Text -- Mark 2:26 (NET)

2:26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread, which is against the law law for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” companions?”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Robertson: Mar 2:26

The house of God ( ton oikon tou theou ).

The tent or tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon.

Robertson: Mar 2:26

When Abiathar was high priest ( epi Abiathar archiereōs ).

Neat Greek idiom, in the time of Abiathar as high priest. There was confusion in the Massoretic text and in the lxx about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar (2Sa 8:17), Ahimelech’ s son and successor (1Sa 21:2; 1Sa 22:20). Apparently Ahimelech, not Abiathar was high priest at this time. It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Sa 22:20; 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16), Abiathar mentioned though both involved. Epi may so mean in the passage about Abiathar. Or we may leave it unexplained. They had the most elaborate rules for the preparation of the shewbread (tous artous tēs protheseōs ), the loaves of presentation, the loaves of the face or presence of God. It was renewed on the commencement of the sabbath and the old bread deposited on the golden table in the porch of the Sanctuary. This old bread was eaten by the priests as they came and went. This is what David ate.

Vincent: Mar 2:26

The shewbread ( τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως )

Lit., the loaves of proposition, i.e., the loaves which were set forth before the Lord. The Jews called them the loaves of the face, i.e., of the presence of God. The bread was made of the finest wheaten flour that had been passed through eleven sieves. There were twelve loaves, or cakes, according to the number of tribes, ranged in two piles of six each. Each cake was made of about five pints of wheat. They were anointed in the middle with oil, in the form of a cross. According to tradition, each cake was five hand-breadths broad and ten long, but turned up at either end, two hand-breadths on each side, to resemble in outline the ark of the covenant. The shewbread was prepared on Friday, unless that day happened to be a feast-day that required sabbatical rest; in which case it was prepared on Thursday afternoon. The renewal of the shewbread was the first of the priestly functions on the commencement of the Sabbath. The bread which was taken off was deposited on the golden table in the porch of the sanctuary, and distributed among the outgoing and incoming courses of priests (compare save for the priests ) . It was eaten during the Sabbath, and in the temple itself, but only by such priests as were Levitically pure. This old bread, removed on the Sabbath morning, was that which David ate.

Wesley: Mar 2:26

Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest then; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase therefore only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward the high priest. 1Sa 21:6.

Clarke: Mar 2:26

The days of Abiathar the high priest - It appears from 1Sa 21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1Sa 22:20; 1Sa 23:6, and 1Ch 18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavors to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus: Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, אב ab , father, understood; and Abiathar was called Abiathar Ahimelech, בן ben , son, understood. Probably they both officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either

Clarke: Mar 2:26

Shew-bread - See Mat 12:4.

Defender: Mar 2:26

Jesus knew that Abiathar's father Ahimelech was still high priest at this time (1Sa 21:1-6). However, Abiathar was no doubt present at the time, and soon thereafter became high priest under David. The account here by Mark simply says that this event occurred in the time of Abiathar, not necessarily in the time when he served as high priest."

TSK: Mar 2:26

Abiathar : It appears from the passage referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob; and from other passages, that Abiathar was his son. Various conjectures have been formed in order to solve this difficulty; and some, instead of untying, have cut the knot, by pronouncing it an interpolation. The most probable opinion seems to be, that both father and son had two names, the father being also called Abiathar; and this appears almost certain from 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16, where Ahimelech seems evidently termed Abiathar, while Abiathar is called Ahimelech or Abimelech. (Compare 1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27.) 1Sa 22:20-22, 1Sa 23:6, 1Sa 23:9; 2Sa 8:17, 2Sa 15:24, 2Sa 15:29, 2Sa 15:35, 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 1:7; 1Ki 2:22, 1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27, 1Ki 4:4

which is not lawful : Exo 29:32, Exo 29:33; Lev 24:5-9

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Barnes: Mar 2:23-28

See Mat 12:1-8.

The cornfields - The fields sown with wheat or barley. The word "corn,"in the Bible, refers only to grain of that kind, and never to "maize"or "Indian corn."

To pluck the ears of corn - They were hungry, Mat 12:1. They therefore gathered the wheat or barley as they walked and rubbed it in their hands to shell it, and thus to satisfy their appetite. Though our Lord was with them, and though he had all things at his control, yet he suffered them to resort to this method of supplying their wants. When Jesus, thus "with"his disciples, suffered them to be "poor,"we may learn that poverty is not disgraceful; that God often suffers it for the good of his people; and that he will take care, in some way, that their wants shall be supplied. It was "lawful"for them thus to supply their needs. Though the property belonged to another, yet the law of Moses allowed the poor to satisfy their desires when hungry. See Deu 23:25.

Mar 2:24

That which is not lawful - That is, that which they esteemed to be unlawful on the "Sabbath day."It was made lawful by Moses, without any distinction of days, but "they"had denied its lawfulness on the Sabbath. Christ shows them from their own law that it was "not"unlawful.

Mar 2:25

Have ye never read ... - See the notes at Mat 12:3.

Mar 2:26

Abiathar the priest - From 1Sa 21:1, it appears that Ahimelech was high priest at the time here referred to. And from 1Sa 23:6, it appears that "Abiathar"was the son of "Ahimelech."Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of "Abiathar"is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterward known. "Abiathar,"moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David’ s reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate "his"name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of "Abiathar,"who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that "General"Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of "General"did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the notes at Luk 2:2.

showbread - See the notes at Mat 12:4.

Mar 2:27

The sabbath was made for man - For his rest from toil, his rest from the cares and anxieties of the world, to give him an opportunity to call off his attention from earthly concerns and to direct it to the affairs of eternity. It was a kind provision for man that he might refresh his body by relaxing his labors; that he might have undisturbed time to seek the consolations of religion to cheer him in the anxieties and sorrows of a troubled world; and that he might render to God that homage which is most justly due to him as the Creator, Preserver, Benefactor, and Redeemer of the world. And it is easily capable of proof that no institution has been more signally blessed to man’ s welfare than the Sabbath. To that we owe, more than to anything else, the peace and order of a civilized community. Where there is no Sabbath there is ignorance, vice, disorder, and crime. On that holy day the poor and the ignorant, as well as the learned, have undisturbed time to learn the requirements of religion, the nature of morals, the law of God, and the way of salvation. On that day man may offer his praises to the Great Giver of all good, and in the sanctuary seek the blessing of him whose favor is life. Where that day is observed in any manner as it should be, order prevails, morals are promoted, the poor are elevated in their condition, vice flies away, and the community puts on the appearance of neatness, industry, morality, and religion. The Sabbath was therefore pre-eminently intended for man’ s welfare, and the best interests of mankind demand that it should be sacredly regarded as an appointment of merciful heaven intended for our best good, and, where improved aright, infallibly resulting in our temporal and eternal peace.

Not man for the sabbath - Man was made "first,"and then the Sabbath was appointed for his welfare, Gen 2:1-3. The Sabbath was not "first"made or contemplated, and then the man made with reference to that. Since, therefore, the Sabbath was intended for man’ s "good,"the law respecting it must not be interpreted so as to oppose his real welfare. It must be explained in consistency with a proper attention to the duties of mercy to the poor and the sick, and to those in peril. It must be, however, in accordance with man’ s "real good on the whole,"and with the law of God. The law of God contemplates man’ s "real good on the whole;"and we have no right, under the plea that the Sabbath was made for man, to do anything contrary to what the law of God admits. It would not be for our "real good,"but for our real and eternal injury, to devote the Sabbath to vice, to labor, or to amusement.

Mar 2:28

Therefore the Son of man ... - See the notes at Mat 12:8.

Poole: Mar 2:23-28

Ver. 23-28. We had also this history in Mat 12:1-8 , in our notes upon which we considered all those passages relating to it which this evangelist hath, for the explication of which I refer my reader thither. See Poole on "Mat 12:1" , and following verses to Mat 12:8 . It refers to a story, 1Sa 21:1 , where Ahimelech is said to have been the high priest. Abiathar was his son, as appeareth by 1Sa 22:20 , who escaped the slaughter of his father’ s family upon the information of Doeg the Edomite, and followed David. It was in the latter end of the priesthood of Ahimelech, and probably Abiathar assisted his father in the execution of the office, and so suddenly succeeded, that Mark calls it the time of his priesthood. Besides that those words, epi ’ Abiayar , do not necessarily signify in the days of Abiathar, as we translate it, no more than epi metoicesiav signifies in the carrying into captivity, but about the time, or near the time; which it was, for Ahimelech was presently after it (possibly within a few days) cut off, as we read, 1Sa 22:17,18 ; and Abiathar was a more noted man than his father Ahimelech, enjoying the priesthood more than forty years, and being the person who was made famous by carrying the ephod to David.

Lightfoot: Mar 2:26

How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?   

[In the days of Abiathar the high priest.] It is well enough known what is here said in defence of the purity of the text; namely, that Ahimelech the father was called Abiathar; and Abiathar the son was called also Ahimelech. But I suppose that something more was propounded by our Saviour in these words. For it was common to the Jews under Abiathar to understand the Urim and Thummim. Nor without good reason, when it appears, that under the father and the son, both of that name, the mention of inquiring by Urim and Thummim is more frequent than it is ever anywhere else; and, after Abiathar the son, there is scarcely mention of it at all. Christ therefore very properly adds, in the days of Abiathar the high priest; therein speaking according to a very received opinion in the nation: as though he had said, "David ate the shewbread given him by the high priest, who had the oracle by Urim and thummim present with him, and who acted by the divine direction."  

"Ahitophel, that is, a counsellor, Benaiah, the son of Jehoiada, that is, the Sanhedrim; Abiathar, that is, Urim and Thummim."

Haydock: Mar 2:26

Under Abiathar. The priest from whom David had these loaves, is called Achimelech, 1 Kings xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and of Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 Kings xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 Kings viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Paralipomenon xviii. 16. (Witham) ---

Others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present, and sanctioned the deed of his father, thus making it his own. (Denis the Carthusian)

Gill: Mar 2:26

How he went into the house of God,.... The tabernacle; for the temple was not yet built: thither David went to get bread for himself and his men, being hungry: so in a spiritual sense, where should such go, who are hungering and thirsting after righteousness, but into the house of God? Here is bread enough, and to spare; here is a table furnished with excellent provisions; here the Gospel is dispensed, which is milk for babes, and meat for strong men; here Christ, the bread of life, is set forth, whose flesh is meat indeed, and whose blood is drink indeed; here the ordinances are administered, which are breasts of consolation to the children of God; here is a feast of fat things, all things are ready, and souls are welcome, and therefore it must be right to attend here. And this was on the sabbath day that David went into the house of God: when the showbread loaves were removed, and divided, among the priests, and new ones were placed in their room: and so under the Gospel dispensation, on the Lord's day, the day set apart for public worship, it becomes the saints to go up to the house of the Lord, and feed upon the provisions of it: they are a royal priesthood, they are priests, as well as kings to God; and their business is in the house of the Lord, to offer up spiritual sacrifices to him; and as the goodness and fulness of his house appertains to them, they do well to attend and partake thereof.

In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges ^k Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest"; and in an ancient copy of Beza's, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Mat 1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews ^l themselves give,

"the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי כהן גדול אמור, "lo! he is called an high priest".''

So that Abiathar might at this time be called the high priest; and is the rather mentioned, because he was the more eminent and famous man; and whom the Jews call ^m Urim and Thummim, because there was much inquiry made by them; in his and his father's days, and very little after: to which may be added, that the names of the father and the son are sometimes changed; Ahimelech is called Abiathar, and this Abiathar is called Ahimelech, the son of Abiathar, 2Sa 8:17, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, 1Ch 18:16. And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki 1:25. And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.

And did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat, but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? Who not only ate the showbread, which was set before the Lord, and was sacred, and which none but the priests might eat of, after it was removed from the table; but he did this on the sabbath day; and he not only eat of it himself, but the soldiers that were with him: and all this with the knowledge and leave of the high priest: for the Jews ⁿ have no reason to charge this evangelist and the others with an error, that others besides David ate of the showbread, urging that he came alone to Ahimelech; since it is evident from 1Sa 21:2,

that David had servants in company with him when he fled, though they did not attend him when he went to the high priest; and that he asked bread, and it was given him, not only for himself, but for the young men that he had appointed to be at such a place: and therefore, if this was allowed to David and his men, when hungry, it ought not to be charged as an evil upon the disciples, for plucking and rubbing a few ears of corn to satisfy their hunger, though on a sabbath day; and especially when he, who was Lord of the sabbath, was present, and admitted of it; See Gill on Mat 12:4.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: Mar 2:26

¹ tn A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty. (1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sy^s and a few others omit ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 ˹³ and many others} add τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως, giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading. (2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point. (3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως: “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.

² tn Grk “the bread of presentation.”

sn The sacred bread refers to the “bread of presentation,” “showbread,” or “bread of the Presence,” twelve loaves prepared weekly for the tabernacle and later, the temple. See Exod 25:30; 35:13; 39:36; Lev 24:5-9. Each loaf was made from 3 quarts (3.5 liters; Heb “two tenths of an ephah”) of fine flour. The loaves were placed on a table in the holy place of the tabernacle, on the north side opposite the lampstand (Exod 26:35). It was the duty of the priest each Sabbath to place fresh bread on the table; the loaves from the previous week were then given to Aaron and his descendants, who ate them in the holy place, because they were considered sacred (Lev 24:9). See also Matt 12:1-8, Luke 6:1-5.

³ sn Jesus’ response to the charge that what his disciples were doing was against the law is one of analogy: “If David did it for his troops in a time of need, then so can I with my disciples.” Jesus is clear that on the surface there was a violation here. What is not as clear is whether he is arguing a “greater need” makes this permissible or that this was within the intention of the law all along.

⁴ sn See 1 Sam 21:1-6.

Geneva Bible: Mar 2:26

How he went into the house of God in the days of ^{( i )} Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

^{( i )} In (1Sa 21:1) he is called Ahimelech and his son is called Abiathar, but by conferring other places it is plain that both of them had two names; see (1Ch 24:6; 2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 15:29; 1Ki 2:26; 2Ki 25:18).

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: Mar 2:1-28

1 Christ followed by multitudes,

3 heals one sick of the palsy;

13 calls Matthew from the receipt of custom;

15 eats with Publicans and sinners;

18 excuses his disciples for not fasting;

23 and for plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day.

Maclaren: Mar 2:23-28

Works Which Hallow The Sabbath

And it came to pass, that He went through the corn fields on the Sabbath day! and His disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24. And the Pharisees said unto Him, Behold, why do they on the Sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25. And He said unto them, Have ye never read what David did. when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? 26. How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27. And He said unto them, The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath: 28. Therefore the Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath.'--Mark 2:23-28.

And He entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. 2. And they watched Him, whether He would heal him on the Sabbath day; that they might accuse Him. 3. And He saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth. 4. And He saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the Sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. 5, And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine band. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.'--Mark 3:1-5.

THESE. two Sabbath scenes make a climax to the preceding paragraphs, in which Jesus has asserted His right to brush aside Rabbinical ordinances about eating with sinners and about fasting. Here He goes much further, in claiming power over the divine ordinance of the Sabbath. Formalists are moved to more holy horror by free handling of forms than by heterodoxy as to principles. So we can understand how the Pharisees' suspicions were exacerbated to murderous hate by these two incidents. It is doubtful whether Mark puts them together because they occurred together, or because they bear on the same subject. They deal with the two classes of works' which later Christian theology has recognised as legitimate exceptions to the law of the Sabbath rest; namely, works of necessity and of mercy.

I. The Pharisees' Objection.

Whether we adopt the view that the disciples were clearing a path through standing corn, or the simpler one, that they gathered the ears of corn on the edge of a made path as they went, the point of the Pharisees' objection was that they broke the Sabbath by plucking, which was a kind of reaping. According to Luke, their breach of the Rabbinical exposition of the law was an event more dreadful in the eyes of these narrow pedants; for there was not only reaping, but the analogue of winnowing and grinding, for the grains were rubbed in the disciples' palms. What daring sin! What impious defiance of law! But of what law? Not that of the Fourth Commandment, which simply forbade labour,' but that of the doctors' expositions of the commandment, which expended miraculous ingenuity and hair-splitting on deciding what was labour and what was not. The foundations of that astonishing structure now found in the Talmud were, no doubt, laid before Christ. This expansion of the prohibition, so as to take in such trifles as plucking and rubbing a handful of heads of corn, has many parallels there.

But it is noteworthy that our Lord does not avail Himself of the distinction between God's commandment and men's exposition of it. He does not embarrass himself with two controversies at once. At fit times He disputed Rabbinical authority, and branded their casuistry as binding grievous burdens on men; but hero He allows their assumption of the equal authority of their commentary and of the text to pass unchallenged, and accepts the statement that His disciples had been doing what was unlawful on the Sabbath, and vindicates their breach of law.

Note that His answer deals first with an example of similar breach of ceremonial law, and then rises to lay down a broad principle which governed that precedent, vindicates the act of the disciples, and draws for all ages a broad line of demarcation between the obligations of ceremonial and of moral law. Clearly, His adducing David's act in taking the shewbread implies that the disciples' reason for plucking the ears of corn was not to clear a path but to satisfy hunger. Probably, too, it suggests that He also was hungry, and partook of the simple food.

Note, too, the tinge of irony in that Did ye never read?' In all your minute study of the letter of the Scripture, did you never take heed to that page? The principle on which the priest at Nob let the hungry fugitives devour the sacred bread, was the subordination of ceremonial law to men's necessities. It was well to lay the loaves on the table in the Presence, but it was better to take them and feed the fainting servant of God and his followers with them. Out of the very heart of the law which the Pharisees appealed to, in order to spin restricting prohibitions, Jesus drew an example of freedom which ran on all-fours with His disciples' case. The Pharisees had pored over the Old Testament all their lives, but it would have been long before they had found such a doctrine as this in it.

Jesus goes on to bring out the principle which shaped the instance he gave. He does not state it in its widest form, but confines it to the matter in hand--Sabbath obligations. Ceremonial law in all its parts is established as a means to an end--the highest good of men. Therefore, the end is more important than the means; and, in any case of apparent collision, the means must give way that the end may be secured. External observances are not of permanent, unalterable obligation. They stand on a different footing from primal moral duties, which remain equally imperative whether doing them leads to physical good or evil. David and his men were bound to keep these, whether they starved or not; but they were not bound to leave the shewbread lying in the shrine, and starve.

Man is made for the moral law. It is supreme, and he is under it, whether obedience leads to death or not. But all ceremonial regulations are merely established to help men to reach the true end of their being, and may be suspended or modified by his necessities. The Sabbath comes under the class of such ceremonial regulations, and may therefore be elastic when the pressure of necessity is brought to bear.

But note that our Lord, even while thus defining the limits of the obligation, asserts its universality. The Sabbath was made for man '--not for a nation or an age, but for all time and for the whole race. Those who would sweep away the observance of the weekly day of rest are fond of quoting this text; but they give little heed to its first clause, and do not note that their favourite passage upsets their main contention, and establishes the law of the Sabbath as a possession for the world for ever. It is not a burden, but a privilege, made and meant for man's highest good.

Christ's conclusion that He is Lord even of the Sabbath' is based upon the consideration of the true design of the day. If it is once understood that it is appointed, not as an inflexible duty, like the obligation of truth or purity, but as a means to man's good, physical and spiritual, then He who has in charge all man's higher interests, and who is the perfect realisation of the ideal of manhood, has full authority to modify and suspend the ceremonial observance if in His unerring judgment the suspension is desirable.

This is not an abrogation of the Sabbath, but, on the contrary, a confirmation of the universal and merciful appointment. It does not give permission to keep or neglect it, according to whim or for the sake of amusement, but it does draw, strong and clear, the distinction between a positive rite which may be modified, and an unchangeable precept of the moral law which it is better for a man to die than to neglect or transgress.

The second Sabbath scene deals with the same question from another point of view. Works of necessity warranted the supercession of Sabbath law; works of beneficence are no breaches of it. There are circumstances in which it is right to do what is not lawful' on the Sabbath, for such works as healing the man with a withered hand are always lawful.'

We note the cruel indifference to the sufferer's woe which so characteristically accompanies a religion which is mainly a matter of outside observances. What cared the Pharisees whether the poor cripple was healed or no? They wanted him cured only that they might have a charge against Jesus. Note, too, the strange condition of mind, which recognised Christ's miraculous power, and yet considered Him an impious sinner.

Observe our Lord's. purpose to make the miracle most conspicuous. He bids the man stand out in the midst, before all the cold eyes of malicious Pharisees and gaping spectators. A secret espionage was going on in the synagogue. He sees it all, and drags it into full light by setting the man forth and by His sudden, sharp thrust of a question. He takes the first word this time, and puts the stealthy spies on the defensive. His interrogation may possibly be regarded as having a bearing on their conduct, for there was murder in their hearts (Mark 2:6). There they sat with solemn faces, posing as sticklers for law and religion, and all the while they were seeking grounds for killing Him. Was that Sabbath work? Whether would He, if He cured the shrunken arm, or they, if they gathered accusations with the intention of compassing His death, be the Sabbath-breakers?

