Commentary On Mark

III.
Commentary on Mark
1:1–15 introduction to the gospel: john the baptist

and jesus
1:1 Introduction
1:1 Beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ [Son of God]
The incipit, or opening words of the text, introduces the theme of this
literary work. The life of Jesus Christ is good news, Gospel. We think of
“the gospel” as a genre of literature, but here Mark is referring to the
opening of an account of events that God has pointed to through
Scripture. That is why the next verses cite texts of the Hebrew Scripture.
However, the reference to the beginning of the story shows the verse is not
a title for the whole Gospel. The person the beginning introduces is the
subject of the entire Gospel in the roles the verse introduces. In pointing to
the start of this key story, the verse introduces the topic of the entire work,
the Gospel and Jesus as Christ and Son of God.
How much of the opening of the Gospel does this initial verse cover? If
we allow the opening word link to be a clue, then verses 14–15 are a
candidate.1 Mark 1:14–15 is a call to repent and believe the Gospel. That
call invokes the Gospel message for the first time, with multiple mentions
in the body of the Gospel (Mark 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9). John the Baptist is
the key figure in this introduction until verse 9. Verses 9–11 have Jesus and
John overlap. Then Jesus becomes the center of the story. Jesus’ first
utterance comes in verse 15. The call to the kingdom and its drawing
near initiate the Gospel story in Jesus’ ministry.
1
Joel Marcus, Mark 1–8: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale
Anchor Bible 27 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 137–38, makes the case for
1:14–15 as the end and a transition in the Gospel.
107
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

108 Commentary on Mark
There is an important cultural allusion in the term Gospel. “Good news”

is what emperors claimed to bring to Roman culture.2 Mark is noting those
rulers have nothing on Jesus. In terms of significance to the world, Mark is
making the amazing claim that this Jewish Galilean teacher has something
to offer that the rulers of Rome do not: access to God’s rule. God’s good
news is distinct from what Rome celebrates.
Good news also has Jewish background in the eschatological hopes of
deliverance from Isaiah (Isa 40:9; 41:27; 52:7; 60:6; 61:1). It is no accident that
a text from Isaiah 40 follows. Here God is coming in victory and the
establishment of his rule.3 The Qumranian community also expressed its
hope by appealing to this text (1QS 8.12–16).4
The good news here can be from Jesus (subjective genitive) or about
Jesus (objective genitive) or simply tied to Jesus (taking the genitive as
plenary, working in both directions). The latter sense reflects the entirety of
Mark’s message. Jesus as the Messiah (Christ) is the topic.
The phrase “Son of God” is in brackets because the presence of these
words in Mark’s text is rightly debated.5 The original hand of ‫ א‬plus a few
other manuscripts lack the phrase.6 It is quite possible that an error of
reading led to the omission, as uncial abbreviations would have led to a
series of upsilons in the manuscript over which eyes could easily skip
(ῙῩΧῩῩΘῩ). It may have simply been accidentally omitted as well. Mark
2
Leander Keck, “The Introduction to Mark’s Gospel,” NTS 12 (1966): 352–70. A good news
inscription has been found at Priene about the birthday of Octavian being the beginning
of good news. It reads, “The birthday of the god was for the world the beginning of joyful
tidings which have been proclaimed on his account” (Inscr. Priene, 105, 40). Also see
Craig Evans, “Mark’s Incipit and the Priene Calendar Inscription: From Jewish Gospel
to Greco-Roman Gospel,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 1 (2000):
67–81.
3
Adam Winn, The Purpose of Mark’s Gospel (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2008), 96–99, sees
both the Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds in play for Mark.
4
Klyne Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and Their
Adaptation in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980): 24–45.
5
Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. (New
York: United Bible Society, 1994), 62. For exclusion of the phrase, Adela Y. Collins,
“Establishing the Text: Mark 1:1,” in Texts and Contexts: Biblical Texts in the Textual and
Situational Contexts Essays in Honor of Lars Hartman, ed. Tord Fronberg and
David Hellholm (Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1995), 111–27; Bart Ehrman, The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the
Text of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 72–75; and
Peter Head, “A Text Critical Study of Mark 1.1: The Beginning of the Gospel of Jesus
Christ,” NTS 37 (1991): 621–29. Collins, Ehrman, and Head agree the omission is the
harder reading and that the evidence of the Fathers is significant. Head adds we have no
text critical evidence of “Son of God” being omitted from another text where it appears.
6
Those other manuscripts are: Θ, 28c, 1555, syrp, arm, geo, and Origen.

Introduction to the Gospel 109
15:39 possesses a climactic confession involving the Son of God, making an

inclusio with this start if it is original.7 If the manuscript evidence for
omission were more widespread, a claim of a scribal addition for theolo-
gical reasons might make more sense, given that its absence is the harder
reading. Still, the evidence for omission is weighty, although thin. If it was
added, it had to have been fairly early, since the external evidence for
inclusion is so widespread. If added, it makes a point about all of who Jesus
is. If original, it sets a theme of Jesus not only as the Christ but also as the
Son of God. This is the story Mark tells, whether the phrase is original or
not. If it was added, then the copyist certainly read Mark well, as it is clear
this is part of the point of his Gospel as a whole, to show how special Jesus is
to God’s program. All in all, its exclusion is slightly more likely than its
inclusion, since it is hard to see how the shorter reading emerged and why
only the Latin Fathers have the longer reading. Thus, our uncertainty has
been expressed by putting the phrase in brackets.
1:2–8 John the Baptist Fulfills Scripture in Preparing the People

and Tells of the One to Come
1:2 Even as it is written in Isaiah the prophet,
“Behold I am sending my messenger before you
who will prepare your way,
1:3 a voice crying
in the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
Make straight his paths.”
1:4 John came [the one]8 baptizing in the wilderness and preaching a
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
7
Camille Focant, The Gospel According to Mark: A Commentary (Eugene, OR: Pickwick
Press, 2012), 26, argues for inclusion on the basis of the external evidence of strong
manuscript attestation.
8
There is real doubt about whether the definite article is original. Although Mark can
express himself this way (Mark 6:14, 24), the pair of participles in parallelism look more
like examples of periphrasis, which would lack the article and which Mark uses regularly
(Mark 1:6; 2:6; 5:5; 9:7; and 14:54 are but a few of the twenty-five times in Mark). ‫ א‬and B
are among the manuscripts that have the article. Robert Stein, Mark (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 2008), 52–53. If the article is read, then the reference is to “John the one who
baptizes came. . . .” The participle becomes a title. A copyist familiar with the title may
well have added the article. It is hard to know what the harder reading would have been
in this case, as the title had become common by the time scribes were copying the text.
Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 62, argues the lack of an article is the harder
reading and is original.

1:5 And all of the region of Judea and all of Jerusalem came out to him and
they were baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins.
1:6 John was clothed in camel hair and a leather belt around his waist,
eating locusts and wild honey.
1:7 And he preached saying, “One stronger than me comes after me, I am
not worthy of bending down to untie the strap of his sandals.
1:8 I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”
Mark opens with the ministry of John the Baptist. The story proper
begins with Scripture and points to fulfilment (vv 2–3). It is a mixed
citation with an introductory formula that only mentions Isaiah. The
text, however, is from Exodus 23:20a and Malachi 3:1 (“my messenger”),
with a second portion from Isaiah 40:3 (“a voice crying”). Some argue Mark
is sloppy here with the introductory formula and does not know where his
citation comes from, since it is a mixed citation, not just from Isaiah.
However, a check of the following exposition shows Mark only develops
the portion of the citation dealing with the wilderness, which is the portion
from the major prophet. The introductory formula then either simply
presents the author of the most prominent part of the citation or names
the part that is developed by gezera shewa (“an equivalent regulation” – the
linking of words between citations or between a citation and its applica-
tion). The point is to argue that John the Baptist’s coming to prepare the
people is something Isaiah declared.
Two points are made in the citation. John is a messenger calling the
people to clear a path for the Lord. Second, that path is to be straight. The
implication is to take a life and national direction of the people as a whole
that has been crooked and straighten it out. The allusion is to the baptism
of repentance for the forgiveness of sins noted in verse 4. John readies the
people for the program of God. A responsive heart is what shows a people
ready for God’s deliverance to come. A mass response of many shows the
nation is ready. One is not to make a choice between the individual and the
nation here. This is a national call met one person at a time.
All of this takes place in the wilderness (v 4), which is often a gathering
place for events that precede the delivery of promise. It is in the call made in
the wilderness that this preparation takes place. Paths are made straight for
God starting there, where one will respond to John who preaches in the
wilderness. Participation in John’s baptism is the call John issues (v 4). In
other words, get your heart right and be ready for what God is about to do.
The wilderness is an important place in Israel’s history. Israel entered
into the promise in the wilderness (Josh 1:11), and it was a destination for a

person fleeing from sin (2 Macc 5:27; Martyrdom of Isaiah 2:7–11; 1QS 8:12–
16). Some anticipated that God would launch his great assault on evil from
the wilderness (Isa 40:1–11, a “new exodus” deliverance; 1QM 1:2–3). So this
locale evokes hope and deliverance themes.
To have this call take place apart from the temple while focusing on the
heart alone is significant. God is doing something fresh as a new era is
dawning.
So how does Mark view John’s ministry? John’s call involved an escha-
tological rite of spiritual cleansing. Baptism refers to cleaning or immersing
something, like a piece of cloth into dye.9 Judaism had mikvaot (cleansing
baths) into which a person walked to immerse themselves in water to
picture purification. John’s washing is similar but placed in a new sphere.
This is an eschatological washing looking to the arrival of a time of
fulfilment and deliverance versus mere moral or ritual correction.
John’s baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. Many from Judea and
Jerusalem came to John (v 5). The “alls,” tied to the recipients from Judea
and Jerusalem, reflect rhetorical hyperbole. John did draw a significant
number out to him to be baptized. They were baptized in the desert region
of the Jordan River, a description that fits better for the southern region of
the river before it reaches the Dead Sea versus the more northern site at
Yardenit, often said to be the site for modern tourists of Israel. Also fitting
this location is the fact he drew people from Judea and Jerusalem versus
Galilee. The description is laid out in a chiasm (all/Judea/Jerusalem/all).
The rite was the focus of John’s preaching. In seeking forgiveness, they
were acknowledging and confessing their sins. Repentance, forgiveness
of sins, and confession of sins show the attitude that accompanied the
washing baptism pictures. It was not the rite that brought the cleansing but
the attitude it pictured. Repentance means a change of mind, so this was a
new way of thinking about how they lived, a turning back to God. The
Hebrew equivalent idea describes a “turning.” In the Old Testament, the
Hebrew word meaning “to turn” was often used to signify repentance (Jer
8:8; Jonah 3:9–10; TDNT 4:989–92). Making straight paths for God before
his program comes involved a change of heart about one’s way of life.
The expression “in the desert” connects us back to the citation in Mark
1:2–3. The cleansing may well allude to Ezekiel 36:25–28, a washing that
anticipates the coming of the Spirit in the new era and being prepared for
9
LSJ, 305–306.

his arrival, as verses 7–8 look to the coming of the Spirit from the one
to come.10
Although Judaism had washings associated with cleansing (Lev 13–17;
Num 19), baptisms tied to proselytes becoming members of the commu-
nity, and Qumran had washings tied to joining and being a part of their
community (1QS 3.4–5.9; 5:13–14), this baptism appears to be a special kind
of eschatological cleansing that said, “I am ready for God to come.” The
fact it took place apart from the temple was significant. It showed John
operating independently of common Jewish priestly structures. The other
Jewish rites suggested as possible background are not strictly parallel.
Proselyte baptism involved only Gentiles and is of uncertain origin in
terms of dating.11 It also was likely self-administered, as were other cleans-
ings in Judaism. Qumranian washings were continual.12 John’s baptism
was aimed at Jews and appears to have been a one-time-only washing. So
although the Jewish background pictures cleansing, John’s baptism
appears to have been unique in its thrust, pointing to a preparation of
the new era, an era involving the stronger one to come, as verses 7–8 make
clear.
Josephus also describes this ministry (Antiquities 18.5.2 §§ 116–19).
Josephus summarizes John’s work as follows: [he] “commanded the Jews
to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety
towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing would be
acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to put away some sins,
but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was
thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” Josephus describes
John’s action in Greek terms for his audience in speaking about virtue
and piety. Souls “purified by righteousness” is another way to speak of
dealing with sin as a whole (not just individual acts).13
John’s lifestyle is Mark’s next topic. John lives a modest, aesthetic life.
His home is in the desert. His cloths are a simple covering of camel’s hair
with a belt (v 6). The allusion here is to Elijah (2 Kings 1:8; Mark 9:9–13;
10
Adela Y. Collins, Mark: A Commentary of the Gospel of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2007), 139.
11
In fact, it may post-date our period. Derwood C. Smith, “Jewish Proselyte Baptism and
the Baptism of John,” ResQ 25 (1982): 13–32.
12
B. Chilton, Jesus’ Baptism and Jesus’ Healing (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press, 1998), 1–29.
13
For a discussion of John the Baptist and Josephus, as well as the historical cultural
context of John’s work, see Robert Webb, “Jesus’ Baptism by John: Its Historicity and
Significance,” in Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus, ed. Darrell L. Bock and
Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009), 95–150, esp. 116–17, 119–20, 127–28.

Luke 1:17; John 1:21, 25). His diet is locusts and wild honey, simply what he
can pick up along the way. Because these foodstuffs would not be touched
by anyone, it may point to a diet guaranteed to be ritually clean (Lev
11:22).14 It is a life lived in full dependence on God and looks like it was
designed to mirror Elijah, with the exception that John is not associated
with miracles as Elijah was.15
John’s message was about more than a baptism. He pointed the way to
one to come after him. He called him “the stronger one to come” (v 7; Isa
11:2; Pss Sol 17:37; 1 Enoch 49:3). The way in which Jesus is strong will be
Mark’s burden in his Gospel. In this context, the allusion is vague, to a
figure of deliverance in the eschaton, so a messianic figure is likely
intended. Luke 3:15–17 is explicit in this regard. The key opponent is less
Rome than it is spiritual forces (Mark 3:22–27; 9:14–29). The greatness of
the person to come points toward the greatness of the era to come. The
image of the stronger one points to someone who can engage in battle
and may suggest a regal figure. Another chiasm takes place here (stronger
one/I/I/he).
Although John is a prophet (v 7b), he is not worthy to be the coming
one’s slave and perform the most menial of tasks for him. John describes
himself as not worthy to untie the strap of the sandal of this one. This
depicts preparing to wash a master’s feet. This was something seen as so
menial that later Jewish tradition said it was something a Jewish slave
should not do (Mekilta Exodus 21.2; b. Ketubbot 96a – “all service that a
slave must render to his master a student must render to his teacher, except
untying his shoe”). The humility this represents is like what we see in John
3:27–30. If John can say this as a prophet, it suggests that the category of the
one to come puts him in a class far greater than a prophet.
John contrasts his preparatory water baptism with the baptism of the
Spirit the stronger one will bring (v 8). Mark is very brief here. Luke 3:16
and Matthew 3:11 mention the baptism as one of Spirit and fire with
imagery like Isaiah 4:4. The evoking of the Spirit points back to the New
Covenant of Jeremiah 31:31–33 (also Isa 32:15; 44:3; 63:10–14; Ezek 36:26–27;
39:29; Joel 2:28–32). With people who are cleansed, the Spirit is now able to
fill that vessel (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14). Luke-Acts makes much more of this
14
For how this diet has been viewed by interpreters, see James A. Kelhoffer, “ ‘Locusts and
Wild Honey’ (Mk 1.6c and Mt 3.4c): The Status Quaestionis concerning the Diet of John
the Baptist,” CBR 2 (2003): 104–127.
15
M. Öhler, “The Expectation of Elijah and the Presence of the Kingdom of God,” JBL 118
(1999): 461–76.

theme (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4–5; 2:16–36). The offer of the new life in the
Spirit is at the core of the new age, so John highlights the fact that this is the
distinctive gift the one to come brings. Mark does not have any other
examples of John’s preaching like Matthew 3:7–9 and Luke 3:7–14 do.
The idea that an original form of this saying spoke only about fire
ignores the fact that the eschaton is about the vindication of the righteous,
so that their righteous status would be important to affirm.16 The eschaton
is not primarily a negative idea of judgment, but one of the establishment
of shalom.
More difficult to decide is whether the reference is to being baptized with
the Spirit or in the Spirit, as the preposition can carry either sense. “In” sees
the person being placed in a Spirit-led community, immersed in the Spirit.
“With” looks more to an indwelling presence. The analogy with Jesus’ own
baptism points to the latter. It is appropriate to see Jesus’ baptism as the
precursor and model for those who follow him.
1:9–15 Jesus Is Baptized, Tempted, and Preaches the Kingdom

1:9 And it came about in those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee
and was baptized in the Jordan by John.
1:10 And immediately coming up out of the water, he beheld the heavens
ripping open and the Spirit like a dove coming down upon him.
1:11 And a voice came from the heavens, “You are my Beloved son, in
whom I am well pleased.”
1:12 And immediately the Spirit cast him out into the wilderness.
1:13 And he was in the wilderness forty days being tested by Satan, and he
was with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him.
1:14 After John was arrested Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel
of God
1:15 and saying, “The time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is near.
Repent and believe the gospel.”
With John’s ministry introduced, Mark turns his attention to Jesus (v 9).
During the time of John’s ministry, Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee to
be baptized in the Jordan by John. Geography matters. The remark reflects
intentionality from Jesus that indicates Jesus’ embrace of John’s message
and practice. He came down from the north into Judea and the Jordan area.
16
Collins, Mark, 146, cites positively the views of Fleddermann here. Harry
T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts. BEThL 122 (Leuven:
Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1995), 31–39.

Whereas those baptized by John had been tied to Judea and Jerusalem in
verse 5, Jesus came from Nazareth. By coming to be baptized, he shared in
the affirmation of the eschatological program John proclaimed. He shared
in the call to Israel to repent. John was not the only one to make an
affirmation about Jesus. With the forerunner and the one to come now
together, heaven would now speak.
As Jesus comes up from the water and the baptism (v 10), the shift from
an era of water to one of the Spirit begins. Jesus sees the heavens rip open
and the Spirit coming upon him like a dove. The only other splitting Mark
describes in his Gospel is of the veil at the temple as Jesus is crucified (Mark
15:38). Marcus speaks of a ripping open that is not to be reversed.17 God’s
program is here to stay.
The divine voice evokes the direct engagement of heaven with the earth
(v 11). Such descriptions of divine voices are often called legend at a literary
or form critical level.18 The significance of calling this account a legend
raises worldview questions about God’s presence and engagement in
and with the world. For Mark, there is no doubt he was describing a real
event. Mark sees this moment as a key one in Jesus’ life that showed him to
be the “anointed,” a call-vision experience.19 More neutrally than the
suggestive category of legend, the account portrays an experience of a
divine encounter.
This event also is one of the most secure elements of Jesus’ life that can
be historically corroborated. The early church with its post-Easter theology
would not have created this event. Why would Jesus need to be baptized by
John? It gives an appearance of Jesus being inferior to him. For the early
church, of what would Jesus need to repent? Jesus was perfectly qualified to
be the Savior according to that theology. These incongruities mean that the
church is very unlikely to have fabricated this event. The reality of Jesus
being baptized by John was too well established to either ignore or reframe.
This call experience is the sign from God that it is time for Jesus to begin
his ministry. Mark presents it as a private event between Jesus and God. His
17
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 165.
18
Collins, Mark, 146–47, citing Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition. 2nd ed.
Trans. John Marsh (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 247–48. Her comparison to Aesop
as a literary parallel ignores the time and tradition differential between the Aesop
material and the Jesus tradition. The theme is analogous, but the perspective of the
account and genre is very distinct.
19
Robert Webb, in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 94–144, esp. 108–112, 141–44. This
classification seems better than the designation as legend, which can suggest a lack of
reality to the experience Mark portrays as present.

readers get to share in this heavenly moment. Only John 1:29–34 indicates
that John also saw the Spirit descending like a dove as a witness to Jesus, but
John’s Gospel does not indicate that John heard anything. It will be in the
power of the Spirit that Jesus’ ministry takes place. Heaven has opened the
door and entered into the life of the world in a fresh way. The description
may well be history’s reply to the plea of Isaiah 64:1 where God is asked to
come down from heaven by tearing open the sky (also Apoc Bar 22.1; T. Levi
2:6; 5:1; 18:6; T. Jud 24.2; Rev 4:1; 11:19; 19:11).
In verse 10, the association of the Spirit with the eschatological period
parallels a theme of many Jewish texts (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1; 63:11; also Pss Sol
17:37). Though many options for what the dove symbolizes have been
proposed, no explanation seems clear.20 The best one may be Genesis 1:2
where the Spirit is tied to creation. Here we have reclamation of the
creation, so the Spirit might be tied to that fresh creative work to bring
new, restored life. If there is no intended symbolism, then the Spirit is
simply compared to a dove in its arrival to mark out Jesus. What is not clear
is whether the description is of the shape of what was seen or the manner of
descent. More important than how the Spirit comes, is that he comes.21
This points to the new era.
After the Spirit’s descent, there came a confirming voice declaring Jesus
to be the beloved Son (Ps 2:7) and the one with whom God is pleased (Isa
42:1). Matthew 12:17–21 cites Isaiah 42 directly. Jesus is commissioned as a
Son-Servant, a Messiah and herald. He is a king with a message and
eschatological task. To the extent the Spirit evokes the Servant, Isaiah
61:1–2 may be seen to describe his mission.22 The terms also parallel how
Israel often was described, so he is a representative of theirs (Exod 4:22–23;
Deut 1:31; Hos 11:1). 4Q174 shows that the idea of the Son of God as a
messianic designation existed in that time for Judaism. This Florilegium
passage is a collection of Hebrew Scripture texts that were seen as prophetic
of the one to come. 2 Samuel 7:14 also appears there.
Sonship is important to Mark (1:1; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61; 15:39). To
be pleased with someone often was directed to an only son (Gen 22:2, 12,
16 – of Isaac as Abraham’s only son).23 The reference to beloved is the
language of affection and family. The description as a whole points to Jesus’
20
Stein, Mark, 57.
21
Robert Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26 (Dallas: Word, 1998), 35.
22
Collins, Mark, 149. Luke 4:18–19 cites this text in another context where Jesus’ mission
and commission are being described.
23
C. H. Turner, “ ‘ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός,’ ”JTS 27 (1926): 113–29; Guelich, Mark 1–8:26, 34.

