed wine, but he didn’t take [it]. Wine spiced with myrrh is a delicacy. So whatever the motive of the soldiers, their attempt to give him such wine amounts in Mark’s presentation to a dignifying of Jesus just as requisitioning somebody else to take up his cross did the same. His refusal to take the wine may indicate a rejection of continued mockery, but more likely it indicates a determination not to sleep on the cross. (The wine would have had a soporific effect on him.) He will die awake and strong in flesh just as in Gethsemane he prayed awake and strong in flesh (contrast the sleeping of Peter, James, and John through weakness of the flesh). We might also think of Jesus’ saying he wouldn’t drink “from the product of the vine” till his drinking it “anew in God’s kingdom” (14:25).

15:24: And they crucify him and “divided his clothes for themselves by casting a lot for them [Psalm 22:18],” who should take up what. The soldiers’ crucifying Jesus fulfills his prediction that Gentiles would kill him. Mark borrows phraseology from the Old Testament to narrate the divvying up of Jesus’ clothes by lot-casting (similar to our throwing dice or drawing straws). Despite having to explain all things Jewish elsewhere (see especially 7:3–4), Mark doesn’t explain here that he’s quoting. So he must not be expecting his audience to detect a fulfillment of the Old Testament. Highlighted, instead, is the desirability of Jesus’ clothing, which the woman with a flow of blood wanted to touch, and did touch, for her healing (5:27–28, 30) and which the sick in general sought to touch, even just the fringe of his garment (“and as many as touched it were being saved” [6:56]). Mark adds “who should take up what” after mentioning the soldiers’ “casting a lot for them.” The addition is unnecessary, but it emphasizes the desirability of Jesus’ clothes and produces a parallel with Simon of Cyrene’s “tak[ing] up” Jesus’ cross (15:21). Both instances of “take up” dignify Jesus. Though the divvying up of Jesus’ clothes implies his being crucified naked, Mark doesn’t mention the nakedness explicitly lest it undermine his dignifying the crucifixion of Jesus.

15:25–27: And it was the third hour [about 9:00 A.M.], and they crucified him. To reduce the shame of crucifixion as much as possible, Mark is starting a chronology that will show how little time Jesus spent on the cross (see 15:44–45 with comments). The reference to crucifixion follows up a similar reference in 15:24 so as to tie Jesus’ crucifixion tightly to this apologetic chronology. Mark doesn’t want us to imagine that Jesus hung on a cross any longer than he actually did. 26And the inscription of his charge [that is, the accusation brought against him] had been inscribed [as follows]: “The king of the Jews.” 27And they crucify two bandits with him, one on [his] right and one on his left. The chief priests don’t believe in Jesus’ kingship. The crowd have refused to acknowledge him as their king (15:9–14). And as for Mark himself, nowhere in his Gospel does he present Jesus as the king of the Jews or as claiming to be their king. So the inscription and the crucifixion of two bandits with Jesus simply prepare for the following mockery. According to 14:48–49 he has already been mistreated as a bandit though he isn’t one. The crucifixion of two bandits on either side of him creates a foil for his innocence, then, and dignifies him with a central position. The mistreatment of him as though he were a bandit gains further emphasis from his having called traffickers in the temple “bandits” (11:17). Thus Jesus the temple-cleanser is crucified with bandits as though he were a temple-desecrator. (The earliest and best manuscripts don’t have 15:28.)