It was a sharp, swift cut through their cloak of sanctity; but it has a wider scope than that. The question rests on the principle that good omitted is equivalent to evil committed. If we can save, and do not, the responsibility of loss lies on us. If we can rescue, and let die, our brother's blood reddens our hands. Good undone is not merely negative. It is positive evil done. If from regard to the Sabbath we refrained from doing some kindly deed alleviating a brother's sorrow, we should not be inactive, but should have done something by our very not doing, and what we should do would be evil. It is a pregnant saying which has many solemn applications.

No wonder that they held their peace.' Unless they had been prepared to abandon their position, there was nothing to be said. That silence indicated conviction and obstinate pride and rooted hatred which would not be convinced, conciliated, or softened. Therefore Jesus looked on them with that penetrating, yearning gaze, which left ineffaceable remembrances on the beholders, as the frequent mention of it indicates.

The emotions in Christ's heart as He looked on the dogged, lowering faces are expressed in a remarkable phrase, which is probably best taken as meaning that grief mingled with His anger. A wondrous glimpse into that tender heart, which in all its tenderness is capable of righteous indignation, and in all its indignation does not set aside its tenderness!

Mark that not even the most rigid prohibitions were broken by the process of cure. It was no breach of the fantastic restrictions which had been engrafted on the commandment, that Jesus should bid the man put out his hand. Nobody could find fault with a man for doing that. These two things, a word and a movement of muscles, were all. So He did heal on the Sabbath,' and yet did nothing that could be laid hold of.

But let us not miss the parable of the restoration of the maimed and shrunken powers of the soul, which the manner of the miracle gives. Whatever we try to do because Jesus bids us, He will give us strength to do, however impossible to our unaided powers it is. In the act of stretching out the hand, ability to stretch it forth is bestowed, power returns to atrophied muscles, stiffened joints are supplied, the blood runs in full measure through the veins. So it is ever. Power to obey attends on the desire and effort to obey.

MHCC: Mar 2:23-28

The sabbath is a sacred and Divine institution; a privilege and benefit, not a task and drudgery. God never designed it to be a burden to us, therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. The sabbath was instituted for the good of mankind, as living in society, having many wants and troubles, preparing for a state of happiness or misery. Man was not made for the sabbath, as if his keeping it could be of service to God, nor was he commanded to keep it outward observances to his real hurt. Every observance respecting it, is to be interpreted by the rule of mercy.

Matthew Henry: Mar 2:18-28

Christ had been put to justify himself in conversing with publicans and sinners: here he is put to justify his disciples; and in what they do according to his will he will justify them, and bear them out.

I. He justifies them in their not fasting, which was turned to their reproach by the Pharisees. Why do the Pharisees and the disciples of John fast? They used to fast, the Pharisees fasted twice in the week (Luk 18:12), and probably the disciples of John did so too; and, it should seem, this very day, when Christ and his disciples were feasting in Levi's house, was their fast-day, for the word is nēsteuousi - they do fast, or are fasting, which aggravated the offence. Thus apt are strict professors to make their own practice a standard, and to censure and condemn all that do not fully come up to it. They invidiously suggest that if Christ went among sinners to do them good, as he had pleaded, yet the disciples went to indulge their appetites, for they never knew what it was to fast, or to deny themselves. Note, Ill-will always suspects the worst.

Two things Christ pleads in excuse of his disciples not fasting.

1. That these were easy days with them, and fasting was not so seasonable now as it would be hereafter, Mar 2:19, Mar 2:20. There is a time for all things. Those that enter into the married state, must expect care and trouble in the flesh, and yet, during the nuptial solemnity, they are merry, and think it becomes them to be so; it was very absurd for Samson's bride to weep before him, during the days that the feast lasted, Jdg 14:17. Christ and his disciples were but newly married, the bridegroom was yet with them, the nuptials were yet in the celebrating (Matthew's particularly); when the bridegroom should be removed from them to the far country, about his business, then would be a proper time to sit as a widow, in solitude and fasting.

2. That these were early days with them, and they were not so able for the severe exercises of religion as hereafter they would be. The Pharisees had long accustomed themselves to such austerities; and John Baptist himself came neither eating nor drinking. His disciples from the first inured themselves to hardships, and thus found it easier to bear strict and frequent fasting, but it was not so with Christ's disciples; their Master came eating and drinking, and had not bred them up to the difficult services of religion as yet, for it was all in good time. To put them upon such frequent fasting at first, would be a discouragement to them, and perhaps drive them off from following Christ; it would be of as ill consequence as putting new wine into old casks, or sewing new cloth to that which is worn thin and threadbare, Mar 2:21, Mar 2:22. Note, God graciously considers the frame of young Christians, that are weak and tender, and so must we; nor must we expect more than the work of the day in its day, and that day according to the strength, because it is not in our hands to give strength according to the day. Many contract an antipathy to some kind of food, otherwise good, by being surfeited with it when they are young; so, many entertain prejudices against the exercises of devotion by being burthened with them, and made to serve with an offering, at their setting out. Weak Christians must take heed of over-tasking themselves, and of making the yoke of Christ otherwise than as it is, easy, and sweet, and pleasant.

II. He justifies them in plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day, which, I will warrant you, a disciples of the Pharisees would not dare to have done; for it was contrary to an express tradition of their elders. In this instance, as in that before, they reflect upon the discipline of Christ's school, as if it were not so strict as that of theirs: so common it is for those who deny the power of godliness, to be jealous for the form, and censorious of those who affect not their form.

Observe, 1. What a poor breakfast Christ's disciples had on a sabbath-day morning, when they were going to church (Mar 2:23); they plucked the ears of corn, and that was the best they had. They were so intent upon spiritual dainties, that they forgot even their necessary food; and the word of Christ was to them instead of that; and their zeal for it even ate them up. The Jews made it a piece of religion, to eat dainty food on sabbath days, but the disciples were content with any thing.

2. How even this was grudged them by the Pharisees, upon supposition that it was not lawful to pluck the ears of corn on the sabbath day, that that was as much a servile work as reaping (Mar 2:24); Why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? Note, If Christ's disciples do that which is unlawful, Christ will be reflected upon, and upbraided with it, as he was here, and dishonour will redound to his name. It is observable, that when the Pharisees thought Christ did amiss, they told the disciples (Mar 2:16); and now when they thought the disciples did amiss, they spoke to Christ, as make-bates, that did what they could to sow discord between Christ and his disciples, and make a breach in the family.

3. How Christ defended them in what they did.

(1.) By example. They had a good precedent for it in David's eating the show-bread, when he was hungry, and there was no other bread to be had (Mar 2:25, Mar 2:26); Have ye never read? Note, Many of our mistakes would be rectified, and our unjust censures of others corrected, if we would but recollect what we have read in the scripture; appeals to that are most convincing. "You have read that David, the man after God's own heart, when he was hungry, made no difficulty of eating the show-bread, which by the law none might eat of but the priests and their families."Note, Ritual observances must give way to moral obligations; and that may be done in a case of necessity, which otherwise may not be done. This, it is said, David did in the days of Abiathar the High-Priest; or just before the days of Abiathar, who immediately succeeded Abimelech his father in the pontificate, and, it is probable, was at that time his father's deputy, or assistant, in the office; and he it was that escaped the massacre, and brought the ephod to David.

(2.) By argument. To reconcile them to the disciples' plucking the ears of corn, let them consider,

[1.] Whom the sabbath was made for (Mar 2:27); it was made for man, and not man for the sabbath. This we had not in Matthew. The sabbath is a sacred and divine institution; but we must receive and embrace it as a privilege and a benefit, not as a task and a drudgery. First, God never designed it to be an imposition upon us, and therefore we must not make it so to ourselves. Man was not made for the sabbath, for he was made a day before the sabbath was instituted. Man was made for God, and for his honour and service, and he just rather die than deny him; but he was not made for the sabbath, so as to be tied up by the law of it, from that which is necessary to the support of his life. Secondly, God did design it to be an advantage to us, and so we must make it, and improve it. He made if for man. 1. He had some regard to our bodies in the institution, that they might rest, and not be tired out with the constant business of this world (Deu 5:14); that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest. Now he that intended the sabbath-rest for the repose of our bodies, certainly never intended it should restrain us, in a case of necessity, from fetching in the necessary supports of the body; it must be construed so as not to contradict itself - for edification, and not for destruction. 2. He had much more regard to our souls. The sabbath was made a day of rest, only in order to its being a day of holy work, a day of communion with God, a day of praise and thanksgiving; and the rest from worldly business is therefore necessary, that we may closely apply ourselves to this work, and spend the whole time in it, in public and in private; but then time is allowed us for that which is necessary to the fitting of our bodies for the service of our souls in God's service, and the enabling of them to keep pace with them in that work. See here, (1.) What a good Master we serve, all whose institutions are for our own benefit, and if we be so wise as to observe them, we are wise for ourselves; it is not he, but we, that are gainers by our service. (2.) What we should aim at in our sabbath work, even the good of our own souls. If the sabbath was made for man, we should then ask ourselves at night, "What am I the better for this sabbath day?"(3.) What care we ought to take not to make those exercises of religion burthens to ourselves or others, which God ordained to be blessings; neither adding to the command by unreasonable strictness, nor indulging those corruptions which are adverse to the command, for thereby we make those devout exercises a penance to ourselves, which otherwise would be a pleasure.

[2.] Whom the sabbath was made by (Mar 2:28); " The Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath; and therefore he will not see the kind intentions of the institution of it frustrated by your impositions."Note, The sabbath days are days of the Son of man; he is the Lord of the day, and to his honour it must be observed; by him God made the worlds, and so it was by him that the sabbath was first instituted; by him God gave the law at mount Sinai, and so the fourth commandment was his law; and that little alteration that was shortly to be made, by the shifting of it one day forward to the first day of the week, was to be in remembrance of his resurrection, and therefore the Christian sabbath was to be called the Lord's day (Rev 1:10), the Lord Christ's day; and the Son of man, Christ, as Mediator, is always to be looked upon as Lord of the sabbath. This argument he largely insists upon in his own justification, when he was charged with having broken the sabbath, Joh 5:16.

Barclay: Mar 2:23-28

Once again Jesus cut right across the scribal rules and regulations. When he and his disciples were going through the corn fields one Sabbath day, his disciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat them. On any ordinary day the disciples were doing what was freely permitted (Deu 23:25). So long as the traveller did not put a sickle into the field he was free to pluck the corn. But this was done on the Sabbath and the Sabbath was hedged around with literally thousands of petty rules and regulations. AH work was forbidden. Work had been classified under thirty-nine different heads and four of these heads were reaping, winnowing, threshing and preparing a meal. By their action the disciples had technically broken all these four rules and were to be classified as law-breakers. It seems fantastic to us; but to the Jewish rabbis it was a matter of deadly sin and of life and death.

The Pharisees immediately launched their accusation and pointed out that Jesus' disciples were breaking the law. They obviously expected him to stop them on the spot. Jesus answered them in their own language. He cited the story which is told in 1Sa 21:1-6. David was fleeing for his life; he came to the tabernacle in Nob; he demanded food and there was none except the shewbread. Exo 25:23-30tells of the shewbread. It consisted of twelve loaves placed on a golden table three feet long, one and a half feet wide, and one and a half feet high. The table stood in the tabernacle in front of the Holy of Holies and the bread was a kind of offering to God. It was changed once a week; when it was changed it became the property of the priests and of the priests alone and no one else might eat it (Lev 24:9.) Yet in his time of need David took and ate that bread. Jesus showed that scripture itself supplies a precedent in which human need took precedence of human and even divine law.

"The Sabbath," he said, "was made for the sake of man and not man for the sake of the Sabbath." That was self-evident. Man was created before ever the elaborate Sabbath law came into existence. Man was not created to be the victim and the slave of Sabbath rules and regulations which were in the beginning created to make life fuller and better for man. Man is not to be enslaved by the Sabbath; the Sabbath exists to make his life better.

This passage confronts us with certain essential truths which we forget at our peril.

(i) Religion does not consist in rules and regulations. To take the matter in question--Sunday observance is important but there is a great deal more to religion than Sunday observance. If a man might become a Christian simply by abstaining from work and pleasure on the Sunday, and by attending church on that day, and saying his prayers and reading his Bible, being a Christian would be a very easy thing. Whenever men forget the love and the forgiveness and the service and the mercy that are at the heart of religion and replace them by the performance of rules and regulations religion is in a decline. Christianity has at all times consisted far more in doing things than in refraining from doing things.

(ii) The first claim on any man is the claim of human need. Even the catechisms and the confessions admit that works of necessity and mercy are quite legal on the Sabbath. If ever the performance of a man's religion stops him helping someone who is in need, his religion is not religion at all. People matter far more than systems. Persons are far more important than rituals. The best way to worship God is to help men.

(iii) The best way to use sacred things is to use them to help men. That, in fact, is the only way to give them to God. One of the loveliest of all stories is that of The Fourth Wise Man. His name was Artaban. He set out to follow the star and he took with him a sapphire, a ruby and a pearl beyond price as gifts for the King. He was riding hard to meet his three friends, Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, at the agreed place. The time was short; they would leave if he was late. Suddenly he saw a dim figure on the ground before him. It was a traveller stricken with fever. If he stayed to help he would miss his friends. He did stay; he helped and healed the man. But now he was alone. He needed camels and bearers to help him across the desert because he had missed his friends and their caravan. He had to sell his sapphire to get them; and he was sad because the King would never have his gem.

He journeyed on and in due time came to Bethlehem, but again he was too late. Joseph and Mary and the baby had gone. Then there came the soldiers to carry out Herod's command that the children should be slain. Artaban was in a house where there was a little child. The tramp of the soldiers came to the door; the weeping of stricken mothers could be heard. Artaban stood in the doorway, tall and dark, with the ruby in his hand and bribed the captain not to enter. The child was saved; the mother was overjoyed; but the ruby was gone; and Artaban was sad because the King would never have his ruby.

For years he wandered looking in vain for the King. More than thirty years afterwards he came to Jerusalem. There was a crucifixion that day. When Artaban heard of the Jesus being crucified, he sounded wondrous like the King and Artaban hurried towards Calvary. Maybe his pearl, the loveliest in all the world, could buy the life of the King. Down the street came a girl fleeing from a band of soldiers. "My father is in debt," she cried, "and they are taking me to sell as a slave to pay the debt. Save me!" Artaban hesitated; then sadly he took out his pearl, gave it to the soldiers and bought the girl's freedom.

On a sudden the skies were dark; there was an earthquake and a flying tile hit Artaban on the head. He sank half-conscious to the ground. The girl pillowed his head on her lap. Suddenly his lips began to move. "Not so, my Lord. For when saw I thee hungered and fed thee? Or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw I thee a stranger, and took thee in? Or naked and clothed thee? When saw I thee sick in prison, and came unto thee? Thirty and three years have I looked for thee; but I have never seen thy face, nor ministered to thee, my King." And then like a whisper from very far away, there came a voice. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as thou hast done it unto one the least of these my brethren, thou hast done it unto me." And Artaban smiled in death because he knew that the King had received his gifts.

The best way to use sacred things is to use them for men. It has been known for children to be barred from a church because that church was considered too ancient and sacred for such as they. It can be that a church is more concerned with the elaboration of its services than with the help of its simple folk and the relief of its poor. But the sacred things are only truly sacred when they are used for men. The shewbread was never so sacred as when it was used to feed a starving man. The Sabbath was never so sacred as when it was used to help those who needed help. The final arbiter in the use of all things is love and not law.

Constable: Mar 1:14--3:7

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14--3:6

Mark omitted Jesus' year of early Judean ministry (John 1:15-4:42), as did the other Synoptic evangelists. He began his account of Jesus' ministry of service in Galilee, northern Israel (1:14-6:6a). Because of increasing opposition and rejection, Jesus made several withdrawals from Galilee followed by returns to this region. Mark recorded four of these (6:6b-8:30). Then Jesus left Galilee for Jerusalem. Mark recorded lessons on four important subjects pertinent to discipleship that Jesus taught His disciples during this transition for his readers' benefit (ch. 10). Next Jesus ministered in Jerusalem, and Mark selected three significant events there for inclusion in his story (chs. 11-13).

"Four major characters stand out, as do two groups of minor characters: Jesus, the religious authorities, the disciples, the crowd, and those groups of minor characters who either exhibit faith or somehow exemplify what it means to serve."³⁸

Mark stressed Jesus' ministry as a servant in his Gospel. The rest of the book details how He served God and man. During the first part of Jesus' ministry, He laid down His life in service (1:14-13:37). His passion is the record of His laying down His life in self-sacrifice (chs. 14-16).

Mark began his Gospel with an overview of selected events in Jesus' early Galilean ministry that were typical of His whole ministry (1:14-3:6).

Constable: Mar 2:1--3:7

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

Mark next recorded five instances in which Israel's leaders opposed Jesus, evidently not in chronological order. These occurred during the Galilean ministry of Jesus. However, Mark appears to have grouped them so his readers would see that opposition from leaders, particularly religious leaders, was something Jesus had to contend with and overcome. His readers were probably facing similar opposition, and this section should encourage and help all Christians experiencing conflict because they are trying to fulfill God's mission for them.

Popularity with the masses led to problems with the magistrates. Opposition to Jesus intensifies throughout this section.

"The five conflicts between Jesus and the authorities in Galilee show a concentric [chiastic] relationship of A, B, C, B1, and A1. . . .

". . . this central episode [Jesus' teaching about fasting, 2:18-22] focuses on Jesus' response rather than on conflicts or actions, and Jesus' response illuminates all five of the episodes that make up the concentric pattern."⁵⁷

"Mark's story is one of conflict, and conflict is the force that propels the story forward. The major conflict is between Jesus and Israel, made up of the religious authorities and the Jewish crowd. Since the crowd does not turn against Jesus until his arrest, his antagonists are the authorities. . . .

"The groups comprising the religious authorities are the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Herodians, the chief priests, the scribes, and the elders."⁵⁸

Constable: Mar 2:23--3:7

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

The remaining two instances of opposition from the religious leaders arose over and concerned Sabbath observance. In the first case, the Pharisees opposed Jesus for permitting His disciples to do something they considered sinful. In the second, they opposed Him for doing something Himself that they objected to.

Constable: Mar 2:23-28

Picking grain on the Sabbath 2:23-28 (cf. Matt. 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5)

2:23-24 Jesus' disciples did something that the Mosaic Law permitted when they plucked the ears of wheat or barley (Deut. 23:25). However by doing it on a Sabbath day they violated a traditional Pharisaic interpretation of the law. The Pharisees taught that to do what the disciples did constituted reaping, threshing, and winnowing on the Sabbath, and that was forbidden work (Exod. 20:10).⁸⁰

2:25-26 The incident Jesus referred to is in 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Mark was the only evangelist to mention that Abiathar was the high priest then. This seemingly contradicts the Old Testament since Ahimelech, the father or Abiathar, was the high priest then according to the writer of 1 Samuel. The best solution to this problem seems to be that Jesus referred to Abiathar because he was the better known priest during David's reign. The phrase "in the time of" or "in the days of" probably means "during the lifetime of" rather than "during the high priesthood of."⁸¹

Jesus' point was this. David technically broke the law by eating bread that only the priests were to eat. Nevertheless he could do so because David was the Lord's anointed servant. As such, he could do things other Israelites could not do. Furthermore the offense was a matter of religious ritual, not a moral violation of the law, as the Pharisees were implying. Another example of violating the letter of the law to observe its spirit is King Hezekiah's granting the Israelites who were unclean permission to eat the Passover (2 Chron. 30:18-20). God did not object to that either. Another explanation of David's action is that God permitted it because of the urgency of his situation and that Jesus was claiming that His mission was equally urgent.⁸²

The Pharisees failed in two respects. First, they did not distinguish which laws were more important.

"Human need is a higher law than religious ritual."⁸³

Second, they did not recognize Jesus as the anointed Servant of the Lord that the Old Testament predicted would come, the Son of David. Mark did not mention, as Matthew did, that Jesus pointed out that one greater than the temple had come (Matt. 12:6). Mark's emphasis was not on Jesus as the King as much as it was on Jesus as the Lord's anointed Servant. As God's anointed Servant, Jesus had the right to provide for His disciples' physical needs even though that meant violating a tradition governing ritual worship.

2:27-28 The Pharisees made the Sabbath a straight jacket that inhibited the Jews. Jesus pointed out that God gave the Sabbath as a good gift. He designed it to free His people from ceaseless labor and to give them rest. Sabbath observance had to contain enough elasticity to assure the promotion of human welfare. Jesus' point was the following.

"Since the Sabbath was made for man, He who is man's Lord . . . has authority to determine its law and use."⁸⁴

Only Mark recorded, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (v. 27). One of his concerns in this Gospel was the welfare of mankind.

Since in the Old Testament the Sabbath was the Lord's day in a special sense, Jesus' claim in verse 28 constituted a claim to being God.⁸⁵ He had the right to determine how people should use the Sabbath.

". . . the exousia [authority] of Jesus manifests itself vis-a-vis the rabbinic tradition, the religious hierarchy, and the temple tradition. Foremost here is Jesus' reinterpretation of the Sabbath . . ."⁸⁶

College: Mar 2:1-28

MARK 2

G. STORIES OF CONTROVERSY BETWEEN JESUS AND

THE RELIGIOUS AUTHORITIES (2:1-3:6)

In 2:1-3:6 Mark provides five stories of controversy between Jesus and the religious authorities. These stories are not chronologically connected to each other and appear to be brought together primarily in a thematic rather than chronological way. Their overall purpose is to introduce the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities. By the end of these five stories Mark's readers know that many of the religious authorities are unbelieving antagonists who badger Jesus at every turn. The climax of these incidents is in 3:6: " Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus."