uniqueness and the unique role he will have in God’s program. He is the
Son as regal king and as one with a unique relationship to the one who
speaks from heaven.
With Luke 3:22, but unlike Matthew 3:17, the address is cast as a direct
word to Jesus speaking to “you,” a second-person singular. Noting the
overall significance of the utterance, Matthew has the feel of a presentation
to his readers and says, “This is my beloved Son. . . .” For him the baptism is
especially Jesus’ active entrance onto the stage of history. Jesus has already
been presented as the stronger one to come to whom John will point, so
this is not an adoption.24 In that text (Mark 1:7), Jesus is described as the
one who is stronger than John, so appointment to a new role is not so much
the point here as a heavenly confession marking out who Jesus is and that
his ministry is now equipped to begin the era that will be marked by the
work of the Spirit. God confirms here this is “the one,” and it is time to
begin the program of deliverance. The familial association is not one Jesus
steps into but a relationship he has that is affirmed here as he begins his
calling.
Jesus represents Israel as Son and Servant (v 12), but he represents
humanity when the Spirit casts him out into the wilderness to face tempta-
tion. The place of wild beasts is seen as a threatening place (Isa 13:19–22;
34:13–14; Ezek 34:5, 25; T. Naph 8.4; T. Iss 7.7 – “every spirit of Beliar shall
flee you; and no deed of wicked men shall rule over you; and every wild
beast you will subdue”; T. Benj 5.2). Although some speak of a restoration
of paradise with wild animals subdued, there is really nothing to indicate a
positive sense. It is a test Jesus faces here.
Mark uses a historical present for cast out, the first of many he writes to
give vividness to the account. It is a violent term for Mark, used often with
exorcisms (Mark 1:34, 39; in other settings, usually of intense physical
displacement: 1:43; 5:40; 9:47; 11:15; 12:8). Matthew 4:1 and Luke 4:1 speak
only of Jesus being led into the wilderness. Although Mark’s version of the
temptations is much shorter than Matthew’s or Luke’s, the point of being
qualified to represent both God and humanity is still made as Jesus survives
the temptations.
Jesus is thrown into a hostile environment for forty days and emerges on
the other side intact (v 13). “Forty” days appears at key moments in Israel’s
history: the wilderness wanderings (Num 14:34), Elijah’s fast (1 Kings 19:8),
and Moses’ time on Sinai (Exod 34:28). In one sense, for Mark this is more
24
Hooker, Mark, 48.

an encounter with Satan than with specific temptations, but the point
emerging from the result is the same. Satan means “the accuser or adver-
sary” (1 Kings 11:14) and is portrayed in Scripture as the archenemy of God
(Job 1–2). Interestingly, Satan is not a major foe in Mark, although exor-
cism and the challenge of demons are shown by the exorcisms Jesus per-
forms. So it is the entire realm of evil forces that Jesus battles. Satan is
mentioned only when some claim Jesus heals by him (Mark 3:23, 26), in the
parable of the sowing of the seed (4:15), and in Jesus’ rebuke to Peter when
the disciple challenges the idea that Jesus will suffer (8:33). Satan and wild
animals have a shot at derailing him, and they do not (Ps 91:9–14). At
Qumran, Psalm 91 is tied to texts about exorcism (11QapPsa = 11Q11).25 So
there maybe irony in Satan depicted as citing a text that would be applied to
the protection from demons. As the test is being completed, heaven also
supports Jesus as the angels minister to him through the test.
Mark focuses on the ministry of Jesus as it emerged following the arrest
of John the Baptist by Herod (v 14). The expression used here is the passive
“delivered over.” It is an expression that can point to arrest or even to
something allowed to take place in God’s plan (Mark 9:31; 10:33; 14:21, 41).
Because no one arranged to have John “handed over,” the expression may
well relate to what God has permitted. Mark will pick up the story of John’s
demise in Mark 6:14–29. Luke structures his Gospel similarly, since he tells
John’s story in Luke 3 and then has the baton of promise passed on to Jesus.
For Mark and Luke, John is a transitional figure bridging the old era with
the new as he points to the arrival of the one who brings the promise. John’s
Gospel shows more overlap in the ministries of the two, as John 3:22–4:2
presents an earlier Perean phase to Jesus’ ministry that the Synoptics do not
have. So Mark has Jesus coming to Galilee for what all the Gospels see as
the main locale for his teaching and work. Mark moves from Galilee and
the area around it (Mark 1:14–9:50) to Judea (10:1–16:8). This is a selective
presentation of Jesus’ activity.
These final verses (vv 14–15) of Mark’s introduction present several key
terms: Gospel, the time, the kingdom of God, repent, and believe. Each is
important to Mark’s overall narrative. Jesus’ message of repentance echoes
that of John (Mark 1:4; also the disciples in 6:12). The time, the kingdom,
repentance, and belief are at the core of what the Gospel is.
The “time” is a reference to the promised time of salvation, the arrival of
the eschaton. It is fulfilled. The perfect tense points to it being and
25
Collins, Mark, 152.

remaining fulfilled. The eschatological calendar has decisively turned a

page for all time. This frames the entire Gospel. God had made certain
commitments in the Hebrew Scripture of a time of ultimate salvation, as
texts like Isaiah 40–66, Ezekiel 34–37, and Jeremiah 30–33 argue. Jesus’
arrival brings that time. That is what the Gospel or good news is all about.
Although people today think of the last days as yet to come, for earliest
Christians, Jesus’ coming to earth began that new era.
The good news is that this time of promise and deliverance has now
drawn near. The Gospel of God is both from him and about him, reflecting
a broad or plenary use of the genitive case. The double use of the term
Gospel in these verses connects back to Mark 1:1 and forms an inclusio that
brackets the entire introduction. Hope is becoming reality.
The structure at the center of this arriving reality of the new time is the
kingdom of God, the promised rule of God that brings with it life and hope
(Matt 4:17; Luke 4:42–43).26 This expression appears thirteen times in Mark
(4:11, 26, 30; 9:1, 47; 10:14, 15, 23, 24, 25; 12:34; 14:25; 15:43) and appears in
sixty-one distinct Synoptic sayings.27 The term has been variously defined:
(1) a strictly Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem, (2) a spiritual kingdom of the
heart, (3) an imminent end-of-history rule with the final judgment, (4) the
promised rule of God now fully arrived, and (5) an arrival now in fulfilment
of promises tied to the Spirit with a consummation to come.
So what is one to make of these options? Nowhere does Jesus speak of the
kingdom as being in the heart, so view 2 is not persuasive. The idea of a
future consummation of the kingdom with complete peace when it comes
26
A more complete look at the kingdom, its roots, and the debates tied to its use can be
found in Darrell Bock, Jesus According to Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 556–93.
Is the kingdom a realm over which God rules or a dynamic pointing to his effective
presence? Is the term static (fixed) in its meaning or tensive (flexible in its use, depend-
ing on context)? Is it apocalyptic or a part of this world’s history? Is it present, future, or
both? The discussion argues that these choices are not mutually exclusive. The core hope
tied to the kingdom is that it is a realm where deliverance takes place and the righteous
are vindicated into a place where God’s rule and presence is active.
27
Stein, Mark, 72. He gives the five categories that follow. He opts for a dynamic meaning
versus realm, but this understates where the kingdom is and is headed. It functions
among the people of God now and will encompass the realm of the earth in the future,
even as it is sown in the world now to make a claim on all and establish accountability
over all humanity now, with an accountability to be applied in judgment later (Matt
13:38). So, although most uses are dynamic, the issue of God’s rule claiming or even
creating a realm ultimately is also in view in the term. Witherington, The Gospel of Mark,
78, expresses this idea this way: “When it refers to something in the future, it appears to
also have additional connotation – namely, a place or a realm where such a divine reign
is manifest. When Jesus speaks of entering, obtaining, or inheriting the dominion in the
future (cf. Mark 9:47; 10:15b; 14:25), not merely a condition but a place seems entailed.”

is against a completely realized kingdom in the present (view 4). View 3 has
a flaw in specifying the timing as soon and looking only to the consumma-
tion. There is room for view 1 in what lies ahead in the kingdom program,
as the consummation is expressed in terms that look back to the hope as it
was expressed in the Hebrew Scripture, but it is too narrow a meaning
because it excludes an already realized dimension to some aspects of the
promise tied to forgiveness and the Spirit’s coming. This already realized
dimension emerges in how Jesus will appeal to the blood of the New
Covenant as bringing the promise through his death at Mark’s discussion
of the Last Supper, something the church picks up and celebrates in the
Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:23–26). Mark 2:21–22 also makes a point that what
comes with Jesus brings new realities, those are tied to what he is doing, not
just what comes at the end. John had already said the sign of the one to
come and the program tied to him are the baptism by the Spirit. That is a
key point of Acts 2 as well. For the early church, forgiveness and the
provision of the indwelling Spirit are the presupposition for the kingdom’s
presence and provision that one enters by faith.
There are only two things to do, given the kingdom’s approach, namely,
to repent and to believe. These two responses are actually related to each
other. Repent is to change one’s mind, so it looks at where one is and says I
need to be different. It is the change of direction that John’s baptism had
pictured. It means one is open to what God will do and is ready for it. Out
of that change of mind is to come belief in the Gospel. That is where one is
to land, in a faith that trusts God to do what he promises and that rests in
what God will provide. So these terms introduce the themes of his ministry
and set the tone for all that follows.
There is an interesting juxtaposition in what is said here. The time is
fulfilled, but the kingdom is only near. The language is of arrival but of
something less than completion. This is likely because the kingdom pro-
gram is a process coming in phases and is introduced by the previous
remark that the time has come.28 So the kingdom is arriving and the time is
here to remain, but the fullness of what lies ahead for the kingdom has not
yet come.29 One other point is important to note. Although the Psalms and
other OT texts speak of the kingdom of God in present and comprehensive
28
R. T. France, The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002), 92.
29
C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel According to Saint Mark: An Introduction and
Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1959), 63–68; Guelich, Mark
1:1–8:26, 44.

terms, that is not what this language is describing. God has the right to rule
because he is Creator. It is this inherent right to rule that the OT texts
describe. Here we have the arrival of an awaited and promised kingdom, a
kingdom where restoration of the Creator’s claims take place. To say the
kingdom is near is to proclaim the approach of this new, restorative aspect
of God’s rule, a rule he had called Israel to expect. Mark is saying that this
hoped-for promise is being inaugurated with Jesus’ coming, but consum-
mation still awaits.
1:16–3:6 jesus in galilee: ministry and controversy

1:16–20 Calling of the Four
1:16 And passing by the Sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew, the
brother of Simon, casting a net into the sea; for they were fishermen.
1:17 And Jesus said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers
of people.”
1:18 And immediately, leaving their nets, they followed him.
1:19 And going on a little, he saw James, a son of Zebedee and John, his
brother, and they were in the boat mending the nets.
1:20 And immediately he called them. And leaving their father Zebedee in
the boat with the laborers, they came out after him.
The work in Galilee continues as Jesus passes by the Sea of Galilee (Mark
1:14, 16). The Sea is about 13 by 7 miles in size. It is more like a lake. Near the
fount of the Jordan River, it lies 700 feet below sea level. Josephus speaks of
the region with pride for its bountiful provision (War 3.516–21). There were
no fewer than sixteen ports on the lake. It had a high volume of fishing
traffic, so much that, years later in CE 68, Josephus could use 230 such boats
as part of his military operation (War 2.635).30
The scene picks up on this setting and a key vocation that was a part of
life in the region. Two fishermen are doing their work, casting their nets
into the sea. Fishing was a key occupation in the region, part of an
international export to Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria.31 Such
30
J. R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 49.
31
Details on the background to this passage can be found in Wuellner, The Meaning of
“Fishers of Men” (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967); Edwards, Mark, 49; J. Murphy-
O’Connor, “Fishers of Fish, Fishers of Men: What We Know of the First Disciples from
Their Profession,” BRev 15/3 (1999): 22ff.; and Nun, “Ports of Galilee,” BAR 25/4 (1999):
18–31.

businesses may well have included people who knew Greek to conduct
such business.
Peter and Andrew are at work (v 16). John 1:44 tells us they originally
were from Bethsaida, although Andrew was associated with a figure, John
the Baptist (John 1:35, 40–42), as much as with this locale. The fact that they
own a boat and have a livelihood means they are not socially at a mere
subsistence level. Tradition has Peter residing in Capernaum during Jesus’
ministry. The nets such fishermen used were about 20 feet in diameter and
had weights that pulled them down into the water to help catch the fish
when they were drawn in.
Jesus calls to them to come after him. The two callings of verses 16–20
have the same four-part core structure: situation (vv 16, 19), calling (vv 17,
20a), response of leaving what they were doing (vv 18a, 20b), and departure
with Jesus (vv 18b, 20c). His promise is that they will be catching people for
God (v 17). The call is to follow in the path of the one who is bringing
people back to God. Although the image of catching fish in the OT is
negative (Jer. 16:16; Ezek. 29:4–5; 38:4; Amos 4:2; Hab. 1:14–17) as it is at
Qumran (1QH 13:8), Jesus’ remark is positive in force. Often nets are used
at Qumran to describe what Beliar [Satan] or scoundrels do (CD 4:15–16;
1QH 3:26), catching people in their nets and snares. So at Qumran people
fish and hunt for those who are evil or to bring them to evil, but Jesus and
those he calls to follow him catch people for God, rescuing them from the
threat of judgment. The idea of a teacher being a fisher of people is not
unusual in either the Greek or Jewish context (Plato, Sophist 218d–222d;
’Abot R. Nat (A) 40).32
This calling presupposes that Jesus is about forming a new community
of the faithful, a point that fits the earlier call to repent and believe the
Gospel in Mark 1:14–15, and now raised by the idea of following Jesus. The
key verb “to follow” (v 18) refers to discipleship and is an important term in
Mark (TDNT 2.210–216; Mark 1:18; 2:14–15; 8:34; 10:21, 28; 15:41). With one
exception (Rev 14:4), the use of this term to refer to discipleship is limited
to the Gospels. “Following” involves a commitment that makes all other
32
Wuellner, Fishers of Men, 12–15, 111–12; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 184, has a survey of the uses of
the imagery but reads Jer 16:16 too positively, for it is of a gathering for judgment, not a
regathering of Israel. Collins, Mark, 159–60, also has Greco-Roman conceptual parallels.
Her clearest example is from Diogenes Laertius, Vita Philosophorum 2.67, where, in
order to win someone over to a philosophical point of view, the teacher is willing to be
insulted, or to “take a carp.” Collins notes Joseph and Aseneth 21:21, which has the
righteous caught by God like a fish and brought to him as a bride.

ties secondary, which is why Jesus’ followers often left other things behind
(1:18, 20; 2:14; 10:21, 28; cf. Matt 8:22; Luke 9:61–62). Although Jesus’
disciples are often compared to rabbinical students, this term is never
used in regard to a rabbi’s student33, so the expression with this nuance
appears to be of Christian origin. Another difference from the way the
rabbis worked is that students picked the rabbis they followed. Here Jesus
calls his disciples to himself. Hengel argues that this call is not like one by a
rabbi, but more like one by a charismatic leader in the Elijah-Elisha mode
(1 Kings 19:20).
Here is radical discipleship. Jesus is put first, so family and vocation
become secondary (Mark 8:33–34). There is a parallel with how that text is
laid out as well (disciple/Jesus says/Me/Follow after).34 Jesus calls regular
vocational people to join him. He is not forming a school of elites. His work
will be accomplished because people are motivated to share with their
neighbors. There may be a distinction between the calling all have from
Jesus to join a movement and the commission John the Baptist and Jesus
have in leading the establishment of a movement to mark the change of era.
The account as a whole is a call narrative. Given Andrew’s background
and ties to John the Baptist, it is likely that these fishermen may have been
aware of Jesus already. So they leave their nets and follow him, answering
the call. This is not an absolute leaving, as later we see Peter with his
mother-in-law, caring for her. We also see them fishing in John 21. What
this pictures is a fresh set of priorities that does eventually lead to Peter
traveling through Judea and other regions to oversee the progress of the
Gospel. Of course, the rest of the Gospel makes clear what lies ahead: if they
follow Jesus’ path, it will not be easy. Though there will be a battle with
some who reject Jesus’ invitation into the kingdom, others will be gathered.
The same process is repeated with James and John, the sons of Zebedee
(vv 19–20). Calling them the “sons of Zebedee” distinguishes them from
other figures named John and James in the narrative, people such as John
the Baptist; James, son of Alphaeus (Mark 3:18), and James, the Lord’s
brother (Mark 6:3). These brothers also were fishermen. Jesus calls them as
they were mending the nets, either fixing them or preparing them for
33
Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (Edinbrugh: T & T Clark,
1981), 50–57.
34
Abe Kuruvilla, Mark: A Theological Commentary for Preachers (Eugene, OR: Cascade
Books, 2012), 26–27. He also notes this is the third call we have had in Mark so far: John
(sent according to Scripture), Jesus (a sent Spirit and divine voice), and disciples (Jesus
issues a calling to go and be fishers of people).

future use. Normally this would happen in the evening, after fishing
was done.
When Jesus issued his call, James and John left their father in the boat
with his workers and came after Jesus. The fact that this family business
had laborers points to a business of modest means. The picture of followers
of Jesus as rural peasants may be oversimplified.35
The move pictures the allegiance to Jesus that becomes primary (Mark
10:28–29), which was significant given that honoring one’s family was a
priority in Judaism (Exod 20:12; Deut 5:16; Prov 23:22–25; Tob 5:1; Sir
3:1– 16). The language of “following” forms an inclusio with verse 17 and
Jesus’ call to Simon and Andrew to come after him. So also the sons of
Zebedee came after Jesus. Simon and Andrew left their boat, but James and
John also left their father. Jesus is a priority over both business and family.
To demand and receive such a commitment shows the importance of who
Jesus is and the calling his ministry represents.36 In the Greco-Roman
world, such a move was not unusual for someone called to a philosophical
school or for a religious commitment.
That this is the first act of Jesus in Mark also is important. He is
gathering an array of followers who will help carry the message and share
the burden of the ministry Jesus brings. They become the core of the new
community the Jesus Movement will form. Their early, constant, and
thorough involvement with Jesus formed the foundation for overseeing
the development of the church and its message.
1:21–39 Jesus’ Time in Capernaum

1:21–28 A Summary and an Exorcism
1:21 They went into Capernaum. And immediately on the Sabbath
entering the synagogue, he was teaching.
1:22 And they were amazed at his teaching, for he was teaching them as
one having authority and not like the scribes.
1:23 And then there was a man in the synagogue with an unclean spirit
and he cried out,
1:24 saying, “What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you
come to destroy us? I know who you are, the Holy One of God.”
35
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 181, speaks of a middle-class status; Collins, Mark, 159, not of
“Palestine’s lowest social stratum.”
36
Hengel, Charismatic Leader, 18–21, compares this to the dedication of one who entered
into the holy war of defending Judaism during the Maccabean War.

1:25 But Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent, and come out of him.”
1:26 And the unclean spirit, convulsing him and crying out with a loud
voice came out of him.
1:27 And all were amazed so that they discussed with one another, “What
is this? A new teaching with authority, and he commands the unclean
spirits and they obey him.”
1:28 And the report about him immediately went out everywhere in the
whole of the entire region of Galilee.
Mark 1:21–22 presents a summary account about Jesus’ teaching and
authority. It is followed by an exorcism that underscores that power. This
word and deed combination is a theme in the Synoptic Gospels. Mark
actually presents less explicit teaching than the other Synoptics. He high-
lights action, beginning with this exorcism, the first of three other exor-
cisms to follow (Mark 5:1–20; 7:24–30; 9:14–29). Mark also has nine healing
miracles and five nature miracles.37 By comparison in terms of healings,
Matthew adds only the healing of the centurion’s son (Matt 8:5–13).
Matthew also hints at a nature miracle in the provision of the temple tax
from the fish (Matt 17:24–27). Luke has this additional centurion son’s
healing plus four more acts of power in his journey to Jerusalem section
(dumb, demon-possessed man, Luke 11:14; crippled woman, Luke 13:10–17;
dropsy, Luke 14:1–6; the ten lepers, Luke 17:11–19) and the ear of the slave of
the high priest (Luke 22:50–51). The core of Jesus’ work showing his acts of
connection to God comes from Mark.38 Mark does highlight Jesus as a
teacher, as he uses the term “teaching” five times, “teacher” twelve times,
and the verb “to teach” fifteen times with reference to Jesus.39
Jesus enters Capernaum (v 21). The name means “village of Nahum” and
had a population of around 1,500 people. The events stay here through
Mark 1:38 and cover more than one day. This small fishing town becomes
his headquarters. Its remains, which are visible still today, cover about a
mile located on the northwest part of the Sea of Galilee, 2.5 miles west from
where the Jordan enters the lake. It was part of an east-west trade route and
included a toll station (Matt 9:9–13). It had a synagogue that can be seen
37
Stein, Mark, 83.
38
The term miracle is more a reflection of a modern worldview that sees such acts as
extreme exceptions, outside the normal “rules” of nature. In the NT, the terms used to
summarize such acts are references to acts of power, as here where the act is an act of
commanding unclean spirits (v. 27), or signs (John 2:11). On how these healings pointed
to an eschatological end, see Eric Eve, The Healer from Nazareth: Jesus’ Miracles in
Historical Context (London: SPCK, 2009), 129–44.
39
Guelich, Mark 1:18:26, 55.

today, although most of the visible synagogue is from a later period, around
the fourth century. Most think the basalt base is old, stretching back to
Jesus’ time. Some have challenged whether synagogues extend back this far,
but the synagogue at Gamla is evidence of a first-century synagogue in the
region, as that city was destroyed and never rebuilt.40 The remains of a
synagogue and the breach in the city wall can still be seen today. Masada
and the Herodium also point to the presence of synagogues. A more recent
find is at Migdal. Synagogues are where the Law was read and studied, as
well as being a place of prayer, education, and community events (TDNT
7:821–28). Any competent male could comment on Scripture.
Jesus’ piety is indicated by his heading to this synagogue (Mark 1:39; 6:2).
On the sacred day, he goes to the sacred place.41 There he teaches, but it is
instruction with a difference. The crowds notice that his teaching carries an
authority unlike that of the scribes. This is teaching with a power that
senses an authority is present (v 22). The arguments point to an innate
versus derived authority. So those in the crowds were amazed (Mark 6:2;
7:37; 11:18). If later instruction is an example, the way the scribes taught was
through text and tradition, citing the views of other rabbis (EDNT 1:259–
60). They worked their way to a conclusion. Jesus’ teaching involves direct
declaration and, more importantly, comes with actions to support the
claims. He reasons and does not cite the views of others. His appeal is to
Scripture or to reflection over what he is doing. So he supports that
teaching with action, as the next scene shows with an exorcism and a
return to the mention of authority in Mark 1:27.42 Jesus’ teaching about
the kingdom comes with a power others noticed.
The amazement could be positive or point to some discomfort at the
difference. What is clear is that Jesus’ style received attention and was not
what people were used to. Mark often contrasts Jesus’ teaching with that of
the scribes (Mark 1:21–27; 2:5–12; 11:27–33). The scribes also are presented as
40
For this debate, see H. C. Kee, “The Transformation of the Synagogue after 70 CE: Its
Import for Early Christianity,” NTS 36 (1990): 117–23, 191–99; R. Oster, “Supposed
Anachronism in Luke-Acts’ Use of Sunagoge: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee,” NTS 39 (1993):
178–208; and Kee, “The Changing Meaning of Synagogue: A Response to Richard Oster,”
NTS 40 (1994): 281–83. For discussion, Witherington, Mark, 88–89; L. Levine, “The Second
Temple Synagogue: The Formative Years,” in The Synagogue in Late Antiquity, ed.
L. Levine (Philadelphia: American School of Oriental Research, 1987), 201–222.
41
C. Myers, Binding the Strong Man (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1988), 141. Textually the
participle saying Jesus taught “coming” to the synagogue is likely to be original based
on superior external evidence, Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New
Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 74–75.
42
By contrast, John’s Gospel has no exorcisms.