15:29–32: And the passers-by were blaspheming [= slandering] him by shaking their heads and saying, “Ha! You who are tearing down the sanctuary [the temple proper, exclusive of surrounding courts and cloisters] and building [it] in three days, 30save yourself by coming down from the cross.” 31Likewise also the chief priests, mocking [Jesus] to one another along with the scholars, were saying, “Others he saved. Himself he can’t save. 32Let the Christ, the king of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” And the [bandits] who’d been crucified together with him were jeering at him. This mockery continues the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction in 10:33–34. Two elements make up the slander of blasphemy by the passers-by: (1) the falsity of implying Jesus had said he’d tear down the sanctuary and build it in three days (see 14:57–59 for this falsity); (2) the implication that Jesus was powerless to save himself by coming down from his cross. A scornful “Ha!” introduces and underlines these elements. The one wrongly condemned for blasphemy (14:63–64) has wrongly become the object of blasphemy. In mocking Jesus among themselves (as opposed to addressing him as the passers-by were doing) the chief priests with the scholars don’t use the false charge brought up by the passers-by. For on account of its falsity, the chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin threw that charge out of court and condemned Jesus instead for claiming to be the Christ, God’s Son, whom they’d see sitting at God’s right hand and coming as the Son of Man with the clouds of heaven (14:61–64). By implication, they’d converted this religious charge into a political charge with regard to kingship (15:1–20a). So they bring into their mockery both “the Christ” from the religious charge and “the king of Israel” from the political charge (with a shift from the Roman way of putting it, “the king of the Jews,” to the Jewish way of putting it, “the king of Israel”). They also bring in Jesus’ having saved others for a contrast with his supposed inability to save himself. The passers-by challenged him to save himself. Along with the scholars, the chief priests deny that he can. Then they issue an indirect challenge that Jesus come down from the cross in order that they may see and believe. Their rationale is that a messianic king wouldn’t be hanging there. “Now” gives the challenge a temporal bite. If Jesus waits to come down, it’ll be too late. He’ll be dead. Ironically, of course, he saves others by not coming down from the cross. “Likewise also” exposes the chief priests’ and scholars’ mockery as blasphemous like the challenge of the passers-by. Even Jesus’ co-victims jeer at him despite their deserving crucifixion and his not deserving it. This jeering highlights the extent to which his prediction of mockery for himself has reached fulfillment.

15:33–39: And when the sixth hour [noon] struck, darkness came across the whole earth till the ninth hour [about 3:00 P.M.]. The delay of darkness till noon provided daylight for the writing of the inscription, the crucifixion of two bandits with Jesus, and the mockery. Darkness now shrouds the whole earth from noon till Jesus’ death in midafternoon. The supernatural character of the darkness—it starts when the sun is at its highest and brightest and extends earth-wide—magnifies Mark’s apologetic point: now that Jesus’ prediction of mockery has reached complete fulfillment, God hides his Son from the blasphemers’ leering and jeering. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, my God, why [= ‘to what purpose’] have you abandoned me [Psalm 22:1]?” 35And on hearing [Jesus’ outcry], some of the bystanders were saying, “Look, he’s calling for Elijah!” 36And on running and filling a sponge with vinegary wine, putting it around a reed somebody tried to give him a drink, saying, “Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down.” 37But Jesus, in letting loose a loud voice [as he did in the outcry of divine abandonment], had breathed out [= expired]. 38And the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. 39And on seeing that he’d breathed out in this way, the centurion who was standing by opposite it [that is, standing by the cross but with a full view of the temple across the way] said, “Truly this human being was God’s Son.” On the one hand, Mark wants to excite our sympathy for Jesus’ being abandoned by God. The abandonment consists in God’s leaving him to die rather than stepping in to save him from death. The possibilities of coming down from the cross, destroying the sanctuary, and rebuilding it in three days have now yielded to the actuality of abandonment by God.

On the other hand, Mark also wants to excite our admiration of the way Jesus died. Ordinarily, victims of crucifixion weaken bit by bit and lapse into unconsciousness before dying without even a whimper. But to portray Jesus as strong right up to and at the moment of his death or, better, in his death—strong in flesh, superhumanly so—Mark stresses the loudness of Jesus’ outcry. He mentions it twice for emphasis. Twice before, he noted “a loud voice”; and each time it represented superhuman strength (1:26; 5:7). So it does here as well. How else should the very Son of God die but in a burst of strength? The cross puts on exhibit his strength, not weakness. Furthermore, the verb “cried out” introduces the shout with a certain formality that dignifies the loudness of Jesus’ voice. And Mark retains the original Aramaic of the outcry before translating it, because the mystique of an oriental language carries the connotation of power. Here, the power turns out so superhuman that the breath which Jesus exhales in his dying loud shout—this breath makes a wind so strong that it tears in two the veil of the sanctuary from top to bottom (compare the Lord’s powerfully destructive breath in Exodus 15:8, 10; Job 4:9; Isaiah 11:4; 2 Thessalonians 2:8). And this strong breath of wind is nothing, or none, less than the Holy Spirit that descended into Jesus at his baptism to make him the “stronger one” of John the baptizer’s prophecy (1:7–11). For our words “breath,” “wind,” and “Spirit” all go back to the same word in Mark’s Greek (and also in Aramaic and Hebrew, for that matter [compare Ezekiel 37:5–14]).