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins (2:1-12)

¹ A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. ² So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. ³ Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. ⁴ Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. ⁵ When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, " Son, your sins are forgiven."

⁶ Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, ⁷" Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

⁸ Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, " Why are you thinking these things? ⁹ Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? ¹⁰ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, ¹¹" I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." ¹² He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, " We have never seen anything like this!"

The first controversy, 2:1-12, focuses in a dramatic way on the identity of Jesus. This story provides a fourth specific miracle performed by Jesus, which again underscores his authority. But this time the miracle is subordinated to an even more dramatic indication of Jesus' identity: he forgives sins. The scribes correctly conclude that forgiving sins implies a special relationship to God (v. 7), but they wrongly refuse to accept the correct conclusion. By healing the paralytic Jesus demonstrates " that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins."

In addition to this christological focus, Mark 2:1-12 also teaches an important lesson about discipleship. The four men who carried the paralytic to Jesus demonstrated not only ingenuity, but also - and more importantly - faith. Mark has already indicated the importance of faith in 1:15 (" Repent and believe the good news!" ). He will underscore the point often (e.g., 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:6; 9:23; 10:52). Faith is the proper response to Jesus' demonstrations of authority in his teaching and his miracles.

1-2. The scene returns to Capernaum, where the events of 1:21-35 took place. The NIV's " that he had come home" is a rather paraphrastic translation of a clause that might also be translated " that he was in a (or 'the') house." He was probably at Peter's house (1:29). The intensity of the crowd resonates with Mark's previous descriptions of the crowds in 1:32-33, 37, and 45.

Jesus was teaching them " the word" (toΙn lovgon, ton logon ). The word is presumably the message of 1:14-15 about the kingdom. The same expression is used in Mark 4:14-20, 33 for Jesus' parabolic message about the kingdom.

3-4. When the four men could not get their paralyzed friend through the crowd to ask Jesus to heal him, they went up on the roof, opened up a hole, and lowered the paralytic on his pallet. The point, of course, is that the five men went to great lengths because they believed in Jesus' ability to heal.

5-7. At the point when one would expect Jesus to heal the man, he instead declares the paralytic's sins forgiven. It is possible that in this particular case Jesus implies a connection between the man's infirmity and his sin. Although in one case in John's Gospel Jesus explicitly denies that a particular man's blindness was caused by his sin (9:3), in another case (incidentally also involving paralysis) Jesus implies a connection between a man's sin and infirmity (John 5:14).

Whatever motivated Jesus to declare this man's sins forgiven, the scribes recognize it as an implicit claim to a special relationship with God. Jesus' declaration of forgiveness does not necessarily involve more than Nathan's statement to David in 2 Sam 12:13: " The Lord has taken away your sin." However, Jesus' subsequent statement that " The Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" indicates that the scribes correctly understood Jesus to be claiming the ability not only to report God's forgiveness but also to grant it. They accuse him of blasphemy because he claims to do what only God can do. The charge of blasphemy anticipates the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin where blasphemy is the basis for the sentence of death (14:64). Blasphemy could be narrowly defined in a way that involved specifically using God's name (Lev 24:15-16) or more broadly defined as " a word or act detracting from the power and glory of God." This broad sense applies to Mark 2 and 14.

8-9. Jesus knows the thinking of the scribes and poses a counter-question, the first of several times he used this approach (3:4; 11:30; 12:37). His question, " Which is easier . . . ?" probably refers to verifiability. It seems easier to say " Your sins are forgiven" because it is not verifiable, but to say " Get up, take your mat and walk" is a statement subject to empirical verification.

10-12. Jesus intends to use the empirically verifiable, harder statement about healing to verify his authority to forgive sins. If he can heal the paralytic then his claim to forgive the paralytic's sins must be taken seriously.

V. 10 introduces the enigmatic title " Son of Man," which is used again in 2:28 and then twelve times after Peter's confession at Caesarea Philippi. The Son of Man title has been studied vigorously, but there is no concensus concerning its pre-Christian usage or precisely how Jesus used it. A few observations can be made with confidence: 1) Except for one case in the Gospels (John 12:34) and a few instances in the rest of the New Testament (Acts 7:56 and the probably non-titular uses in Heb 2:6; Rev 1:13; 14:14) the phrase " Son of Man" appears only on the lips of Jesus. Although it was Jesus' most common title for himself, the early Christians seem to have preferred other titles such as Lord and Christ. 2) Jesus' statement in Mark 14:62 alludes to Dan 7:13 and suggests that in using the title Son of Man he intended to identify himself as the " one like a son of man" in Daniel's vision. According to Daniel this figure was " coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Jesus' claim to be this son of man was not simply a reference to his humanity, but an exalted claim with messianic overtones.

It is extremely difficult to establish whether Son of Man had been used as a title in association with Dan 7 before Jesus and whether anyone in Jesus' audiences would have recognized that connection or any messianic overtones. An attractive but uncertain suggestion is that Jesus chose to emphasize this title partly because it was not a common messianic title and therefore he could use it (like the parables) not only to reveal the truth to some, but to conceal it from others.

The story of the paralytic is an important one. It continues and heightens the emphasis on Jesus' authority. It introduces the teachers of the law as Jesus' antagonists. In contrast to the antagonism and disbelief of the teachers of the law, it highlights and illustrates the importance of faith by the actions of the five men and by Jesus' response to their faith.

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners (2:13-17)

¹³ Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them. ¹⁴ As he walked along, he saw Levi son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax collector's booth. " Follow me," Jesus told him, and Levi got up and followed him.

¹⁵ While Jesus was having dinner at Levi's house, many tax collectors and " sinners" were eating with him and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. ¹⁶ When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the " sinners" and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: " Why does he eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?"

¹⁷ On hearing this, Jesus said to them, " It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Vv. 13-14 could be separated from vv. 15-17 as the story of the calling of Levi. However, it is Matthew and not Mark who provides a connection with the rest of the story of Jesus by identifying Levi as Matthew the apostle. Mark seems content to treat Levi's call as an illustration of and introduction to Jesus' offensive companionship with the wrong sorts of people. He calls a tax collector to be one of his followers, he goes to the tax collector's house, and while there he eats a meal with other tax collectors and sinners.

13. This is another of Mark's many references to Jesus teaching the crowds. He has taught in the synagogue (1:21), at a house (2:2), and now beside the Sea of Galilee (2:13).

14. The call of Levi is similar to the previous call of the four fishermen: the call is to " follow," Jesus gives the call while Levi is working, and Levi responds on the spot. The critical difference noticeable to informed readers is that Levi was a tax collector. Tax collectors were widely despised for defrauding people to inflate their own commissions and for collusion with Rome.

15-16. Levi invited Jesus to a meal at his house which was attended by other tax collectors and " sinners" (aJmartwloiv, hamartôloi). Mark says that there were many of these who were following Jesus. The meaning of the term " sinners" in this and similar contexts is a point of continuing debate among contemporary scholars. Some argue that the term refers to those who did not follow the strict Pharisaic guidelines. Others argue that " sinners" were the wicked who sinned willfully and without repentance. I am inclined to agree with a third view which holds that this term refers to those who were opposed to God's will from the standpoint of the one who is using the term, whether Jesus or his opponents.

It is clear from this passage and other New Testament texts (such as Acts 11:3 and Gal 2:12) that who one had table fellowship with was a matter of considerable importance for many first century Jews. The scribes who were Pharisees find Jesus' table fellowship with tax collectors and sinners offensive, an obvious contradiction to his supposed status as a religious leader.

This is Mark's first reference to the Pharisees, who appear repeatedly during Jesus' Galilean ministry but only once by name in Jerusalem (12:13). The Pharisees were the leading sect or party among the Jews of Jesus' day. Although the Sadducees controlled the Sanhedrin, the Pharisees probably had the most popularity among the people. Being a Pharisee was not a profession like being a scribe. Rather, people of various professions (including scribes) and classes could be Pharisees. Being a Pharisee was primarily a matter of commitment to Pharisaic norms of religious practice. They maintained a strong commitment to traditional beliefs and practices handed down from earlier generations. These traditions involved a strict interpretation of and supplement to the Old Testament Law. Examples would be their commitment to tithing (Matt 23:23) and ritual cleanliness (Mark 7:1-5).

17. Jesus replies to their accusation with a common proverb using the imagery of doctors and their patients. He does not defend the sinfulness of the tax collectors and sinners nor does he intend to imply that the Pharisees are truly righteous in God's sight, but he effectively makes the point that his task is to call sinners to God. Therefore he must be in their company.

3. Controversy over Fasting (2:18-22)

¹⁸ Now John's disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. Some people came and asked Jesus, " How is it that John's disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees are fasting, but yours are not?"

¹⁹ Jesus answered, " How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them. ²⁰ But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

²¹" No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does, the new piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse. ²² And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Like the previous story, this controversy centers on ancient Jewish traditions rather than on the clear demands of Mosaic law. The law itself required fasting only on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:29-31). However, fasting is often commended in the Old Testament as a pious behavior (e.g., Deut 9:9; Dan 9:3; Esth 4:1-3). By the time of Jesus many pious Jews fasted twice each week (Luke 18:12). Such traditions were held in high honor among the Pharisees.

18. Since weekly fasting was practiced not only by those who followed the Pharisees but also by the followers of John the Baptist who baptized Jesus, many would naturally be surprised that Jesus and his disciples did not follow this common spiritual discipline. They may even have viewed the customary fasting as mandatory.

19-20. Jesus replied with three metaphors. The first one uses the image of a wedding feast. It would be inappropriate for the guests at a wedding feast to fast, for the bridegroom is there and they need to celebrate with him. Jesus implies that his presence among the disciples creates an analogous situation of celebration. V. 20 is an odd statement in the context of a wedding feast. It is an allusion to the death of Jesus and the mourning of his disciples concerning his death. It is the only reference to Jesus' death before Mark 8:31.

The rest of the New Testament indicates that the early Christians did fast on various occasions. Jesus' reference here, however, probably refers to mourning over his death.

21-22. The second two metaphors are parallel in meaning. The point of both is similar to the point of the bridegroom analogy. Jesus compares his presence to a new unshrunk piece of cloth and to new wine. The tradition of fasting is part of an old garment or an old wineskin. The new situation created by Jesus' presence makes the old form of fasting inappropriate for his disciples. The disciples need to act in a way that is appropriate for the new situation created by Jesus.

It is difficult to be sure what it was about fasting that made it inappropriate for Jesus' disciples. In the light of the bridegroom analogy, a good suggestion is that Jesus' coming and the inbreaking of the kingdom which accompanied him called for a joyful response, while fasting was associated primarily with mourning.

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath (2:23-28)

²³ One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. ²⁴ The Pharisees said to him, " Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"

²⁵ He answered, " Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? ²⁶ In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

²⁷ Then he said to them, " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. ²⁸ So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath."

The fourth and fifth controversies in this series focus on interpreting the sabbath law. The grain picking incident appears to modern readers to be tedious nit-picking on the part of the Pharisees. It may be, but modern readers are prone to swing to the other side of the pendulum and perhaps forget such texts as Num 15:32-36 in which a man was stoned for picking up wood on the sabbath.

23-24. As in 2:13-17 and 2:18-22, the chronological connection with the preceding story is loose, but the thematic connection is strong. Mark provides another illustration of the conflict between Jesus and the religious authorities.

The Pharisees are not suggesting that the disciples are stealing. The old gleaning laws certainly made it legitimate for the disciples to pick a few heads of grain. The problem is that they are doing this on the sabbath. The accusation is that they are violating the sabbath by working.

25-26. We expect Jesus to argue (as he does in the case of 3:1-6) that such activity is not actually a violation of the sabbath. However, his approach to the subject seems to grant their accusation that the disciples are doing what is not lawful on the sabbath. Jesus argues that there are special circumstances in which some " break the sabbath and yet are guiltless."

The story about David and the consecrated bread (1 Sam 21:1-6) is a parallel case. Under normal circumstances no one could eat this bread except priests. David's circumstances were special. He and his companions were hungry. Furthermore, and significantly, David was the anointed king of Israel. (Presumably, neither Jesus nor the Pharisees would grant just any hungry band of men the privilege of eating the consecrated bread without guilt.) Jesus and his disciples' situation was analogous.

27-28. The two-part pronouncement at the climax of the story highlights the special circumstances of both David and Jesus and their companions. First, " The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." Jesus would not approve of a legalistic approach to the sabbath in which no work could ever be done regardless of the circumstances. The sabbath law was created to help people, not to harm them. Second, " the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." If in the example of David, it was important that David was the anointed king, then in the case of Jesus an even greater one is involved. Jesus had already declared his authority to forgive sins. He now declares his authority to make judgments about the sabbath.

The term translated " So" at the beginning of v. 28 ties the two statements together. If there are circumstances in which the spirit of the sabbath law takes precedence over the letter, then the authoritative Son of Man surely has the right to make this determination. Jesus tries to get the Pharisees to recognize both that in some cases the sabbath law may be broken without guilt and that the Son of Man has the authority to determine such cases.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

McGarvey: Mar 2:23-28

XXXVIII.
JESUS DEFENDS DISCIPLES WHO PLUCK GRAIN
ON THE SABBATH.
(Probably while on the way from Jerusalem to Galilee.)
^aMATT. XII. 1-8; ^bMARK II. 23-28; ^cLUKE VI. 1-5.

   ^b23 And  ^c1 Now it came to pass  ^a1 At that season bthat he ^aJesus went {bwas going} on the {ca} bsabbath day through the grainfields; aand his disciples were hungry and began bas they went, to pluck the ears. aand to eat, cand his disciples plucked the ears, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands. [This lesson fits in chronological order with the last, if the Bethesda events took place at Passover. The paschal lamb was eaten on the fourteenth Nisan, or about the first of April. Clark fixes the exact date as the 29th of March, in A. D. 28, which is the beginning of the harvest season. Barley ripens in the Jordan valley about the 1st of April, but on the uplands it is reaped as late as May. Wheat ripens from one to three weeks later than barley, and upland wheat (and Palestine has many [209] mountain plateaus) is often harvested in June. If Scaliger is right, as most critics think he is, in fixing this sabbath as the first after the Passover, it is probable that it was barley which the disciples ate. Barley bread was and is a common food, and it is common to chew the grains of both it and wheat.]  ^c2 But {^b24 And} ccertain of the Pharisees awhen they saw it, said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath. bwhy do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? ^cWhy do ye that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day? [The Pharisees did not object to the act of taking the grain. Such plucking of the grain was allowed by the law (Deu 23:25) and is still practiced by hungry travelers in Palestine, which is, and has always been, an unfenced land, the roads, or rather narrow paths, of which lead through the grainfields, so that the grain is in easy reach of the passer-by. The Pharisees objected to the plucking of grain because they considered it a kind of reaping, and therefore working on the sabbath day. The scene shows the sinlessness of Jesus in strong light. Every slightest act of his was submitted to a microscopic scrutiny.]  ^a3 But {^b25 And} ^cJesus answering them asaid unto them, Have ye not read {^bDid ye never read} ceven this [There is a touch of irony here. The Pharisees prided themselves upon their knowledge of Scriptures, but they had not read (so as to understand them) even its most common incidents], what David did, bwhen he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?  26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, cand took and ate the showbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat {awhich it was not lawful for him to eat,} neither for them that were with him, but only {csave} for the priests alone? [Jesus here refers to the incident recorded at 1Sa 21:1-6. Ahimelech and Abiathar have been confused by transcribers. It should read Ahimelech. However, we are not referred to the actions of Abiathar, but to those of [210] David. He went with his followers to the tabernacle at Nob near Jerusalem, and being hungry, asked bread of the priests. There was no bread at hand save the showbread. This bread was called showbread because it was "set out" or "exhibited" before Jehovah. It consisted of twelve loaves, which were baked upon the sabbath, and were placed, hot, in two rows upon the showbread table every sabbath day. The twelve old loaves which were then removed were to be eaten by the priests and no one else (Lev 24:5-9). It was these twelve old loaves which were given to David (1Sa 21:6). Since the showbread was baked on the sabbath, the law itself ordered work on that day. The vast majority of commentators look upon this passage as teaching that necessity abrogates what they are pleased to call the ceremonial laws of God. Disregarding the so-called ceremonial laws of God is a very dangerous business, as is witnessed by the case of Uzzah (2Sa 6:6, 2Sa 6:7), and Uzziah (2Ch 26:16-23). Christ never did it, and strenuously warned those who followed the example of the scribes and Pharisees in teaching such a doctrine (Mat 5:17-20). The law of necessity was not urged by him as a justifiable excuse for making bread during the forty days' fast of the temptation. Life is not higher than law. "All that a man hath will he give for his life," is Satan's doctrine, not Christ's (Job 2:4). The real meaning, as we understand it, will be developed below in our treatment of Num 28:9), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in addition to the daily [211] sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties. The profanation of the Sabbath, however, was not real, but merely apparent. Jesus cites this priestly work to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not universal, and hence might not include what the disciples had done. The fourth commandment did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded.]  6 But I say [asserting his own authority] unto you, that one greater than the temple is here. [The word "greater" is in the neuter gender, and the literal meaning is therefore "a greater thing than the temple." The contrast may be between the service of the temple and the service of Christ, or it may be a contrast between the divinity, sacredness, or divine atmosphere which hallowed the temple, and the divinity or Godhead of Christ. But, however we take it, the meaning is ultimately a contrast between Christ and the temple, similar to the contrast between himself and Solomon, etc. (Mat 12:41, Mat 12:42). It was a startling saying as it fell on Jewish ears, for to them the temple at Jerusalem was the place honored by the very Shekinah of the unseen God, and the only place of effective worship and atonement. If the temple service justified the priests in working upon the Sabbath day, much more did the service of Jesus, who was not only the God of the temple, but was himself the true temple, of which the other was merely the symbol, justify these disciples in doing that which was not legally, but merely traditionally, unlawful. Jesus here indirectly anticipates the priesthood of his disciples -- 1Pe 2:5.]  7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I desire mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. [This passage is quoted from Hos 6:6, and is reiterated at Mat 9:13. It is an assertion of the superiority of inward life over outward form, for the form is nothing if the heart is wrong. The saying is first suggested by David himself (Psa 51:16, Psa 51:17), [212] after which it is stated by Hosea and amplified by Paul (1Co 13:3). The quotation has a double reference both to David and the disciples as above indicated. Having given the incident in the life of David, Jesus passes on from it without comment, that he may lay down by another example the principle which justified it. This principle we have just treated, and we may state it thus: A higher law, where it conflicts with a lower one, suspends or limits the lower one at the point of conflict. Thus the higher laws of worship in the temple suspended the lower law of sabbath observance, and thus also the higher law of mercy suspended the lower law as to the showbread when David took it and mercifully gave it to his hungry followers, and when God in mercy permitted this to be done. And thus, had they done what was otherwise unlawful, the disciples would have been justified in eating by the higher law of Christ's service. And thus also would Christ have been justified in permitting them to eat by the law of mercy, which was superior to that which rendered the seventh day to God as a sacrifice.]  8 For the Son of man is Lord of the sabbath.  ^b27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:  28 so that the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath. [The expression "Son of man" is used eighty-eight times in the New Testament, and always means the Messiah, and not man generally. The Sabbath was made for man's convenience and blessing, and so Jesus, who was complete and perfect manhood, was Lord of it. But men who were incomplete and imperfect in their manhood, can not trust their fallible judgment to tamper with it. Though the day was made for man, this fact would not entitle man to use it contrary to the laws under which it was granted. As Lord of the day Jesus had a right to interpret it and to apply it, and to substitute the Lord's day for it. In asserting his Lordship over it, Jesus takes the question outside the range of argument and brings it within the range of authority.] [213]

[FFG 209-213]

Lapide: Mar 2:1-28

CHAPTER 2

1 Christ healeth one sick of the palsy, 14 calleth Matthew from the receipt of custom, 15 eateth with publicans and sinners, 18 excuseth his disciples for not fasting, 23 and for plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath-day.

Ver. 1. And again He entered into Capernaum after some days. A few MSS. read, after eight days.

Ver. 2. And many came together, so that there was no room, &c. See what is said in the Introduction to this Gospel.

Ver. 5. Son, thy sins are forgiven thee. Hear Bede, "When He is about to heal, He first forgives the man his sins, to show that he was suffering for his faults." For men are afflicted with bodily ills, either for the increase of merit, as Job and the martyrs; or for the preservation of humility, as Paul; or for the correction of sin, as the sister of Moses, and this paralytic; or for the glory of God, as the man who was born blind; or for a beginning of damnation, as Herod.

Bede adds that this paralytic was carried by four bearers, to signify that a man in the faith of his soul is lifted up by four virtues to deserve soundness, namely, by prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance.

Ver. 14. He saw Levi ( the son ) of Alphæus, i.e., He saw Matthew, who by another name is called Levi before he was called by Christ, for after his vocation he is always called Matthew. 0f Alphæus, i.e., the son, as the Syriac expresses it. This Alphæus is a different person from the Alphæus who was the husband of Mary of Cleopas, who was the father of James the Less and Jude ( Mat 10:3). Luke and Mark call Matthew Levi, out of regard for his good name, because this name of Levi was known but to few. But he calls himself Matthew, to humiliate himself, and to profess openly that he was a sinner and a publican.