Jesus’ opponents (Mark 3:22; 7:1, 5; 8:31; 10:33; 14:1, 43, 53; 15:1, 31). Jesus’
independence from this group of teachers is part of what produced tension
with the leadership.
In Mark, Jesus’ first act of healing is an exorcism. It takes place in a
synagogue and involves an exchange revolving around naming and iden-
tifying, common in such settings (v 23). The reference to “their” synagogue
probably shows that Mark was writing to a predominantly Gentile audi-
ence. Although a regional reference is possible, more likely is the point we
are in a Jewish setting, as a regional reference would have meant little to
Mark’s audience. The demonic spirit cries out to Jesus of Nazareth and
identifies him as the Holy One of God (v 24). Jesus as a Holy One contrasts
with the uncleanness of the spirit. Purity faces off with impurity. As “the”
Holy One, the demons confess the unique set-apart role Jesus has before
God. The title could well be a synonym for “Son of God,” although in a
parallel setting Luke connects both titles to Jesus being the Christ (Luke
4:34, 41; also in John 6:69; Luke 1:35; Acts 2:27; 3:14; 4:27, 30; 13:35).
Demoniacs will call Jesus “Son of God” (Mark 3:11) and Son of the Most
High God (Mark 5:7).43 In the OT, Aaron (Ps 106:16) and Elisha are seen as
holy (1 Kings 4:9). At Qumran, a priestly Messiah is seen in such terms
(1Q30). Jewish hope saw the eschatological High Priest as set apart in a
similar way, including the defeat of Beliar [= Satan] (T. Levi 18:6–12).44
The reference to an unclean spirit in verse 23 reflects a Jewish way to say
a demon is present, an evil malevolent transcendent force (Jubilees 10:1;
T. Benj 5:2; 1QM 13:5 – associated with darkness). Such demons are seen as
defiled beings (1 Enoch 15:3–4; Jubilees 7:21; 10:1). Zechariah 13:2 associates
them with idols. Mark notes unclean spirits eleven times, with six of those
mentions in two scenes (Mark 1:23, 26–27; 3:11, 30; 5:2, 8, 13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:25;
also “demon,” 1:34 [twice], 39; 3:15, 22 [twice]; 6:13; 7:26, 29, 30; 9:38).
Demons are a threat to people and are described as destructive (Mark
5:2–13; 9:17–27). These battles with cosmic forces show where Jesus’ key
concerns lie, with those forces that attack the person from within.
Naming is seen as an effort to control the opponent in the battle that was
an exorcism (T. Solomon 3:5–6; 5:2–3). The Testament of Solomon, in many
places where the demons are present, shows the atmospherics of a text like
this. The spirit also recognizes Jesus’ authority, sensing that the teacher can
destroy him. That declaration can be read as an exclamation or a question.
43
William Lane, The Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 74.
44

With a question preceding, a question here is more likely. He tries to put

Jesus off by these efforts as well as by suggesting they have nothing to do
with him. “What do you want with us?” is an expression found in Judges
11:12 and 1 Kings 17:18 and queries why one would want to interfere in
something.45 Jesus is a threat to the spirit. The mood of the scene is one of
spiritual combat. The mere presence of Jesus raises the tension for this
unclean spirit. Part of Jesus’ mission in bringing the kingdom is to defeat
the influence of malevolent forces. The encounter, then, is a visual expres-
sion of what Jesus is about. His miracles in general are power points. This is
part of what John the Baptist meant in referring to Jesus as the “stronger
one.” The scene makes sense in a context where Jesus’ authority is the
point. More than his ideas is meant in this authority. His person is what
counts for Mark.
Jesus acts. He rebukes the spirit to silence and commands him to depart
(v 25). The call to silence is not unusual for an exorcism. It was a common
way to exert control in an exorcism (PGM IX.4, 9; PGM IV.1243, 1245,
3013).46 PGM V.320–29 speaks of a spell against a person binding the
speech and action, as we have here. The only difference is that here it is a
demon who is muzzled by the exercise of power.47 As such, appeals to any
“messianic secret” for this scene are exaggerated and may ignore the
cultural context.48 Though there is a silencing here, it is not that Jesus is
trying to not disclose something, as the demon has already spoken; it is that
Jesus desires to stop the demon’s activity, verbal and otherwise. Important
to note is that there is no incantation or any other appeal that involves
intermediary authority or magic. Jesus’ word bears the authority. Evil is
challenged by the presence of the kingdom and its hope.
The physical evidence for an exorcism is that the man the spirit possesses
goes into convulsions and there is a loud cry on the spirit’s departure from
the body (v 26). The verb used for convulsions is used only of demonic
activity in the NT (Mark 9:26; Luke 9:39). It describes a shaking that in
other contexts might refer to animals or dogs shaking a victim. Guelich
calls the loud cry a “death wail.”49 It may not be quite so extinguishing, but
it is a sign that the demon has been defeated. Jesus has acted with power.
45
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 56–57. John 2:4 is similar in force.
46
Witherington, Mark, 91.
47
Collins, Mark, 173.
48
Lane, Mark, 75.
49
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 58.

The crowd reacts with amazement (v 27). This is one of two such words
that will describe Jesus’ ministry (thambeomai). In fact, a different term for
astonishment was used in Mark 1:22 (ekplesso; also Mark 6:22; 10:26; 11:18).
Thambeomai also appears in Mark 10:24 and 32. In Mark 10, as here, we get a
juxtaposition of these two terms. Thambeomai points to a perplexity about
what is taking place, a bewilderment combined with shock (BDAG 442;
EDNT 2.128). These are but two of six such terms that point to amazement or
wonder at what Jesus does in Mark (Mark 1:27; 2:12; 4:41; 5:15, 20, 33, 36, 42;
6:50, 51; 9:6, 15, 32; 10:24, 32 [twice]; 11:18; 12:17; 15:5, 44; 16:5–8).50
The result was a public discussion about who Jesus was (vv 27–28) and
what exactly was going on (Mark 4:41; 9:10). These kind of reflective
questions dot the narrative (Mark 4:41; 6:2; 8:27, 29; 11:28). Jesus had an
authority that touched into the world of transcendent beings, not just in
healings, but also in exorcisms. Mark characterizes it as a new teaching
with authority, a power that extended beyond words to deeds, so that he
could command the unclean spirits and they would obey him. In the
grammar there is a debate about whether authority goes with the teaching
or with the commanding of spirits.51 The presence of kai where it is in the
Greek appears to favor the former (reading it as “and,” not “even”), but
Mark’s overall point is hardly impacted by this syntactical decision regard-
less of which option is chosen. The juxtaposition of teaching and action
makes Mark’s point here fresh, versus in Mark 1:22, and is something the
unit of Mark 1:21–28 as a whole also does. Word and deed go together in
Jesus’ ministry, reinforcing each other and giving what he says credibility
about the roots of his power.
Almost half of the first half of Mark covers Jesus’ miraculous activity.
What drew attention was not that Jesus did a miracle here and there, but
rather the extent and scope of this activity.52 The miracles were not auto-
matic in bringing acceptance of Jesus, for opposition emerged. The counter
opinion argued that although Jesus was doing amazing things, it was of the
50
51
Textual variants are also tied to this issue, but tying the phrase about authority to new
teaching seems the reading that best explains the other variants, Metzger, Textual
Commentary (1994), 64.
52
Eric Eve, The Jewish Context of Jesus’ Miracles (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2002), 13–15,
speaks of Jesus portrayed as a “bearer of numinous power” in his healing, not as a
mediator or petitioner (Honi the Circle Drawer) of it, as in most other miracle accounts
of the time. Apollonius is the exception to this observation, but his story is told centuries
later in a context that may reflect a response to Jesus. By contrast, emperors such as
Vespasian are credited with only a work or two to simply establish their credibility.

devil (Mark 3:6, 22). For Mark, this is the regal Servant-Son carrying out
his calling and showing that the kingdom was designed to challenge evil
and overthrow cosmic forces that sought to debilitate people. That could
not be of the devil, as it is the reversal of the devil’s activity that is taking
place.
The report about him spread throughout Galilee.53 The alternative of
reading this as the whole region around Galilee is unlikely, given Mark’s
focus on Galilee in this portion of the Gospel. The spread of this report is
said quite emphatically, as three terms are used to say all of Galilee was
involved: everywhere, all, and whole region. The emphasis may express an
explosion of discussion as a result of Jesus’ time in Capernaum. Jesus’ acts
of power drew attention to him. This teaching involved more than words.
1:29–31 Healing Simon’s Mother-in-Law

1:29 And immediately they54 left the synagogue and entered the home of
Simon and Andrew, with James and John.
1:30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately
they spoke to him about her.
1:31 And he came and took her by the hand and lifted her up, and the fever
left her, and she began to serve them.
The next miracle is a healing of Peter’s mother-in-law. The detail clearly
indicates Peter was married (1 Cor 9:5). The healing takes place later on the
Sabbath day in private, a contrast to the very public exorcism. The remark
that evening had come in Mark 1:32 makes it clear Jesus did not wait to
perform the healing until after the Sabbath had passed. Luke 13:16–17 has
Jesus explain at another healing that no day is more appropriate for a
healing than another. The Sabbath was designed to allow people to con-
template God. What better way to do it than to heal.
The miracle takes places at Simon and Andrew’s home (v 29). All we are
told is that Jesus was told that she had a fever (v 30). In fact, this is among
the shortest miracle accounts in the Gospels. All we have is the setting,
the condition, the move to heal, and the evidence of recovery. We also
have the four called in Mark 1:16–20 noted as present, multiple witnesses.
53
Reading pantachou as “in all directions,” BDAG, 754.
54
The plural with the participle “going out” and verb “came” is more likely than the
singular, despite the external evidence for the singular, because the plural is the harder
reading, Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 64.

An ancient site in Capernaum was discovered in 1968 that has a claim to be

Peter’s home.55 It is located only a few yards from the synagogue.
Jesus’ touch heals her of the fever (v 31). All he does is lift her up and the
fever is gone. Again there is no prayer, no incantation. Jesus’ action is
enough to care for her. The evidence of her being healed was her returning
to serve them. The imperfect here is inceptive and probably points to the
fixing of meals.
1:32–34 Healings in the Evening

1:32 When evening had come, when the sunset, they brought to him all
those who were ill and the demon possessed.
1:33 And the entire city was gathered together at the door.
1:34 So he healed many who were sick with various diseases and cast out
many demons. But he would not permit the demons to speak, because
they knew him.
The discussion turns to a summary.56 After evening came and the sun
had gone down, people gathered at the door. Mark often has dual expres-
sions of time (Mark 1:35; 2:20; 4:35; 10:30; 13:24; 14:12, 43; 15:42; 16:2). Now
that the Sabbath had passed, others sought healing, both the sick and
possessed. Mark consistently makes this distinction in this unit. Sickness
was not always seen as demon possession.
Mark’s use of “all” is hyperbolic, as he speaks later of many being healed
(v 32). The word about Jesus clearly had spread. People now sought out the
one who had been identified as a healer. We do not see Jesus out seeking to
heal people. Those who need healing take the initiative and appeal to him.57
Mark makes nothing of Sabbath healing in the earlier events. That
discussion is saved for later (Mark 2:23–3:6). What we see here is a pious
community waiting for the Sabbath to pass before bringing people to Jesus
and waiting in line for healing (v 33). CD 11:11 prohibits an infant from
being carried on the Sabbath. In the Mishnah, Shabbat 14:3–4 looks to
discuss what one can drink on the Sabbath and seems to imply that there is
not to be healing on this day.58
55
V. C. Corbo, ABD 1:867–68.
56
For evidence this is a piece of tradition, and not a summary written by Mark, Guelich,
Mark 1:1–8:26, 64, notes several expressions that are distinct here from the previous units
in Mark, suggesting that a Markan summary would not be worded so distinctly.
57
France, Mark, 109.
58
Collins, Mark, 175.

The summary concludes by noting Jesus performing healings and exor-

cisms (v 34). Mark’s own array of healing – fever, leprosy, paralysis,
hemorrhage, deafness and blindness – shows the range of Jesus’ healing
work, which is distinguished from his exorcisms (Mark 1:30–31, 40–45; 2:1–
12; 5:25–34; 7:31–37; 8:22–26; 10:46–52). Jesus’ healing of “many” is to be
taken inclusively of the all mentioned earlier. The rest of the Gospel shows
he is healing all types of maladies. The crowd is drawn to him in part
because of this. They risk not appreciating the real reason for his coming –
not to heal physical needs, but to bring people closer to God’s promise in
the call to turn back to him.
The additional remark in verse 34b is that the demons were not allowed
to speak because they knew him. This idea appears consistently in the
Gospel (Mark 1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43; 7:36; 8:26, 30; 9:9). This is said in the midst
of exorcisms, to those healed of disease, and to the disciples. This note to be
silent communicates Jesus’ power and authority over such hostile forces.
This is Mark’s point – Jesus can control them.
Why does Jesus silence their knowledge of him? Given the variety in
Jewish views about what the Messiah would do in the eschaton, Jesus
prefers to choose the time to highlight this role. This awaits his entry
into Jerusalem at the end of his ministry (Mark 11:1–10). In addition,
demons validating one’s authority is not exactly the best form of endorse-
ment. So this remark is the first clear note of Jesus working not to publicize
who he is, what has been called the “Messianic Secret.”
For some, Mark has taken a non-messianic ministry and hidden it
behind the secret, awaiting a claim by the early church that Jesus was not
who he saw himself to be. The major issue with this theory is that there
really was no reason to go to this claim unless it had some type of
motivation from what Jesus directly did or said.59 A messianic claim,
where one was not necessary, put the community too far at risk with
Rome to have been invented by the early church. Resurrection is no
precedent for going there. Something must have been in place for the
new community to so quickly and comprehensively preach Jesus as the
Christ, even to the point of making the title the moniker of identification
59
J. R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 64, says,
“The only reasonable answer for their incurring the odium of fellow Jews in proclaiming
the Gospel is that they believed Jesus to be God’s Son and Messiah. Jesus could scarcely
have been proclaimed as Messiah after the resurrection unless he had been recognized as
such during his ministry.”

for Jesus.60 Demons know Jesus to be the “Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24)
and “Son of [the Most High] God” (Mark 3:11; 5:7 has the longer title). It is
not yet time for a full disclosure to become the focus of Jesus’ work. Once
the kingdom’s message is in place and the disciples understand the pro-
gram, then Jesus will disclose who he is and the type of messianic office he
reflects.
1:35–39 Prayer and a Decision to Move On

1:35 Very early in the morning, while it was still dark, Jesus went out and
departed into a deserted place and prayed there.
1:36 Simon and those with him hunted him down.
1:37 And they found him and said to him, “Everyone is seeking you.”
1:38 He replied, “Let’s go elsewhere, into the surrounding villages, so I
can preach there too. For that is what I came out here to do.”
1:39 And he came61 preaching in their synagogues in the whole of Galilee
and casting out demons.
This is yet another summary account about Jesus’ sense of mission to the
whole region. After another double time reference from Mark about
the early morning (v 35), Jesus heads out to pray in a deserted place (not
the wilderness we saw earlier, as we are in Capernaum). Despite the whirl
of activity around him, Jesus takes time to commune with God. His
program is not his alone. He is following the lead of God. So Mark frames
these events with a continued look at a pious Jesus devoted to God and
directed by him. This is the first of three such notes about prayer in Mark
(Mark 6:46; 14:35–39). Each is an important time in the ministry. It also is
the first of five references to solitude (Mark 1:35, 45; 6:31–32, 35).
The disciples search for Jesus and find him (v 36). The verb here
(katediōxen) is quite vivid. It means “to hunt someone down” (Ps 17:38
LXX; BDAG 516). Their intense desire is for Jesus to return and minister
some more in Capernaum. Everyone is seeking him (v 37). The verb “to
60
Some variants make an explicit reference to his being the Christ, but this looks like
assimilation to Luke 4:41, since key manuscripts lack any such reference (‫*א‬, A, (D), K, Δ,
it, vg, syr).
61
A variant here is “was” preaching. A few manuscripts add in the synagogues to the “was.”
The point is the same, but the construction with “came” is a more difficult reading and
thus, likely original, since a scribe would more likely smooth out the construction and
make it like Luke 4:44, Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 64–65. The earlier manu-
scripts have this harder reading.

seek” (zēteō) is consistently negative in Mark (Mark 1:32; 3:32; 8:11–12; 11:18;
12:12; 14:1, 11, 55). Even Mark 16:6 is somewhat negative, as they are seeking a
Jesus who is no longer in the tomb. They were seeking Jesus where he was
no longer to be found and should not have been sought, given that he had
told them he would be raised.
The focus of the people looks to be on Jesus only as a healer-exorcist. It is
a misdirected seeking. Jesus’ intention is not to stay put in one place nor to
be merely known for his miraculous work, but to cover the region and
preach the kingdom. It is time to move on. In a short mission statement
(v 38), Jesus declares that preaching to those in the region is what he has
come to do. Mark 2:17 and 10:45 are other Markan mission statements. This
ministry program involves an itinerant ministry. This is not so much a
rejection of Capernaum as it is the recognition that to have impact, more
than one location would be required.
The key to what Jesus is doing is his message, not his work of healing. So
Jesus goes to the synagogues to preach. He came for this reason. The term
kērussō points to missionary proclamation, either a call to repent and
respond to the Gospel (Mark 1:4, 7, 14; 6:12; 13:10; 14:9) or to what Jesus
has done (Mark 1:45; 5:20; 7:36), not to instruction, especially given the
earlier reference to Mark 1:14–15.62 Only these references in verses 38–39
and that in 3:14 do not reveal the content of what was preached. The term
pictures a herald, an announcement (BDAG 543). Jesus will be described as
teaching after this. He also continues his ministry of compassion, casting
out demons. What he had done in Capernaum, he now does elsewhere.
Word and deed remain together. It is exorcism that is the focus, as Mark
has his eyes on the cosmic battle (also Mark 3:14–15; 6:7). Satan’s defeat is
being catalogued.
1:40–45 Into Galilee: The Healing of a Leper

1:40 And a leper came to him, calling him, and bowing to his knees,
saying, “If you are willing, you are able to make me clean.”
1:41 And being angry [or having compassion]63, he stretched out his
hand, touched and said to him, “I am willing. Be clean.”
1:42 The leprosy left him immediately, and he was clean.
1:43 And having warned him sternly, he sent him away immediately.
62
63
The textual variants between anger and compassion are discussed in detail later.