Because Elijah went to heaven without dying (2 Kings 2:11), Jews believed he would return to save righteous sufferers. Here, therefore, some bystanders say Jesus is calling Elijah to save him. (Note the similarity between “Eloi” and “Elijah.”) And somebody tries to give Jesus a drink of cheap, vinegary wine to slake his thirst (compare Psalm 69:21b). The hope is to prolong Jesus’ life a little longer and see whether Elijah will indeed come to take him down. The use of a reed with a sponge attached to its tip may dignify Jesus by portraying him at a height otherwise impossible to reach, for no such reed with a sponge was needed in the attempt to give him myrrhed wine prior to the crucifixion (15:23). Jesus doesn’t take the vinegary wine—not because he refuses it, but because he has already expired (compare 14:25). His shout of superhuman strength, mentioned twice, was his last breath. No wonder the one who filled the sponge was “running.” But it was too late to revive Jesus. Dead men don’t drink.

Jesus’ breathing “out” the wind of the Spirit contrasts with the Spirit’s coming down “into” him at his baptism (1:10) just as the “voice” of Jesus asking God why he has abandoned him contrasts with the “voice” of God telling Jesus at his baptism, “You’re my beloved Son; I’ve taken delight in you” (1:11). And just as the force of the Spirit’s coming “down” caused the heavens to be “torn apart” at Jesus’ baptism (1:10), so the force of Jesus’ exhalation of the Spirit causes the veil of the temple to be “torn in two” from the top “down.” “In two” stresses the completeness of the tearing apart. And “from top to bottom” indicates divine action, for Jesus’ Spirit is the Spirit of God that came down from heaven into Jesus because Jesus was God’s Son, as now recognized by the centurion. Just as the voice of God declared Jesus’ divine sonship (1:11), the centurion, seeing that Jesus expired with such loud force that his last breath, the wind of the Spirit, completely tore apart the veil of the sanctuary, declares Jesus to be God’s Son. “Truly” emphasizes the reliability of the centurion’s testimony—in contrast with the false testimonies lodged against Jesus during his trial before the Sanhedrin (14:55–59) and in opposition to the high priest’s judging Jesus’ confession of divine sonship to be blasphemous (14:61b–64).

The sanctuary had two veils, an outer one and an inner one. The centurion’s standing opposite the temple and seeing the veil-rending requires the outer one to be in view here (and, incidentally, requires also the site of crucifixion to be at some height on the Mount of Olives facing toward the outer veil rather than at the sites now visited by pilgrims, which would have provided no view whatever of the outer [or inner] veil). But Mark ignores the distinction between veils to concentrate attention solely on the item of supernatural force, which points to Jesus’ divine sonship. Nor is Mark content to describe the centurion only as a bystander. He also describes the centurion as standing opposite the sanctuary. Some translations have “standing . . . opposite him [Jesus],” rather than “standing . . . opposite it [the sanctuary].” But Mark has mentioned the sanctuary last. Standing opposite Jesus would contradict standing by him. And the centurion’s “seeing” connects better with the visible effect on the sanctuary of the way Jesus died—that is, with the veil-rending—than with the audible effect of the way he died—that is, with a loud outcry. So the centurion’s standing opposite the sanctuary underscores that he enjoyed a full view of the veil-rending. This full view lends great weight, then, to his declaration, “Truly this human being was God’s Son.” In conjunction with the lasting of darkness “till the ninth hour” (15:33), “seeing” implies that the darkness has lifted and complements the “hearing” in 15:35. Whereas “hearing” pointed to the words that Jesus cried out, “seeing” points to the effect of his outcry on the veil of the sanctuary.

“In this way” refers to the way in which the wind of the Spirit, exhaled when in his last breath Jesus let loose a loud shout, tore that veil in two from top to bottom. It’s “this way” that evokes the centurion’s declaration. In it, “this human being” makes a foil of Jesus’ humanity against which his deity as “God’s Son” stands out. The similarity between “thus” (as “in this way” might also be translated) and “this human being” adds to the emphasis. Whatever the historical centurion meant (“a son of a god” or “a son of God,” for example), Mark wants us to understand “God’s Son” (see 1:1). “Was” reflects the death of Jesus as ending his lifetime and implies that he has been God’s Son all along. The centurion remains only a military bystander, anonymous and otherwise unknown in the Christian community (contrast “Alexander and Rufus” in 15:21). But this fact makes his declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship all the more remarkable.