And rising up, &c., i.e., leaving everything. Wherefore Bede saith, "He left his own possessions who was wont to seize those of others. He left also the accounts of his taxes imperfect, and not cast up, because the Lord had so inflamed him that he straightway followed Him who called him."

Ver. 26. Under Abiathar. You will say that it is said in Isa 21:6 that this was done under Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar. I answer, first, that Abiathar was even then the pontiff together with his father, because when his father was absent, or sick, or otherwise engaged, he discharged the High Priest's office; and he was shortly to succeed his father, at his death, in the pontificate. Listen to Bede: That the Lord calls Abiathar the High Priest instead of Ahimelech involves no discrepancy, for both were on the spot when David came and asked for and received the loaves. And when Ahimelech was slain by Saul, Abiathar fled to David, and was his companion through the whole of his exile. Afterwards, when David was king, he received the rank of the high-priesthood; and continuing in the pontificate during the whole of David's reign, he became much more celebrated than his father, and so was more worthy to be called High Priest by the Lord, even during his father's lifetime.

Second, and better, It is clear from Scripture that both father and son bore both names, and were called sometimes Abiathar, sometimes Ahimelech. This appears from 2Sa 8:17,  1Ch 18:16 and 1Ch 24:6.  So Jansen, Toletus, &c.

The Sabbath was made (Syr. created ) for man, &c. That is, the Sabbath was instituted for the benefit of man, that man, by the rest of the Sabbath, should refresh and restore his body, fatigued by the continuous labour of six days of the week; and that he should apply his mind to the things which concern his eternal salvation, such as hearing and meditating upon the law of God. The force of the argument is this: Since the Sabbath was instituted for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of the Sabbath, therefore, if the Sabbatical rest be hurtful to man, it must be abandoned, and the labour undertaken that man may be benefited. Therefore rightly do I permit My disciples to engage in the moderate labour of plucking the ears of corn on the Sabbath, to satisfy their hunger. For it is better that the rest of the Sabbath should be broken than that men should perish.

Therefore the Son of Man, &c. Some understand the therefore in this place as properly inferential from what has gone before, thus: Since the Sabbath was made for man, and the Son of Man, that is, Christ, is Lord of all men, and of all things which pertain to man's health, therefore He is Lord also of the Sabbath, so as to be able to dispense from it. But it is better and simpler to take the therefore not as inferential, but as complementary for lastly, in short. Wherefore the Arabic so translates, and makes the passage of the following effect: "Lastly, the Son of Man, that is, I, Christ, because I am the Messias and God, am Lord of the Sabbath, I who instituted it at the beginning for man's benefit, and therefore am able for the benefit of man to order, to relax, or to abolish it. This is the fresh and final reason by which Christ proves to the Scribes that it was lawful to pluck the ears of corn on the Sabbath to satisfy hunger."

Mystically : Says Theophylact, Christ healing on the Sabbath signifies that those who have rest in their passions are able to heal sinners agitated by their passions, and lead them to virtue. More fully Bede. The disciples, he says, are teachers. The corn means those planted in the faith, whom the teachers visit, and hungering for their salvation, pluck away from earthly things. And by their hands, i.e., by their examples, they bring them away from the lust of the flesh, as it were out of husks. They eat them, that is, they incorporate them as members into the Church. And they do it upon the Sabbath, because this is for the hope of future rest. Return to top

Commentary -- Other

Contradiction: Mar 2:26

80. Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage & misunderstood the historical context)

Jesus states that the event happened 'in the days of Abiathar the high priest' and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech.

If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, 'When king David was a shepherd-boy...', it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time. In the same way, Abiathar was soon to be high priest and this is what he is most remembered for, hence he is designated by this title. Moreover, the event certainly did happen 'in the days of Abiathar', as he was alive and present during the incident. We know from 1 Samuel 22:20 that he narrowly escaped when his father's whole family and their town was destroyed by Saul's men. Therefore, Jesus' statement is quite acceptable.

(Archer 1994:362)

Critics Ask: Mar 2:26

MARK 2:26 —Was Jesus wrong when He mentioned Abiathar as high priest instead of Ahimelech?

PROBLEM: Jesus says that at the time David ate the consecrated bread, Abiathar was high priest. Yet 1 Samuel 21:1-6 mentions that the high priest at that time was Ahimelech.

SOLUTION: First Samuel is correct in stating that the high priest was Ahimelech. On the other hand neither was Jesus wrong. When we take a closer look at Christ’s words we notice that He used the phrase “in the days of Abiathar” (v. 26 ) which does not necessarily imply that Abiathar was high priest at the time David ate the bread. After David met Ahimelech and ate the bread, King Saul had Ahimelech killed ( 1 Sam. 22:17-19 ). Abiathar escaped and went to David (v. 20 ) and later took the place of the high priest. So even though Abiathar was made high priest after David ate the bread, it is still correct to speak in this manner. After all, Abiathar was alive when David did this, and soon following he became the high priest after his father’s death. Thus, it was during the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office.   

Introduction / Outline

Robertson: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO MARK

By Way of Introduction

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold that a.d. 50 is quite probable. My own views are given in detail in my Studies in Mark’s Gospel . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. Whether Mark made use of Q ( Logia of Jesus ) or not is not yet shown, though it is possible. But Mark and Q constitute the two oldest known sources of our Matthew and Luke. We have much of Q preserved in the Non-Markan portions of both Matthew and Luke, though the document itself has disappeared. But Mark’s work has remained in spite of its exhaustive use by Matthew and Luke, all except the disputed close. For this preservation we are all grateful. Streeter ( The Four Gospels ) has emphasized the local use of texts in preserving portions of the New Testament. If Mark wrote in Rome, as is quite possible, his book was looked upon as the Roman Gospel and had a powerful environment in which to take root. It has distinctive merits of its own that helped to keep it in use. It is mainly narrative and the style is direct and simple with many vivid touches, like the historical present of an eyewitness. The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome (1Pe_5:13).

This Gospel is the briefest of the four, but is fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (Mar_6:38), two thousand hogs (Mar_5:13), looking round about (Mar_3:5, Mar_3:34). Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others, like Boanerges (Mar_3:17), Talitha cumi (Mar_5:41), Korban (Mar_7:11), Ephphatha (Mar_7:34), Abba (Mar_14:36). The Greek is distinctly vernacular Koiné like one-eyed ( monophthalmon , Mar_9:47) as one would expect from both Peter and Mark. There are also more Latin phrases and idioms like centurio (Mar_15:39), quadrans (Mar_12:42), flagellare (Mar_15:15), speculator (Mar_6:27), census (Mar_12:14), sextarius (Mar_7:4), praetorium (Mar_15:6), than in the other Gospels, so much so that C. H. Turner raises the question whether Mark wrote first in Latin, or at any rate in Rome. There are some who hold that Mark wrote first in Aramaic, but the facts are sufficiently accounted for by the fact of Peter’s preaching and the activity in Rome. Some even think that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript. B.W. Bacon holds that this Gospel has a distinct Pauline flavour and may have had several recensions. The Ur-Marcus theory does not have strong support now. Mark was once a co-worker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colossians (Col_4:10) In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome, for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him. This tribute to Mark by Paul throws credit upon both of them as is shown in my Making Good in the Ministry . The character of the Gospel of Mark is determined largely by the scope of Peter’s preaching as we see it in Act_10:36-42, covering the period in outline from John the Baptist to the Resurrection of Jesus. There is nothing about the birth of the Baptist or of Jesus. This peculiarity of Mark’s Gospel cannot be used against the narratives of the Virgin Birth of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, since Mark tells nothing whatever about his birth at all.

The closing passage in the Textus Receptus, Mar_16:9-20, is not found in the oldest Greek Manuscripts, Aleph and B, and is probably not genuine. A discussion of the evidence will appear at the proper place. Swete points out that Mark deals with two great themes, the Ministry in Galilee (Chs. 1 to 9) and the Last Week in Jerusalem (11 to 16) with a brief sketch of the period of withdrawal from Galilee (ch. 10). The first fourteen verses are introductory as Mar_16:9-20 is an appendix. The Gospel of Mark pictures Christ in action. There is a minimum of discourse and a maximum of deed. And yet the same essential pictures of Christ appear here as in the Logia, in Matthew, in Luke, in John, in Paul, in Peter, in Hebrews as is shown in my The Christ of the Logia . The cry of the critics to get back to the Synoptics and away from Paul and John has ceased since it is plain that the Jesus of Mark is the same as the Christ of Paul. There is a different shading in the pictures, but the same picture, Son of God and Son of Man, Lord of life and death, worker of miracles and Saviour from sin. This Gospel is the one for children to read first and is the one that we should use to lay the foundation for our picture of Christ. In my Harmony of the Gospels I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

JFB: Mark (Book Introduction)

THAT the Second Gospel was written by Mark is universally agreed, though by what Mark, not so. The great majority of critics take the writer to be "John whose surname was Mark," of whom we read in the Acts, and who was "sister's son to Barnabas" (Col 4:10). But no reason whatever is assigned for this opinion, for which the tradition, though ancient, is not uniform; and one cannot but wonder how it is so easily taken for granted by WETSTEIN, HUG, MEYER, EBRARD, LANGE, ELLICOTT, DAVIDSON, TREGELLES, &c. ALFORD goes the length of saying it "has been universally believed that he was the same person with the John Mark of the Gospels. But GROTIUS thought differently, and so did SCHLEIERMACHER, CAMPBELL, BURTON, and DA COSTA; and the grounds on which it is concluded that they were two different persons appear to us quite unanswerable. "Of John, surnamed Mark," says CAMPBELL, in his Preface to this Gospel, "one of the first things we learn is, that he attended Paul and Barnabas in their apostolical journeys, when these two travelled together (Act 12:25; Act 13:5). And when afterwards there arose a dispute between them concerning him, insomuch that they separated, Mark accompanied his uncle Barnabas, and Silas attended Paul. When Paul was reconciled to Mark, which was probably soon after, we find Paul again employing Mark's assistance, recommending him, and giving him a very honorable testimony (Col 4:10; 2Ti 4:11; Phm 1:24). But we hear not a syllable of his attending Peter as his minister, or assisting him in any capacity. And yet, as we shall presently see, no tradition is more ancient, more uniform, and better sustained by internal evidence, than that Mark, in his Gospel, was but "the interpreter of Peter," who, at the close of his first Epistle speaks of him as "Marcus my son" (1Pe 5:13), that is, without doubt, his son in the Gospel--converted to Christ through his instrumentality. And when we consider how little the Apostles Peter and Paul were together--how seldom they even met--how different were their tendencies, and how separate their spheres of labor, is there not, in the absence of all evidence of the fact, something approaching to violence in the supposition that the same Mark was the intimate associate of both? "In brief," adds CAMPBELL, "the accounts given of Paul's attendant, and those of Peter's interpreter, concur in nothing but the name, Mark or Marcus; too slight a circumstance to conclude the sameness of the person from, especially when we consider how common the name was at Rome, and how customary it was for the Jews in that age to assume some Roman name when they went thither."

Regarding the Evangelist Mark, then, as another person from Paul's companion in travel, all we know of his personal history is that he was a convert, as we have seen, of the Apostle Peter. But as to his Gospel, the tradition regarding Peter's hand in it is so ancient, so uniform, and so remarkably confirmed by internal evidence, that we must regard it as an established fact. "Mark," says PAPIAS (according to the testimony of EUSEBIUS, [Ecclesiastical History, 3.39]), "becoming the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of what was either said or done by Christ; for he was neither a hearer of the Lord nor a follower of Him, but afterwards, as I said, [he was a follower] of Peter, who arranged the discourses for use, but not according to the order in which they were uttered by the Lord." To the same effect IRENÆUS [Against Heresies, 3,1]: "Matthew published a Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church at Rome; and after their departure (or decease), Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, he also gave forth to us in writing the things which were preached by Peter." And CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA is still more specific, in a passage preserved to us by EUSEBIUS [Ecclesiastical History, 6.14]: "Peter having publicly preached the word at Rome, and spoken forth the Gospel by the Spirit, many of those present exhorted Mark, as having long been a follower of his, and remembering what he had said, to write what had been spoken; and that having prepared the Gospel, he delivered it to those who had asked him for it; which, when Peter came to the knowledge of, he neither decidedly forbade nor encouraged him." EUSEBIUS' own testimony, however, from other accounts, is rather different: that Peter's hearers were so penetrated by his preaching that they gave Mark, as being a follower of Peter, no rest till he consented to write his Gospel, as a memorial of his oral teaching; and "that the apostle, when he knew by the revelation of the Spirit what had been done, was delighted with the zeal of those men, and sanctioned the reading of the writing (that is, of this Gospel of Mark) in the churches" [Ecclesiastical History, 2.15]. And giving in another of his works a similar statement, he says that "Peter, from excess of humility, did not think himself qualified to write the Gospel; but Mark, his acquaintance and pupil, is said to have recorded his relations of the actings of Jesus. And Peter testifies these things of himself; for all things that are recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter's discourses." It is needless to go farther--to ORIGEN, who says Mark composed his Gospel "as Peter guided" or "directed him, who, in his Catholic Epistle, calls him his son," &c.; and to JEROME, who but echoes EUSEBIUS.

This, certainly, is a remarkable chain of testimony; which, confirmed as it is by such striking internal evidence, may be regarded as establishing the fact that the Second Gospel was drawn up mostly from materials furnished by Peter. In DA COSTA'S'S Four Witnesses the reader will find this internal evidence detailed at length, though all the examples are not equally convincing. But if the reader will refer to our remarks on Mar 16:7, and Joh 18:27, he will have convincing evidence of a Petrine hand in this Gospel.

It remains only to advert, in a word or two, to the readers for whom this Gospel was, in the first instance, designed, and the date of it. That it was not for Jews but Gentiles, is evident from the great number of explanations of Jewish usages, opinions, and places, which to a Jew would at that time have been superfluous, but were highly needful to a Gentile. We can here but refer to Mar 2:18; Mar 7:3-4; Mar 12:18; Mar 13:3; Mar 14:12; Mar 15:42, for examples of these. Regarding the date of this Gospel--about which nothing certain is known--if the tradition reported by IRENÆUS can be relied on that it was written at Rome, "after the departure of Peter and Paul," and if by that word "departure" we are to understand their death, we may date it somewhere between the years 64 and 68; but in all likelihood this is too late. It is probably nearer the truth to date it eight or ten years earlier.

JFB: Mark (Outline)

• THE PREACHING AND BAPTISM OF JOHN. ( = Mat 3:1-12; Luke 3:1-18). (Mar 1:1-8)
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC IN THE SYNAGOGUE OF CAPERNAUM AND THEREAFTER OF SIMON'S MOTHER-IN-LAW AND MANY OTHERS--JESUS, NEXT DAY, IS FOUND IN A SOLITARY PLACE AT MORNING PRAYERS, AND IS ENTREATED TO RETURN, BUT DECLINES, AND GOES FORTH ON HIS FIRST MISSIONARY CIRCUIT. ( = Luk 4:31-44; Mat 8:14-17; Mat 4:23-25). (Mark 1:21-39)
• HEALING OF A PARALYTIC. ( = Mat 9:1-8; Luk 5:17-26). (Mar 2:1-12)
• PARABLE OF THE SOWER--REASON FOR TEACHING IN PARABLES--PARABLES OF THE SEED GROWING WE KNOW NOT HOW, AND OF THE MUSTARD SEED. ( = Mat. 13:1-23, 31, 32; Luk 8:4-18). (Mark 4:1-34)
• THE SOWER, THE SEED, AND THE SOIL. (Mar 4:3, Mar 4:14)
• JESUS CROSSING THE SEA OF GALILEE, MIRACULOUSLY STILLS A TEMPEST--HE CURES THE DEMONIAC OF GADARA. ( = Mat 8:23-34; Luke 8:22-39). (Mark 4:35-5:20)
• THE DAUGHTER OF JAIRUS RAISED TO LIFE--THE WOMAN WITH AN ISSUE OF BLOOD HEALED. ( = Mat 9:18-26; Luke 8:41-56). (Mark 5:21-43)
• HEROD THINKS JESUS A RESURRECTION OF THE MURDERED BAPTIST--ACCOUNT OF HIS DEATH. ( = Mat 14:1-12; Luk 9:7-9). (Mark 6:14-29)
• THE TWELVE ON THEIR RETURN, HAVING REPORTED THE SUCCESS OF THEIR MISSION, JESUS CROSSES THE SEA OF GALILEE WITH THEM, TEACHES THE PEOPLE, AND MIRACULOUSLY FEEDS THEM TO THE NUMBER OF FIVE THOUSAND--HE SENDS HIS DISCIPLES BY SHIP AGAIN TO THE WESTERN SIDE, WHILE HE HIMSELF RETURNS AFTERWARDS WALKING ON THE SEA--INCIDENTS ON LANDING. ( = Mat. 14:13-36; Luk 9:10-17; John 6:1-24). (Mark 6:30-56)
• THE SYROPHœNICIAN WOMAN AND HER DAUGHTER--A DEAF AND DUMB MAN HEALED. ( = Mat 15:21-31). (Mar 7:24-37)
• FOUR THOUSAND MIRACULOUSLY FED--A SIGN FROM HEAVEN SOUGHT AND REFUSED--THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES AND SADDUCEES--A BLIND MAN AT BETHSAIDA RESTORED TO SIGHT. ( = Mat. 15:32-16:12). (Mark 8:1-26) In those days the multitude being very great, &c.
• HEALING OF A DEMONIAC BOY--SECOND EXPLICIT ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING DEATH AND RESURRECTION. ( = Mat 17:14-23; Luk 9:37-45). (Mark 9:14-32)
• STRIFE AMONG THE TWELVE WHO SHOULD BE GREATEST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, WITH RELATIVE TEACHING--INCIDENTAL REBUKE OF JOHN FOR EXCLUSIVENESS. ( = Mat 18:1-9; Luk 9:46-50). (Mark 9:33-50)
• THIRD EXPLICIT AND STILL FULLER ANNOUNCEMENT OF HIS APPROACHING SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION--THE AMBITIOUS REQUEST OF JAMES AND JOHN, AND THE REPLY. ( = Mat 20:17-28; Luk 18:31-34). (Mar 10:32-45)
• THE BARREN FIG TREE CURSED WITH LESSONS FROM IT--SECOND CLEANSING OF THE TEMPLE, ON THE SECOND AND THIRD DAYS OF THE WEEK. ( = Mat 21:12-22; Luk 19:45-48). (Mark 11:11-26)
• ENTANGLING QUESTIONS ABOUT TRIBUTE THE RESURRECTION, AND THE GREAT COMMANDMENT, WITH THE REPLIES--CHRIST BAFFLES THE PHARISEES BY A QUESTION ABOUT DAVID, AND DENOUNCES THE SCRIBES. ( = Mat. 22:15-46; Luke 20:20-47). (Mark 12:13-40)
• CHRIST'S PROPHECY OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, AND WARNINGS SUGGESTED BY IT TO PREPARE FOR HIS SECOND COMING. ( = Mat. 24:1-51; Luke 21:5-36). (Mark 13:1-37)
• THE CONSPIRACY OF THE JEWISH AUTHORITIES TO PUT JESUS TO DEATH--THE SUPPER AND THE--ANOINTING AT BETHANY--JUDAS AGREES WITH THE CHIEF PRIESTS TO BETRAY HIS LORD. ( = Mat. 26:1-16; Luk 22:1-6; Joh 12:1-11). (Mar 14:1-11)
• JESUS ARRAIGNED BEFORE THE SANHEDRIM CONDEMNED TO DIE, AND SHAMEFULLY ENTREATED--THE FALL OF PETER. ( = Mat. 26:57-75; Luke 22:54-71; Joh 18:13-18, Joh 18:24-27). (Mark 14:53-72)
• ANGELIC ANNOUNCEMENT TO THE WOMEN ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, THAT CHRIST IS RISEN--HIS APPEARANCES AFTER HIS RESURRECTION--HIS ASCENSION--TRIUMPHANT PROCLAMATION OF HIS GOSPEL. ( = Mat 28:1-10, Mat 28:16-20; Luke 24:1-51; Joh 20:1-2, John 20:11-29). (Mark 16:1-20)

TSK: Mark 2 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

Mar 2:1, Christ followed by multitudes, Mar 2:3, heals one sick of the palsy; Mar 2:13, calls Matthew from the receipt of custom; Mar 2:15, eats with Publicans and sinners; Mar 2:18, excuses his disciples for not fasting; Mar 2:23, and for plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day.

MHCC: Mark (Book Introduction)

Mark was a sister's son to Barnabas, Col 4:10; and Act 12:12 shows that he was the son of Mary, a pious woman of Jerusalem, at whose house the apostles and first Christians assembled. From Peter's styling him his son, 1Pe 5:13, the evangelist is supposed to have been converted by that apostle. Thus Mark was closely united with the followers of our Lord, if not himself one of the number. Mark wrote at Rome; some suppose that Peter dictated to him, though the general testimony is, that the apostle having preached at Rome, Mark, who was the apostle's companion, and had a clear understanding of what Peter delivered, was desired to commit the particulars to writing. And we may remark, that the great humility of Peter is very plain where any thing is said about himself. Scarcely an action or a work of Christ is mentioned, at which this apostle was not present, and the minuteness shows that the facts were related by an eye-witness. This Gospel records more of the miracles than of the discourses of our Lord, and though in many things it relates the same things as the Gospel according to St. Matthew, we may reap advantages from reviewing the same events, placed by each of the evangelists in that point of view which most affected his own mind.