1:44 And he said to him, “See that you don’t say anything to anyone, but
go show yourself to the priest and bring the offering that Moses
commanded for cleansing as a testimony in relationship to them.”
1:45 But as he went, he began to preach much and to spread the word, so
that Jesus could no longer openly enter a town, but was in desolate
places, and people were coming to him from every direction.
As Jesus travels in Galilee, an unclean leper approaches him with respect
(v 40). The scene is a straightforward miracle healing account with a
setting, exchange, healing, and evidence of healing.
Bowing before him, the leper asks to be cleaned.64 Leprosy refers to an
array of skin diseases that rendered a Jewish person unclean and required a
life of isolation from society (Lev 13–14; m. Nega’im, esp 13:7–11; Josephus,
Ant. 3.264). Leviticus 13:45–46 reads, “The person with such an infectious
disease must wear torn clothes, let his hair be unkempt, cover the lower
part of his face and cry out, ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ As long as he has the
infection, he remains unclean. He must live alone; he must live outside the
camp.” Even chance encounters can render one unclean, as m. Nega’im 13:7
reads, “If an unclean man [afflicted with leprosy] stood under a tree and a
clean man passed by, the latter becomes unclean. If a clean man stood
under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean. If the
latter stood still, the former becomes unclean.”65 According to m. Nega’im
13:12, lepers could attend a synagogue provided there was a screen separat-
ing them from others. There was an awareness that this condition was
contagious and could spread, leading to the isolation.
This condition involves more than what is known as Hansen’s disease
today. Lepers were to announce their presence and the danger of contam-
ination by crying out, “Unclean, unclean!” (Lev 13:45–46). The leper’s
approach to Jesus violated this legal tradition, but it expressed the con-
fidence that Jesus was capable of reversing his condition. Sometimes such
diseases were regarded as divine judgments (2 Kings 5:7, where healing the
disease is seen as restoring life). Other texts discussing the disease include
Exodus 4:6–8; Numbers 12:9–15; 2 Kings 5:1–27; 2 Chronicles 26:16–21; Job
18:13; and 11QTemplea 45:17–18. This leprosy has caused him to be isolated
64
There is uncertainty if the reference to kneeling is original, so the Greek text brackets it.
‫א‬, A, C, and L have it; but B, D, and W lack it. The parallels have something similar,
suggesting that it was original, Metzger, Textual Commentary, (1994), 65.
65
Lane, Mark, 85. Papyrus Egerton 2 has this scene in an embellished form, with a report in
the first person by the leper, saying he contracted the leprosy while at an inn.

from society, so the request is not only to be healed, but also to be cleansed
so that he can reenter life to the fullest. This is what the healing pictures.
The request in verse 40 indicates that Jesus is able to cleanse him if he
wishes to do so. Jesus is not acting as a priest here in recognizing a healing;
he is doing the healing. The request is a third-class condition, so it comes
with no presumption. The choice is left completely in Jesus’ hands by this
portrayal. The leper’s expectation and hope is shown by his willingness to
approach Jesus without warning him he is a leper. The entire act is a
statement of faith in Jesus’ ability to heal. Love and authority trump
ceremonial law here.
Jesus’ reaction has three steps (v 41): (1) he has compassion on the man
(or anger at the situation), a common Markan noting of Jesus’ emotion (see
the later discussion of the textual issue); (2) he touches the man, but rather
than this touch rending Jesus unclean, it will be the touch of reversal, with
uncleanness leading to healing; and (3) he tells the man he is willing and
that the man is now clean. His command is a speech act in the most classic
sense. Jesus’ word resolves the situation and restores the man. Normally
touching would have rendered Jesus unclean (Lev 13:45–46; Num 12:10–15; 2
Kings 7:3–4), but Jesus’ sanctity is stronger than the uncleanness.
Some manuscripts, including D and some Old Latin renderings, read
“moved with anger” (cf. NLT mg). Some argue that this is the harder
reading, because it is more difficult to explain a copyist’s move from
compassion to anger. Matthew 8:3 and Luke 5:13 lack the remark entirely
in their parallels, but not too much should be made of this, as they speak
less of Jesus’ emotions than Mark does, and Matthew often abbreviates the
parallels he uses. On the other hand, they do sometimes make such a note
about emotion (Matthew 9:36; Luke 7:13). If anger were original, then Jesus’
anger would be set against the man’s condition and the isolation and
suffering it brings – life lived in a fallen world full of pain. In that sense it
would have an element of compassion as well. John 11:33, 38 provided
analogies to the sense here.66 It is not the man’s request that brings
anger, given that Jesus healed regularly to show God’s care for people, as
his word and deed made a match that reinforced each other (Luke 13:16).67
Neither should the anger be attributed to a demonic challenge or presence
that leads Jesus to react. Nothing in the text points to a challenge. The
reading of anger is quite possible, and a decision between the variants is
66
67
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 206; Hooker, Mark, 79–80.

finely balanced. For reading compassion as original is the overwhelming

external geographical and chronological spread of the MSS (‫א‬, B, W, and
the great majority of MSS).68 However, the difficulty of a move from anger
to compassion means the original reading of anger is a harder reading and
likely the original.
Mark loved to note Jesus’ emotions. Jesus acted in reaction to the man’s
plight and his perceptive request that Jesus could do something about it.
The healing would be extended with a symbolic touch, since Jesus’ power
to cleanse was greater than leprosy’s power to stain (contrast 2 Kings 5:1–14;
Num 12:9–15). The significance of this kind of act is clearer in other Gospel
texts (Matt 11:5; Luke 7:22). Jesus’ ability to cleanse typifies the Galilean
ministry for which this is the lead-off event. For Jesus, the untouchable is
touchable.
The man is healed in a moment (v 42). Jesus warns him and urges him to
go to the temple to show himself to the priests in line with the requirements
of the Law (v 43; see Lev 14:1–20). The verb for warn has an edge to it. The
verb embrimaomai means “to snort” or “be indignant” (BDAG 322; Mark
14:5; John 11:33, 38; Lam 2:30; Dan 11:30). When a horse snorts, this is the
verb used. It is a term of emotion. Jesus wanted to restrict the public
announcement of what had taken place, at least for now (Mark 1:34; 3:12;
5:43; 7:36; 8:30, 9:9). This is an insistent warning. It may be aware of the
disobedience to come (Mark 1:45). The instruction comes with a double
negative, so the prohibition to say anything is expressed with emphasis.
The sacrifice is to be a testimony for/against them (v 44). The question is
whether to take this positively or negatively. This is a close call. If it is
positive, then it is to testify to God’s grace for the man.69 At the least, the
sacrifice was to make this point, as that was the goal of such a declaration at
the temple. If it is negative, then it is to challenge the priests to see what
God is doing. The Greek allows for the interpretation, “a testimony against
them.” In other spots where this expression appears, France argues that it is
68
Collins, Mark, 177; Metzger, Textual Commentary (1971), 76–77, also notes that Mark’s
use of anger is clearly attested in other verses (3:5; 10:14), so that scribes did not object to
saying Jesus was angry. Still, anger in this Mark 1 context is less clear than in those other
examples, so it is harder to see it being added here if compassion were original. Guelich,
Mark 1:1–8:26, 72, correctly calls it “a genuine textual dilemma.” I have changed my mind
on this textual problem since writing about it earlier in the Cornerstone commentary on
Mark, page 416. I have now decided an original compassion would not have led a scribe
to produce a change to anger, while the reverse is quite likely.
69
Stein, Mark, 108.

negative, meaning “against them” (Mark 6:11; 13:9; TDNT 4:502–503).70 It

may be that a more generic “as a testimony in relationship to them” is best
as our translation suggests. Though he appears before one priest, the
testimony extends to a group. In this case, the sacrifice serves as evidence
of God’s acting through Jesus and as a testimony against the priests when
they come to reject the reality that God is working through Jesus. The
action also may reflect a challenge to the claim that Jesus ignored the Law.
Here he tells the healed leper to follow it. There has been nothing negative
yet in Mark to point to this conflict, so the testimony is not so much
immediate as it is ultimately shown. Jesus comes to do the work of God
faithfully.
The man did not obey (v 45). He went around telling people what had
taken place. News spread. Jesus gained fresh attention, so much so that he
could not enter a town without drawing a crowd. So he ministered outside
the towns. Still people came to him from everywhere. This healing ends
with Jesus having garnered attention across the region. His healings were
drawing crowds. As it was in Capernaum, so also in Galilee (Mark 1:35–39),
except now the crowds pursued him in the desert versus just the disciples.
That was not quite what Jesus had desired. For, as Mark had already
indicated, Jesus was about more than healing. The next healing of the
paralytic will also make that clear. The result helps to explain why Jesus
sought to keep news of the healing as confined as he could.
The result of the event is that Jesus heals and cleanses apart from the
temple. His authority continues to be powerfully demonstrated. God is
working through one who is not located at the temple.71
2:1–3:6 Five Controversies: What Got Jesus into Trouble

2:1–12 Controversy 1 – Authority over Sin: Jesus and the Paralytic
2:1 And coming again into Capernaum after some days, it was reported
that he was at home.
2:2 And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room,
even at the door. And he was speaking the word to them.
2:3 And they came, bearing to him a paralytic, being carried by four
of them.
70
France, Mark, 120, but 13:9 is also debatable, with its parallel Matt 10:18. Matt 24:14
appears positive.
71
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 210–11.

2:4 And not being able to bring him in because of the crowd, they
removed the roof where he was, and digging through, lowering the
pallet where the paralytic lay.
2:5 And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Child, your sins
are forgiven.”
2:6 And there were some of the scribes there, seated and dialoging in
their hearts,
2:7 “Who is this speaking this way? He blasphemes. Who is able to forgive
sins but the one God?”
2:8 And Jesus, immediately knowing in his spirit that they were dialoging
among themselves, said to them, “Why are you dialoging these things
in your hearts?
2:9 Which is easier to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to
say, ‘Take up your mat and walk?’
2:10 In order that you might know that the Son of Man has authority on
earth to forgive sins,” – he said to the paralytic –
2:11 “I say to you, ‘Rise, take your mat, and go to your house.’ ”
2:12 And he was raised and immediately taking his mat, he went out
before all, so that all were amazed and glorified God saying, “We have
never seen anything like this.”
This next account starts a series of five successive controversies. What
Mark 2:1–3:6 and Luke 5:17–6:11 keep together as a likely topically oriented
tradition, Matthew 8–12 splits up.72
This specific scene is a combination miracle account and pronounce-
ment story. The miracle provides the context for the pronouncement,
which serves as the commentary on the miracle’s significance.
Jesus returns to his home and headquarters in Capernaum (v 1). This is
likely Peter’s home (Mark 1:29, 33, 35). A report gets out of his return,
leading to a crowd again gathering at his home (v 2), just as in Mark 1:33. It
is so full that people extend beyond the door. Jesus is drawing unending
attention. The many in Mark 2:2 is a crowd in 2:6. In addition, scribes have
gathered to take a look in Mark 2:7. He is speaking the word, a way to say he
is sharing the Gospel (Mark 4:14–20, 33).
The crowd was so dense that four people bringing a paralytic to Jesus
could not get into the house (vv 3–4). However, they were determined to
place the man before Jesus. So they climbed up a ladder that led to the flat
roof above, removed the covering, and dug through the roof to lower the
man and his pallet before Jesus. This is not an unprecedented act, as Cicero
72
Collins, Mark, 182, makes the case that this is extant tradition that Mark has passed on.

also describes such an event (In M. Antonium oratio Philippica II.18.45).

The literal expression is they “unroofed the roof” (Josephus, Ant. 14.459).
Any damage done likely came to be understood, given how the situation
developed, and was repairable. Needless to say, the action would have been
quite distracting. The pallet was made of wood and covered with cloth.
Mud thatch and whatever other material, such as tree trunks, dried mud,
and branches, were cleared away. Luke 5:19 also mentions tiles, suggesting a
more well-to-do home. One could work or sleep on such roofs.
This is the only healing involving a paralyzed person in Mark and Luke.
Matthew and Acts have other examples (Matt 4:24; 8:6; Acts 8:7; 9:33).
Obstacles to healing are also noted in other Markan healings (Mark 5:21–
24, 35–43; 10:46–52). Though some have tried to explain this as a way to
prevent a demon of paralysis from gaining access through a door, there is
nothing in this event pointing to an exorcism.73 This is a healing account.
Jesus responds because of the faith of all of those participating in bring-
ing the paralytic to him (v 5). Mark likes to use both the noun and the verb
for faith (Mark 1:15; 4:40; 5:34–36; 9:19, 23–24, 42; 10:52; 11:22–24; other texts
assume faith: 1:29–31, 40–45). Mark commends their faith as it was manifest
in their action. In Mark, faith is expressed concretely as it overcomes
obstacles placed in its way. The idea of one appealing for the healing of
another is also common (Mark 5:21–43; 7:24–30; Matt 8:5–13; John 4:46–53).
This group is confident Jesus can heal the man. Unlike other miracle
accounts in the Greco-Roman world, faith precedes the healing versus
being a result and response to it.74
Jesus does not move to heal the man yet, but instead forgives his sin. The
present tense versus the perfect of Luke 5:20 fits Mark’s style.75 Sin and
disease were often associated in the ancient world, something the discus-
sion surrounding the blind man in John 9:2–3 assumes, but Jesus rejects as
automatic (Ps 41:4; 103:3; James 5:15–16). Later in the Talmud, healing is not
seen as possible without forgiveness (B. Nedarim 41a– “No one gets up
from his sick-bed until all his sins are forgiven.”). The surprise move to
focus on sin and raise it directly drives this account. Surely the man who
came to be healed also would have been surprised, but Jesus is again
73
This view is noted and properly rejected by Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 85.
74
Theissen, The Miracles Stories of the Early Christian Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress,
1983), 132.
75
The text-critical options here involve either a present or a perfect tense. Matthew 9:2 also
has a present, which is unusual for him and points to a present in Mark, since Matthew
likely follows Mark in this parallel, Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 66.

pointing to the fact that he is about more than mere healing. Healing is
designed to picture deeper concerns.
Some commentators struggle to see why Jesus goes this direction here,
even suggesting the theme is a later addition. However, if one sees that
Jesus has already been fighting to show that he is about more than mere
healing, the current focus on sin and dealing with it makes sense and shows
an emerging Markan theme. The fact that table fellowship with sinners is
the next controversy also shows this link to dealing with the topic of sin as
part of the center of Jesus’ ministry. His work pictures the “wholeness of
the new age.”76
This remark about forgiving sin got Jesus into trouble with the theo-
logians present, as the scribes were shocked that Jesus would forgive sin
and take up a divine prerogative (vv 6–7; Exod 34:6–7; Isa 43:25; Ps. 130:4;
Midrash Psalms 17:3). Although it is expressed as a divine passive that
could attribute forgiveness to God, they see Jesus as crossing a sacred line
(see Lev 4:26, 31; 2 Sam 12:13 – Nathan announcing to David; or the
debated Qumran’s Prayer of Nabonidus [4Q242], where a diviner either
points to God forgiving and announces it or in an exceptional text makes
a direct declaration). Nothing Jesus does subsequently to the surfacing of
this concern points to Jesus separating his declaration and responsibility
for the utterance from God. This is a claim of shared authority. It is, as
France calls it, a “performative utterance.”77 Jesus speaks directly for God.
He is not interceding for God to act. He is not acting like a priest who
simply declares what God has done through a rite. Jesus is making a
declaration about sin, showing a shared responsibility for dealing with sin
(Mark 2:10).
The scribes get it and complain to themselves. “This one” forgives sin.
The scribes’ fundamental task was to copy the sacred texts, not just to
render judgment about them (TDNT 1:740–42). The great amount of time
they spent with the sacred texts helped to qualify them for making judg-
ments about the Law. The judgment they make appears to be theologically
correct; only God has the power to forgive sin (Ps 51:1–3; 85:2). It introduces
the tension of the scene. It also shows they are skeptical about Jesus; they
are opponents from their opening appearance. These are private thoughts,
but Jesus will sense them. It is common in the Gospels when one thinks
76
77
France, Mark, 125. Stein, Mark, 119, notes nothing here or in Luke 5:17–26 or 7:36–50 goes
in the direction of creating a distance for Jesus’ claim that points only to God.

privately that Jesus will confront those thoughts (Mark 2:8; 8:16–1; 9:33;
Luke 7:36–39). By speaking of the “one” God, they underline the unique-
ness of God’s authority as they make the complaint (Deut 6:4).
Something about the way Jesus expressed this forgiveness indicated that
he was claiming to be more than a healer or prophet. In their view, Jesus
was not honoring God, but slandering him by making such claims.
Blasphemy is dishonoring or slandering someone, usually through arro-
gant or disrespectful speech against them (BDAG 178; Lev 24:10–16). It was
an usurping of God’s honor. In Jewish culture, blasphemy could also spill
over into disrespectful acts.78 Later Jesus traded charges of blasphemy with
the teachers of religious law (Mark 3:22); he was convicted of blasphemy at
his examination (Mark 14:63–64), and the people blasphemed Jesus while
he was on the cross (Mark 5:29–30).
Jesus responds to the challenging reaction to his claim to forgive sins by
asking why they are responding this way and dialoging in their hearts about
what he has said (v 8). This insight into the internal response of the scribes
points to the fact that Jesus has exceptional perception, adding to the
portrait that here is someone most unusual. At the least, God is seen to
have given him exceptional insight. However, more likely is an innate
ability in Jesus, as the reference to his spirit points to his own insight.
Other texts also point to such exceptional perception (John 2:25; 4:16–19;
Mark 5:30; 12:15; 14:18–21; Luke 7:36–40).79
Jesus poses a question about what is easier to say when the issue is a
problem of appearance versus verification (v 9). Is it easier to say your sins
are forgiven or to tell the paralytic to take up his mat and walk? At the level
of appearance, to say “take up your mat” is more difficult, for then the
healing has to take place. Its success or failure is obvious. It is easy from
appearance’s sake to say your sins are forgiven because that cannot be seen
or verified by the words alone. On the other hand, miracles are common,
whereas human declarations of forgiveness are not. So the real issue is not
one of appearance but of genuine authority. To have the authority to
forgive sins is not extended to all. Only God has such authority. Jesus
claims this prerogative is extended to the Son of Man (v 10). To show it, he
will tell the paralytic to take up his mat (v 11). The observable healing linked
to the unseeable claim will verify it as a sign, an indicator that God has
78
Darrell Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the Final Examination of Jesus
(Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998), 30–112.
79
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217, calls this clairvoyant power.

given this authority to the Son of Man.80 The question sets up a connection
that Jesus makes in Mark 2:10. Jesus did not back off from the dispute; he
wished to engage them on this controversial point and affirm his authority
to do these things.
So Jesus tells the paralytic to take up his mat and walk. Some see a
parenthesis in the entire verse here.81 That reading is certainly possible, but
the real break in thought is not in the “in order that” remark, but rather in
the aside that has “he said” in it. The syntax here is clumsy; and if the
remark is Mark’s, all he would be doing is making explicit what is implicit
in the event. However, the event can make sense as coming from Jesus,
and the fact that the “Son of Man” is an expression elsewhere reserved for
Jesus’ own speech points to the utterance being his.82 This is the first of
fourteen Markan Son of Man sayings, and everywhere else it is Jesus who
speaks. Mark may be alluding to these kinds of statements in Exodus
(Exodus 8:22; 9:14).83
Mark 2:10 is the key pronouncement of the unit. It is what makes the
scene a combination of a pronouncement account and a healing. The
theology of the event is summarized here – God has given authority to
the Son of Man to forgive sin. The new era has come.
This saying and Mark 2:28 are the only Son of Man passages that come
before the confession at Caesarea Philippi. These two sayings are impor-
tant, as both deal with divine authority (over sin and Sabbath). The hina
clause could even be an imperative: “Know that. . . .” The “you may know”
is expressed to the crowd, and then comes a shift of attention back to the
scene and the paralytic. The paralytic gets what he came for, healing, plus
the forgiveness of sins.
Healing can be seen, but forgiveness cannot be seen. Jesus said that his
healing of the paralytic would make evident the truth of his claims about
forgiveness. If God worked through him in healing, then these claims
would be vindicated. Jesus’ action also shows a total restoration as both
80
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 217–18, seems to miss the point of contrast in arguing that the logic of
the contrast is flawed. He makes it a lesser-to-greater argument, but it is really a seen-
pointing-to-an-unseen argument.
81
Witherington, Mark, 117, who notes parenthetical remarks in Mark 2:15, 28; 7:3–4, 19;
13:14; also Lane, Mark, 97.
82
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 91. See also Stein Mark, 120, n. 9, who notes that if it were a
parenthetical remark, it would have two breaks on top of each other, which he sees as
unlikely, since “he says” is also a break.
83

healing and forgiveness take place. Again, Jesus came to do more than heal,
a major opening Markan theme.
Beyond this text, the background to the Son of Man usage is important.
The Son of Man is Jesus’ favorite way to refer to himself. It is an idiom,
meaning a human being, as well as a title in Daniel 7:13–14, picturing a
human who rides on or with the clouds up to the Ancient of Days. So its
usage here is ambiguous, as it can simply mean “I,” and its OT connection
might have become clear only later. Still, only transcendent beings ride the
clouds in the OT and in the Ancient Near East (of God: Num 10:34; Deut
33:26; Ps 68:4, 33; 104:3; Isa 19:1).84 So ultimately the term highlights
humanity and transcendence in one expression. The use as a title is not
clear as Jesus begins to use it, but his repeated use and later linkage to
Daniel will show that is how he is using the term, along with the consistent
rendering in the NT that this is “the” Son of Man (with the article present).
By the time Mark’s readers read it, the term would have had full force. The
Son of Man has authority to forgive sin. Understanding who this figure is
removes any objection one might raise. The suggestion that Jesus is claim-
ing a general authority over people is certainly misguided. It is not a general
ability that Jesus is demonstrating, but one particular to himself.85 As
Collins notes, Jesus is presented as a “fully authorized agent of God.”86
So Jesus tells the paralytic to get up and go to his house. Jesus’ word is
enough. Nothing else intervenes. The man “was raised,” indicating that the
healing took place from outside himself (v 12). God had acted through
Jesus. As the former paralytic departs with his mat in hand, everyone is
84
Baal was often characterized as a rider of the clouds. See Keilalphabetische Texte aus
Ugarit, KTU 1.19: I: 38–46; KTU 1.2: IV:7–9; KTU 1.3: III:37–38.
85
Hooker, Mark, 87, surely has this correct, but her hesitation to connect this saying to
Jesus rather than having it reside in the early church is not necessary. Something in
Jesus’ ministry likely precipitated the conviction that Jesus came to deal with sin. The
arrival of the kingdom after a call to repent would push in this direction. All of it
assumes a cleansing Jesus offers. Also, the early church normally tied the forgiveness of
sins to Jesus’ death, not as a category independent of it. See Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 93,
but he is wrong to say this is the only place where Jesus personally forgives sin in the
Gospel tradition, as Luke 7:47–50 shows not only another text, but also one from another
source (L), pointing to multiple attestation for the theme. It is the only place the Son of
Man does this. Lane, Mark, 98, has expressed the uniqueness of sin and Son of Man
correctly.
86
Collins, Mark, 187, but the idea that the saying is post-Easter because it is specific (188–
89) is unlikely, as it is Jesus’ usage of the title/idiom, even in Aramaic, that generates the
specific use of “the” Son of Man. The church does not generate independent Son of Man
sayings, as it never uses the title on its own. This peculiarity likely points to a particular
practice in which Jesus’ exclusivity of use is honored and preserved.

amazed, and they give glory to God, noting that they had not seen anything
like this (Mark 1:27; 4:41; Isa 64:4). As the man walks, the declaration is not
only of a healing, but also of the Son of Man’s authority to forgive sin. Jesus’
work is about more than healing. A new era is dawning (Isa 35:6; Jer 31:8).
The open ending of the crowd’s reaction invites the reader to contemplate
what is taking place.
Unlike the act with the leper, this event is public, and all who see it are to
contemplate what has just happened. The crowd is amazed and grateful.
They glorify God. God does not work through sinners, so something must
be going on. The theme of the controversy between Jesus as blasphemer or
as divine agent with divine prerogatives will remain throughout Mark, as it
will be the climactic issue in Mark 14 when the Jewish leadership decides
Jesus is to be taken to Pilate. The first controversy in Mark will also be the
last controversy. These are the two options about what to make of Jesus.
Mark’s choice is clear.
2:13–17 Controversy 2 – Associations: The Kingdom of God for Those

in Need
2:13 He went out again beside the sea, and an entire crowd came to him,
and he was teaching them.
2:14 And as he was passing by he saw Levi, son of Alphaeus, seated at the tax
booth, and he said to him, “Follow me.” And arising, he followed him.
2:15 And as he reclined in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were
reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who
followed him.
2:16 And when the scribes of the Pharisees saw he was eating with sinners
and tax collectors, they were saying to his disciples, “Why does he eat
with tax collectors and sinners?”
2:17 When Jesus heard this, he said to them, “Those who are well do not
have need of a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call
the righteous but sinners.”
This scene is another call account tied to a pronouncement about Jesus’
associations that might have made him appear impious. It opens with a
summary. Mark notes that Jesus went out by the sea and the crowds were
coming to Jesus to hear him teach (v 13). There is nothing symbolic in the
mention of the sea because this is where he regularly ministered. As Jesus
continued to move in (v 14), he passed a tax booth with Levi present. Herod
Antipas would have controlled these sites. This booth was likely in