15:40–41: And there were also women watching at a distance, among whom [were] both Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the little [= the younger in relation to his brother Jesus] and of Joses [see 6:3 for Mary the mother of Jesus and his brothers James and Joses], and Salome, 41who when he was in Galilee were following him and serving him [food (compare 1:13, 31)], and many other [women] who’d come up with him to Jerusalem. The male disciples have fled (14:50), and Peter is nursing his regret (14:72). So to guarantee further that Jesus died in a way that evoked the centurion’s declaration of Jesus’ divine sonship despite crucifixion, Mark indicates that women were watching. He even lists the names of several of them. He doesn’t explain why they were watching from a distance, but he does explain how it came about that they were watching and indicates that the named women were far from alone. “Many others” were watching with them. As a result, all of them make a large number that both compensates for the distance from which they were watching, revives Mark’s emphasis on Jesus’ power to attract large numbers of people, and thus enlists the present large number of women as fellow witnesses with the centurion to what he saw of the superhuman way Jesus expired. The centurion doesn’t stand alone in seeing that Jesus died with a burst of divine strength.

THE DIGNIFYING OF JESUS’ BODY IN BURIAL

Mark 15:42–47

15:42–43: And because it had already become late, since it was Preparation, which is Pre-Sabbath [= Friday], 43Joseph from Arimathea, a distinguished councilor who also himself was waiting for God’s kingdom—coming, taking a risk, [Joseph] went in to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. It’s Friday, the day before Sabbath, and Jews counted a twenty-four hour day from sundown to sundown. So “already late” refers to late afternoon. And if Jesus’ body isn’t to hang disgracefully on the cross and throughout the next day, his body has to be buried before sundown, when the Sabbath starts and no work—such as burying a corpse—can be done till the next sundown. To erase the shame of the cross, Mark dignifies Jesus in burial as well as in death. He notes that the one who comes to ask for Jesus’ body, Joseph from Arimathea, is “a distinguished councilor,” and not only a man of political prominence but also one of religious devotion (“who also himself was waiting for God’s kingdom”) and of derring-do (“taking a risk . . .”). “Also” adds Joseph’s religious devotion to his political prominence, and “himself” emphasizes the devotion as personal. Mark doesn’t specify why it was risky for Joseph to ask for Jesus’ body; so the point has to do with Joseph’s bravery as such, not with why his request required bravery. It speaks well of Jesus that despite the disgraceful manner of his death such a man as Joseph should dangerously seek to bury his body. The compliment is especially powerful in that though Mark portrays Joseph as waiting for God’s kingdom, he doesn’t portray him as a disciple of Jesus; rather, he identifies Joseph as a member of the very Sanhedrin that unanimously condemned Jesus (see 14:64 with 14:55). As a “councilor,” Joseph belongs to that court, the whole of which held a “consultation” issuing in the delivery of Jesus to Pilate (15:1). Thus Joseph’s political prominence, religious devotion, and personal bravery are all the more exceptional in comparison with the rest of the Sanhedrin and hence all the more complimentary of Jesus in relation to the crucifixion.

15:44–45: And Pilate marveled if he [Jesus] had already died; and on summoning the centurion [who’d seen “the way” Jesus died], he asked him if he [Jesus] had died a long while earlier. 45And on coming to know from the centurion [that Jesus had died a long while earlier], he donated the corpse to Joseph. Ordinarily, victims of crucifixion take a long time to die, even several whole days. No wonder, then, that Pilate marvels if Jesus has died “already,” that is, after hanging on his cross a mere six hours. Since Jesus died about 3:00 P.M. and had to be buried before sundown about three hours later, “a long while earlier” is hyperbolic—an exaggeration designed to emphasize the shortness of time that Jesus hung on the cross. The centurion was an eyewitness. So his testimony convinces even Pilate, and should therefore convince us, that the shame of Jesus’ crucifixion was chronologically minimal. Pilate’s initial doubt—a doubt accented by a double “if,” one for his marveling and another for his inquiry—sharpens the point once the doubt is overcome. Confirmation from the centurion leads Pilate to “donate” Jesus’ corpse to Joseph. In contrast with Jesus’ having been “given over” to his enemies, the verb of donation ennobles Jesus for the burial of his corpse. Though “body” can have the sense of “corpse,” Mark’s switching from “body” (15:43) to “corpse” puts a final accent on Jesus’ having died too soon to have spent very much time on a cross.