MHCC: Mark 2 (Chapter Introduction)

(Mar 2:1-12) Christ heals one sick of the palsy.

(Mar 2:13-17) Levi's call, and the entertainment given to Jesus.

(Mar 2:18-22) Why Christ's disciples did not fast.

(Mar 2:23-28) He justifies his disciples for plucking corn on the sabbath.

Matthew Henry: Mark (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to St. Mark

We have heard the evidence given in by the first witness to the doctrine and miracles of our Lord Jesus; and now here is another witness produced, who calls for our attention. The second living creature saith, Come, and see, Rev 6:3. Now let us enquire a little,

I. Concerning this witness. His name is Mark. Marcus was a Roman name, and a very common one, and yet we have no reason to think, but that he was by birth a Jew; but as Saul, when he went among the nations, took the Roman name of Paul, so he of Mark, his Jewish name perhaps being Mardocai; so Grotius. We read of John whose surname was Mark, sister's son to Barnabas, whom Paul was displeased with (Act 15:37, Act 15:38), but afterward had a great kindness for, and not only ordered the churches to receive him (Col 4:10), but sent for him to be his assistant, with this encomium, He is profitable to me for the ministry (2Ti 4:11); and he reckons him among his fellow-labourers, Phm 1:24. We read of Marcus whom Peter calls his son, he having been an instrument of his conversion (1Pe 5:13); whether that was the same with the other, and, if not, which of them was the penman of this gospel, is altogether uncertain. It is a tradition very current among the ancients, that St. Mark wrote this gospel under the direction of St. Peter, and that it was confirmed by his authority; so Hieron. Catal. Script. Eccles. Marcus discipulus et interpres Petri, juxta quod Petrum referentem audierat, legatus Roma à fratribus, breve scripsit evangelium - Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, being sent from Rome by the brethren, wrote a concise gospel; and Tertullian saith (Adv. Marcion. lib. 4, cap. 5), Marcus quod edidit, Petri affirmetur, cujus interpres Marcus - Mark, the interpreter of Peter, delivered in writing the things which had been preached by Peter. But as Dr. Whitby very well suggests, Why should we have recourse to the authority of Peter for the support of this gospel, or say with St. Jerome that Peter approved of it and recommended it by his authority to the church to be read, when, though it is true Mark was no apostle, yet we have all the reason in the world to think that both he and Luke were of the number of the seventy disciples, who companied with the apostles all along (Act 1:21), who had a commission like that of the apostles (Luk 10:19, compared with Mar 16:18), and who, it is highly probable, received the Holy Ghost when they did (Act 1:15; Act 2:1-4), so that it is no diminution at all to the validity or value of this gospel, that Mark was not one of the twelve, as Matthew and John were? St. Jerome saith that, after the writing of this gospel, he went into Egypt, and was the first that preached the gospel at Alexandria, where he founded a church, to which he was a great example of holy living. Constituit ecclesiam tantâ doctrinâ et vitae continentiâ ut omnes sectatores Christi ad exemplum sui cogeret - He so adorned, by his doctrine and his life, the church which he founded, that his example influenced all the followers of Christ.

II. Concerning this testimony. Mark's gospel, 1. Is but short, much shorter than Matthew's, not giving so full an account of Christ's sermons as that did, but insisting chiefly on his miracles. 2. It is very much a repetition of what we had in Matthew; many remarkable circumstances being added to the stories there related, but not many new matters. When many witnesses are called to prove the same fact, upon which a judgment is to be given, it is not thought tedious, but highly necessary, that they should each of them relate it in their own words, again and again, that by the agreement of the testimony the thing may be established; and therefore we must not think this book of scripture needless, for it is written not only to confirm our belief that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, but to put us in mind of things which we have read in the foregoing gospel, that we may give the more earnest heed to them, lest at any time we let them slip; and even pure minds have need to be thus stirred up by way of remembrance. It was fit that such great things as these should be spoken and written, once, yea twice, because man is so unapt to perceive them, and so apt to forget them. There is no ground for the tradition, that this gospel was written first in Latin, though it was written at Rome; it was written in Greek, as was St. Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Greek being the more universal language.

Matthew Henry: Mark 2 (Chapter Introduction)

In this chapter, we have, I. Christ's healing a man that was sick of a palsy (Mar 2:1-12). II. His calling of Matthew from the receipt of custom, and his eating, upon that occasion, with publicans and sinners, and justifying himself in so doing (Mar 2:13-17). III. His justifying his disciples in not fasting so much as those plucking the ears of corn on the sabbath day (Mar 2:23-28). All which passages we had before, Mt. 9 and 12.

Barclay: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO SAINT MARK

The Synoptic Gospels

The first three gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are always known as the synoptic gospels. The word synoptic comes from two Greek words which mean to see together; and these three are called the synoptic gospels because they can be set down in parallel columns and their common matter looked at together. It would be possible to argue that of them all Mark is the most important. It would indeed be possible to go further and to argue that it is the most important book in the world, because it is agreed by nearly everyone that it is the earliest of all the gospels and therefore the first life of Jesus that has come down to us. Mark may not have been the first man to write the life of Jesus. Doubtless there were earlier simple attempts to set down the story of Jesusife; but Markgospel is certainly the earliest life of Jesus that has survived.

The Pedigree Of The Gospels

When we consider how the gospels came to be written, we must try to think ourselves back to a time when there was no such thing as a printed book in all the world. The gospels were written long before printing had been invented, compiled when every book had to be carefully and laboriously written out by hand. It is clear that so long as that was the case only a few copies of any book could exist.

How do we know, or how can we deduce, that Mark was the first of all the gospels? When we read the synoptic gospels even in English we see that there are remarkable similarities between them. They contain the same incidents often told in the same words; and they contain accounts of the teaching of Jesus which are often almost identical. If we compare the story of the Feeding of the Five Thousand in the three gospels (Mar_6:30-44 ; Mat_14:12-21 ; Luk_9:10-17 ) we see that it is told in almost exactly the same words and in exactly the same way. A very clear instance of this is the story of the healing of the man who was sick of the palsy (Mar_2:1-12 ; Mat_9:1-8 ; Luk_5:17-26 ). The accounts are so similar that even a little parenthesis--"he said to the paralytic"--occurs in all three in exactly the same place. The correspondences are so close that we are forced to one of two conclusions. Either all three are taking their material from some common source, or two of the three are based on the third.

When we study the matter closely we find that Mark can be divided into 105 sections. Of these 93 occur in Matthew and 81 in Luke. Only four are not included either in Matthew or in Luke. Even more compelling is this. Mark has 661 verses; Matthew has 1,068 verses; Luke has 1,149 verses. Of Mark661 verses, Matthew reproduces no fewer than 606. Sometimes he alters the wording slightly but he even reproduces 51 per cent. of Markactual words. Of Mark661 verses Luke reproduces 320, and he actually uses 53 per cent. of Markactual words. Of the 55 verses of Mark which Matthew does not reproduce 31 are found in Luke. So the result is that there are only 24 verses in Mark which do not occur somewhere in Matthew and Luke. This makes it look very like as if Matthew and Luke were using Mark as the basis of their gospels.

What makes the matter still more certain is this. Both Matthew and Luke very largely follow Markorder of events. Sometimes Matthew alters Markorder and sometimes Luke does. But when there is a change in the order Matthew and Luke never agree together against Mark. Always one of them retains Markorder of events.

A close examination of the three gospels makes it clear that Matthew and Luke had Mark before them as they wrote; and they used his gospel as the basis into which they fitted the extra material which they wished to include.

It is thrilling to remember that when we read Markgospel we are reading the first life of Jesus, on which all succeeding lives have necessarily been based.

Mark, The Writer Of The Gospel

Who then was this Mark who wrote the gospel? The New Testament tells us a good deal about him. He was the son of a well-to-do lady of Jerusalem whose name was Mary, and whose house was a rallying-point and meeting place of the early church (Act_12:12 ). From the very beginning Mark was brought up in the very centre of the Christian fellowship.

Mark was also the nephew of Barnabas, and when Paul and Barnabas set out on their first missionary journey they took Mark with them to be their secretary and attendant (Act_12:25 ). This journey was a most unfortunate one for Mark. When they reached Perga, Paul proposed to strike inland up to the central plateau; and for some reason Mark left the expedition and went home (Act_13:13 ).

He may have gone home because he was scared to face the dangers of what was notoriously one of the most difficult and dangerous roads in the world, a road hard to travel and haunted by bandits. He may have gone home because it was increasingly clear that the leadership of the expedition was being assumed by Paul and Mark may have felt with disapproval that his uncle was being pushed into the background. He may have gone home because he did not approve of the work which Paul was doing. Chrysostom--perhaps with a flash of imaginative insight--says that Mark went home because he wanted his mother!

Paul and Barnabas completed their first missionary journey and then proposed to set out upon their second. Barnabas was anxious to take Mark with them again. But Paul refused to have anything to do with the man "who had withdrawn from them in Pamphylia." (Act_15:37-40 .) So serious was the difference between them that Paul and Barnabas split company, and, so far as we know, never worked together again.

For some years Mark vanishes from history. Tradition has it that he went down to Egypt and founded the Church of Alexandria there. Whether or not that is true we do not know, but we do know that when Mark re-emerges it is in the most surprising way. We learn to our surprise that when Paul writes the letter to the Colossians from prison in Rome Mark is there with him (Col_4:10 ). In another prison letter, to Philemon, Paul numbers Mark among his fellow-labourers (Phm_1:24 ). And, when Paul is waiting for death and very near the end, he writes to Timothy, his right-hand man, and says, "Take Mark and bring him with you; for he is a most useful servant to me." (2Ti_4:11 .) It is a far cry from the time when Paul contemptuously dismissed Mark as a quitter. Whatever had happened Mark had redeemed himself. He was the one man Paul wanted at the end.

MarkSources Of Information

The value of any manstory will depend on the sources of his information. Where, then, did Mark get his information about the life and work of Jesus? We have seen that his home was from the beginning a Christian centre of Jerusalem. Many a time he must have heard people tell of their personal memories of Jesus. But it is most likely that he had a source of information without a superior.

Towards the end of the second century there was a man called Papias who liked to obtain and transmit such information as he could glean about the early days of the Church. He tells us that Markgospel is nothing other than a record of the preaching material of Peter, the greatest of the apostles. Certainly Mark stood so close to Peter, and so near to his heart, that Peter could call him "Mark, my son." (1Pe_5:13 .) Here is what Papias says:

"Mark, who was Peterinterpreter, wrote down accurately, though

not in order, all that he recollected of what Christ had said or

done. For he was not a hearer of the Lord or a follower of his. He

followed Peter, as I have said, at a later date, and Peter adapted

his instruction to practical needs. without any attempt to give

the Lordwords systematically. So that Mark was not wrong in

writing down some things in this way from memory, for his one

concern was neither to omit nor to falsify anything that he had

heard."

We may then take it that in his gospel we have what Mark remembered of the preaching material of Peter himself.

So, then, we have two great reasons why Mark is a book of supreme importance. First, it is the earliest of all the gospels; if it was written just shortly after Peter died its date will be about A.D. 65. Second, it embodies the record of what Peter preached and taught about Jesus; we may put it this way--Mark is the nearest approach we will ever possess to an eyewitness account of the life of Jesus.

The Lost Ending

There is a very interesting thing about Markgospel. In its original form it stops at Mar_16:8 . We know that for two reasons. First, the verses which follow (Mar_16:9-20 ) are not in any of the great early manuscripts; only later and inferior manuscripts contain them. Second, the style of the Greek is so different that they cannot have been written by the same person as wrote the rest of the gospel.

But the gospel cannot have been meant to stop at Mar_16:8 . What then happened? It may be that Mark died, perhaps even suffered martyrdom, before he could complete his gospel. More likely, it may be that at one time only one copy of the gospel remained, and that a copy in which the last part of the roll on which it was written had got torn off. There was a time when the church did not much use Mark, preferring Matthew and Luke. It may well be that Markgospel was so neglected that all copies except for a mutilated one were lost. If that is so we were within an ace of losing the gospel which in many ways is the most important of all.

The Characteristics Of MarkGospel

Let us look at the characteristics of Markgospel so that we may watch for them as we read and study it.

(i) It is the nearest thing we will ever get to a report of Jesusife. Markaim was to give a picture of Jesus as he was. Westcott called it "a transcript from life." A. B. Bruce said that it was written "from the viewpoint of loving, vivid recollection," and that its great characteristic was realism.

If ever we are to get anything approaching a biography of Jesus, it must be based on Mark, for it is his delight to tell the facts of Jesusife in the simplest and most dramatic way.

(ii) Mark never forgot the divine side of Jesus. He begins his gospel with the declaration of faith, "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." He leaves us in no doubt what he believed Jesus to be. Again and again he speaks of the impact Jesus made on the mind and heart of those who heard him. The awe and astonishment which he evoked are always before Markmind. "They were astonished at his teaching." (Mar_1:22 .) "They were all amazed." (Mar_1:27 .) Such phrases occur again and again. Not only was this astonishment in the minds of the crowds who listened to Jesus; it was still more in the minds of the inner circle of the disciples. "And they were filled with awe, and said to one another, o then is this, that even wind and sea obey him? (Mar_4:41 .) "And they were utterly astounded." (Mar_6:51 .) "The disciples were amazed at his words." (Mar_10:24 , Mar_10:26 .)

To Mark, Jesus was not simply a man among men; he was God among men, ever moving them to a wondering amazement with his words and deeds.

(iii) At the same time, no gospel gives such a human picture of Jesus. Sometimes its picture is so human that the later writers alter it a little because they are almost afraid to say what Mark said. To Mark Jesus is simply "the carpenter." (Mar_6:3 .) Later Matthew alters that to "the carpenterson" (Mat_13:55 ), as if to call Jesus a village tradesman is too daring. When Mark is telling of the temptations of Jesus, he writes, "The Spirit drove him into the wilderness." (Mar_1:12 .) Matthew and Luke do not like this word drove used of Jesus, so they soften it down and say, "Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness." (Mat_4:1 ; Luk_4:1 .) No one tens us so much about the emotions of Jesus as Mark does. Jesus sighed deeply in his spirit (Mar_7:34 ; Mar_8:12 ). He was moved with compassion (Mar_6:34 ). He marvelled at their unbelief (Mar_6:6 ). He was moved with righteous anger (Mar_3:5 ; Mar_8:33 ; Mar_10:14 ). Only Mark tells us that when Jesus looked at the rich young ruler he loved him (Mar_10:21 ). Jesus could feel the pangs of hunger (Mar_11:12 ). He could be tired and want to rest (Mar_6:31 ).

It is in Markgospel, above all, that we get a picture of a Jesus of like passions with us. The sheer humanity of Jesus in Markpicture brings him very near to us.

(iv) One of the great characteristics of Mark is that over and over again he inserts the little vivid details into the narrative which are the hall-mark of an eyewitness. Both Matthew and Mark tell of Jesus taking the little child and setting him in the midst. Matthew (Mat_18:2 ) says, "And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them." Mark adds something which lights up the whole picture (Mar_9:36 ). "And he took a child and put him in the midst of them; and taking him in his arms, he said to them..." In the lovely picture of Jesus and the children, when Jesus rebuked the disciples for keeping the children from him, only Mark finishes, "and he took them in his arms and blessed them, laying his hands upon them." (Mar_10:13-16 ; compare Mat_19:13-15 ; Luk_18:15-17 .) All the tenderness of Jesus is in these little vivid additions. When Mark is telling of the Feeding of the Five Thousand he alone tells how they sat down in hundreds and in fifties, looking like vegetable beds in a garden (Mar_6:40 ) and immediately the whole scene rises before us. When Jesus and his disciples were on the last journey to Jerusalem, only Mark tells us, "and Jesus went before them." (Mar_10:32 ; compare Mat_20:17 ; Luk_18:31 ); and in that one vivid little phrase all the loneliness of Jesus stands out. When Mark is telling the story of the stilling of the storm he has one little sentence that none of the other gospel-writers have. "And he was in the hinder part of the ship asleep on a pillow" (Mar_4:38 ). And that one touch makes the picture vivid before our eyes.

There can be little doubt that all these details are due to the fact that Peter was an eyewitness and was seeing these things again with the eye of memory.

(v) Markrealism and his simplicity come out in his Greek style.

(a) His style is not carefully wrought and polished. He tells the story as a child might tell it. He adds statement to statement connecting them simply with the word "and." In the third chapter of the gospel, in the Greek, there are 34 clauses or sentences one after another introduced by "and" after one principal verb. It is the way in which an eager child would tell the story.

(b) He is very fond of the words "and straightway," "and immediately." They occur in the gospel almost 30 times. It is sometimes said of a story that "it marches." But Markstory does not so much march; he rushes on in a kind of breathless attempt to make the story as vivid to others as it is to himself.

(c) He is very fond of the historic present. That is to say, in the Greek he talks of events in the present tense instead of in the past. "And when Jesus heard it, he says to them, ose who are strong do not need a doctor, but those who are ill (Mar_2:17 .) "And when they come near to Jerusalem, to Bethphage and to Bethany, to the Mount of Olives, he sends two of his disciples, and says to them, into the village opposite you... (Mar_11:1-2 .) "And immediately, while he was still speaking, Judas, one of The Twelve, comes." (Mar_14:43 .)

Generally speaking we do not keep these historic presents in translation, because in English they do not sound well; but they show how vivid and real the thing was to Markmind, as if it was happening before his very eyes.

(d) He quite often gives us the very Aramaic words which Jesus used. To Jairus aughter, Jesus said, "Talitha (G5008) cumi (G2891)." (Mar_5:41 .) To the deaf man with the impediment in his speech he said, "Ephphatha (G2188)." (Mar_7:34 .) The dedicated gift is "Corban (G2878)." (Mar_7:11 .) In the Garden he says, "Abba (G5), Father." (Mar_14:36 .) On the Cross he cries, "Eloi (G1682) Eloi (G1682) lama (G2982) sabachthani (G4518)?" (Mar_15:34 .)

There were times when Peter could hear again the very sound of Jesusoice and could not help giving the thing to Mark in the very words that Jesus spoke.

The Essential Gospel

It would not be unfair to call Mark the essential gospel. We will do well to study with loving care the earliest gospel we possess, the gospel where we hear again the preaching of Peter himself.

FURTHER READING

P. Carrington, According to Mark (E)

R. A. Cole, The Gospel According to St Mark (TC; E)

C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to St. Mark (CGT; G)

F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel (E)

A. M. Hunter, St Mark (Tch; E)

Sherman E. Johnson, The Gospel According to St Mark (ACB; E)

R. H. Lightfoot, The Gospel Message of St Mark (E)

A. Menzies, The Earliest Gospel (G)

D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of St Mark (PC; E)

A. E. J. Rawlinson, The Gospel According to St Mark (WC; E)

H. B. Swete, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

V. Taylor, The Gospel According to St Mark (MmC; G)

C. H. Turner, St Mark (E)

Abbreviations

ACB: A. and C. Black New Testament Commentary

CGT: Cambridge Greek Text

MmC: Macmillan Commentary

PC: Pelican New Testament Commentary

TC: Tyndale Commentary

Tch: Torch Commentary

WC: Westminster Commentary

E: English Text

G: Greek Text

Barclay: Mark 2 (Chapter Introduction)

A Faith That Would Not Be Denied (Mar_2:1-6)

The Unanswerable Argument (Mar_2:7-12)

The Call Of The Man Whom All Men Hated (Mar_2:13; Mar_2:14)

Where The Need Is Greatest (Mar_2:15-17)

The Joyous Company (Mar_2:18-20)

The Necessity Of Staying Young In Mind (Mar_2:21-22)

Piety, Real And False (Mar_2:23-28)

Constable: Mark (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Writer

The writer did not identify himself as the writer anywhere in this Gospel. There are many statements of the early church fathers, however, that identify John Mark as the writer.

The earliest reference of this type is in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History (c. 326 A.D.).¹ Eusebius quoted Papius' Exegesis of the Lord's Oracles (c. 140 A.D.), a work now lost. Papius quoted "the Elder," probably the Apostle John, who said the following things about this Gospel. Mark wrote it though he was not a disciple of Jesus during Jesus' ministry nor an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry. He accompanied the Apostle Peter and listened to his preaching. He based his Gospel on the eyewitness account and spoken ministry of Peter. Mark did not write his Gospel in strict chronological sequence, but he recorded accurately what Peter remembered of Jesus' words and deeds. He considered himself an interpreter of Peter's content. By this John probably meant that Mark recorded the teaching of Peter for the church though not necessarily verbatim as Peter expressed himself.² Finally the Apostle John said that Mark's account is wholly reliable.

Another important source of the tradition that Mark wrote this Gospel is the Anti-Marcionite Prologue to Mark (160-180 A.D.). It also stated that Mark received his information from Peter. Moreover it recorded that Mark wrote after Peter died and that he wrote this Gospel in Italy.

Irenaeus (c. 180-185 A.D.), another early church father, added that Mark wrote after Peter and Paul had died.³

Other early tradition documenting these facts comes from Justin Martyr (c. 150-160 A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (c. 195 A.D.), Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.), the Muratorian Canon (c. 200 A.D.), and Origen (c. 230 A.D.). Significantly this testimony dates from the end of the second century. Furthermore it comes from three different centers of early Christianity: Asia Minor (modern Turkey), Rome (in Italy), and Alexandria (in Egypt). Thus there is strong evidence that Mark wrote this Gospel.