Capernaum. Jesus calls the tax collector to follow him, and Levi leaves the
booth to follow Jesus. The calling of a tax collector is important, for they
were seen very negatively in the culture. Later tradition compared them to
murderers and robbers to whom one could lie without any sense of guilt
(m. Ned 3:4). They were said to render a house unclean (m. Teh 7:6; m. Hag
3:6). Collecting taxes for Rome was not popular with Jews. Collecting these
taxes would have been bid for by the collectors, who paid the state for the
right to collect the taxes. A surcharge was added for the collector. These
would have been usage taxes, more like tolls (sales, customs, and road
taxes), but abuse was common in making the surcharges.87 This was seen as
supporting the foreign Gentiles in their land. Despite this, Jesus welcomes
such a person to his entourage.
Levi may be the same person as Matthew, with Levi as his second name,
as was common in Jewish contexts (Matt 9:9–13).88 Levi is not mentioned
anywhere else in the NT except in this list and Luke 5:27, the parallel to this
account. There is a James, son of Alphaeus, in Mark 3:18; Matt 10:3; Luke
6:13; and Acts 1:13. Acts 1:13 is the list of the eleven and Matthew comes
before James, son of Alphaeus, suggesting they may be brothers. Because
Luke and Acts are part of the same author’s listings, a Levi-Matthew
identification is likely, although the naming of James tied to Alphaeus in
lists of the Twelve without Levi complicates this explanation. Matthew 9
and Luke 5 lack references to Alphaeus. Levi follows Jesus immediately, just
as Peter, Andrews, James, and John did in Mark 1:16–20. He leaves what he
is doing behind to follow Jesus. Jesus is now the priority.
The scene switches to Levi’s house where Jesus reclines to eat a formal
meal with many followers present (v 15).89 It introduces a controversy
account that ends in a pronouncement that is the key to the passage.
Reclining is how one ate a formal meal in the ancient world, as one would
lay back and lean forward on an arm and side to eat the meal, with pillows
for support. Three times in two verses the phrase “tax collectors and sinners”
appears, with sinners coming first only the second time. When a text
was read out loud in the ancient world, as it usually was, this repetition
87
This would have included fish; Lane, Mark, 102. For details on tax and toll collection, J.
R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” CBQ 33 (1971):
39–61.
88
Lane, Mark, 100–101. Some disagree; see Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 99–100.
89
The case for this being Levi’s house is that Jesus did not seem to have his own home;
Luke 5:29 appears to take it this way, and the likely fear of defilement is something that
would have been a concern in Levi’s home.

would stand out. Jesus’ associations are the point. The combination is
common in the NT (Matt 9:10–11; 11:19; Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1). Tax collectors
were seen as sinners, as was already noted, but others with a reputation
beyond the tax collectors likely were present (m. Sanh 3:3). Jesus had many
followers from the group. Grace had drawn them, if Levi’s call is a picture
of what is taking place in the mention of many following him, an expres-
sion that is always positive in its eighteen uses in Mark (Mark 1:17–18; 3:7;
5:24; 6:1; 8:34; 9:38; 10:21, 28, 32, 52; 11:9; 15:41).90 At the least, the group at
the meal is open to his message. So Jesus is available to them.
However, the scribes of the Pharisees complain (v 16). This is the first
mention of the Pharisees, but scribes have questioned Jesus in Mark 2:6
(also noted in Mark 1:22). A Pharisee was a “separated one,” so the name is
the issue here. Josephus discusses them in his section of the Jewish parties
in Antiquities 18.12–15. These scribes copied, studied, and were concerned
that the Law be kept properly. Scribes could be Sadducees or Pharisees, but
here it is the Pharisees who are in view. Acts 23:9 looks to scribes of the
Pharisees as well. Sadducean activity is mostly confined to Judea in the
Gospels. These scribes ask his disciples why Jesus eats with tax collectors
and sinners. In their view, the pious are to separate from sinners and not
recline with them at table, an act that communicates intimacy and accep-
tance. Their objection could be that their food was not properly tithed
(Deut 14:22; Matt 23:23) or prepared with proper attention to purity (Mark
7:1–8), or there may have been other issues related to cleanliness
(m. Hagigah 2:7).91 Or the term could be merely moral with no issues of
defilement in view. NT scholars debate whether the term refers to the
ritually impure (also called the “people of the land”) or to the wicked.92
Either way Jesus’ action is seen as inappropriate for a man claiming to
represent God and his new era (m. Demai 2:2–3). Of course, the forgiveness
Jesus had already shown he could give in Mark 2:1–12 is also a factor in this
scene.
Mark 2:17 is the pronouncement that drives the passage. It has two parts:
a proverb and then a mission statement. Jesus responds to the challenge of
his associations with a picture. The primary responsibility of a doctor
90
Stein, Mark, 129.
91
Hooker, Mark, 96; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 227.
92
For the discussion, see E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985),
174–211. Sanders argues for the wicked, but this may make too much of a technical term
of the expression, just as people of the land may err in the other direction. Whether those
present were unconcerned with the Law or notoriously wicked, the reaction to them
would have been the same.

involves not treating those who are well, but rather those who are sick. This
is a common proverb in the ancient world (Plutarch, Apophthegmata
Laconica 230–31F – “The physicians he said are not to be found among
the well but customarily spend their time among the sick”; Dio
Chrysostom, Orations, 8.5 – speaks of a doctor going among the sick as a
wise man must mix with fools; Mekilta to Exod 15:26 – “If they are not sick,
why do they need a physician?”).93 In the OT, God is the healer when it
comes to the soul and sin (Exod 15:26), so Jesus appears to take on another
divine prerogative here (Philo, Sacrifices of Abel and Cain 70 calls God “the
only doctor for sicknesses of the soul”).94
Jesus’ mission statement follows. He has come to call sinners, not the
righteous. Those who sense their need to return to God are who he pursues.
Jesus’ kingdom message with the call to repent is the goal of the call
(Mark 1:14–15).
The remark is rhetorical in the sense that he is not calling the Pharisees
righteous, but he is speaking from the standpoint of awareness of need.95
There is irony here that the “righteous” do not sense their need. There
also is the likelihood we have a dialectical negation where the idea is that
one gives more attention to one thing over the other. So sinners are a
priority over the righteous. Jesus cites Hosea 6:6, which says God desires
mercy not sacrifice. The point is that mercy comes first over sacrifice.
This is another example of this rhetorical expression. The remark points
back to Mark 2:7 and 10. Sinners who see their need come in repentance
and faith. Mark 10:45 about offering his life as a ransom for many is the
only other mission statement Mark has after this (Mark 1:38–39; “I came”
sayings: Matt 5:17; 10:34–35; Luke 12:49; 19:10). How sin is dealt with awaits
Mark 14:24.
Jesus’ ministry takes the initiative with sinners. Luke 15 is a parallel from
another source (L), pointing to the criteria of multiple attestation for this
theme. Although many were grateful for sinners coming to God and this
was sought by all those who sought to serve God, Jesus’ taking the initiative
in this regard brought an emphasis that clashed with the call to be com-
pletely separate. That extensive separation is what Jesus challenges here.
One can live distinctly and righteously without completing isolating one-
self from those who need to reconnect with God.
93
Collins, Mark, 195–96, has other examples from the Greco-Roman context.
94
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 228, 231.
95
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 228, speaks of those who think of themselves as righteous.

2:18–22 Controversy 3 – A New Era Demands New Approaches

2:18 Now the disciples of John and the Pharisees were fasting, and they
came and said to him, “Why do the disciples of John and the disciples
of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?”
2:19 And Jesus said to them, “Can the wedding guests fast while the
bridegroom is with them? As long as the bridegroom is with them,
they cannot fast.
2:20 Days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them. And
then they will fast in that day.
2:21 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old garment. If he does,
the fullness of the new tears away from the old, and a worse tear comes.
2:22 And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine
bursts the skins, and the wine and wineskins are destroyed. But new
wine is for fresh wineskins.”
The third controversy scene also involves a pronouncement account.
Here the issue is the distinct style of piety Jesus’ disciples’ display. Unlike
John’s disciples and the Pharisees who fasted regularly, Jesus’ disciples do
not (v 18). This is about voluntary fasting (Neh 9:1; Esth 9:31; Zech 7:5; 8:19 –
later tradition tied the fourth-, fifth-, seventh-, and tenth-month fasts to the
breaking of the tablets of the Law, destruction of the temple, murder of
Gedaliah, and taking of Jerusalem by Babylon; Pss Sol 3:8). It is not about
fasting tied to the Day of Atonement, the one required fast of the OT (Exod
20:10; Lev 16:1–34).96 Some Pharisees fasted twice a week (Luke 18:12;
Didache 8:1 notes this was on Monday and Thursday). These were dawn-
to-sunset fasts and could be for a variety of things, such as mourning,
repentance, illness, preparation for war, or other hard times. So the ques-
tion comes from those concerned about why this is. They probably are not
the Pharisees or John’s disciples, as the third-person mention of those
groups has the look of a question from outsiders. The question suggests
Jesus is not pious enough.
A long pronouncement follows the query. The responses give a series of
images that are the key to this text. Jesus explains that as long as the groom
is present, it is a time for celebration, not mourning (v 19). The expression
“sons of the wedding hall” can refer to the groom’s attendants or all the
guests, so either Jesus’ key disciples or all who follow him. A broad
reference is likely, as the issue is not just for those currently close to Jesus
but for all associated with him, even though the question is about Jesus’
96
Lane, Mark, 108, n. 57. Mishnah Ta’anith covers these fasts.

current disciples and their practice.97 What Jesus says speaks to a general
practice across the forming community. The same scope is present in the
verses that follow, starting in Mark 2:21. When the groom is present, the
wedding guests are not able to fast. The question here expects a negative
reply. One does not fast at a wedding.
The wedding pictures the arrival of the new era (v 20). It also draws upon
the picture of the people of God as married to him (Isa 54:4–8; 62:5; Ezek
16:7–14; Hos 2). John the Baptist is depicted using this image in John 3:29.
Paul also uses this groomsman imagery in 2 Corinthians 11:2. There will be
a time when the groom is removed; then they will fast. Jesus’ presence was a
special indication of divine presence and activity. Once again what is said
of God is now applied to Jesus, although such expression was later tied to
Messiah as God’s representative (Isa 61:10; Pesikta Rabbati 149a; Exodus
Rabbah 15 [79b] on Exod 12:2 speaks of a wedding taking place in the days
of Messiah).98 Of course, Jesus has yet to make messianic claims, so this is
more a provocative claim about the time his presence represents in the
arrival of the new era. This is a veiled remark in many ways. This situation
meant it was a time for celebration and feasting, so that fasting was not
appropriate. The point is that Jesus’ ministry is a special time of joy. Later
Jewish practice indicates that some religious obligations were not required
of wedding celebrants (b. Sukkah 25b; living in booths was not required for
celebrants of a wedding that took place during this feast).99 Jesus’ differ-
entiation in practice differs from the fasting in Judaism and the early
church for a limited time in the present. This hesitation to fast reflects a
dissimilarity from both periods, which also points to the saying’s authen-
ticity based on a criterion of dissimilarity.
In terms of how the groom is removed, Jesus is not specific. Hooker
argues this is a later addition on the premise that grooms are not taken
away, but this is the common twist that often comes with Jesus’ parables.100
In addition, what has happened to John in being arrested (Mark 1:14) and
the rise of opposition to him as these controversies show indicate that Jesus
97
France, Mark, 139, is right that the core point is the same no matter how narrow or broad
the scope of the image is.
98
Lane, Mark, 110; Witherington, Mark, 124–25; Edwards, Mark, 90, n. 33.
99
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 233. No need to live in booths during a wedding is what Sukkah
teaches.
100
Hooker, Mark, 99. Her appeal to Thomas 104 as lacking the problem with its remark that
“when the bridegroom comes out of the bride-chamber” ignores the fact that that
community, if it was Gnostic, had a rite known as the bridal chamber to which this
may allude. She seems to defend the authenticity of Mark 2:19a.

is aware their message is not universally welcome.101 The verb for removal
can refer to violently being removed. Some see an allusion to Isaiah 53:8
here, but that is less than evident. Jesus’ language points to rejection and
removal but is not yet so clearly stated as to be a passion prediction per se.
At that time, when he is removed, things will change. They will fast then,
a practice noted in Acts 13:2–3 and 14:23. The remark is cryptic and very
indirect, another possible indication of authenticity.102 It has an ambiguity
the narrative resolves as being about Jesus’ death, but it is very understated
here. With Jesus departed, fasting will become appropriate again. The idea
is not so much that Jesus is away in this period after his death as that all the
groom came to bring is not yet realized, the world is still in need, and there
is more to hope for in the future.103 This is the first hint in the narrative that
things will not go smoothly for Jesus. The apocalyptic backdrop to the
remark may be indicated by a likely allusion to Amos 8:9–14.104
The answer also shows that Jesus is not against fasting. Context deter-
mines whether or not it is appropriate. There is a flexibility in how this is
done that marks the “new way” Jesus brings. This final observation means
that the supposed incongruity of what Jesus says here with what follows is
more imagined than real.
Two pictures close the pronouncement. Each teaches one cannot mix
the old and the new. The new era requires fresh packaging. Now that Jesus
is here, fasting as an expression of repentance without the recognition of
reasons for joy now that promise has come cannot work. However, this
imagery looks to be broader in intent than merely treating fasting. The
point is a general one, presenting the idea that a new era has different needs
and style. Jesus is no add-on; he brings a new reality.
The two examples appeal to cloth and wine (vv 21–22). An old garment is
not fixed with a new garment patch, and new wine needs new wineskins.
The first example comes from the perspective of the need of the old
garment, whereas the second points to the newness of the wine and its
need for a proper container. New cloth is not to be tied to patch an old
cloth. Nor is new wine to be placed in old wineskins. In both cases, if this is
101
Edwards, Mark, 91.
102
Lane, Mark, 111.
103
Stein, Mark, 137–38, has a discussion about that day being only from death to resurrec-
tion, but that interpretation reads the remark too narrowly. Stein defends that inter-
pretation by saying that the church did not believe Jesus was away, but although that is
true, the issue is longing for and awaiting all that the Messiah came to bring, which has
not yet taken place.
104

done, destruction results. The new cloth when it shrinks tears the worn old
cloth. The old cloth is not helped. The new wine when it ferments rips the
worn old wineskins. Everything, wine and wineskins, is lost. So Jesus states
the new wine requires fresh wineskins. The end of the pronouncement is
on the need of the new era. The point is that the new era leads to new
realities and so to new practices, no matter how one looks at it.105 A new era
or dispensation is present.
Jesus’ two illustrations (concerning the new patch and the new wine)
show that one cannot simply fuse the message and person of Jesus to
everything that Judaism had become. To do so would cause damage.
Jesus asserted that something new also requires new ways.
2:23–28 Controversy 4 – Plucking Grain and Authority

over the Sabbath
2:23 One Sabbath he was passing through the grain fields, and as they
made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.
2:24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why do they do what is
not permitted on the Sabbath?”
2:25 And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he
had need and hungered, he and those who were with him,
2:26 how they went into the house of God, in the period of Abiathar the
high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for
anyone to eat except the priests, and he gave it also to those who were
with him?”
2:27 And he was saying to them, “The Sabbath came for people, not
people for the Sabbath.
2:28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.”
This controversy involves the Sabbath that again concludes with a key
pronouncement. It is the first of two such Sabbath controversies in a row.
The Sabbath ran from sunset Friday night to sunset Saturday night. This
Jewish distinctive was important for Jewish identity, since it was a day of
rest commanded by God that also was seen to mirror the creation (Gen 2:3;
Exod 20:8–11 – the fourth commandment of the Ten Commandments;
34:21 – not to harvest; Lev 23:1–3; Deut 5:12–15; also the stricter CD 10:14–
11:18 – could not assist a stranded animal or human or help an animal to
give birth; Jubilees 2:17–33, verse 29 speaks of not preparing anything to be
105
Thomas 47 has the two illustrations in the reverse order.

eaten; 50:1–13). This was a more serious charge than the one in Mark 2:18,
which dealt with voluntary fasting. Now the commandments were in view.
The Greek has Jesus and his disciples traveling and plucking grain (v 23),
making a way, which likely has them passing through the fields as they
pluck the grain. Certain areas of a field were reserved for travelers or
foreigners (Deut 23:25), so taking the grain was not a problem. That grain
was eatable means it likely is April or May, harvest season. It was the fact
this was taking place on the Sabbath that was the issue. So the seeming
violation was seen as a serious breach of piety. What constituted the
violation was the plucking of grain on the Sabbath. This was perceived as
a violation if m. Shabbat 7.2 is a guide. That text has the harvesting of grain
as a violation, one of thirty-nine the passage notes. He who “sows, ploughs,
reaps, binds sheaves, threshes or winnows” has violated the Sabbath
according to this text. So when the Pharisees see or hear about the disciples
plucking grain, they ask why the disciples do what the Law does not permit
(v 24). We should not necessarily think the Pharisees are following the
disciples around, so either this was a happenstance, as sometimes rabbis
were in the fields on the Sabbath, or this is a response to something they
knew the disciples had done.106 Neither should we think the problem is
how far the disciples walked on the Sabbath, as the key detail noted is the
plucking of grain, which Jesus’ reply also notes. Because Jesus as a teacher is
responsible for his disciples’ behavior, he is asked why they do this. As
Marcus cites Seneca’s remark from Troades 290, “He who forbids not sin
when in control commands it.”107
Given a question that challenges his disciples (v 25), Jesus responds with
a question, just as he had in the previous controversy. The question then
has a decisive pronouncement making two points following it.
Jesus appeals to the haggadic example of David and his men eating the
bread of the presence (v 26; 1 Sam 21:1–6). David is explicitly said to eat in
the 1 Samuel text, and that his men are included is likely implied from
1 Samuel 21:4–5, given that David asks for five loaves.108 According to the
strict reading of the law, neither David nor his men had right to this bread.
This bread, consisting of twelve loaves a week, was reserved for the priests
according to the Law (Lev 24:5–9; Exod 25:30). But Jesus also notes that
106
Witherington, Mark, 129; especially, M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 145–50.
107
108
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 240–41, argues the men are not in view at all in 1 Samuel, calling the
request for five loaves a trick by David.

David and his men had need and were hungry. So they ate. The assumption
appears to be this need, and hunger meant that the Law need not be
followed, but that is not explicitly said. The example also presumes that
the lack of punishment to David and his men indicates God did not judge
him for doing this. The key point is that what was done appeared to violate
the Law and yet went unpunished by God. So when Jesus asks if they have
not read this (Mark 12:10, 26), he is pointing to an example from Scripture
that suggests the Law was not followed without exception, perhaps because
another factor other than merely keeping the Law was more significant.109
Jesus’ mention of David’s need and hunger suggests this additional feature
of need to his argument, even though nothing similar is said of the disciples
to explain their action. The question expects a positive reply, meaning Jesus
knows they are aware of the event.
It may be implied that Jesus is one like or greater than David, but again
this is left unstated and to be inferred at best. This connection is something,
however, that is quite possible given how Jesus ends his pronouncement by
pointing to the authority of the Son of Man over the Sabbath and the tie of
David to the one who comes to ultimately deliver (Jer 23:5). What we clearly
have here is a simple example from Scripture that shows a case where the
Law is not followed to the letter, even if how this works exactly is left
unexplained.
Now this Davidic event is not explicitly placed on the Sabbath according
to Scripture, but was seen as such in Jewish tradition (b. Menahot 95b;
Yalqut Shim’oni 2.130).110 So it may be Jesus is citing a parallel kind of
situation versus a Sabbath violation unless the tradition is old.
The remark in verse 26 that this took place when Abiathar was high
priest has generated much discussion and a textual issue, since Abiathar is
not the high priest during the time of this event. No clear resolution exists.
The Samuel text has Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, as the high priest at this
109
There is some discussion about how rabbinic Jesus’ argument is. Some note that it does
not follow rabbinic tradition in that haggadah (a scriptural event or example) cannot
establish halakah (ruling of the Law). This method of argumentation is said to have
irritated those who questioned Jesus. D. M. Cohn-Sherbok, “An Analysis of Jesus’
Arguments Concerning the Plucking of Grain on the Sabbath,” JSNT 2 (1979): 31–41. If
this is the argument, it may also be Jesus’ point to show that the Law never was intended
to be extended so far. The parallel in Matthew 12:7 that has Jesus argue that God desires
mercy and not sacrifice points more explicitly in this direction. Matthew’s account has
the most detailed response of the parallels to this event.
110
Witherington, Mark, 130; Hooker, Mark, 103–104, who notes Midrash Rabbah Lev 32.3
has the bread being that which was being removed at the end of its week-long time to be
consumed. That act would come on a Sabbath (Lev 24:8).

time (1 Sam 21:1, 2, 8). Abiathar is first mentioned in 1 Samuel 22:20, so his
appearance does take place in a near context. Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4
omit the detail in their parallels, as do D, W, and other manuscripts. Other
manuscripts insert tou before the reference to the high priest giving the
force of in the time of Abiathar (A, C, Θ, family 13).111 Another option is to
see the reference as a general literary reference to the section in Scripture, a
kind of literary shorthand locator. So either an idiom or a literary reference
may be in view. A final possibility is simply that of choosing the better-
known figure Abiathar, who would have been associated with the temple at
the time and later became high priest, so the compression works in this
direction.112 Any of these three options might be at work here.
Jesus next makes a two-part pronouncement (v 27). The fact that a fresh
remark is made about his speaking to them makes one wonder if this was
said right at the time or somewhat later. The multiple use of such a break in
ideas in an otherwise unified context tells us we are to closely associate
what we have here with what was just said (Mark 4:2b, 11, 21, 24, 26 – in texts
on the kingdom). Either way it makes two key points: one about the
Sabbath and one about who has authority over it. It also shows the argu-
ment here is taking another track from the David example.
On the one hand, the Sabbath was made for people, not people for the
Sabbath (note the A, B, B, A pattern: Sabbath, people, people, Sabbath).
The point here is that the Sabbath was designed to be something that
serves people for their good, not something that is to hinder them. Only
Mark has this remark. Why Matthew and Luke lack it is not clear.113
Removing it allows a focus only on Christology. Mark’s point is that the
way the Sabbath was being excessively restricted meant that people were
now serving the Sabbath. Now Jubilees 2:17 said the Sabbath was a “great
sign” and seen as a gift to be enjoyed. The later Mekilta Exodus [109b] on
111
Casey, Aramaic Sources, 151–52, who sees a lack of precision in the bilingual move from
Aramaic to Greek; Lane, Mark, 116, especially n. 86. Mark 12:26 is sometimes cited as a
grammatical parallel for a Scripture location marker, though the reference is closer to
the verb for reading in that parallel than it is here. Edwards, Mark, 95, n. 42, sees
confusion surrounding the genealogy of Abiathar and Ahimelech contributing to the
problem, as it is unclear whether Ahimelech is the father or son of Abiathar and whether
there is more than one person with such a name (1 Sam 22:20; 2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chron 18:16;
24:6). This reference to Abiathar simplifies that potential confusion, while pointing to
the more well-known figure.
112
This is noted by France, Mark, 146; discussed by J. D. M. Derrett, “Judaica in St. Mark,”
in Studies in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 1.91–92.
113
Western witnesses to Mark also lack it, but there is no reason to see that as original to
Mark. Unless it is original to Mark, it is hard to know how it got here at all.