15:46–47: And having bought a linen cloth, on taking him [Jesus] down [from the cross], he [Joseph] wrapped [him] in the linen cloth and placed him in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock. And he rolled a stone over the tomb’s entrance. 47And Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of Joses were watching where he’d been placed. The purchase of a linen cloth dignifies Jesus with a brand new shroud. His being taken down avoids the indignity of hanging on a cross overnight and throughout the Sabbath. So too does his being placed in a tomb. For Romans normally forbade a proper burial of those executed like Jesus under a charge of high treason (in his case as “king of the Jews” in supposed opposition to Caesar). That the tomb was “hewn out of rock” adds to the dignity of Jesus’ burial—especially because this description is best understood, not of a cave hollowed out of rock, but of a freestanding monolith carved out of rock inside and out. Mark’s omitting to say who owned the tomb rivets attention on its high grade. Conspicuous by its absence is the usual Roman practice of leaving victims of crucifixion on crosses for days while their corpses started decomposing in plain view and predatory animals and birds of carrion picked off their flesh. No such shame in Jesus’ case! Furthermore, the rolling of a stone over the tomb’s entrance shielded his corpse from shameful predation and public exposure and prepares for the question in 16:3: “Who will roll away the stone . . . ?” Observation of the location by the two Marys not only prepares for their and Salome’s coming to the tomb in 16:1–2. It also provides eyewitness evidence of Jesus’ honorable burial.

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS AS A FULFILLMENT OF HIS PREDICTIONS

Mark 16:1–7

16:1–2: And when the Sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the [mother] of the James, plus Salome, bought aromatic spices to anoint him [Jesus] on going [to the tomb]. 2And very early in the morning on the first [day] of the week, when the sun had risen, they come to the tomb. The Sabbath ended at sundown on Saturday. The women could hardly have bought aromatic spices Sunday morning earlier than sunrise. Therefore they must have bought them Saturday evening. Ordinarily, no one would think to give a victim of crucifixion the dignity of an anointing; and the anointing of those who’d died without shame was usually done with olive oil. Only kings and other high dignitaries got their corpses anointed with aromatic spices (see 2 Chronicles 16:14, for example). So along with the prior anointing in 14:3, the honorable burial, and Mark’s many other devices, the three women’s buying such spices to anoint Jesus helps remove the disgrace of his crucifixion. As the one whom a Roman centurion declared to have been God’s Son (15:39), Jesus deserves no less than a king does. In 15:40 Mark called the second Mary mentioned above “the mother of James the little and of Joses.” In 15:47 he shortened the designation to “the [mother] of Joses.” To make up for the omission of James the little in 15:47, then, Mark now calls her the mother of “the James,” that is, of the aforementioned James. Salome wasn’t mentioned in 15:47 as watching where Jesus was buried, but here she comes to the tomb with those who’d been watching. It seems unnecessary for Mark to have written “on the first day of the week.” Of course it’s the first day of the week if the Sabbath has recently passed. The wording therefore highlights this day as that of Jesus’ resurrection. “When the sun had risen” keeps “very early in the morning” from being misunderstood as the last part of the night instead of a time right after sunrise. Thus the women can see to come to the tomb and can see once they arrive. The present tense in “they come to the tomb” creates a sense of excitement about to be duplicated in the present tense of “they see.”

16:3–4: And they were saying to each other, “Who’ll roll away the stone for us from the tomb’s entrance?” 4And on looking up they see that the stone is rolled away. For it was extremely large. Who rolled away the stone? God? An angel? The resurrected Jesus? Graverobbers? Even at the risk of letting us think of graverobbers, Mark doesn’t say who rolled away the stone. He’s interested only in its having been rolled away so as to allow the women’s entrance into the tomb. “For it was extremely large” looks as though it tells why the women found the stone already rolled away. But it doesn’t. The extremely large size would explain instead why the women should not have found the stone already rolled away. The notation of its extremely large size gives, rather, the reason why they were asking each other who would roll away the stone for them. But Mark is so excited he can’t wait to mention the stone’s being rolled away already. So he puts it before his explanation of the women’s question.

16:5–7: And on entering into the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right, wearing a long white robe. And they were astounded. 6But he tells them, “Stop being astounded. You’re seeking Jesus the Nazarene [= man from Nazareth], the crucified one. He has been raised! He isn’t here. Look, the place where they put him! 7But go tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He’s going ahead of you into Galilee. You’ll see him there, just as he told you.’ ” Other ancient literature, both Jewish and Christian, uses “young man” for an angel. So also here in Mark’s Gospel (compare Matthew 28:2). But he calls this angel a young man to recall the young man of 14:51–52 (see the comments on that passage). “Sitting on the right” (1) indicates this young man’s authority; (2) contrasts with the women’s expectation of seeing Jesus’ corpse lying prone; and (3) makes the young man represent Jesus, who at the time of Mark’s writing is sitting at God’s right hand in accordance with 12:36; 14:62. “On the right” also augurs well, for the right side is the side of favor. “Wearing a long white robe” contrasts with the linen cloth used to wrap Jesus’ corpse (15:46). The robe’s whiteness associates the young man with Jesus, whose garment at the transfiguration turned an unearthly white (9:3), and begins to identify the young man as a heavenly figure, an angel, a messenger of Jesus. The young man’s proceeding to interpret the meaning of the empty tomb and to instruct the women what they should do completes his identification as an angel, for interpretation and instruction are standard functions of angels. The very meaning of “angel” is “messenger.” And suiting the appearance of an angel are also the women’s being astounded, the young man’s telling them not to be astounded, his knowing information that an angel but not a human being would typically know, and the authority with which he commands the women (see, for example, Daniel 8:15–27; 9:20–27; Luke 1:11–17, 26–36). “Stop being astounded” implies that what has astounded the women pales into insignificance by comparison with the announcement the young man is about to make.