The Mark in view is the John Mark mentioned frequently in the New Testament (Acts 12:12, 25; 13:5, 13; 15:36-39; Col. 4:10; Phile. 24; 2 Tim. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:13). He was evidently a relative of Barnabas who accompanied Barnabas and Paul on their first missionary journey but left these apostles when they reached Perga. He became useful to Paul during Paul's second Roman imprisonment. He was also with Peter when Peter was in Rome, and Peter described him as his "son," probably his protégé.

It seems unlikely that the early church would have accepted this Gospel as authoritative, since its writer was a secondary figure, without having convincing proof that Mark wrote it. Perhaps Luke showed special interest in John Mark in Acts because he was the writer of this Gospel more than because he caused a breach between Paul and Barnabas.⁴

Date

The earliest Mark could have written, if the testimonies of the Anti-Marcionite Prologue and Irenaeus are correct, was after the death of Peter and Paul. The most probable dates of Peter's martyrdom in Rome are 64-67 A.D. Paul probably died as a martyr there in 67-68 A.D. Clement of Alexandria and Origen both placed the composition of this Gospel during Peter's lifetime. This may mean that Mark wrote shortly before Peter died. Perhaps Mark began his Gospel during Peter's last years in Rome and completed it after Peter's death.

The latest Mark could have written was probably 70 A.D. when Titus destroyed Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that since no Gospel writer referred to this event, which fulfilled prophecy, they all wrote before it.

To summarize, Mark probably wrote this Gospel sometime between 63 and 70 A.D.

Origin and Destination

Early tradition says Mark wrote in Italy⁵ and in Rome.⁶

This external testimony finds support in the internal evidence of the Gospel itself. Many indications in the text point to Mark's having written for Gentile readers originally, particularly Romans. He explained Jewish customs that would have been strange to Gentile readers (e.g., 7:2-4; 15:42). He translated Aramaic words that would have been unfamiliar to Gentiles (3:17; 5:41; 7:11, 34; 15:22). Compared to Matthew and Luke he used many Latinisms and Latin loan words indicating Roman influence. He showed special interest in persecution and martyrdom that would have been of special interest to Roman readers when he wrote (e.g., 8:34-38; 13:9-13). Christians were suffering persecution in Rome and throughout the empire then. Finally the early circulation and widespread acceptance of this Gospel among Christians suggest that it originated from and went to a powerful and influential church.⁷

Characteristics

Notice first some linguistic characteristics. Mark used a relatively limited vocabulary when he wrote this Gospel. For example, he used only about 80 words that occur nowhere else in the Greek New Testament compared with Luke's Gospel that contains about 250 such words. Another unique feature is that Mark also liked to transliterate Latin words into Greek. However the Aramaic language also influenced Mark's Greek. He evidently translated into Greek many of Peter's stories that Peter spoke in Aramaic. The result was sometimes rather rough and ungrammatical Greek compared with Luke who had a much more polished style of writing. However, Mark used a forceful, fresh, and vigorous style of writing. This comes through in his frequent use of the historical present tense that expresses action as happening at once. It is also obvious in his frequent use of the Greek adverb euthys translated "immediately."⁸ The resulting effect is that as one reads Mark's Gospel one feels that he or she is reading a reporter's eyewitness account of the events.

"Though primarily engaged in an oral rather than a written ministry, D. L. Moody was in certain respects a modern equivalent to Mark as a communicator of the gospel. His command of English was seemingly less than perfect and there were moments when he may have wounded the grammatical sensibilities of some of the more literate members of his audiences, but this inability never significantly hindered him in communicating the gospel with great effectiveness. In a similar way, Mark's occasional literary lapses have been no handicap to his communication in this gospel in which he skillfully set forth the life and ministry of Jesus."⁹

Mark also recorded many intimate details that only an eyewitness would observe (e.g., 1:27, 41, 43; 2:12; 3:5; 7:34; 9:5-6, 10; 10:24, 32). He addressed his readers directly (e.g., 2:10; 7:19), through Jesus' words (e.g., 13:37), and with the use of rhetorical questions addressed to them (e.g., 4:41). This gives the reader the exciting feeling that he or she is interacting with the story personally. It also impresses the reader with the need for him or her to respond to what the story is presenting. Specifically Mark wanted his readers to believe that Jesus is the Messiah and the Son of God and to follow Him.

Mark stressed Jesus' acts and gave a prominent place to His miracles in this Gospel. He recorded fewer of Jesus' words and more of His works. Jesus comes through Mark's Gospel as a man of action. Mark emphasized Jesus' role as the Servant of the Lord.

"Mark's story of Jesus is one of swift action and high drama. Only twice, in chapters 4 and 13, does Jesus pause to deliver extended discourses."¹⁰

Candor also marks this Gospel. Mark did not glorify the disciples but recorded them doing unflattering things such as criticizing Jesus. He also described the hostility of Jesus' family members toward Him. He stressed the human reactions and emotions of Jesus.

This Gospel presents a high christology beginning with the introduction of Jesus as the Son of God (1:1). Mark revealed Jesus' preference for the title "Son of man," which He used to describe Himself frequently.

Purpose

These characteristics help us understand Mark's purpose for writing, which he did not state directly. Mark's purpose was not just to give his readers a biographical or historical account of Jesus' life. He had a more practical purpose. The biographical material he chose to include and omit suggests that he wanted to enable his Christian readers to endure suffering and persecution for their faith effectively. To do this he recorded much about Jesus' sufferings. About one third of this Gospel deals with the passion of Jesus. Moreover there are many other references to suffering throughout the book (e.g., 1:12-13; 3:21-22, 30-35; 8:34-38; 10:30, 33-34, 45; 13:8, 11-13). Clearly Mark implied that faithfulness and obedience as a disciple of Jesus will inevitably result in opposition, suffering, and perhaps death. This emphasis would have ministered to the original readers who were undergoing persecution for their faith. It is a perennial need in pastoral ministry.¹¹

Mark had a theological as well as a pastoral purpose in writing. It was to stress the true humanity of the Son of God. Whereas Matthew presented Jesus as the Messiah, Mark showed that He was the human servant of God who suffered as no other person has suffered. Mark stressed Jesus' obedience to His Father's will. This emphasis makes Jesus an example for all disciples to follow (10:45). One wonders if Mark presented Jesus as he did to balance a tendency that existed in the early church to think of Jesus as divine but not fully human.

Mark's position among the Gospels

It is common today for scholars to hold Markan priority. This is the view that Mark wrote his Gospel first and the other Gospel evangelists wrote after he did. This view has become popular since the nineteenth century. Before that most biblical scholars believed that Matthew wrote his Gospel first. Since then many scholars have concluded that Mark was one of the two primary sources that the other Synoptic Gospel writers used, the other being Q.¹² There is presently no definitive solution to this problem of which came first.

Scholars favoring Markan priority base their view on the fact that Mark contains about 90% of what is in Matthew and about 40% of what is in Luke. Matthew and Luke usually follow Mark's order of events, and they rarely agree against the content of Mark when they all deal with the same subject. Matthew and Luke also often repeat Mark's wording, and they sometime interpret and tone down some of Mark's statements. Normally Mark's accounts are fuller than Matthew and Luke's suggesting that they may have edited his work.

However sometimes Matthew and Luke agree against Mark in a particular account. Luke omitted a large section of Mark's material including all of what is in Mark 6:45-8:26. Moreover in view of the traditional dating of Mark late in the 60s, if Mark wrote first, Matthew and Luke must have written after the fall of Jerusalem. This seems unlikely since that event fulfilled prophecy, but neither writer cited the fulfillment as such.¹³

All things considered I favor Matthean priority. However this debate is not crucial to the interpretation of the text.

Message¹⁴

Matthew presents Jesus in the purple and gold of royalty. Mark portrays Him in the brown and green of a servant who has come to do His Father's will.

The message of the book is similar to Matthew's message. A concise statement of it appears in 1:14-15. This is the message that Jesus proclaimed throughout His earthly ministry.

Another verse that is key to understanding the message of this Gospel is 10:45. This verse provides the unique emphasis of the book, Jesus' role as a servant, and a general outline of its contents.

First, the Son of Man came. That is the secret of the Incarnation. The Son of Man was God incarnate in human nature. His identity is a major theme in this Gospel.

Second, the Son of Man did not come to be ministered to but to minister. That is the secret of service. This Gospel also has much to teach disciples about service to God and mankind.

Third, the Son of Man came to give His life a ransom for many. That is the secret of His sufferings. Mark's Gospel stresses the sufferings of the Suffering Servant of the Lord. Mark is the Gospel of the Servant of God.

Jesus was, of course, by nature the Son of God. He is and ever has been equal with the Father because He shares the same divine nature. However in the Incarnation, Jesus became the Servant of God.

The idea of a divine Servant of God was an Old Testament revelation. Isaiah had more to say about the Servant of the Lord than any other Old Testament prophet, though many other prophets spoke of Him too.

In the New Testament the Apostle Paul expounded the significance of Jesus becoming the Servant of God more than any other writer. His great Kenosis passage in Philippians 2 helps us grasp what it meant for the Son of God to become the Servant of God. In the Incarnation, Jesus limited Himself. He did not cease to be God, but He poured Himself into the nature and body of a man. This limited His divine powers. Moreover He submitted Himself to a mission that the Father prescribed for Him that constrained His divine freedom. Mark presents Jesus as a real man who was also God in the role of a servant.

Let us consider first the nature of Jesus' service. The first and the last verses of this Gospel help us understand the nature of Jesus' service. Notice 1:1.

The second person of the Trinity became a servant to create a gospel, to provide good news for human beings. This good news is that Jesus has provided salvation for mankind. To provide salvation the eternal Son became a servant. Whenever the Bible speaks of Jesus as a servant it is always talking about His providing salvation.

Mark began by citing Isaiah who predicted the Servant of God (1:3, from Isa. 40:3). The quotation from Malachi in verse 2 is only introductory. This is very significant because Mark, unlike Matthew, rarely quoted from the Old Testament. Isaiah pictured One who would come to accomplish God's purpose of providing a final salvation. His picture of the Servant became more distinct and detailed, like a portrait under construction, until in chapter 53 Isaiah depicted the Servant's awful sufferings. This chapter is the great background for the second Gospel, as Psalm 110 lies behind the first Gospel.

The picture of the Servant suffering on the Cross is the last in a series that Mark has given us. He also shows the Servant suffering in His struggle against the forces of Satan and His demons. Another picture is of the Servant suffering the opposition of Israel's religious leaders. Another one is of the Servant suffering the dullness and misunderstanding of even His own disciples. These are all major themes in Mark's Gospel that have in common the view of Jesus as the Suffering Servant.

Turning to the Apostle Paul's theological exposition of the Suffering Servant theme in Scripture we note that he picked up another of Mark's emphases. Mark did not just present Jesus as the Suffering Servant as an interesting theological revelation. He showed what that means for disciples of the Suffering Servant. We need to adopt the same attitude that Jesus had (Phil. 2:5). Disciples of the Suffering Servant should expect and prepare for the same experiences He encountered. We need to have the same graciousness, humility, and love that He did. The Son of God emptied Himself to become a servant of God and man. We must also sacrifice ourselves for the same purpose.

Isaiah revealed that the central meaning of the Servant's mission was to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Isa. 53). Paul also revealed that the Son became a servant to provide salvation through self-sacrifice (Phil. 2). The only sense in which the Son of God became the Servant of the Lord is that He created a gospel by providing salvation from the slavery of sin.

When Jesus began His public ministry He announced, "The time is fulfilled" (1:15). The person Isaiah and the other prophets had predicted had drawn near. God had drawn near by becoming a man. He had drawn near in the form of a humble servant. He was heading for the Cross. He would conquer what had ruined man and nature. He would provide good news for humankind, and He would return one day to establish His righteous empire over all the earth in grace and glory.

"Jesus" was His human name. "Messiah" was the title that described His role, though most people misunderstood it. "Son of God" was the title that represented His deity. These three are primary in Mark's Gospel.

Second, we need to observe what Mark teaches about the characteristics of Jesus' service.

Note Jesus' sympathy with sinners. Mark recorded no word of severity coming from Jesus' lips for sinners. Jesus reserved His severity for hypocrites, those who pretend to be righteous but are really rotten. He was hard on them because they ruined the lives of other people.

Sympathy comes from suffering. We have sympathy for someone who is undergoing some painful experience that we have gone through. It is hard to sympathize with someone whose experience is foreign to us.

Sympathy comes from suffering and it manifests itself in sacrifice. It involves bearing one another's burdens. Jesus' sympathy for us sinners arose from His sharing our sufferings, and it became obvious when He sacrificed Himself for us. If there was ever anyone who bore the burdens of others, it was Jesus (10:45).

Third, note the result of Jesus' service. It is the gospel. Reference to the gospel opens and closes this book (1:1; 16:20). The gospel is the good news that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3-4).

When Jesus arose from the dead, His disciples were fearful, and they refused to believe He was alive. Jesus' strongest words of criticism of them occur in 16:14. This is the climax of the theme of the disciples' unbelief that runs through this Gospel. Look what He said to them immediately after that (16:15). He sent them out to proclaim the good news of salvation accomplished to every creature. The resurrection of the Servant is the great proof of the acceptability of His service, and it demands service of His disciples.

The abiding appeal of this book is, "Repent and believe the gospel" (1:15). Repenting is preliminary. Believing is the essential call.

Jesus did not preach that people should believe into the gospel (Gr. eis) nor that they should believe close to the gospel (Gr. apo). He called them to rest in the gospel (Gr. en). The gospel is a sphere of rest. We can have confidence in the gospel, put our trust in it, and rest in it.

The unbelievers in Mark's Gospel refused to rest in the reality that Jesus was not just a human Messiah come to deliver Israel from Rome but the divine Son of God. The disciples had little rest because they still could not overcome the limited traditional misconceptions of Messiah's role in history even though they believed that Jesus was God's Son.

The application of this Gospel to the church as a whole is, "Believe the gospel." As the disciples believed but struggled to believe, so the church needs to have a continuing and growing confidence in the gospel of the Servant of God.

It is a message of pardon and of power. Peter had to learn that it was a message of pardon after his triple denial of Jesus. All the disciples had to learn it is a message of power after they refused to believe that God had raised Jesus back to life.

When the church loses its confidence in the gospel, its service becomes weak. If we doubt the power of the gospel, we have no message for people who are the servants of sin. The measure of our confidence in the gospel will be the measure of our effectiveness as God's servants.

How can we have greater confidence in the gospel? It is not by studying or trying or experiencing. It is by the illuminating work of God's Holy Spirit in our hearts. Jesus' disciples were blind until God opened their eyes first to Jesus' true identity and then to Jesus' central place in time and history. They huddled in unbelief following the resurrection until the Holy Spirit illuminated their understanding about the significance of the resurrection. Then they went everywhere proclaiming the gospel (16:20).

Mark calls individual disciples of Jesus to believe in this gospel, to rest in it for pardon from sin and for power for service. It tells the story of the perfect Servant of God whose perfected service is perfecting salvation. God's Son became a servant to get near people, to help them, to lift us. That is the good news people need to hear. That is what it means to preach the gospel.

Constable: Mark (Outline)

Outline

I. Introduction 1:1-13

A. The title of the book 1:1

B. Jesus' preparation for ministry 1:2-13

1. The ministry of John the Baptist 1:2-8

2. The baptism of Jesus 1:9-11

3. The temptation of Jesus 1:12-13

II. The Servant's early Galilean ministry 1:14-3:6

A. The beginning of Jesus' ministry 1:14-20

1. The message of the Servant 1:14-15

2. The first disciples of the Servant 1:16-20

B. Early demonstrations of the Servant's authority 1:21-34

1. Jesus' teaching and healing in the Capernaum synagogue 1:21-28

2. The healing of Peter's mother-in-law 1:29-31

3. Jesus' healing of many Galileans after sundown 1:32-34

C. Jesus' early ministry throughout Galilee 1:35-45

1. The first preaching tour of Galilee 1:35-39

2. The cleansing of a leprous Jew 1:40-45

D. Jesus' initial conflict with the religious leaders 2:1-3:6

1. The healing and forgiveness of a paralytic 2:1-12

2. The call of Levi and his feast 2:13-17

3. The religious leaders' question about fasting 2:18-22

4. The controversies about Sabbath observance 2:23-3:6

III. The Servant's later Galilean ministry 3:7-6:6a

A. The broadening of Jesus' ministry 3:7-19

1. Jesus' ministry to the multitudes 3:7-12

2. Jesus' selection of 12 disciples 3:13-19

B. The increasing rejection of Jesus and its result 3:20-4:34

1. The increasing rejection of Jesus 3:20-35

2. Jesus' teaching in parables 4:1-34

C. Jesus' demonstrations of power and the Nazarenes' rejection 4:35-6:6a

1. The demonstrations of Jesus' power 4:35-5:43

2. Jesus rejection by the Nazarenes 6:1-6a

IV. The Servant's self-revelation to the disciples 6:6b-8:30

A. The mission of the Twelve 6:6b-30

1. The sending of the Twelve 6:6b-13

2. The failure of Antipas to understand Jesus' identity 6:14-29

3. The return of the Twelve 6:30

B. The first cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 6:31-7:37

1. The feeding of the 5,000 6:31-44

2. Jesus' walking on the water and the return to Galilee 6:45-56

3. The controversy with the Pharisees and scribes over defilement 7:1-23

4. Jesus' teaching about bread and the exorcism of a Phoenician girl 7:24-30

5. The healing of a deaf man with a speech impediment 7:31-36

6. The preliminary confession of faith 7:37

C. The second cycle of self-revelation to the disciples 8:1-30

1. The feeding of the 4,000 8:1-9

2. The return to Galilee 8:10

3. Conflict with the Pharisees over signs 8:11-13

4. Jesus' teaching about the yeast of the Pharisees and Herod 8:14-21

5. The healing of a blind man near Bethsaida 8:22-26

6. Peter's confession of faith 8:27-30

V. The Servant's journey to Jerusalem 8:31-10:52

A. The first passion prediction and its lessons 8:31-9:29

1. The first major prophecy of Jesus' passion 8:31-33

2. The requirements of discipleship 8:34-9:1

3. The Transfiguration 9:2-8

4. The coming of Elijah 9:9-13

5. The exorcism of an epileptic boy 9:14-29

B. The second passion prediction and its lessons 9:30-10:31

1. The second major prophecy of Jesus' passion 9:30-32

2. The pitfalls of discipleship 9:33-50

3. Lessons concerning self-sacrifice 10:1-31

C. The third passion prediction and its lessons 10:32-52

1. The third major prophecy of Jesus' passion 10:32-34

2. Jesus' teaching about serving 10:35-45

3. The healing of a blind man near Jericho 10:46-52

VI. The Servant's ministry in Jerusalem chs. 11-13

A. Jesus' formal presentation to Israel 11:1-26

1. The Triumphal Entry 11:1-11

2. Jesus' judgment on unbelieving Israel 11:12-26

B. Jesus' teaching in the temple 11:27-12:44

1. The controversy over Jesus' authority 11:27-12:12

2. The controversy over Jesus' teaching 12:13-37

3. Jesus' condemnation of hypocrisy and commendation of reality 12:38-44

C. Jesus teaching on Mt. Olivet ch. 13

1. The setting 13:1-4

2. Warnings against deception 13:5-8

3. Warnings about personal danger during deceptions 13:9-13

4. The coming crisis 13:14-23

5. The second coming of the Son of 13:24-27

6. The time of Jesus' return 13:28-32

7. The concluding exhortation 13:33-37

VII. The Servant's passion ministry chs. 14-15

A. The Servant's anticipation of suffering 14:1-52

1. Jesus' sufferings because of betrayal 14:1-11

2. Jesus' sufferings because of desertion 14:12-52

B. The Servant's endurance of suffering 14:53-15:47

1. Jesus' Jewish trial 14:53-15:1

2. Jesus' Roman trial 15:2-20

3. Jesus' crucifixion, death, and burial 15:21-47

VIII. The Servant's resurrection ch. 16

A. The announcement of Jesus' resurrection 16:1-8

B. The appearances and ascension of Jesus 16:9-20

1. Three post-resurrection appearances 16:9-18

2. Jesus' ascension 16:19-20

Constable: Mark

Mark

Bibliography

Adams, J. McKee. Biblical Backgrounds. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1965.

Alexander, Joseph Addison. The Gospel According to Mark. 1881. Reprint ed. London: Banner of Truth, 1960.

Alexander, William M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament: Its Relations Historical, Medical, and Theological. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible series. Greenwood, S. C.: Attic Press, 1976.

Andrews, Samuel J. The Life of Our Lord Upon the Earth. 1862. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1954.

Bailey, Mark L., and Constable, Thomas L. The New Testament Explorer. Nashville: Word Publishing, 1999.

Beasley-Murray, G. R. A Commentary on Mark Thirteen. London: Macmillan, 1957.

Best, E. The Temptation and the Passion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Bishop, Eric F. F. Jesus of Palestine: The Local Background to the Gospel Documents. London: Lutterworth, 1955.

Blunt, A. W. F. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. The Clarendon Bible series. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Boobyer, G. H. "Mark II, 10a and the Interpretation of the Healing of the Paralytic." Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954):115-20.