Exodus 31:13–14 said the Sabbath “was delivered to you, not you to the
Sabbath.”114 It frames this remark in terms that Israel had a privilege of
observing the Sabbath. So the point Jesus is making is known; the debate
is over how to apply it.
As a result (in light of all that has been said in verses 23–27),115 the Son of
Man came to puts things right and is doing so in his role as Lord, even of
the Sabbath (v 28).116 This is part of the “new things” the new era is doing. It
is showing where the Law should take people in terms of the heart and
need. As the sent representative for humanity commissioned by God, Jesus
has the right to determine what is proper on the Sabbath. This fits the other
divine prerogative claims of Mark’s controversy section – to forgive sin, to
be the healer of sin, and to be the groom. This argument is at a completely
different level than the previous example. The example from David showed
that sometimes the Law is not followed, but this particular case provides
the why. Jesus has the right to determine what takes place on the Sabbath.
Here is a claim to control the sacred calendar and a day God established
and commanded be observed, for God is Lord of the Sabbath (Gen 2:3;
Exod 16:25; 20:10; 31:12–17; Lev 23:3; Deut 5:14). Jesus is not on the side of the
creature who is under a command to observe the Sabbath, but rather, as the
representative of humanity acting on their behalf, is over it. Jesus puts
himself in the position of not being subject to that day but of being over
it.117 It is a strong claim and serves as the ultimate answer to the controversy
he was asked to address.
This is another claim to unique authority that Jesus is making. Beyond
forgiveness of sins made earlier in Mark 2, now we have an assertion of Jesus’
authority over a day God commands. The challenge involving a day as
serious and uniquely Jewish as the Sabbath was bound to engender a strong
reaction from those who rejected what Jesus claimed. Hooker summarizes
114
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 124. See also b. Yoma 85b; 2 Bar 14.18.
115
Lane, Mark, 120; contra Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 125. The wider context is implied, as
representation of humanity is tied to kingship.
116
Witherington, Mark, 131, rightly alludes back to the previous controversy as a narrative
frame for this one.
117
Perhaps the argument of the whole is: just as David had a right to do something unusual
for his men and himself, so even more does the Son of Man have that right. Yet this still
seems to say too little. Jesus is not making an analogy or a mere regal claim as m. Sanh 2.4
makes for the king (“the king’s road has no prescribed measure”), but is making a
sweeping claim of authority because the divinely established Sabbath is involved. Even
kings are subject to God (contra Collins, Mark, 205). It is “the” Son of Man who is lord.
Edwards, Mark, 96–97, rightly calls it a Promethean pronouncement and emphasizes the
“the.” This is Mark’s first use of the term Lord. It will become a key term later.

well, “If Jesus allows his disciples to continue to be ‘irreligious,’ that demon-
strates not carelessness in respect of the Torah, but the freedom of one who is
confident that he is doing God’s will; and the justification for their action,
offered in v. 27, is not merely the opinion of one Jewish rabbi over against
that of others but is the authoritative statement of the Son of man.”118
Some see a mistranslation here with the point being that man is lord over
the Sabbath, but that is not the point Jesus is making. He is not speaking of
a generic authority but of one unique to him. His use of Son of Man just for
himself shows this.
The Sabbath was designed to refresh (Exod 23:12; Deut 5:14), but if simply
picking stalks was food preparation, then something had gone wrong. No
food was being prepared. It was simply being consumed, with only basic
needs being met. The one with authority over the Sabbath was making this
point.
3:1–6 Controversy 5 – Healing and Doing Good on the Sabbath

3:1 Then Jesus went into the synagogue again. And a man was there with a
withered hand.
3:2 And they were keeping a close watch on him to see if he would heal on
the Sabbath, so that they could accuse him.
3:3 So he said to the man having the withered hand, “Stand up in the
middle.”
3:4 Then he said to them, “Is it permitted to do good on the Sabbath or
evil, to save a life or destroy it?” But they were silent.
3:5 After looking around at them with anger, grieving at their hardness of
heart, he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out
and his hand was restored.
3:6 So coming out the Pharisees immediately with the Herodians made a
plot against him so they might destroy him.
The final controversy account in this sequence is another combination
healing and pronouncement account. The healing of the man with the
withered hand on the Sabbath leads to a commitment to deal decisively
with Jesus, to kill him.
With so many controversies behind him, Jesus is now being watched
very closely. So this time, as Jesus comes into the synagogue (v 1), those
opposed to him are watching Jesus closely to see if he will heal a man with a
118
Hooker, Mark, 105.

withered hand on the Sabbath (v 2). The man’s hand was withered
(exērammenēn) like a plant desiccated by drought (BDAG 684; 1 Kings
13:4). The result was paralysis. They sensed that Jesus would heal, as he had
in the past. Sabbath healings are multiply attested phenomena in the Jesus
tradition (Luke 13:10–17; 14:1–6; John 5:1–18; 7:23–24; 9:13–16).
Just as a miracle opened the controversy section in Mark 2:1–12, so will one
close the section in an inclusio. They want to point out Jesus’ Sabbath
violation. The expression “on the Sabbath” is thrown forward in Greek,
making it emphatic. The term for Sabbath is plural. They are now watching
to see whether Jesus will repeat his Sabbath offense. Did the earlier rebuke
take with Jesus or not? Ironically, this term for watching is used to describe
the keeping of days in accordance with the law in Galatians 4:10 (also seen in
Luke 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Acts 9:24).119 The hostility level has been raised by all that
has taken place. Protection of the Sabbath as a Jewish distinctive was
important. We do not have an explicit indication that healing was not
permitted on the Sabbath in Jewish materials, but such acts were so infre-
quent that it is unlikely a ruling was needed or even generated. Luke 13:14 and
John 9 attest to such a protest, which was likely instinctive to a scrupulous
Jew, and this attitude is also multiply attested in the tradition. In addition, m.
Yoma 8:6 speaks of permission to place medicine in a man’s throat because
one does not know if the condition is life threatening (see also m. Shab 14:3–4,
which also implies the same thing).120 The assumption appears to be that if
the situation is not life threatening, nothing should be done on the Sabbath.
Jesus will continue to be watched (Mark 12:13, 18). The opponents are not
named, but their familiarity and expectation that Jesus would act points to
opposition from scribes and/or Pharisees, something confirmed in Mark
3:6 as they go out and make the plot with Herodians. The addition of
Herodians shows that now religious and political leaders are watching what
Jesus is doing. Everything in the scene points to an escalation of concern.
Sabbath violators were to be killed (Exod 31:14–17; Num 15:32–36; Jubilees
2:25–27; m. Sanh 7:4), though enforcement was not always applied (CD
12:3–6; m. Shab 7:1, 8). The goal is to catch Jesus doing wrong based on a
certain definition of Sabbath observance. The debate is not whether the
Sabbath should be kept, but how.121 The synagogue is likely in Capernaum,
since he enters “the” synagogue again, but it could be anywhere in Galilee.
119
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 248, notes how this term appears in Josephus for closely observing the
Sabbath; Ag. Ap 2.282; Ant 3.91; 14:262.
120
Collins, Mark, 206–207.
121
Hooker, Mark, 106.

Jesus begins the healing by speaking to the man and having him stand
in the midst of the people in the synagogue (v 3). Jesus will act intention-
ally and quite publicly. He is quite aware of what some in the crowd are
thinking, as in Mark 2:8–9. He asks the crowd a question full of irony
(v 4). Is it proper to do good or evil on the Sabbath, to save a life or
destroy it? The verb for destroy (apokteinai) refers to political execution
in other texts in Mark (Mark 6:19; 8:31; 12:5; 14:1). Jesus is being challenged
for doing good and bringing life back to the man. Meanwhile, those
watching Jesus are on the edge of doing evil and seeking to destroy a
life. Jesus knows even that.
The Sabbath dispute is getting in the way of judgment about how people
can be served. The question is Jesus’ challenge to the claim of Sabbath
violation. He is forcing the issue. He does not allow the option of doing
nothing on the Sabbath to exist.122 To give a word that does good on the
Sabbath is not working on the Sabbath. It is being to people what God calls
people to be. The issue is not whether the man’s condition is a life-or-death
one, so that one can act on the Sabbath; the issue is doing that which helps
another. Rather than trying to detect someone doing wrong, Jesus is trying
to bring a fresh depth to another’s life. The healing Jesus will bring will
permit the man to go back to the temple, if he wishes to go to Jerusalem and
attend. It will allow him to more fully engage with God and labor in life
(Lev 21:16–20). It will remove any social limits the man has experienced
because of his condition. For Jesus the act will require only a word and take
but a second. For Jesus, that is not labor, but doing what is good and right
before God. It would be morally wrong, even unjust, to refuse to act.123 God
is honored, and one in the creation is blessed, by what he is about to do.
Jesus puts all of this on the table before he acts. Saving a life is not just about
a physical healing, but is about helping the person have the means to live
fully again. That should not wait until after the Sabbath.124 Two things are
at stake here – the halakic challenge about what takes place on the Sabbath
and Jesus’ authority to heal and judge what is taking place. The remarks
yield only silence.
122
Witherington, Mark, 135, calls Jesus an agent provocateur here.
123
Edwards, Mark, 99.
124
Though posed too much as an either/or by Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 135–36, in terms of the
issue not being about Sabbath Law but about Jesus’ authority, he is correct to note that
the way Jesus argues does point to his authority to make a judgment about what is
required. Guelich’s rejection that doing evil does not hint at what the leaders are about to
plan is nothing short of curious.

So Jesus, angry and grieving at the hardness or callousness of the leaders

(pōrōsei – BDAG 900), tells the man to stretch out his hand (v 5). Mark
often notes Jesus’ emotions (Mark 1:41). A word to stretch out the hand was
Jesus’ laborious act of love. As France says, “If this was ‘work,’ it was of a
very nonphysical variety.”125 The man could move his now restored hand
(Mark 8:25; 9:12). Jesus had done well on the Sabbath. The narration is
totally focused on Jesus. The man has done nothing but be there, stand up,
and stretch out his hand in response to Jesus.
The act leads the Pharisees and Herodians to decide they must stop Jesus
(v 6). The Herodians are not otherwise attested outside of the NT (Mark 8:15;
12:130), but they likely are those loyal to the Roman vassal family that ruled in
Galilee and Judea.126 Political and religious leadership is gathering against
Jesus. They decide they must destroy him (Mark 11:18; Luke 13:33; 19:47).
And so, five controversies into Jesus’ ministry, the die for his death have
been cast with the leaders. Forgiving sin, associating with sinners, challen-
ging rabbinic custom, and especially being loose about the Sabbath have
been too much.127 The response is not about stoning Jesus, but about
stopping him.128 The conclusion to this unit with its opposition to Jesus
contrasts with Mark 1:45.
3:7–6:6 jesus in galilee: jesus teaches and shows his

power
3:7–35 As Jesus Gathers Disciples and Ministers, Discussion Emerges
about Who He Is
3:7–12 Jesus Ministers in Galilee but Urges the Disciples Not Yet to Make
Him Known
3:7 And Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude
from Galilee followed him,
125
France, Mark, 151.
126
Herod’s supporters are mentioned in Josephus, War 1.319; Ant 14.450. H. H. Rowley, “The
Herodians in the Gospels,” JTS XLI (1940): 14–27; W. J. Bennett, Jr., “The Herodians of
Mark’s Gospel,” NovT 17 (1975): 9–14, who argues unpersuasively that the category is Mark’s
creation. A family as powerful as the Herods surely had their supporters.
127
Edwards, Mark, 101–102.
128
Contra Collins, Mark, 210, who says it is historically unlikely the Pharisees were seeking
a death penalty against Jesus. This response was not about how to apply the Jewish law to
blasphemy, but how to stop Jesus and the growing attention he was drawing. It also was
not just a reaction to this one event but rather to the sequence of things Jesus was doing.

3:8 and from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan River, and
around Tyre and Sidon a great multitude came to him to hear the
things he had done.
3:9 And he said to his disciples to have a small boat prepared for him
because of the crowd so that they would not press against him.
3:10 For he healed many, so that they pressed upon him that those with
diseases might touch him.
3:11 And when the unclean spirits were seeing him, they were falling
before him and crying out saying, “You are the Son of God.”
3:12 And he sternly warned them not to make him known.
This summary section running through Mark 3:12 is one of the few
sections unique to Mark in the Gospel. It is a ministry summary. Jesus
withdrew to the sea. He was preparing to organize as the next passage on
the calling of the Twelve shows. Jesus was drawing a great deal of attention,
not just in Galilee. People were coming to him from the regions surround-
ing Galilee (vv 7–8) – north, south, east, and west. These included some
regions that are outside Israel and Judaism, places like Tyre and Sidon,
Idumea (= Edom, south of Judea, the Negev), and the area east of the
Jordan (= Perea). Only Samaria and the Decapolis are not noted. Jesus’
activity was drawing them (Mark 1:44).
The crowds were pressing against him to touch him for healing from an
array of conditions (vv 9–10). The term mastigas (diseases) is vivid, refer-
ring to a whip or lash, and points to the torment of disease (BDAG 620).
Their desire to touch him reflects cultural ideas tied to the ancient world
and popular religion (Mark 5:27–31; 6:56; 7:37; Acts 5:15–16; 91:11–12).
Healing was still a major reason people were drawn to him. The crush of
people was great. The language here is vivid. People “were falling” to get to
and touch Jesus. Touch is often tied to healing (Mark 1:40–45; 5:27–28; 6:56;
7:31–37; 8:22–26). The press is creating a mess. So Jesus asked for a boat to
be ready to prevent the pressure (like Mark 1:45; 2:2–4).129 From here on the
edge of the sea, he could heal and teach (Mark 4:1–2). This is yet another
indication from Mark, along with the description of the scene, that Jesus
was about more than healing.
Some of this involved healing (v 10), and some of it involved exorcism
(v 11). It is not clear that this scene involves only exorcisms. The term for
torment in Mark 5:29 and 36 is of a condition of hemorrhaging and looks
129
The diminutive for boat, normally meaning “little boat,” is used. However, Mark uses
the diminutive often enough (Mark 5:23, 39, 41; 6:9; 7:25, 27, 28; 8:7; 14:47) that one cannot
be sure the boat’s size is the point.

like a mere healing. Some appeal to a “divine man” perspective with

reference to Jesus here. However, this conclusion has been challenged.
Such a claim ignores the Jewish context of the event, and, even more
problematically, there is a real question about whether the divine man
construct is a genuine ancient category versus a modern composite por-
trait.130 Jesus’ healings involving touch have ample precedent in the depic-
tions of prophets in the Old Testament, except there, in two of the
examples, it is the prophet who takes the initiative to touch (2 Kings
13:21; 1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34). So these miracles say more about how
people approached Jesus than about what Jesus is seeking to communicate
through his healing.
The unclean spirits that are exorcised are not silent as they fall before
and confess him to be the Son of God (vv 11–12). The imperfect verbs point
to the repetition of these acts, a series of such encounters. The naming is
not about controlling Jesus by identifying him, since in this case they bow
before him and recognize his authority.131 This confession of sonship
comes in the heading of the Gospel (Mark 1:1), the voice from heaven at
the baptism and Transfiguration (Mark 1:11; 9:7), and the centurion at the
cross (Mark 15:39). Jesus refers to himself as Son (Mark 13:32) and the High
Priest will ask Jesus if he is the Son of the Most High (Mark 14:61). Demons
confess him as the “Holy One of God” (Mark 1:24) and “Son of the Most
High” (Mark 5:7) and know who he is (Mark 1:34). So this is an accurate
description that is silenced.
Jesus sternly warns them to be silent. This is yet another Markan text
where Jesus hesitates to have declared who he is until an appropriate time,
in part because it could be misunderstood and cause more chaos than he is
already facing in handling the crowds.132 It repeats and intensifies Mark
1:32–34.133 Jesus’ actions and teaching are building a résumé to have people
130
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 147–48; Edwards, Mark, 105–109; O. Betz, “The Concept of the
So-Called ‘Divine Man,’ ” in Studies in New Testament and Early Christian Literature, FS
A. P. Wikgren, ed. D. Aune (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 229–40; J. Kingsbury, “The ‘Divine Man’
as the Key to Mark’s Christology – The End of an Era?” Int 35 (1981) 243–57;
Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions: A Critique of the
Theios Aner Concept as in Interpretative Background of the Miracle Tradition (Tübingen:
Mohr/Siebeck, 1990).
131
Edwards, Mark, 104, correctly calls this a “no contest” event. There is no hint of a power
struggle here. He notes that Mark 3:27 with the house of evil being plundered is set up by
this event.
132
Stein, Mark, 165, although his questioning that appropriate timing is not involved is
curious, as Jesus will be public about who he is in the last week of his ministry.
133
Collins, Mark, 213.

consider who he is. He prefers it to emerge that way than from random
declarations. There also is the risk of this all being misunderstood unless he
is able to show in what sense he will be this figure. So there is a time to have
such a confession, but it is not now. In addition, to have demons confess
him is not the best kind of endorsement to receive, even though Mark does
make use of it here. Mark does so because the reader knows more about
Jesus now than those present would have known when the confessions
were made. To them, without much context for Jesus, the confessions may
have seemed bizarre.
The early disclosure does give Mark the opportunity to point to the
awareness that transcendent forces have of who Jesus is. Humans want
healing, but the demons know who Jesus is. That this naming of Jesus and
his authority is the emphasis is clear because Mark does not even note that
exorcisms actually took place here, although that surely is the case. It is
Jesus’ authority over them that is being highlighted. Demons will not
thwart the program nor dictate the terms of how it is revealed. So they
are not to make known who he is. Disclosure is to take place in other ways
on Jesus’ terms.
3:13–19 Jesus Calls the Twelve

3:13 Now Jesus went up to the mountain and called those he wanted, and
they came out to him.
3:14 And he made twelve, whom he named apostles,134 so that they might
be with him and he might send them to preach
3:15 and to have authority to cast out demons.
3:16 And he made the twelve135: He gave a name to Simon, Peter; to James
and his brother John, the Sons of Zebedee, he gave the name Boanerges
(that is, “sons of Thunder”); and Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew,
Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the
Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.
This is a commissioning scene. Jesus now gathers followers to himself
who will aid him in the task of preaching the kingdom. He calls or appoints
134
A text-critical issue involves the word order of the Greek in this verse, but it does not
impact the verses tying a reference of the Twelve to the role of apostle. Luke 6:13 might
explain some of the phrase, but on the whole inclusion is more likely. Metzger, Textual
135
The presence of this phrase saying Jesus made the Twelve is textually disputed. Its
inclusion, however, is widely attested. Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 69.

twelve to the mountain (v 13), a number that recalls the twelve tribes of
Israel. Literally the text says he “made” twelve (v 14), but an idiom of
appointment likely is present (1 Kgdms 12:6; 3 Kdgms 12:31; 13:33 LXX). Still,
given what has been taking place, the idea is that Jesus is doing something
fresh. As the nation’s leaders are rejecting him, Jesus forms his own
community and makes a fresh claim on the nation.136 Within Israel, a
picture of restoring Israel emerges (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28–30; Isa. 49:6;
Ezek. 45:8; Sir. 36:10; 48:10; Pss. Sol. 17:26–32; Sib. Or. 2.170–76; T. Jos. 19:1–7;
Josephus, Ant. 11.133).137 The mountain is likely more like a hillside in Israel,
but the idea “he went up to a mountain” might allude to a place of
revelation or disclosure, like Sinai (Exod 19:3; 24:1–4; Num 27:12; Deut
9:9).138 He calls them apostles, which refers to ones sent. Some translations
and the Greek text place this phrase on naming them apostles in brackets
because it looks like Luke 6:13, but key mss (‫א‬, B) have it, making it look
original.139 These are commissioned messengers who really know him.
They are to be with him and preach the message as those who really
know what the message is because of the time spent with Jesus (Mark
1:14–15). They also are given authority to cast out demons (v 15). Jesus
extends his power to others to underscore the credibility of his newly
arrived message (Mark 1:39). The authority is not automatic, as the failure
to heal in Mark 9:14–29 shows. The ability to do this points to the new age,
especially if it is a bestowed ability, as that points to a hub figure for the
eschaton (T. Levi 18:12). They also will heal (Mark 6:12–13).
Mark lists out the Twelve and likely repeats the reference as he resumes
the list to underscore the number (vv 16ff).140 These lists in the Gospels
always start with Peter and end with Judas (Matt 10:2–4; Luke 6:14–16; Acts
1:13). The sons of Zebedee (James and John) always follow Peter. Most of
136
Hooker, Mark, 111; Scot McKnight, “Jesus and the Twelve,” in Key Events in the Life of the
Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence, ed. Darrell
L. Bock and Robert L. Webb (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2009), 181–214, has a full
discussion of the Twelve in Jesus’ ministry; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 262–63 defends their
historicity as Judas’ presence evokes the criterion of embarrassment and the consistent
names, despite some of them not being mentioned later, points to the same likelihood.
137
This is not a replacement for Israel in the sense that Israel falls out of God’s plan. So,
carefully, Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 158. Witherington, Mark, 151, on eschatological
restoration.
138
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 156, challenges this, saying no revelation takes place, but a key
salvation historical act is present.
139
Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 69.
140
External evidence favors inclusion. A sense it was repetitious likely led to its scribal
excision.

the passage consists of the list of twelve names, given with little elaboration.
This appears to assume the list is well known.
Simon is first. To show a new way and life, Simon gets a new name, Peter,
which in Aramaic means “stone” or “rock.” Simon was a most common
name, whereas Peter was very rare, being unattested before Jesus’ time.141
John 1:42 and Matthew 16:17–18 detail this name change, one on an early
scene, another later. Mark makes nothing of it except from here on Peter is
the name Mark uses with one exception (Mark 14:37). Peter is seen to have a
key role among the apostles.
John and James receive a second name (v 17), Boanerges or “sons of
thunder.” The fact that one name is shared with two brothers points to a
nickname, and so is likely a word play of some type. No reason for the
name is given, but it may reflect their temperament (Mark 9:38; 10:35–40;
Luke 9:54). It is not a direct transliteration or translation. Nothing is made
of it elsewhere, giving the detail a feel of authenticity, embedded in an old
tradition.
There is very little said about the rest of the list (v 18). Andrew is Peter’s
brother (Mark 1:16–18; John 1:40–42, 44). Philip is mentioned in John 6:5,
12:21, and 14:8. Matthew the tax collector (Matt 10:3) and Simon the
Cananean are likely on opposite sides of the spectrum in terms of their
views, since a word play on Cananean means zealot.142 One is collecting
and working for Rome; the other is wanting them out. This shows the scope
of Jesus’ group. Bartholomew is a Greek form of an Aramiac surname, “son
of Talmai.” Thomas is unnamed outside of the lists and his presence in
John’s Gospel (John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24, 21:2; 26:29). James, son of Alphaeus,
recalls Levi, son of Alphaeus, in Mark 2:14, but is a distinct person. In
Luke’s listing, Judas, son of James, is listed, whereas Thaddaeus is listed
here (Luke 6:14–16; Acts 1:13). The difference may reflect two names for one
person, as was common (e.g., Saul, Paul; Simon, Peter). The several differ-
ent people named James requires some way to differentiate them all.
Judas is always noted last as the betrayer in these lists (v 19). Iscariot
likely means “of Kerioth.” The fact we know so little about so many of these
figures suggests that this is a genuine tradition, since so little is made of so
many of the names here elsewhere (Bartholomew; James, son of Alphaeus;
141
Joseph, Fitzmyer, “Aramaic Kepha’ and Peter’s Name in the New Testament,” in his To
Advance the Gospel (Chestnut Ridge, NY: Crossroad, 1981), 112–24.
142
On Matthew and Levi, see Mark 2:14 discussion. On Canaanite as a word play to zealot,
not the later Jewish sect, Collins, Mark, 222–23.

Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot). This is a known group, multiply attested in

the tradition (1 Cor 15:5). It is a very diverse group of very common people.
The Twelve Jesus trained came not from elites or religious professionals
but from everyday life.
3:20–35 Debate over the Source of Jesus’ Power and the Concerns
of his Family
3:20 Jesus went into a home. And again the crowd gathered so he and the
Twelve were not able to eat a meal.
3:21 When his people heard, they set out to seize him. For they said, “he
was out of his mind.”
3:22 And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is
possessed by Beelzebul and by the ruler of the demons he casts out
demons.”
3:23 So he called them and was saying in parables to them, “How is Satan
able to cast out Satan?
3:24 If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom is not able to
stand.
3:25 And if a house is divided against itself, that house is not able to stand.
3:26 And if Satan rises up against himself, he is not able to stand but has
come to an end.
3:27 But no one is able to enter a strong man’s house and steal his
property, if he does not first bind the strong man. Then he
completely plunders his house.
3:28 Truly I say to you that every sin the sons of men commit will be
forgiven, even whatever blasphemies they utter.
3:29 But whoever blasphemies against the Holy Spirit will never be
forgiven, but are guilty of an eternal sin.”
3:30 For they were saying, “he has an unclean spirit.”
3:31 Then his mother and his brothers came. Standing outside, they sent
word to him, to summon him.
3:32 And the crowd was sitting around him and was saying to him,
“Look, your mother and your brothers and your sisters143 are outside
seeking you.”
143
This phrase including “sisters” is well enough attested, and its absence in verse 33 speaks
for its presence here with a removal of the phrase by a scribe balancing the two verses.
The inclusion of “sister” in verse 35 makes the call here more difficult, as one could
harmonize this initial reference with that one. But an inclusion by Mark is also quite
probable. Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 70.

3:33 And he answered them and said, “Who are my mother and my
brothers?”
3:34 And looking at those sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Behold,
my mother and brothers.
3:35 Whoever does the will of God, this one is my brother and sister and
mother.”
This longer scene has three parts, a classic Markan sandwich scene
(A-B-A), so we have the family, then the dispute, and then back to the
family.144 The juxtaposition is not an accident. The issue that Jesus is
beside himself (or possessed) leads into his strong defense that he is not
acting under the power of Beelzebul. Strong opinions about Jesus are
emerging in the face of his claims of authority, even from within his own
family. He is not backing down from responding to them. This is
another pronouncement scene that also reflects a controversy.
The setting comes in Mark 3:20–21, where the crowds and Jesus’
response to them worries his family. This is the first appearance by Jesus’
family. It is so unfavorable to Jesus that the scene fits the criterion of
embarrassment and produced a host of textual variants.145 Such an account
is unlikely to have been a church creation, especially with Mary being
highly regarded.
Two pronouncement accounts follow. In the first, the judgment of the
Jewish leaders that Jesus casts out demons by Beelzebul’s power leads to
him speaking that that is not the answer and that blaspheming the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven (Mark 3:22–30). That is followed by a scene in
which Jesus’ family seeks to speak with him, which ends with a pronounce-
ment from Jesus about who his real family is – those who hear and do God’s
will (Mark 3:31–35). Yet again Mark forcefully contends for the authority of
Jesus, even in the face of concerns from the leaders and his own family.
Jesus returns to an unspecified home (v 20). The only house Mark has
mentioned is Peter’s (Mark 1:29). Many assume that it is his home that is
noted here. This is possible but not clear. Again a large crowd gathers
(Mark 3:7–9), preventing Jesus and the Twelve from functioning normally.
They were unable to eat a meal. Jesus’ family went to rescue him. Mark 3:31,
as part of the sandwich structure, points to family members here. The
144
This is the first of six such Markan sandwich texts: Mark 5:2–43; 6:7–32; 11:12–25; 14:1–11;
14:53–72; Kuruvilla, Mark, 68–70.
145
Witherington, Mark, 154, notes variants that say Jesus escaped this situation. He sees the
family’s effort to protect family honor in light of the challenge of the leaders.

unspecified family members are simply called “those from him” (v 21;
BDAG 756–57), which refers to some relatives and Mary. Seizing
(kratēsai) almost suggests an arrest (Mark 6:17; 12:12; 14:1, 44, 46, 49, 51).
They were concerned with all of this attention and the way Jesus accepted
it. They thought he had lost his mind. He was doing and claiming too
much. No other explanation is given other than this concern. It may be that
his exorcisms make the family nervous, as that is implied in the context.
John 7:5 notes that some in the family did not believe. Collins notes how, in
some literature, a person who is close to God seems possessed to others
(Phaedrus 249 C–D; Philo, On Drunkenness 36 §145–46).146 Neither Luke
nor Matthew have anything like this remark.
Not only is Jesus’ family concerned about him, but scribes from
Jerusalem also make two charges (v 22): (1) Jesus is possessed by
Beelzebul and (2) by the power of the demons Jesus casts out demons.
Jesus’ attention has now reached the southern national leadership. There is
no fact finding here, but instead a judgment against Jesus as the opposition
to him escalates even more. Epistle Aristeas 32–39 shows such an author-
itative delegation sent to Alexandria. Beelzeboul of the Greek is likely a
variation of the rarely used Jewish term Beelzebub. It originally referred to
a Canaanite or Syrian god Ekron (2 Kings 1:2) and could be associated with
Baal.147 It became an alternate way of referring to Satan as head of the
demons, as it stands parallel to “prince of demons” in this verse. 1QS 3:20–
21 and T. Solomon 2:9; 3:5; 6:1 refer to the hierarchy of demons, whereas 16:3
calls him “the master of spirits in the air, on the earth and under the earth.”
Jews had many names for Satan, including Beliar/Belial (Jubilees 1:20;
2 Cor 6:15), Asmodeus (Tobit 3:8), and Mastema (Jubilees 10:8; 11:5; 17:16).
There is no doubt that Jesus was performing unusual and surprising works.
Mark is unlike Matthew 12:22–23 and Luke 11:14, which have an exorcism
before this discussion. Mark is simply looking at all Jesus has done. John
7:20, 8:48, 52, and 10:20 also present this charge, reflecting multiple attesta-
tion for this reaction against Jesus. The debate was the source of Jesus’
power: from above or below? Later charges that Jesus was a magician or
performed sorcery are similar (Justin Martyr, Dial 69; Origen, Cel. 1.6b. b.
Sanh 43a; 107b). There is always room for a different reading of the same
146
Collins, Mark, 227.
147
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 271–72, though its exact derivation is disputed. It often is associated
with the idea of the “Lord of the flies”; T. Lewis, “Beelzebul,” ABD 1.638–40; Edwards,
Mark, 120–21.

phenomenon. This was a serious charge, as it could bring a sentence of

death (Lev 19:31; 20:27; CD 12:2–3; m Sanh 7:7).148
Jesus responds in verses 23–27 with a parable or maxim that if Jesus were
casting out demons by malevolent powers, then Satan would be working
against himself (v 23). That is neither likely nor logical.149 The argument
assumes that the hierarchy of evil spirits would not be in rebellion or else
the long term of Satan’s kingdom’s well-being would be at risk. So a
kingdom divided against itself in a type of civil war cannot stand, nor
can a divided house stand (vv 24–25). These third-class conditional clauses
actually expect a positive response and are statements expressed rhetori-
cally (BDF § 372.1). The pictures may well look at Israel’s own divided
history and the divided Hasmonean family that allowed Rome to take over
Israel in 63 BCE or Herod’s own violent family history. There is precedent
for what Jesus is saying. The reference to a divided house may imply a
dynasty or rule and so a kingdom. The reference to Satan shows who
Beelzebul is (v 26). Satan is not going to work to bring down his own
kingdom, at least not intentionally. The assumption here is that Satan’s
house is under attack through Jesus’ work. Satan is not at all responsible for
that. Jesus is an opponent of Satan, as Mark 3:27 argues. Their conclusion
could not be more incorrect.
A second image Jesus leaves is of the plundered house (v 27; Matt 12:29;
Luke 11:21–22; Thomas 35). The image is multiply attested. It shows he
opposes Satan and has overcome him. The image is that a strong man’s
house cannot be plundered unless he is first overrun and bound. Binding is
a way of picturing Jesus’ superior power, so that Satan is not able to counter
what Jesus ultimately is doing. Restraining Satan, Jesus can release others
from his grip. Having bound the strong one, Jesus controls the house. Mark
1:7–8 called Jesus the “stronger one” who brings the Spirit. To accuse the
one who brings the Spirit of acting with Satanic power is blasphemy against
the Spirit (v 28). Isaiah 49:24–26 is the likely conceptual background for
taking ground from the captive.150 It is God fighting for his people (also Ps
68:19). Again what the Old Testament has God do, Mark has Jesus do.
Revelation 20:1–3 points to an ultimate binding of Satan still to come as part
of the final eschatological victory, the normal way this imagery was used in
Second Temple Judaism (T. Levi 18:12 – Beliar bound; 1 Enoch 10:4 – Azazel
148
Collins, Mark, 229.
149
On the rhetoric involved in these verses, see V. K. Robbins, “Beelzebul Controversy in
Mark and Luke: Rhetorical and Social Analysis,” Forum 7 (1991): 261–77.
150
France, Mark, 173.

bound; 54:3–5; 69:28; Pss Sol 5:3; Jub 5:6; 10:5–11 – Watchers bound). So these
exorcisms and other acts show Jesus overtaking Satan’s domain (As Mos
10:1). Jesus’ battle with these forces was for the sake of reversing the pain of
humanity. Jesus’ actions represent an invasion of Satan’s world, pointing to
his defeat.
The judgment being made about what God is doing is important. In a
saying introduced with the expression “truly I say,” Jesus makes a signifi-
cant application he wants all to get (Mark 8:12; 9:1, 41; 10:15, 29; 11:23;
12:43; 13:30; 14:9, 18, 25, 30). He describes the sins that the sons of men
(= humanity) commits, as well as blasphemies. Blasphemy is slander
against someone in word or deed.151 He declares that all sins and even
blasphemies are forgivable, but blasphemy against the Spirit is not (v 29;
multiply attested: Luke 12:10; Thomas 44). That is an eternal and unforgi-
vable sin. To miss what God is doing through Jesus now and to conclude it
is by the power of Satan is to reject what the Spirit of God is doing. Their
decision that Jesus had an unclean spirit missed what God was doing
through him, placing the agency in the wrong place (v 30). This sin involves
making a set decision about what the Spirit is doing through Jesus.152 It is
unpardonable to refuse to appreciate who Jesus is and that he comes from
God to bring the kingdom and salvation. Ironically, those scribes seeking to
defend God’s honor in this scene are accused of risking blaspheming against
him. What they see as an unclean spirit is the work of the Holy Spirit.
So the passage in Mark 3:31 returns to the concerns of the family,153 and
the sandwich structure comes full circle to resume discussion of the family.
It opens another pronouncement scene, where Jesus’ reply to his family’s
seeking him shows his priorities.
Jesus’ mother and brothers stand outside the crowded house and wish to
have him come to them (v 31). The detail makes it likely we are not in Jesus’
family home. The reference to brothers would normally be a reference to
siblings.154 The absence of Joseph in any of the texts about Jesus’ ministry
151
Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation.
152
What many Christians worry about being the unpardonable sin does not involve this
decided judgment about Jesus and so does not qualify.
153
The inclusion of “sisters” in some manuscripts, notably A and D, in Mark 3:32 is
probably not original and seeks to create a parallelism with Mark 3:35; Metzger,
Textual Commentary (1994), 70, opts for the shorter reading in our judgment correctly.
It is unlikely that sisters culturally would take on such a role, but Jesus’ response in Mark
3:35 has a reference to sisters, making it a likely addition here for balance.
154
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 276. The Catholic teaching of Mary’s perpetual virginity leads some to see
these as cousins, but this is unlikely, as a word for cousin (anepsios) exists in Greek (Col
4:10). The normal meaning of adelphoi is sibling when biological family is mentioned.

leads most to think he had died by that time. John 7:3–10 notes the unbelief
of some in his family. The fact that some in his family did not believe is an
embarrassing detail that points to the authenticity of the scene. The crowd
around Jesus lets him know that they seek to call or summon Jesus (v 32).
The verb zētein always points, in Mark’s ten uses of it, to people trying to
control or find Jesus.155
Jesus responds by simply asking who his mother and brothers are (v 33).
The decisive pronouncement of the unit follows this rhetorical question.
He has a new spiritual family that has priority (v 34). Doing the will of God
trumps all (v 35). The picture is of those who sit and listen to his teaching as
followers (Mark 10:29–30). To respond to Jesus, in contrast to the claim
that he is from the devil or out of his mind, is to do the will of God. The
concept of a spiritual family expressed in this saying is multiply attested,
pointing to its authenticity (Matt 12:50; Luke 8:21; John 15:14; Thomas 99 but
lacking any reference to sister and speaking of this group entering the
kingdom; Gospel of the Egyptians 9:11).156 The point is that relationship with
God forms a new, extended family that has priority over biology. In a
community meeting with a great deal of opposition, the point is important.
The social role of such relationships is not unprecedented in the ancient
world, as the Dead Sea Community was such a family (4Q502 frg. 9, lines 4,
9, 11) and the voluntary associations in the Greco-Roman world also
functioned in this kind of a manner.157
So Jesus defends his activity as being from God, not Satan. He notes that
he has a family that transcends biology. Those who do God’s will belong to
the divine family Jesus has come to affirm.
4:1–34 Jesus Teaches about the Kingdom through Parables

4:1–9 The Parable of the Soils
4:1 And again he began to teach by the sea. A great crowd gathered
together to him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on the sea
and the entire crowd was on the ground by the sea.
155
Edwards, Mark, 124; Mark 1:37; 8:11, 12; 11:18; 12:12; 14:1, 11, 55; 16:6.
156
Stein, Mark, 188–89, who also notes how often Jesus uses the family metaphor in
discipleship contexts, mostly in Q passages (Mark 10:29–30/Matt. 19:29/Luke 18:29–30;
Matt. 10:35/Luke 12:53; Matt. 10:37/Luke 14:26; Matt. 8:21–22/Luke 9:59–60; Luke 11:27–28;
also John 19:26–27).
157

4:2 And he was teaching them in many parables, and in his teaching he
said to them,
4:3 “Listen, a sower went out to sow.
4:4 And as he sowed some fell by the path, and the birds came and
devoured it.
4:5 Other seed fell on rocky ground where it did not have much soil. It
sprang up immediately because it did not have deep earth.
4:6 When the sun came up, it was scorched, and because it did not have
root, it withered.
4:7 Other seed fell among the thorns, and they grew up and choked it, and
it did not give produce.
4:8 But the other seed fell on good soil and had produce, sprouting and
growing, some bearing thirty times, some sixty and some one hundred.”
4:9 And he was saying to them, “The one who has ears, let him hear.”
Once again Jesus teaches “on” the sea of Galilee from a boat (v 1), just as
the crowd is on the shore making use of the natural acoustics of the
region.158 Jesus uses parables (note the plural) to picture the kingdom of
God (v 2). These extended pictures each portray elements associated with
the kingdom and are designed for hearers to ponder. They can be anything
from simple metaphorical comparisons (mashalim) to complex stories.
There is precedent in the Hebrew Scripture for this genre (2 Sam 12:1–14;
Ezek 17:1–10). The term parable in the LXX renders a Hebrew mashal.
There are around sixty such parables in the Gospels, with Matthew and
Luke having the most, Mark a few, and John’s Gospel having none.159 The
crowd is growing, with earlier references to it in Mark 2:13, and 3:9 and
20. It is now a large crowd (Mark 3:9 – also mentions teaching from a
boat; boats in Mark 4:35–41; 6:45–52; 8:14–21). Such an ancient fishing
boat was discovered at Ginnosar in Israel in 1986. It was 26.5 feet long, 7.5
feet wide, and 4.5 feet deep. The sea has been the locale for Jesus’ acts in
Mark 1:16; 2:13, and 3:7.
This discourse on the kingdom is one of two major speeches in Mark.
The Olivet discourse of Mark 13 is the other. The distinctive feature in
Mark 4 involves the use of parables that form the discourse. The lead-off
parable is often called the Parable of the Sower or Seed, but a better name is
the Parable of the Four Soils, because it is how the seed is received that is
158
B. Cobbey Crisler, “The Acoustics and Crowd Capacity of Natural Theaters in
Palestine,” The Biblical Archaeologist 39 (1976): 128–41.
159
Edwards, Mark, 127, who notes they are mostly for insiders and compares them to
stained glass–dull on the outside but full of brilliant and radiant light on the inside.

the point.160 It opens with a call to listen (v 3). The only other imperatival
uses of the verb “to listen” in the Gospels are: Matt 15:10; 17:5; Mark 9:7; and
Luke 9:35. Aside from Matt 15:10, God orders hearers to listen to Jesus
during Transfiguration accounts. This verse is the only time it is used by
the speaker in its own clause.
Jesus introduces the parable using the common agricultural picture of a
farmer sowing seed by tossing it into the field. The season for sowing would
be the autumn. Four landing spots are noted: the road, the rock, the thorns,
and good soil. Four results emerge: birds devour the seed, the sun scorches
the seed with no deep soil, thorns choke the seed, and the seed produces at
various levels. The parable is not about six seed (three in poor conditions
and three in good),161 but involves a variety of seed cast into four types of
soil and summarized in terms of kinds of yield.
The footpath that is the road is likely an area by the side of the field (v 4),
where the repeated travel on foot would pack the soil, making penetration
by the seed impossible so it would sit on or by the road as easy prey for
hungry birds. Because we are discussing sowing in a field, a path is more
likely than a road. The expression “by the road” reflects the idiom para tēn
hodon, with Matt 20:30, Mark 10:46, and 18:35 looking to people standing by
a road. There is debate whether in ancient Israel one sowed and then
plowed162 or the other way around.163 It leads into a discussion of whether
seed is scattered intentionally or unintentionally by the road. That may
overinterpret the imagery.164 The parable’s point is the not detailed motive
of the farmer but rather the result of his act. In addition, it really makes
little difference. The area by the path is unlikely to have been plowed either
way. So the parable is not merely about the arrival of seed as the word of the
kingdom, but the differing reactions to it wherever it appears.
The middle two soils see a start of growth but no desired result because
the seed never makes it to fruition as the sun and thin soil or the presence of
160
Thomas 9 has a variation of this parable, which also leads the kingdom parable sequence
in Matt 13 and Luke 8.
161
Contra France, Mark, 188. Seed was not tossed one seed at a time but scattered in
handfuls. Witherington, Mark, 165, is right to speak of three degrees of failure and
success.
162
So Lane Mark, 153, Marcus, Mark 1–8, 292, and France, Mark, 191. This is the most likely
practice, but the point is not certain.
163
Edwards, Mark, 128.
164
So, correctly, Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 193. Donahue and Harrington, The Gospel of Mark
(Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier Press, 2002), 138, point out the emphasis is on the
result for the seed where it lands, rather than on the conditions of preparation for it as
key to the result.

thorns prevent its coming to maturity (vv 5–7). In the end, the seed in these
soils proves as unfruitful as the seed by the road. The parable assumes, in
scattering a large amount of seed, that some of the seed will land in useless
locations.
The fourth soil was good soil (v 8). Here the seed had a good place to be
fruitful. So the seed sprouted and grew in various yields of thirty, sixty, and
a hundredfold. Such yields are common in describing ancient crops,
though they are higher than normal yields (Gen. 26:12 – a hundredfold;
cf. Sib. Or. 3.263; Pliny, Nat. Hist. 18.21.95; Varro, On Agriculture 1.44.2).165
In the good soil, the seed could do what it was planted to do.
Jesus closes the parable by urging the crowd to hear (v 9). The one with
ears is to hear what the parable says. This is a common NT expression
(Mark 4:23; Matt 11:15; 13:43; Luke 14:35; Rev 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 13:9).
They are to understand that the word requires good soil. The remark forms
an inclusio with Mark 4:3, where there was also a call to hear. Open ears can
give access to divine mysteries, as the next verses indicate (1QH 9:21). So the
story pictures four types of landing spots that will correspond to four kinds
of responses.
4:10–12 Jesus Explains the Mystery of Parables

4:10 When he was alone, those around him with the twelve were asking
him about the parables.
4:11 And he was saying to them, “To you is given the mystery of the
kingdom of God, but to those outside all things come in parables,
4:12 so that seeing they may see but not behold, and hearing they hear but
not understand, lest they repent and be forgiven.”
Mark places the explanation here, likely from a later time, to connect the
private explanation of the parable to its presentation. We have another
A-B-A sandwich construction (parable-explanation-parable). The ques-
tion comes from disciples beyond the Twelve about Jesus’ use of parables
(v 10). The reference to Jesus being alone likely means he is away from the
crowd in private (like Mark 4:34; 6:31–32; 7:14–17; 9:27–28; 10:2–12; 13:3).
There are “those around him,” an echo of Mark 3:31–35 and those who
respond to Jesus. He explains that to those on the inside comes the mystery
(in Aramaic, the rāz) of the kingdom (v 11). This is Mark’s only use of the
165
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 195. They are unlike the enormous yields in some eschatological
texts, 1 Enoch 10:19 (thousandfold); 2 Baruch 29:5 (ten thousandfold); Stein, Mark, 200.

term that has roots in the book of Daniel (Dan 2:18–19; 27–30, 47). The “to
you” in the verse is thrown forward in Greek for emphasis. This mystery
involves access to the revelatory knowledge of God’s plan and program, to
know the “secret” of what God is doing. God has given this knowledge,
which includes embracing the message, not just understanding its content.
This equals the “good soil” of the parable. The “is given” is a divine passive.
The kingdom has arrived; the seed is sown with more still to come. It has
come without the complete eradication of the old era, small but penetrat-
ing.166 They understand this and appreciate it. Those on the outside, those
rejecting Jesus and not open to him, just hear the parables with no help as
to how to comprehend them.167 They have ears to hear, but do not (Ezek
12:1–2; Dan 12:8–10).168 Those who hear in faith will appreciate the parable
and become insiders.
Mark 4:12 is among the most complex and challenging in the Gospel. It is
a shortened citation from Isa 6:9–10. The key differences are that third-
person verbs (rather than second-person) open the first clause, and the
concluding reference is to being forgiven rather than healed. These differ-
ences are like the targum of Isaiah.169 The differences so strongly paralleled
in the Aramaic setting may indicate that the age of the tradition reaches
back into Jesus’ time. Unlike the other texts, the Gospel of Mark reverses
the order of perception to seeing/hearing. Marcus suggests that this is
because Mark liked to highlight the role of vision (8:22–26; 10:46–52;
numerous times in ch 13; 15:32, 36, 39).170
In its OT context, the statement explains that Isaiah’s ministry was one
of hardening. So is the role of parables today for outsiders who are closed to
the message.171 The historical context of Jesus’ remarks is also important.172
He has ministered and taught, with some saying he acts from Satan (Mark
3). Jesus’ remark fits into a world where the kingdom has been openly
offered up to this point and some have emphatically rejected it. The
purpose of parables to those outsiders is a form of judgment. They see a
parable but do not grasp its meaning. They hear it but do not understand it.
For had they grasped it and understood it, they would have repented
166
167
Hooker, Mark, 128.
168
169
170
171
France, Mark, 199–200, explains the typology at work here in the appeal to Isaiah 6.
172
Lane, Mark, 158, correctly stresses this.