“You’re seeking Jesus the Nazarene” shifts attention to him whose power and glory the young man represents, astounding though that representation has been. “The crucified one” makes all the more remarkable the following announcement of Jesus’ resurrection, consequent absence, and going ahead into Galilee. “He has been raised!” echoes “after I’ve been raised” in Jesus’ prediction at 14:28 and negates the scandal of his crucifixion by noting its undoing in fulfillment of that prediction. “Look, the place where they put him!” underscores the fulfillment. He’s absent from the tomb because he’s already on his way to Galilee. “They” implies that Joseph of Arimathea had help placing Jesus in the tomb. “But go” draws a contrast between what the women were intending to do by way of anointing Jesus’ corpse and what the young man now tells them to do. “His disciples” refers to the Twelve minus Judas Iscariot, because of his having betrayed Jesus, and minus Peter, because of his separation from the rest of the Twelve by following Jesus at a distance into the high priest’s courtyard (compare 14:50 with 14:54, 66, 68). So Judas deserves no report, and Peter requires a separate report (hence “and Peter” [compare Luke 24:34; 1 Corinthians 15:5]). Jesus’ going ahead of the disciples into Galilee completes the fulfillment of his prediction in 14:28. “You’ll see him there” adds a coming visible proof to the announcement and indicates that Jesus is preceding the disciples to Galilee, not leading them there; for otherwise they’d see him along the way, not just on arrival. Jesus’ prediction in 14:28 didn’t include the disciples’ seeing him in Galilee. So “just as he told you” refers to the prediction there of his going ahead of the disciples into Galilee as a followup to his resurrection—and emphasizes the coming fulfillment of that prediction.

THE OVERAWING OF THOSE WHO HEARD THE NEWS THAT JESUS HAD BEEN RAISED

Mark 16:8

16:8: And on coming out [of the tomb] they fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment was gripping them. And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. The women’s fleeing contrasts with the mere going that the young man had commanded. The contrast requires the explanation that they were in the grip of trembling and astonishment; that is, they were shaking with astonishment. The contrast of flight with mere going also emphasizes the overawing effect of what the women have seen and heard (the tomb’s emptiness and the young man’s announcement of Jesus’ resurrection). Their fearful dumbfoundedness—they were too scared to speak—reemphasizes the awesomeness of Jesus’ resurrection as Mark’s climactic apology for the cross. This dumbfoundedness and their flight don’t characterize them as disobedient to the young man’s command, “Go tell . . . ,” so much as they characterize the news of Jesus’ resurrection itself as overawing. We wouldn’t know this episode if the women hadn’t told about it in the end.

A Special Note on Mark’s Ending

The earliest and best manuscripts don’t contain Mark 16:9–20 or another, much shorter ending without numbered verses. So we shouldn’t think of either one of these endings as canonical and authoritative any more than we should think of the myriad other inauthentic and often conflicting changes in later, inferior manuscripts as authoritative and canonical. It’s disputed, though, whether Mark’s Gospel originally ended at 16:8 or had an ending that for some reason has been lost. The treatment here of 16:8 not as the completion of a paragraph that started at 16:1 reflects an opinion that 16:8 starts a new paragraph the rest of which has been lost. Among considerations favoring this opinion are the following: (1) Mark has regularly used notations of topographical movement, preceded by “and,” to start new paragraphs, just as here: “And on coming out [of the tomb] they fled . . . .” (2) Mark has repeatedly and in detail narrated the fulfillments of Jesus’ other predictions insofar as those fulfillments occurred during Jesus’ time on earth; so it seems highly unlikely that Mark would have omitted to narrate the climactic fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction that upon resurrection he’d go ahead of the disciples into Galilee. (3) The young man’s enhancement of that prediction with the statement, “You’ll see him there, just as he told you,” makes it seem doubly unlikely that Mark would have omitted such a narrative. (4) For the most part Matthew and Luke seem to have been following Mark up through 16:8, yet both of them go on to write about the women’s carrying out their commission to tell the disciples—as though they had an earlier text of Mark that contained such a narrative. (5) Appearances of the resurrected Jesus are mentioned so often in the New Testament (see especially 1 Corinthians 15:5–8 as well as the other three Gospels) that it seems unlikely Mark wouldn’t have included such an appearance. (6) In the original Greek text, 16:8 ends with the conjunction “For,” a highly unlikely ending for a book. (7) The manuscript tradition displays massive dissatisfaction with an ending at 16:8, a dissatisfaction best explained by knowledge that Mark didn’t end there. Nevertheless, we must make do with 16:8 as the last known verse in Mark’s Gospel.