Bratcher, R. G., and Nida, E. A. Translator's Handbook on Mark. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, William E. "The New Testament Concept of the Believer's Inheritance." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1984.

Bruce, Alexander Balmain. "The Synoptic Gospels." In The Expositor's Greek Testament. Edited by W. Robertson Nicoll. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1910.

Burgon, John W. The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to S. Mark. 1871. Reprint ed. N. c.: Sovereign Grace Book Club, 1959.

Calvin, John. Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

Carl, Harold F. "Only the Father Knows: Historical and Evangelical Responses to Jesus' Eschatological Ignorance in Mark 13:32." A paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society, Nov. 16, 2000, Nashville, TN.

Carrington, P. According to Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960.

Chantry, Walter J. "Does the New Testament Teach the Fourth Commandment?" The Banner of Truth 325 (October 1990):18-23.

Clarke, W. N. "Commentary on the Gospel of Mark." In An American Commentary. 1881. Reprint ed. Phildelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, n. d.

Cole, R. A The Gospel According to Mark. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries series. 2nd ed. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, and Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1989.

Cranfield, C. E. B. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959.

_____. "St. Mark 13." Scottish Journal of Theology 6 (April 1953):165-96; (July 1953):287-303; 7 (April 1954):284-303.

Davis, C. Truman. "The Crucifixion of Jesus. The Passion of Christ from a Medical Point of View," Arizona Medicine 22:3 (March 1965):185-87.

Decker, Rodney J. "The Use of euthys (immediately') in Mark." Journal of Ministry and Theology 1:1 (Spring 1997):90-121.

A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by James Hastings. 1906 ed. S.v. "Numbers, Hours, Years, and Dates," by W. M. Ramsay, extra volume:473-84.

Dillow, Joseph C. The Reign of the Servant Kings. Miami Springs, Fl.: Schoettle Publishing Co., 1992.

Donahue, J. R. "Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 33 (1971):39-61.

Doriani, Daniel. "The Deity of Christ in the Synoptic Gospels." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:3 (September 1994):333-50.

Earle, Ralph. The Gospel According to Mark. The Evangelical Commentary on the Bible series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1957.

The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus. Twin Brooks series. Popular ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1974.

Edersheim, Alfred. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. London: Religious Tract Society, n. d.

Edwards, James R. "The Authority of Jesus in the Gospel of Mark." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 37:2 (June 1994):217-33.

Ellenburg, B. Dale. "A Review of Selected Narrative-Critical Conventions in Mark's Use of Miracle Material." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 38:2 (June 1995):171-80.

English, E. Schuyler. "A Neglected Miracle." Bibliotheca Sacra 126:504 (October-December 1969):300-5.

Garlington, Don B. "Jesus, the Unique Son of God: Tested and Faithful." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):284-308.

Gould, Ezra P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Internationa Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896.

Grassi, Joseph A. "Abba, Father (Mark 14:36): Another Approach." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50:3 (September 1982):449-58.

Grassmick, John D. "Mark." In Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament, pp. 95-197. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1983.

Green, Michael P. "The Meaning of Cross-Bearing." Bibliotheca Sacra 140:558 (April-June 1983):117-33.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1993.

Heil, John Paul. "Mark 14, 1-52: Narrative Structure and Reader Response." Biblica 71:3 (1990):305-32.

Hellerman, Joseph H. "Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11:27-33 and Mediterranean Notions of Honor and Shame." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43:2 (June 2000):213-28.

Hiebert, D. Edmond Mark: A Portrait of the Servant. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Blind Men at Jericho." Biblitheca Sacra 122:488 (October-December 1965):319-30.

_____. "The Women and the Empty Tomb." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:492 (October-December 1966):301-9.

Hoehner, Harold W. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Contemporary Evangelical Perspectives series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1977.

Hort, A. F. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1902. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

Hunter, A. M. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Torch Bible Commentary series. London: SCM, 1967.

Jamieson, Robert; Fausset, A. R.; and Brown, David. A Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments. 2 vols. Hartford: S. S. Scranton, n. d.

Jeremias, Joachim The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. 2nd ed. New York: Scribners, 1966.

_____. New Testament Theology. New York: Scribners, 1971.

_____. The Parables of Jesus. Translated by S. H. Hooke. London: SCM, 1963.

Johnson, S. Lewis, Jr. "The Gift of Tongues and the Book of Acts." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:480 (October-December 1963):309-11.

Johnson, Sherman E. A Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries series. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1960.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews and The Wars of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kelly, William. An Exposition of the Gospel of Mark. Reprint ed. London: C. A. Hammond, 1934.

Kingsbury, J. D. Conflict in Mark: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989.

Lane, William L. The Gospel According to Mark. New International Commentary on the New Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1974.

Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel. Minneapolis: Wartburg Press, 1946.

Lowery, David K. "A Theology of Mark." In A Biblical Theology of the New Testament, pp. 65-86. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

MacArthur, John A., Jr. The Gospel According to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Academie Books, 1988.

Maclaren, Alexander. "St. Mark." In Expositions of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1944.

Maclear, G. F. "The Gospel According to St. Mark." In Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1890.

Martin, R. P. Mark: Evangelist and Theologian. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1972.

Matera, Frank J. "The Prologue as the Interpretitive Key to Mark's Gospel." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 34 (October 1988):3-20.

Merrill, Eugene H. "Deuteronomy, New Testament Faith, and the Christian Life." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 19-33. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible Societies, 1971.

Meyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm. "Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the Gospels of Mark and Luke." In Meyer's Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Translated, revised, and edited by William P. Dickson. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1884.

The Mishnah. Translated by Herbert Danby. London: Oxford University Press, 1933.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Morison, James. A Practical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Mark. 8th ed. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1896.

Moule, C. F. D. The Gospel According to Mark. The Cambridge Bible Commentary series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Moulton, James Hope, and Milligan, George. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1930.

Murray, John. Divorce. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1974.

Nineham, D. E. Saint Mark. Pelical Gospel Commentary series. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963.

Overstreet, R. Larry. "Roman Law and the Trial of Christ." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:540 (October-December 1978):323-32.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

Peterson, Robert A. "Does the Bible Teach Annihilationism?" Bibliotheca Sacra 156:621 (January-March 1999):13-27.

Plummer, Alfred. "The Gospel According to St. Mark" In The Cambridge Greek Testament. 1914. Reprint ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1938.

Rawlinson, A. E. J. The Gospel According to St. Mark. Westminster Commentaries series. London: Methuen, 1949.

Rhoads, David M., and Michie, Donald M. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

Riddle, Matthew B. "The Gospel According to Mark." In International Revision Commentary on the New Testament. New York: Scribner, 1881.

Rogers, Cleon L., Jr. "The Davidic Covenant in Acts-Revelation." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:601 (January-March):71-84.

Santos, Narry F. "Jesus' Paradoxical Teaching in Mark 8:35; 9:35; and 10:43-44." Bibliotheca Sacra 157:625 (January-March 2000):15-25.

_____. "The Paradox of Authority and Servanthood in the Gospel of Mark." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):452-60.

Schweizer, Eduard. The Good News According to Mark. London: SPCK, 1971.

Showers, Renald E. Maranatha Our Lord, Come: A Definitive Study of the Rapture of the Church. Bellmawr, Pa.: Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, 1995.

Smith, Geoffrey. "A Closer Look at the Widow's Offering: Mark 12:41-44." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40:1 (March 1997)27-36.

Smith, George Adam. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. New York: Armstrong and Son, 1909.

Stauffer, Ethelbert Jesus and His Story. Translated by Richard and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Sugirtharajah, R. S. "The Syrophoenician Woman." The Expository Times 98:1 (October 1986):13-15.

Swete, Henry Barclay. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 1898. Reprint ed. London: Macmillan, 1905.

Taylor, Vincent. The Gospel According to St. Mark. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martins Press, 1966.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by Gerhard Kittel. S.v. "basilia," by K. L. Schmidt.

_____. S.v. "pais," by Albrecht Oepke.

Unger, Merrill F. Biblical Demonology: A Study of the Spiritual Forces Behind the Present World Unrest. Wheaton: Van Kampen Press, 1952.

_____. Demons in the World Today. Wheaton: Tyndale, 1971.

_____. "Divine Healing." Bibliotheca Sacra 128:511 (July-September 1971):234-44.

Van der Loos, H. The Miracles of Jesus. Supplements to Novum Testamentum series. Vol. VIIII. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1965.

Warfield, Benjamin B. An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1899.

Wessel, Walter W. "Mark." In Matthew-Luke. Vol. 8 of Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and J. D. Douglas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Williams, George. The Student's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 5th ed. London: Oliphants, 1949.

Williams, Joel F. "Discipleship and Minor Characters in Mark's Gospel." Bibliotheca Sacra 153:611 (July-September 1996):332-43.

_____. "Literary Approaches to the End of Mark's Gospel." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 42:1 (March 1999):21-35.

Wrede, William. The Messianic Secret. 1901. Reprint ed. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971.

Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible. Edited by Merrill C. Tenney. S.v. "Sadducees," by D. A. Hagner.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

@pict rend=gs.pixel ent=p41mar-3@

Haydock: Mark (Book Introduction)

THE

HOLY GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST,

ACCORDING TO ST. MARK.

INTRODUCTION.

St. Mark, who wrote this Gospel, is called by St. Augustine, the abridger of St. Matthew; by St. Jerome, the disciple and interpreter of St. Peter; and according to Origen and St. Jerome, he is the same Mark whom St. Peter calls his son. Stilting, the Bollandist, (in the life of St. John Mark, T. vii. Sep. 27, p. 387, who was son of the sister of St. Barnabas) endeavours to prove that this was the same person as our evangelist; and this is the sentiment of St. Jerome, and some others: but the general opinion is that John, surnamed Mark, mentioned in Acts xii. was a different person. He was the disciple of St. Paul, and companion of St. Barnabas, and was with St. Paul, at Antioch, when our evangelist was with St. Peter at Rome, or at Alexandria, as Eusebius, St. Jerome, Baronius, and others observe. Tirinus is of opinion that the evangelist was not one of the seventy-two disciples, because as St. Peter calls him his son, he was converted by St. Peter after the death of Christ. St. Epiphanius, however, assures us he was one of the seventy-two, and forsook Christ after hearing his discourse on the Eucharist, (John vi.) but was converted by St. Peter after Christ's resurrection, hær. 51, chap. v. p. 528. --- The learned are generally of opinion, that the original was written in Greek, and not in Latin; for, though it was written at the request of the Romans, the Greek language was commonly understood amongst them; and the style itself sufficiently shews this to have been the case: ---

----------Omnia Græce;

Cum sit turpe magis nostris nescire Latine.--- Juvenal, Satyr vi.

The old manuscript in Latin, kept at Venice, and supposed by some to be the original, is shewn by Montfaucon and other antiquaries, to have been written in the sixth century, and contains the oldest copy extant of St. Jerome's version. --- St. Peter revised the work of St. Mark, approved of it, and authorized it to be read in the religious assemblies of the faithful; hence some, as we learn from Tertullian, attributed this gospel to St. Peter himself. St. Mark relates the same facts as St. Matthew, and often in the same words: but he adds several particular circumstances, and changes the order of the narration, in which he agrees with St. Luke and St. John. He narrates two histories not mentioned by St. Matthew; the widow's two mites, and Christ's appearing to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; also some miraculous cures; (Mark i. 40; vii. 32; viii. 22, 26) and omits many things noticed by St. Matthew ... But nothing proves clearly, as Dom. Ceillier and others suppose, that he made use of St. Matthew's gospel. In his narrative he is concise, and he writes with a more pleasing simplicity and elegance.

It is certain that St. Mark was sent by St. Peter into Egypt, and was by him appointed bishop of Alexandria, (which, after Rome, was accounted the second city of the world) as Eusebius, St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and others assure us. He remained here, governing that flourishing church with great prudence, zeal, and sanctity. He suffered martyrdom in the 14th year of the reign of Nero, in the year of Christ 68, and three years after the death of Sts. Peter and Paul, at Alexandria, on the 25th of April; having been seized the previous day, which was Sunday, at the altar, as he was offering to God the prayer of the oblation, or the mass.

====================

Gill: Mark (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO MARK

This is the title of the book, the subject of which is the Gospel; a joyful account of the ministry, miracles, actions, and sufferings of Christ: the writer of it was not one of the twelve apostles, but an evangelist; the same with John Mark, or John, whose surname was Mark: John was his Hebrew name, and Mark his Gentile name, Act 12:12, and was Barnabas's sister's son, Col 4:10, his mother's name was Mary, Act 12:12. The Apostle Peter calls him his son, 1Pe 5:13, if he is the same; and he is thought to have wrote his Gospel from him ^a, and by his order, and which was afterwards examined and approved by him ^b it is said to have been wrote originally in Latin, or in the Roman tongue: so say the Arabic and Persic versions at the beginning of it, and the Syriac version says the same at the end: but of this there is no evidence, any more, nor so much, as of Matthew's writing his Gospel in Hebrew. The old Latin copy of this, is a version from the Greek; it is most likely that it was originally written in Greek, as the rest of the New Testament.

College: Mark (Book Introduction)

FOREWORD

No story is more important than the story of Jesus. I am confident that my comments do not do it justice. Even granting the limitations of a historical commentary (see the Introduction) there is so much more to be said. Nevertheless, the completion of a commentary on the Gospel of Mark accomplishes a goal I have wanted to reach for many years. I pray that my comments will help readers to develop a deeper understanding of Mark's story of Jesus as a basis for reflecting on Jesus' significance for their own lives.

I thank College Press for the opportunity to write in this series. I thank my colleague at Harding Graduate School Richard Oster (whose commentary on 1 Corinthians has appeared in the same series) for reading my manuscript and making many valuable suggestions. Another friend and colleague John Mark Hicks also provided helpful comments on several sections.

Most of all I thank Nancy, Amy, and Stacey, whose love and support are the dearest things on earth to me. The blessing they have been to me is second only to the blessing God has given to us all in the story about which I have been privileged to comment.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

INTRODUCTION

ABOUT THIS COMMENTARY

The intended audience of this book is the general reader with a serious interest in Scripture. This is not a work for scholars seeking to explore and press forward the edges of contemporary scholarship on Mark. Rather, I seek to make some of the fruits of others' scholarly research available to the general reader. I have been especially influenced by the commentaries by William Lane and Robert Gundry, the incomplete commentary on 1:1-8:26 by Robert Guelich, and the magisterial work on the death of Jesus by Raymond Brown. I often refer the reader to their scholarly works for further information, and even where I do not the reader would be well advised to consider them for a scholar's depth of treatment. Another fine source for further treatment with respect to many topics that arise in Mark is the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels , edited by Joel Green and Scot McKnight.

The purpose of the commentary is to provide a historical interpretation of the Gospel of Mark; that is, an interpretation of what Mark meant to say to his ancient audience. I write with the conviction that modern readers can only determine God's message to us after and on the basis of a determination of Mark's message to his ancient contemporaries. Because I believe God worked through Mark and inspired his work, I believe it has great relevance to every reader in every age. But we can only determine what it means to us if we have first determined what it meant when Mark wrote it. It is this latter task that it the focus of most commentaries, including this one. I will occasionally make comments about what a given passage means today, but not consistently. I will consistently comment on what Mark meant to say to his ancient readers. I hope and pray that my readers will recognize the contemporary relevance of Mark's work even though it will not be my purpose to point it out or illustrate it. My purpose is to provide a base to build on for contemporary application.

The commentary deals with historical meaning or intention on two levels. The first of those is the meaning intended by Mark for his contemporaries. John 21:25 says, "Jesus did many other things as well. If everyone of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." John points out that every Gospel writer must be selective. That is true with respect to which stories or sayings are selected and with respect to the perspective from which they are told and the amount of detail which is provided. The commentary consistently asks why Mark might have made his particular choices (which I assume were made under divine guidance).

The second level of meaning is the level of the intent of the historical characters Mark wrote about, especially Jesus. What did Jesus intend to convey to his contemporaries by his words and actions? A major part of Mark's intended meaning is to convey his understanding of Jesus' intended meaning. Therefore, it is important to ask both "What did Mark want his contemporaries to understand from this action or saying?" and "What did Jesus want his contemporaries (two to three decades earlier) to understand from this action or saying?" Concerning the latter question, the commentary will focus primarily on what one could learn about Jesus' intentions from Mark's account alone. On a few occasions, another Gospel will be brought into the discussion - but primarily for the purpose of solving some ambiguity or otherwise illuminating Mark's account.

I have generally not commented on the scholarly disputes concerning the historicity of various events and sayings in Mark. Most of them arise from the presupposition that Jesus did not work miracles. In this commentary I presuppose that he did and I assume the basic historicity of Mark's account. I comment only on a few well known problems of historicity which do not stem from antisupernaturalistic presuppositions.

In general, I have sought to provide deeper treatment of any recurring subject at the point where it is first mentioned in the text. For example, the titles "Christ" and "Son of God" are discussed primarily when they first arise in 1:1, and "Son of Man" is discussed in connection with 2:10. This means that the first chapter of the commentary is particularly important. It also means that readers will often want to look at the first text that mentions a particular theme. For example, it is important to supplement the comments on the centurion's confession of Jesus as the Son of God at 15:39 with the comments on the Son of God title at 1:1.

I have commented on the NIV text. In some places where it seems deficient, I have provided an alternative translation, often from the NRSV. The commentary makes note of the most significant textual variants and my opinions concerning them, but does not provide a list of manuscripts, versions, or church fathers. Interested readers should use the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament .

AUTHORSHIP

The author of the Gospel of Mark is not indicated within the text itself. However, the traditional understanding of the author is supported by the title and by early Christian writers.

The titles of the Gospels are first found in ancient manuscripts dating from the late second or early third centuries. Some scholars readily dismiss them as late second century creations. It is true that they seem to be creations of early church tradition rather than of the authors themselves. This can be observed by noting their stereotypical form "The Gospel according to _________" and by the clearer evidence that other New Testament book titles were not original. For example, Paul would hardly have designated the letter we know as 1 Corinthians by that name. Not only did letters not need a name but in 1 Cor 5 he speaks about a former letter he had written them. The titles of Paul's letters and of the Gospels represent the perspectives of those who collected and circulated them.

But that does not mean they are not to be trusted. Martin Hengel has well argued that the titles of the Gospels go back to the earliest days of their collection and distribution. Papias, a bishop in Asia Minor in the early second century, apparently knew of them. So did his source, "the elder" - presumably a generation older than Papias. Hengel correctly argues that as soon as there was more than one Gospel to read at church, it would have become necessary to name them. The lack of competing titles suggests that these titles were uniformly applied from the earliest days.

The second most important piece of information concerning the authorship of Mark is a paragraph written by the above-named Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (near Colossae and Laodicea). The pertinent statements were preserved by Eusebius from Papias's work, Expositions of the Sayings of the Lord , which was probably written within the first three decades of the second century. According to Eusebius Papias wrote:

And the presbyter used to say this: "Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

Papias believed a) that the author was a Mark closely associated with Peter and b) that what he wrote was essentially the preaching of Peter. These traditional understandings were repeated favorably by subsequent church fathers. Justin Martyr (writing c. A.D. 155-60) spoke of Mark's Gospel as "Peter's memoirs." In the late second century Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria described Mark as writing Peter's preaching. In the early third century Origen and Tertullian affirm the same tradition. The early date of Papias and the widespread support of his statements suggest that they might be correct.

The connection between Peter and Mark is supported by Peter going to John Mark's mother's house in Acts 12:12 and by Peter's reference to "my son Mark" in 1 Pet 5:13. The idea that Mark's Gospel was based on Peter's preaching is probably trustworthy. It is probably also true that what Peter usually did was tell various individual stories about Jesus rather than a sustained account. Mark's Gospel, like the others, is not in strict chronological order, although it does generally follow chronological lines.

Acts 12:12 and 25 suggests that the Mark that Peter would later refer to as "my son" was the same as the John Mark who was a companion of Paul and Barnabas on the first missionary journey and a source of dispute between them over whether to take him on their return trip (Acts 15:36-40). Col 4:10; Phlm 24; and 2 Tim 4:11 indicate that Paul was eventually reconciled with John Mark (and that John Mark was Barnabas' cousin). According to Acts 12:12 John Mark was from Jerusalem, but Papias and other ancient writers say that he did not follow Jesus before Jesus' death.

I will assume the author was John Mark of Jerusalem and that his Gospel was to some extent based upon the preaching of Peter.

AUDIENCE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION

In the late second century Clement of Alexandria commented on the circumstances of Mark's writing, including the audience he wrote for and the place where he wrote. According to Eusebius Clement believed that:

When Peter had publicly preached the word at Rome, and by the Spirit had proclaimed the Gospel, those present, who were many, exhorted Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been spoken, to make a record of what was said: and that he did this, and distributed the Gospel among those that asked him. And that when the matter came to Peter's knowledge he neither strongly forbade it nor urged it forward.

However, Clement is not a very trustworthy source and his contemporary Irenaeus contradicted him by saying that Mark wrote his Gospel after the death of Peter.

Clement could be correct about Rome as the location for Mark's audience and his place of composition. Two other factors provide mild support for Rome. In 1 Pet 5:13, where Peter mentions Mark and calls him "my son," he indicates that he and Mark were in "Babylon." Most scholars believe Peter is referring to Rome, thus placing himself and Mark in Rome. Furthermore, Gundry and others argue that the frequent Latinisms (Latin loan words or other Latin influence on Mark's Greek) point to Italy. The Latinisms argument is, however, problematic. Some are not persuaded because many of the Latin terms used in Mark are military, judicial, or economic in nature and would be present throughout the empire.