Notes

[1]Adam’s calling Eve “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” makes his naming her an exception to this rule (Genesis 2:23).

[2]Elsewhere even Jesus calls some people good (Matthew 5:45; 12:35; 22:10; Luke 6:45; 8:15; 19:17), but only in comparisons with evil people, whereas in the present passage he limits absolute goodness—the kind that would merit eternal life—to God.

Table of Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright Page

Acknowledgments

Introduction

Mark

JOHN’S PREDICTING A MORE POWERFUL BAPTIZER THAN HE Mark 1:1–8

GOD’S EMPOWERMENT, ACKNOWLEDGMENT, AND APPROVAL OF JESUS Mark 1:9–11

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF JESUS’ STATUS AS GOD’S SON BY SATAN, WILD BEASTS, AND ANGELS Mark 1:12–13

THE STRONGER ONE’S ARRIVING ON THE SCENE Mark 1:14–15

THE FIRST EXHIBITION OF JESUS’ POWER OF ATTRACTION Mark 1:16–20

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN TEACHING AND EXORCISM Mark 1:21–28

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER SICKNESS, DISEASE, AND DEMONS Mark 1:29–34

JESUS’ EXHIBITING MAGNETIC POWER AGAIN Mark 1:35–45

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO FORGIVE SINS Mark 2:1–12

THE MAGNETIC POWER OF JESUS OVER TAX COLLECTORS AND SINNERS AND HIS EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY TO EAT WITH THEM Mark 2:13–17

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN REGARD TO FASTING Mark 2:18–22

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE SABBATH Mark 2:23–28

JESUS’ EXERCISING AUTHORITY TO HEAL ON THE SABBATH Mark 3:1–6

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF MAGNETIC POWER YET AGAIN Mark 3:7–12

THE APPOINTMENT OF TWELVE APOSTLES AS EVIDENCE OF JESUS’ OVERWHELMING MAGNETISM Mark 3:13–19

THE DERIVATION OF JESUS’ POWER FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT Mark 3:20–35

JESUS’ SPEAKING IN PARABLES TO ESTABLISH GOD’S REIGN AMONG THE DISCIPLES AND TO SHUT OUT NONDISCIPLES Mark 4:1–34

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY OVER THE WIND AND SEA Mark 4:35–41

JESUS’ WINNING A DOUBLE VICTORY OVER LEGION Mark 5:1–20

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER OVER DEATH Mark 5:21–43

JESUS’ INVALIDATION OF UNBELIEF BY MEANS OF ASTONISHING MIRACLES Mark 6:1–6a

JESUS’ EXTENDING HIS AUTHORITY THROUGH THE APOSTLES Mark 6:6b–29

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FIVE THOUSAND MEN WITH ONLY FIVE LOAVES OF BREAD AND TWO FISH Mark 6:30–44

JESUS’ AMAZING FEAT OF WALKING ON THE SEA Mark 6:45–52

AN OVERFLOWING OF JESUS’ POWER TO HEAL Mark 6:53–56

JESUS’ DEMONSTRATION OF DOMINANCE OVER PHARISEES AND SCHOLARS AND OF AUTHORITY OVER THE OLD TESTAMENT LAW Mark 7:1–23

JESUS’ EXORCISING A DEMON AT A DISTANCE AND WITHOUT A COMMAND Mark 7:24–30

JESUS’ STUPENDOUS HEALING OF A DEAF-MUTE Mark 7:31–37

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN THE FEEDING OF FOUR THOUSAND PEOPLE WITH SEVEN LOAVES AND A FEW SMALL FISH Mark 8:1–9

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF AUTHORITY IN DENYING A REQUEST FOR A SIGN FROM HEAVEN Mark 8:10–12

JESUS’ PROVING HIS MIRACULOUS POWER TO BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE Mark 8:13–21