What can be affirmed with more confidence is that Mark's audience contained many Gentiles. This is made clear in 7:3-4 when Mark must explain ritual cleanliness customs which he says are the practice of "all the Jews." Mark must envision non-Jews who would not know these practices. This does not mean he did not envision some Jews reading his work, but only that he included comments clearly aimed at Gentiles.

It is probable that the readers Mark had in mind were already Christians. Beginning with the citation of Scripture in 1:2-3 he occasionally cites or alludes to Scriptures in a way that seems to assume knowledge of and appreciation for the Old Testament. Coupled with the indications of a Gentile audience, the assumed knowledge of the Old Testament suggests either Gentiles who had been attracted to the synagogue or who had become Christians. Occasionally, more distinctly Christian knowledge seems to be assumed. For example, Mark never explains what John meant by Jesus baptizing with the Holy Spirit (1:8). Christian readers would know. A particularly interesting case is 15:21, which identifies Simon of Cyrene as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Apparently, the readers of Mark knew the two sons. But they were not well-known public figures. The most likely hypothesis to explain Mark's assumption is that they were known within the Christian community or at least that element of it which he had in mind.

Mark may have written his Gospel in Rome and for Roman Christians. In any case, he probably envisioned a Christian audience with many Gentiles.

DATE

As noted above, the earliest comments reflecting the date of Mark are by the late second century writers Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria, who disagree on whether Mark was written prior to or after Peter's death. Very little concrete data is available to supplement their conflicting reflections. The most significant data in my opinion is the widespread hypothesis that Luke was dependent upon Mark coupled with a relatively early date for Luke-Acts. If Luke-Acts was complete by c. A.D. 62 and if Luke used Mark's Gospel, then Mark completed his work by the early sixties.

MAJOR THEMES AND STRUCTURE

A number of scholars agree that two themes stand out in Mark and that they are developed in a two-part structure for the book.

1. CHRISTOLOGY

One of the pervasive concerns of Mark is to portray Jesus as the authoritative Son of God and as the ultimate model of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

From the opening verse, "The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God" (1:1), it is clear that Mark wants to paint a portrait of Jesus. Although it is an obvious oversimplification, it is useful to look at Mark's portrait by emphasizing a key word for the first half of the book, "authority," and a key word for the second half, "service." The pivotal center of Mark's Gospel is the confession by Peter in 8:27-30 and the crucial discussion that follows in 8:31-9:1. The turning point is the disciples' confession that Jesus is the Christ. The first half of the book leads to this confession; the second half builds on it and defines the role of the Son of Man as that of service unto death.

In 1:1-8:30, the focus is on the authority of Jesus as exhibited in his miracles and teaching and in the testimony of others. John the Baptist says, "After me will come one more powerful than I" (1:7). God declares, "You are my Son, whom I love" (1:11). Jesus summons fishermen, and they drop everything to follow him (1:16-20). When he teaches, the people "were amazed at his teaching, because he taught them as one who had authority" (1:22). When he casts out demons, they declare, "He even gives orders to evil spirits and they obey him" (1:27). The first eight chapters are permeated with features like these examples from the first chapter. Jesus' authority is repeatedly emphasized.

The question underlying most of these stories surfaces plainly in 4:41, "Who is this? Even the wind and the waves obey him!" Who, indeed, is this one with such authority that his teaching transcends that of the teachers of the law, that he forgives sins, that he controls sickness, disease, demons, nature, and even death?

The resounding answer is already given to the reader in 1:1, but is finally clear to the disciples in 8:29. At this point a new stage is opened up: "He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things . . ." (8:31). The disciples do not readily grasp this new understanding either. Peter immediately objects (8:32). Throughout the remainder of the book, Jesus repeatedly works with the disciples to try to get them to see that the Son of Man "did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45).

The fact that this authoritative figure who commanded nature, disease, demons, and death would submit to death in suffering service is a key theme permeating everything after 8:31. Even though the second half of the book continues to emphasize Jesus' authority, the focus turns more and more toward the cross. This focus is explicit in Jesus' own statements about his coming suffering (8:31; 9:12, 31; 10:32-34, 45; 14:18-21, 24-25, 27, 41). The shadow of his death lies over the second half of the book in other ways as well. One thinks, for example, of the fate of the son in the parable of the wicked tenants (12:6-8) or the anointing at Bethany (14:1-9) and of all the events from the Lord's Supper to the end of the crucifixion (14:12-15:47). In the second half of the book, Mark underscores the fact that the powerful, authoritative Son of God willingly submitted himself to the most shameful and inhumane of deaths because he had the heart of a servant.

2. DISCIPLESHIP

The theme of Christology carried out in the emphasis on Jesus' authority and then his suffering service is brought to bear on Mark's readers' lives through the emphasis on discipleship. To submit to Jesus' authority involves following in Jesus' footsteps in suffering service.

This point is first enunciated in 8:34-35 and then driven home by repetition, especially in 9:33-37 and 10:35-45. It is no accident that these sections of vital instruction on discipleship immediately follow the three repetitions of Jesus' predictions regarding his own death in Jerusalem. Disciples are to be like their master.

In each of these three instances, Jesus' prediction is followed by immediate indication that the disciples are out of step with their Lord. In 8:32, Peter even "rebukes" Jesus for what he said would happen. Having rebuked Peter, Jesus calls all the people together with his disciples and explains that what he plans to do bears not only on him but on what it means to be a follower: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me" (8:34).

In the second instance Mark writes that the disciples did not understand Jesus' prediction concerning himself (9:32), then immediately shows that they did not grasp its implications for themselves. They are interested in establishing which of them is the greatest (9:33-34), but Jesus tells them that followers of one who takes the role of a servant must be servants themselves (9:35).

The third instance is similar. Here, again immediately following a prediction concerning Jesus' death, James and John seek the chief places in the coming kingdom (10:35-37). Jesus' reply is explicit in the way it ties discipleship to Christology: "whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:43-45). These verses, 10:43-45, provide a convenient summary of the main point with respect to discipleship. This emphasis permeates the second half of the book.

3. FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON MARK'S STRUCTURE

In addition to the major division of Mark at 8:30 / 8:31, a few further divisions may be discerned with varying levels of confidence.

Most scholars identify either 1:1-8, 1:1-13, or 1:1-15 as an introduction. I have chosen 1:1-15 for reasons that are described at the beginning of the comments on chapter 1. These verses set the stage for all that follows.

It is questionable whether there is a clearly discernible substructure for the rest of the first half of the book (1:16-8:30). I have chosen the popular three-part structure proposed by Leander Keck largely as a matter of convenience for the memory. Keck's outline is easily learned because each section begins with a new stage in the disciples' development: the call of the four fishermen (1:16-20), the appointment of the twelve apostles (3:13-19), and the mission of the twelve (6:6b-13).

The second half of the book is easily divisible according to stages in Jesus' ministry. In 8:31-10:52 he journeys to Jerusalem. Beginning at 11:1 Mark focuses over one third of his book on Jesus' last week, from the triumphal entry to the resurrection.

In addition to the overall structure of the book, there are smaller structural features discernible in various sections. Some of these are identified in the outline, such as the collection of five controversy stories in 2:1-3:6 or the parable section in 4:1-34. Others are discussed as they arise in the commentary, such as the "sandwich" phenomenon discussed first at 3:20-35.

PURPOSE

Mark does not provide a statement of purpose for his work. It is difficult to construct a hypothetical statement of purpose that is well focused and yet broad enough to include all of Mark's material. Any statement of Mark's purpose should take into account his intended audience, particularly the probability that he wrote primarily for those who had already become Christians.

Mark's overall purpose might be stated as follows: to tell the story of Jesus from his baptism to his death and resurrection in order to strengthen the faith and deepen the understanding of his readers. The weakness of this statement is that it is so broad as to include virtually anything Mark might have known about Jesus.

As stated above on pages 11-13, each Gospel writer had some particular emphases that guided his selection. In Mark's case there is one particular emphasis that dominates the overall structure of the book and presumably was the primary principle of selection for much of its contents: the emphasis on discipleship as self-sacrificing service. Mark presents Jesus as the model of service: "the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many" (10:45). As is demonstrated in the above section on the structure of the book, Mark organizes his book around Jesus' effort to explain this to his disciples and to bring them to the understanding that "whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all" (10:43-44). This focus may account for many of Mark's choices.

Lane (and others) would be more specific. In particular, he believes the purpose of Mark was to encourage Roman Christians to sacrificial service during the time of the Neronian persecution of A.D. 64. But I have argued above that Mark was probably written by A.D. 62 and that the tradition that his intended audience was in Rome is possibly true, but not a tradition to hold with confidence. It is questionable whether Mark wrote primarily for a persecution setting, Neronian or otherwise. There are only a few explicit references to persecution (4:17; 8:34-38; 10:29-30, 39; and 13:9-13). Certainly Mark's Gospel could have been used for encouragement by persecuted Christians, but it is preferable to state his primary focus in broader terms of sacrificial service.

SUMMARY OF INTRODUCTORY CONCLUSIONS

The Gospel of Mark was written by John Mark of Jerusalem, an associate of Paul and of Peter. It probably reflects Peter's preaching about Jesus. Mark composed it by the early sixties. The audience he had in mind were predominantly Gentile Christians, possibly in Rome. He wrote the story of Jesus in order to strengthen their faith and deepen their understanding, particularly with respect to their need to follow Jesus in the path of sacrificial service to God and humanity.

Mark focused on christology and discipleship and their interrelationship. In the first part of the Gospel (1:1-8:30) he focused on Jesus' authority and the need for disciples to believe in him. Then, beginning in 8:31, he focused on how Jesus submitted himself to death in sacrificial service and on the need for disciples to follow his example.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger. The Greek New Testament. Fourth Revised Edition. Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, United Bible Societies, 1993.

Anderson, Hugh. The Gospel of Mark. New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976.

Batey, Richard, A. Jesus and the Forgotten City: New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Bauer, Walter, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature , 2nd ed. Rev. by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Beasley-Murray, G.R. Baptism in the New Testament. London: MacMillan, 1962.

. Jesus and the Kingdom of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Best, Ernest. Mark: The Gospel As Story. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1983.

Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. WUNT 2.40. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1991.

Blomberg, Craig L. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1987.

. Matthew. New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. "Elijah and Elisha." DJG 203-206.

Bratcher, Robert G. and Eugene A. Nida. A Translator's Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1961.

Brown, Raymond E. The Death of the Messiah. Anchor Bible Reference Library, 2 Volumes. New York: Doubleday, 1994.

Bruce, F.F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1988.

Cargounis, C.C. "The Kingdom of God/Heaven." DJG 417-430.

Carson, Donald A., Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Carson, Donald A. "Matthew." In The Expositor's Bible Commentary. Ed. Frank E. Gaebelein. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984.

Cranfield, C.E.B. The Gospel according to Saint Mark. Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary. Cambridge, England: University Press, 1959.

Davids, Peter. Commentary on James. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Dodd, C.H. "The Kingdom of God Has Come." Expository Times 48 (1936-37): 138-142.

. The Parables of the Kingdom. London: Nisbet, 1935.

Farmer, William R. The Last Twelve Verses of Mark. SNTSMS 25. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. "The Aramaic Qorban Inscription from Jebel Hallet et-Turi and Mark 7:11/Matt. 15:5." Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (1959): 60-65.

. The Gospel According to Luke I-IX. Anchor Bible Commentary, Vol. 28A. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981.

France, Richard T. Jesus and the Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1971.

. Matthew. Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985.

Geldenhuys, Norval G. Commentary of the Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Green, Joel B. and Scot McKnight, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992.

Guelich, Robert A. Mark 1:1-8:26. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 34A. Dallas: Word, 1989.

Gundry, Robert H. Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993.

. Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Hawthorne, Gerald F. "Amen." DJG 7-8.

Heard, Warren J. "Revolutionary Movements." DJG 688-698.

Helton, Stanley N. "Churches of Christ and Mark 16:9-20." Restoration Quarterly 36 (1994): 32- 52.

Hengel, Martin. Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross. London: SCM, 1977.

. Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. John Bowden. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Herzog, William R., II. "Temple Cleansing." DJG 817-821.

Hoehner, Harold.W. Herod Antipas. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1972.

. "Herodian Dynasty." DJG 317-326.

Hooker, Morna. The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Black's New Testament Commentaries. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991.

Hurtado, Larry W. Mark. New International Biblical Commentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Central Message of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965.

Judge, E.A. "The Regional Kanon for Requisitioned Transport." In New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Ed. G.H.R. Horsley. North Ryde, Australia: Macquarie University, 1976.

Juel, Donald. Messianic Exegesis. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Keck, Leander E. "The Introduction to Mark's Gospel." New Testament Studies 12 (1965-66): 352-372.

Lane, William L. The Gospel according to Mark. New International New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974.

Marcus, Joel. "The Jewish War and the Sitz im Leben of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 111 (1992): 443-446.

Marshall, I. Howard. The Gospel of Luke. New International Greek Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.

. The Origins of New Testament Christology. Updated ed. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1990.

McGarvey, J.W. "Biblical Criticism." Christian Standard 32 (1896): 1367.

. The New Testament Commentary. Vol. 1: Matthew and Mark. Delight, AR: Gospel Light, 1875.

McIver, Robert K. "One Hundred-Fold Yield - Miraculous or Mundane? Matthew 13.8, 23; Mark 4.8, 20; Luke 8.8." New Testament Studies 40 (1994): 606-608.

McRay, John. Archaeology and the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. 10th ed. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, 1993.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Wurttemberg Bible Society, 1994.

Michaels, J. Ramsey. 1 Peter. Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 49. Dallas: Word, 1988.

Roads, David and Donald Michie. Mark As Story. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Rousseau, John J. and Rami Arav, eds. Jesus and His World: An Archaeological and Cultural Dictionary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Sanders, E.P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 63BCE-66CE. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992.

Schmidt, Thomas E. "Taxes." DJG 804-807.

Twelftree, G.H. "Blasphemy." DJG 75-77.

. "Demon, Devil, Satan." DJG 163-172.

. "Sanhedrin." DJG 728-732.

. "Scribes." DJG 732-735.

Westerholm, Stephen. "Pharisees." DJG 609-614.

Wilkins, Michael J. "Sinner." DJG 757-760.

Williamson, Lamar, Jr. Mark. Interpretation Commentary. Atlanta: John Knox, 1983.

Willis, Wendell, ed. The Kingdom of God in 20th-Century Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1987.

Wuellner, Wilhelm H. The Meaning of "Fishers of Men." The New Testament Library. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967.

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

ABBREVIATIONS

BAGD . . . A Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament, 2nd ed., eds. Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker

DJG . . . Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels

LXX . . . The Septuagint (An ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament)

NIV . . . The Holy Bible, New International Version

NRSV . . . The Holy Bible, New Revised Standard Version

SNTSMS . . . Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas Monograph Series

UBS ⁴ . . . The Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, 4th ed.

WUNT . . . Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum NT

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV

College: Mark (Outline)

OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCTION - Mark 1:1-15

A. The Beginning of the Gospel - 1:1-8

B. John Baptizes Jesus - 1:9-11

C. Temptation in the Wilderness - 1:12-13

D. The Gospel Jesus Preached - 1:14-15

II. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION ONE - 1:16-3:12

A. The Call of the First Disciples - 1:16-20

B. Jesus Demonstrates His Authority in Capernaum - 1:21-28

C. Healing Simon's Mother-in-Law - 1:29-31

D. Other Healings at Capernaum - 1:32-34

E. What Jesus Came to Do - 1:35-39

F. Healing A Leper - 1:40-45

G. Stories of Controversy between Jesus and the Religious Authorities - 2:1-3:6

1. Controversy over Forgiving Sins - 2:1-12

2. Controversy over Eating with Tax Collectors and Sinners - 2:13-17

3. Controversy over Fasting - 2:18-22

4. Controversy over Picking Grain on the Sabbath - 2:23-28

5. Controversy over Healing on the Sabbath - 3:1-6

H. Summary Statement about the Crowds and Healings - 3:7-12

III. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION TWO - 3:13-6:6a

A. The Appointment of the Twelve Apostles - 3:13-19

B. Jesus Accused of Lunacy and Being Possessed - 3:20-35

C. Jesus Teaches in Parables - 4:1-34

1. The Parable of the Sower - 4:1-9

2. The Purpose of the Parables - 4:10-12

3. The Interpretation of the Sower - 4:13-20

4. The Parable of the Lamp - 4:21-23

5. The Parable of the Measure - 4:24-25

6. The Parable of the Growing Seed - 4:26-29

7. The Parable of the Mustard Seed - 4:30-32

8. Teaching in Parables - 4:33-34

D. Jesus' Authority over Nature, Demons, Disease and Death - 4:35-5:43

1. Authority over Nature - 4:35-41

2. Authority over Demons - 5:1-20

3. Authority over Disease and Death - 5:21-43

E. Rejection at Nazareth - 6:1-6a

IV. THE GALILEAN MINISTRY, SECTION THREE - 6:6b-8:30

A. The Mission of the Twelve - 6:6b-13

B. Herod Hears about Jesus - 6:14-16

C. Herod Has John Beheaded - 6:17-29

D. Feeding the Five Thousand - 6:30-44

E. Walking on the Water - 6:45-52

F. Healing at Gennesaret and Beyond - 6:53-56

G. The Controversy over Eating with Unwashed Hands - 7:1-23

H. The Syrophoenician Woman - 7:24-30

I. Healing a Deaf Man with a Speech Impediment - 7:31-37

J. Feeding the Four Thousand - 8:1-10

K. The Pharisees Demand a Sign - 8:11-13

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod - 8:14-21

M. The Blind Man at Bethsaida - 8:22-26

N. Peter's Confession at Caesarea Philippi - 8:27-30

V. THE JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM - 8:31-10:52

A. Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection - 8:31-33

B. The Costs of Discipleship - 8:34-9:1

C. The Transfiguration and the Subsequent Discussion - 9:2-13

D. Jesus Casts a Spirit from a Man's Son - 9:14-29

E. The Second Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 9:30-32

F. Teachings on Servanthood - 9:33-50

1. Who Is the Greatest? - 9:33-35

2. An Example Based on Welcoming Children - 9:36-37

3. Jesus Rebukes the Disciples' Pride - 9:38-41

4. Getting Rid of Pride and Getting Along with Each Other - 9:42-50

G. Jesus Questioned About Divorce - 10:1-12

H. Receiving the Kingdom Like a Child - 10:13-16

I. The Rich Man and Jesus' Teaching Concerning Wealth - 10:17-31

J. The Third Passion/Resurrection Prediction - 10:32-34

K. The Request of James and John - 10:35-45

L. Bartimaeus Receives His Sight - 10:46-52

VI. THE LAST WEEK: JERUSALEM, THE CROSS, AND THE RESURRECTION - 11:1-16:8[20]

A. The Triumphal Entry - 11:1-11

B. Cursing the Fig Tree and Cleansing the Temple - 11:12-19

C. A Lesson from the Withered Fig Tree - 11:20-25

D. Another Series of Controversies with the Religious Authorities - 11:27-12:44

1. The Question about Authority - 11:27-33

2. The Parable of the Tenants - 12:1-12

3. The Question about Paying Taxes - 12:13-17

4. The Question about the Resurrection - 12:18-27

5. The Question about the First Commandment - 12:28-34

6. Jesus' Question about David's Son - 12:35-37

7. Jesus Denounces the Teachers of the Law and Commends a Poor Widow - 12:38-44

E. Jesus Instructs the Disciples Concerning the Destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming - 13:1-37

1. The Setting of Jesus' Last Days Discourse - 13:1-4

2. General Description of the Birth Pains - 13:5-13

3. The Sharp Pain: The Destruction of Jerusalem - 13:14-19

4. Warnings Against False Messiahs during the Birth Pains - 13:20-23

5. The Second Coming - 13:24-27

6. The Significance of the Birth Pains for the Second Coming - 13:28-31

7. No One Knows the Day or Hour of the Second Coming - 13:32-37

F. Jesus Honored and Betrayed - 14:1-11

G. The Passover Meal - 14:12-31

1. Preparation for the Passover - 14:12-16

2. Jesus Predicts His Betrayal - 14:17-21

3. The Institution of the Lord's Supper - 14:22-25

H. Jesus Predicts the Flight of the Disciples and Peter's Denial - 14:26-31

I. Prayer in Gethsemane - 14:32-42

J. Betrayal, Arrest, and Flight - 14:43-52

K. Jesus and Peter Put on Trial - 14:53-72

1. Jesus' Trial Before the Sanhedrin - 14:53-65

2. Peter's Denials - 14:66-72

L. Jesus' Trial Before Pilate - 15:1-15

M. Pilate's Soldiers Mock Jesus - 15:16-20

N. The Crucifixion - 15:21-41

O. The Burial of Jesus - 15:42-47

P. The Resurrection - 16:1-8

Q. Post-Resurrection Appearances - 16:9-20

1. The Appearance to Mary Magdalene - 16:9-11

2. The Appearance to Two Disciples - 16:12-13

3. The Appearance to and Commission of the Eleven - 16:14-18

4. The Ascension and the Disciples' Mission - 16:19-20

-College Press New Testament Commentary: with the NIV