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF HEALING POWER IN A PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT CASE OF BLINDNESS Mark 8:22–26

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF POWER TO PREDICT HIS OWN FATE AND THAT OF OTHERS Mark 8:27–9:1

A SUPPLYING OF VISUAL AND AUDITORY EVIDENCE THAT JESUS IS GOD’S SON Mark 9:2–13

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF SUPERPOWER IN A SPECIALLY DIFFICULT EXORCISM Mark 9:14–29

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT HIS OWN DEATH AND RESURRECTION Mark 9:30–32

JESUS’ TEACHING WITH EXPLOSIVE FORCE Mark 9:33–50

JESUS’ EXERCISE OF POWER IN A PUTDOWN OF PHARISEES ON THE QUESTION OF DIVORCE Mark 10:1–12

JESUS’ MAKING LITTLE CHILDREN AN EXAMPLE OF MEMBERSHIP IN GOD’S KINGDOM Mark 10:13–16

JESUS’ SHATTERING THE ACCEPTED ECONOMICS OF SALVATION Mark 10:17–31

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO FORECAST HIS OWN DESTINY Mark 10:32–34

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE DESTINY OF HIS DISCIPLES Mark 10:35–45

JESUS’ SHOWING MERCY AS DAVID’S SON IN THE RESTORATION OF SIGHT TO BARTIMAEUS Mark 10:46–52

JESUS PROVED TO BE AN UNERRING PREDICTOR AND ACCLAIMED TO BE THE COMING ONE Mark 11:1–10

JESUS’ ISSUANCE OF A STRONG CURSE Mark 11:11–14

THE AWE-INSPIRING TEACHING OF JESUS AT HIS CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE Mark 11:15–18

THE STARTLING FULFILLMENT OF JESUS’ CURSE AND HIS STARTLING ANSWERS Mark 11:19–25

JESUS’ OUTWITTING ALL THREE CLASSES OF THE SANHEDRIN Mark 11:27–12:12

A Special Note on the Cursing And Withering of the Fig Tree

JESUS’ MARVELOUS ESCAPE FROM THE HORNS OF A DILEMMA Mark 12:13–17

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SADDUCEES’ IGNORANCE Mark 12:18–27

A SCHOLAR’S COMING TO RECOGNIZE THE TRUTH OF JESUS’ TEACHING Mark 12:28–34

JESUS’ EXPOSÉ OF THE SCHOLARS’ IGNORANCE, PRETENTIOUSNESS, AND RAPACITY Mark 12:35–40

JESUS’ UPSETTING OF POPULAR OPINION ON THE SIZE OF GIFTS Mark 12:41–44

JESUS’ DISPLAY OF ABILITY TO PREDICT THE FATES OF THE TEMPLE, THE WORLD, AND THE SELECTED ONES, AND TO PREDICT HIS COMING AS THE SON OF MAN Mark 13:1–37

JESUS’ MAKING OF FURTHER PREDICTIONS AND THE STARTING OF FULFILLMENTS Mark 14:1–11

JESUS’ MAKING OF PREDICTIONS CONCERNING A PREPARATION FOR THE PASSOVER, AND THEIR FULFILLMENTS Mark 14:12–16

JESUS’ EXHIBITING FOREKNOWLEDGE OF HIS BETRAYAL, VIOLENT DEATH, AND ULTIMATE VICTORY Mark 14:17–25

A CONTEST OF PREDICTIVE ABILITY: JESUS VERSUS PETER AND THE OTHER DISCIPLES Mark 14:26–31

THE FLOWERING OF FULFILLMENT FOR JESUS’ PREDICTIONS Mark 14:32–52

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTIONS OF HIS REJECTION BY THE SANHEDRIN AND OF PETER’S DISOWNINGS OF HIM Mark 14:53–72

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT HE WOULD BE GIVEN OVER TO THE GENTILES AND FLOGGED Mark 15:1–15

THE FULFILLING OF JESUS’ PREDICTION THAT THE GENTILES WOULD MOCK HIM Mark 15:16–20c

JESUS’ EXPIRING IN A WAY THAT DEMONSTRATES HIS DIVINE SONSHIP Mark 15:20d–27, 29–41

THE DIGNIFYING OF JESUS’ BODY IN BURIAL Mark 15:42–47

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS AS A FULFILLMENT OF HIS PREDICTIONS Mark 16:1–7

THE OVERAWING OF THOSE WHO HEARD THE NEWS THAT JESUS HAD BEEN RAISED Mark 16:8

A Special Note on Mark’s Ending

Notes

Back Cover