(literally “turned”) and received forgiveness. The soil the message lands on
does not allow the bearing of fruit.
The debate about the passage in verse 12 centers on the term hina.173 Is it
the purpose of speaking in parables to have a non-response or is it a result
of teaching in parables that there is no response?174 The term usually carries
a meaning of purpose. The likely point is that parables are a form of initial
judgment to those closed to respond. The context of Mark 4 where the
remarks appear is important to appreciating the force of what Jesus is
saying. Only the person open to hearing what the parables say (Mark 4:3, 9)
can benefit from what they teach. Failure to be open brings the risk of being
closed off to gaining understanding of the word and, eventually, leads to
judgment.
4:13–20 Jesus Explains the Parable of the Soils

4:13 He said to them, “Do you not understand this parable? And how will
you know all the parables?
4:14 The sower sows the word.
4:15 These are the ones by the road, where the sower sows the word and
when they hear, immediately Satan comes and takes the word that was
sown in them.
4:16 These are the ones sown on the rocky ground. When they hear the
word they immediately receive it with joy.
4:17 But having no root in themselves, they are temporary. When
difficulty or persecution comes because of the word, immediately,
they fall.
4:18 And others are sown among the thorns. These are the ones hearing
the word
4:19 and the cares of the age, the love of riches, and the desire for the rest
come in and choke the word, and it produces nothing.
173
Stein, Mark, 209–10, notes no less than seven interpretive options that have been
suggested for the expression plus three options for mēpote later in the verse. On the
passage as a whole, C. A. Evans, To See and Not Perceive: Isaiah 6.9–10 in Early Jewish
and Christian Interpretation. JSNTSup 64 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989), 53–80, and esp.
92–99.
174
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 299–300, opts for purpose, while Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 211–12,
prefers to see hina as epexegetical and mēpote as introducing an indirect question.
Guelich’s reading sees the verse as giving the effect of failing to understand. Matthew
13:10–17 and Luke 8:9–10 do render this part of the passage in a softer way than Mark. It
may be best to retain the ambiguity of the language, sensing a mix of purpose and result.

4:10 But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the
word and welcome it and bear fruit thirtyfold, sixtyfold and
hundredfold.”
Jesus now explains the parable of the sown word with its various reac-
tions.175 Such private teaching is common in Mark (Mark 7:17–23; 8:16–21;
9:28–29; 10:10–12; 11:21–25; 13:3–37). He asks if they understand the parable
(v 13). The interrogative ouk assumes a positive reply. Jesus leans in the
direction of assuming they will get it. He also notes in a rhetorical question
that understanding it opens the way to understanding all the parables. So
Jesus offers his insiders a way into understanding. The insider-outsider
categories here are not static, but dynamic. The disciples have access to
mysteries but still must pursue them with receptive ears. Openness to the
word is the only way inside. The arrival of the kingdom does not come with
automatic understanding and acceptance. In fact, many will not respond,
but it has come nonetheless. The kingdom does not force itself upon
people, but offers itself to them. Access is gained only through a welcoming
heart.
Jesus interprets the parable (v 14), as he often does with other parables
(Mark 13:29; Matt 13:36–43, 49–50; 18:14, 35; 20:16; 21:31–32, 43; 25:13; Luke
7:43–47; 10:36–37; 12:21; 15:7, 10; 16:8–13; 18:6–8, 14).176 The sower sows the
word (4 Ezra 8:41; 9:31). We are not told the subject of the word, but surely
in the context of this Gospel it is the word concerning the message of the
kingdom. We are not told who the sower is, but surely Jesus is meant as the
messenger of the kingdom, along with any who share that message with
others. The parable’s focus is not on who brings the message but on what
happens to it depending on where it lands. This fusion is part of what
makes it hard to determine if the interpretation focuses on the seed or the
differing groups in their response to it. It is the synergy between the two
that is in view. So the “these” in these explanatory verses is primarily about
the groups and their reaction to the word.
The first seed associated with the path never has a chance (v 15). Satan
takes away that seed as soon as it lands. Demons were seen like birds in
ancient texts (1 En 90:8–13; Apoc Abr 13:3–8; Jub 11:11–14 – Mastema,
175
Stein, Mark, 213–15, defends the authenticity of the explanation, as does Philip Payne,
“The Authenticity of the Parable of the Sower and Its Interpretation,” in Gospel
Perspectives: Studies in the History and Tradition of the Four Gospels, Vol. 1, ed.
R. T. France and David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980), 163–207.
176
France, Mark, 202.

another name for Satan, sends cows to eat the planted seed).177 Satan is
active in opposing what Jesus is doing, as he has been throughout Mark up
to here (Mark 1:13, 23–26, 32–33, 39; 3:11–12, 22–27). Here an active outside
force prevents fruitfulness. Although Jesus as the stronger man has over-
come him (Mark 3:27), Satan is still at work.178 This is surely one of the
mysteries of the kingdom.
The second seed on rocky ground has no root (v 16). These are the
people who are open to the word, receive it with joy initially, but when
tribulation or persecution arrives let go of their initial response. In
Judaism, the wicked are commonly identified as rootless (Sir 23:25; 40:15;
Wis 4:3).179 Their temporary faith exposes them as lacking the genuine
faith that brings forth fruit. Those with genuine faith do not let it go and
walk away.
Related terms help us interpret the verb for offense here (v 17). The noun
skandalon (offense) refers to someone who views the message of the cross
as an offense, a barrier to belief (1 Cor 1:23). The verbal idea we have in
Mark 4 means “to fall away out of offense” (noun: Mark 6:3; verb: 9:42–47;
14:27–29). It is to trip over an obstacle. Jesus’ point is that in these cases, the
shame of persecution is greater than a person’s embrace of the message, so
they stumble over the message in times of trouble. They let go of faith
rather than facing rejection. This term denotes apostasy, or lack of real faith
(TDNT 7:349). In the end, they leave their initial, now fleeting response and
return to where they were before hearing the word. This is not a momen-
tary lapse of faith, but a turning away from it.180 The opposite, positive
exhortation is to take up one’s cross (Mark 8:34).
The third seed is sown among the thorns (vv 18–19). Here it is life that
chokes growth: the cares of this world, the love of riches, and the desire for
all that life offers are said to get in the way. The result is no fruit. The later
Jewish text Ecclesiastes Rabbah in 4:14 refers to the evil inclination as
“entangling people as if among thorns.”181 The seed among thorns pictures
those who get so encumbered with the basic enticements of this world that
they produce no fruit. The seed again fails to accomplish its purpose. The
terms used here do not appear frequently in the Synoptics. “Worries” is
used elsewhere only in Luke 21:34; “lure” appears only here and in its
177
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 141–42.
178
Hooker, Mark, 131.
179
180
France, Mark, 206.
181

parallel, Matt 13:22; and “desire” has no parallel akin to its use here,
although it is used positively in Luke 22:15. The theme of riches and the
problems of the rich are a concern (Matt 6:24–25; 19:23–24; Mark 10:25;
Luke 1:53; 12:21). Riches are said to be deceitful because what they promise,
they cannot deliver in terms of real life. It is not the wealth that is the
problem but what one expects from it and so how one uses it. The reference
to “the rest” points to anything else in life that also chokes discipleship.
With the group represented by this soil, the failure lies with the distractions
that prevent a person from benefiting from the word. The one thing all
three fruitless soils share is that none of them are fruitful. In the terms of
the parable, they are all failures in terms of why someone sows seed.
Another key point these soils together show is that we are not dealing
with an assessment that looks at an existential moment in life, but a
“career” response to the word over a period of time across one’s life. The
passing of events and the effect of life choices are in view. Satan, persecu-
tion, and the lure of the world can get in the way of fruitfulness for God and
a productive kingdom life.
The fourth soil hears and welcomes the word so fruit in various yields
emerges: thirty, sixty and hundredfold (v 20). This is the good heart. It
welcomes the word of God about the kingdom. The various yields point to
a range of productiveness. After all, the goal of sowing seed is bearing fruit.
So the word is to have a product that emerges from faith. Finally the seed
bears the fruit for which it was intended. This is the only commended soil.
The hope is that the hearts of hearers will be this type of soil, but the fact
that Jesus spends so much time on the other soils means that the threat of a
lack of response is real and varied.
4:21–25 The Light Comes to Expose and the Measure Shows the Heart
4:21 And he said to them, “Is a lamp brought in to be put under a basket,
or under a bed, and not on a stand?
4:22 For nothing is secret except it be made manifest, nothing is hidden
that is not become clear.
4:23 If anyone has ears, let him hear.”
4:24 And he said to them, “Pay attention to what you hear. The measure
by which you measure will be the measure you receive, and more will
be added to you.
4:25 For whoever has, more will be given to you, and whoever does not
have, what he has will be taken from him.”

Jesus tells another set of parables: the lamp and the measure. With the
lamp image, Mark brings together what the other Gospels have in distinct
contexts (Matt 5:15; 10:26; Luke 8:16 with no parallel to Mark 4:22). The
same is true for the image of the measure (Matthew 7:2; 13:12; Luke 6:38;
11:33; 12:2; 19:26).182 The general call to hear likely looks to a broad audience,
as does Mark 4:26 and 33, though some see only disciples in view in light of
Mark 4:13–20. Mark’s transitions are not always clear.
In the lamp (v 21), Jesus shifts to the picture of the word of the kingdom
brought by Jesus as a light that shines and exposes (Ps 119:105). So the lamp
“comes.” Oil lamps are in view in the imagery. The context points to the
kingdom’s arrival as the topic. The picture ultimately is eschatological. This
word will reveal where hearts are. What seems hidden will be revealed
(v 22). This word is not covered by up to a two-gallon, peck measure basket
or placed under a bed, but placed where it can shine and show the way
things are. The first question expects a negative reply, whereas the second
looks for a positive reply. One does not hide the lamp. Rather the light
shows what is there and exposes the initially secret things. Jesus points to
the accountability the word’s exposure is to bring. Jesus ends the short
summary with another call to understand and respond (v 23; Mark 4:9).
The parable of the measure adds to the note of accountability (v 24). It is
yet another call to hear, something the entire chapter has stressed (Mark
4:3, 9, 23–24 [three times]). The measure you use to respond to the word of
the kingdom will be used on you (Matt 7:2; Luke 6:38, but in a distinct
context of judging others, not how you hear the word as here). The one
who has gets more (v 25), but the one who does not have loses what he has
(Matt 13:12; 25:29; Luke 8:18; 19:26; Thomas 41).183 This sounds odd, but the
point is that the one who responds gets more benefit, whereas the one who
does not respond ends up absolutely empty. Jesus is giving more reason to
respond. Not only is there exposure and accountability, but the one who
lacks also ends up with nothing at all, stated rhetorically as emphatically as
it could be said. Whatever little understanding one may have had is lost
without an open, welcoming heart. In contrast, the one who welcomes light
receives more light. The verbs “is given” and “is taken away” say what God
will do in the judgment. The warning makes sense only if outsiders are also
being addressed. A person is very responsible for how he or she responds to
182
We likely are dealing with variations in a repeated image in the oral tradition versus a
singular saying. The imagery is also like Thomas 3, 35, and 41.
183
These themes also show themselves in later Judaism: verse 24 is like Mekilta on Exod
13:19ff., m. Sotah 1:7; verse 25 is like Mekilta on Exod 15:26; Lane, Mark, 167.

God and for the consequences that come from that response or the lack of
it. So where the earlier parable pictured the various responses to the word,
these last two short parables picture how the word enlightens and exposes,
which is why it should be heeded.
4:26–29 The Parable of the Growing Seed

4:26 And he said, “The kingdom of God is like someone who scatters seed
on the earth.
4:27 He goes to sleep and rises up, night and day, and the seed sprouts and
grows, though he does not know how.
4:28 Automatically the soil produces a crop, first the stalk, then the grain,
then the full grain in the head.
4:29 And when the fruit permits, he immediately sends in the sickle
because the time for harvest has come.”
The Parable of the Growing Seed is unique to Mark, though it looks like
the kind of parable one might see in Luke, as it is introduced with a certain
man who sows seed. The parable is about the mysterious yet inevitable way
the kingdom grows. It is compared to how a farmer sows seed and allows
time to pass, and then automatically the seed sprouts and grows. The idea
of sprouting might evoke a messianic image (Zech 3:8; 6:12; Jer. 23:5–6;
33:14–16; 4QpGenaa 5),184 but that is less likely here. We have a simple
picture of the growth of the impact of the seed. The parable is not focused
on Christology alone.
The farmer has no idea how it works (vv 26–27), but he is the beneficiary
of the harvest that results (4 Ezra 4:1–12). This detail shows that we are not
speaking of Jesus alone, but of the entire work of kingdom preaching.
Something in the seed brings the growth (v 28). The kingdom will grow and
do its work over time. There will be a harvest at the end when all things are
sorted out (v 29). The language of the harvest in sending forth the sickle
echoes Joel 3:13 (1QHab 7:13–14 – the time will come; Thomas 21 – sickle
image). The parable is less about growth over time than a contrast of the
start with the finish, along with the mystery of how we get to the end. The
goal is to reach the harvest, and the seed brings forth its fruit. A harvest
both gathers and separates. This is a confident parable that the seed of
the kingdom will do its work and that all will be held accountable for the
response. Accountability is suggested by the contextual link back to the
184

measure in Mark 4:24–26, but the thrust is positive. There will be a yield in
the end.
4:30–32 The Mustard Seed

4:30 And he was saying, “To what shall we liken the Kingdom of God or
in what parable can we lay it out?
4:31 It is like a mustard seed when sown in the ground, even though it is
the smallest of seeds for the ground,
4:32 when it is sown, it grows up, becomes the greatest of all garden
plants, and grows large branches so that the wild birds can nest in its
shade.”
Jesus’ final parable in this chapter is the Parable of the Mustard Seed.
Again the contrast is the mystery of the seed’s small size at the start with its
size at the end. Matthew 13:31–32 and Luke 13:19 have the same image with
slightly different wording, suggesting a well-circulated parable in slightly
distinct versions.185 This is the type of thing Jesus could have taught
regularly as he traveled.
The mustard seed here is proverbially called the smallest of seed as a very
common plant in use (TDNT 7:288–89; m. Tohar 8.8; m. Nid 5.2; b. Ber 31a;
b. Nid 5a, 13b, 16b, 40a, 66a186), so the language should not be horticulturally
pressed (vv 30–31). It is likely the Braasica nigra that is meant, which
produced oil and grew to about 9 feet or so. The anticipation had been
that the kingdom would be glorious from the start. In contrast, Jesus says
the Kingdom starts out as small as the smallest of seed but one day will be
large enough to be like a place of shelter for birds (v 32).
Such a mustard seed shrub could be 8 to 10 feet in size, making nesting
possible. The background is likely Ezek 17:23 (also Ezek 31:6; Ps 104:12; Dan
4:9–21; Joseph and Aseneth 15:6).187 There a stump of Jesse becomes
replanted and will become a great place of shelter. The contrast of the
start with the finish is the point.188 The note is again a confident one about
where God’s program is headed. However insignificant the kingdom looks
185
This could be evidence of some overlap between Q and Mark on content. Thomas 20 also
has a version of this parable. Witherington, Mark, 171, notes that this is the only parable
attested across those three sources as he argues for its authenticity.
186
Stein, Mark, 235.
187
Collins, Mark, 255–56, in discussing the background rightly calls Ezekiel a “messianic
parable.”
188
Cranfield, Mark, 163, “the key feature of the parable.”

now, that will not be the end story for the kingdom. So the application is:
do not underestimate what is taking place simply because the start appears
small. This is the point that underlies the choice of the mustard seed as the
point of comparison.
4:33–34 Summary: How Jesus Used Parables

4:33 So that with many parables such as these he was speaking the word to
them, even as they were able to hear.
4:35 He did not speak to them without a parable. But privately he
explained everything to his own disciples.
Mark summarizes that parables were a key way Jesus taught the word
about the kingdom (v 33). Mark has given but a sample of those parables.
They were of value as long as they were heard. His remark that Jesus did not
teach without parables means that they were a key means of teaching. Jesus
does use other forms of teaching in Mark. Disciples had an added advan-
tage over the larger crowds, as Jesus explained the parables privately to
them (v 34). The explanation of parables goes to more than the Twelve,
however; it goes to those who have chosen to follow Jesus.
So ends the first of only two discourses in Mark.189 Jesus has used three
seed parables to note that the kingdom produces an array of responses and
that it will start by appearing to be of insignificant size, and yet will end up
being a place of rest, with all, even those who do not rest in its shade, being
accountable to it.
4:35–5:41 Jesus Performs a Series of Miracles

4:35–41 Jesus Calms a Storm
4:35 He said to them on that day when evening came, “Let’s go to the
other side of the lake.”
4:36 So leaving the crowd, they took him just as he was, in the boat, and
other boats were with him.
4:37 Now a giant windstorm developed, and the waves were beating over
the boat, so that the boat was nearly full.
4:38 And he was in the stern of the boat sleeping, resting his head on a
cushion. They woke him up and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care
that we are about to perish?”
189
Mark 13 on Jerusalem’s destruction and the end of time is the other.

4:39 So he arose and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Silence! Calm
down.” And the wind ceased and there came a great calm.
4:40 And he said to them, “Why are you cowardly? Do you still not have
faith?”
4:41 They were full of fear and were saying to each other, “Who is this that
the wind and the sea obey him?”
Jesus’ calming of the storm is the first of a series of four miracles Mark
will tell in Mark 4–5: calming the storm, the demoniac, healing the woman
with a flow of blood, and raising Jairus’ daughter. It is an A to Z portrayal of
Jesus’ power: nature, demons, disease, and death. This miracle of calming
the storm also appears in Matthew 8:18, 23–27 and Luke 8:22–25. It is a
nature miracle and a rescue account. Jesus has authority over creation like
God (Ps 107:23–32; Jonah 1:1–16), so it also is an epiphany account. It is very
parallel in structure to the exorcism in Mark 1:21–28.190 Luke has the same
miracle sequence as Mark. Matthew breaks up the sequence of miracles.
The story has several Semitisms, so it reflects early tradition.191
At the end of the day (vv 35–36), Jesus heads to the other side of the Sea
of Galilee in the boat in which he taught noted in Mark 4:1, as the text says
they went “as he was.” He is not alone; he travels in a boat along with other
boats traveling with him. This is part of Mark’s “growing crowds” motif.
The journey takes Jesus into more prominent Gentile territory, as the next
encounter will involve pigs. Jesus is ministering to more than Israel.
The bowl that is the Sea of Galilee can allow for winds to stir up a storm
in a hurry (v 37). Hills surround it except for where the Jordan River exits it.
The description of a great windstorm recalls the story of Jonah (Jonah 1:4).
That is what happened on this trip. But this was not just a minor storm; the
winds produced waves that were dangerous, catching the travelers as they
were crossing, filling the boat with water from the waves spilling over the
boat. It is possible that the first-century fishing boat found in the Sea in 1986
and now displayed at Ginnosar found its fate in this way. At day’s end, as
darkness is falling, this situation is especially dangerous. Jesus was sleeping
and had to be roused by those with him (v 38). His head is on a cushion,
probably a sandbag used for ballast.192 Mark simply describes this. It is a
detail many have sought to explain, but Mark simply notes it and moves on.
190
Kuruvilla, Mark, 95.
191
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 262. He notes that there are paratactic sentences, impersonal
plurals, and unrelated imperatives in verse 39, an interrogative pronoun in verse 40, and
the use of a cognate accusative with the verb they feared in verse 41.
192

Clearly the narrative has Jesus calm in the midst of the storm.193 He
trusts God.
In verse 38, rhetorically they ask if he cares that they are about to be
consumed in the sea and perish, the same verb used in Jonah 1:6, 14 and 3:9.
The question (ou) expects a positive reply. Surely he does care, but their
panic shows a lack of faith, as Jesus’ later remarks demonstrates. Their faith
in him is at a tipping point. Jesus is addressed as “teacher,” the first use of
what will be a common title for him. The disciples are quite nervous. This is
the first hint in Mark of a failure in the disciples to trust Jesus, the first of
several such moments as they grow to appreciate who he is (Mark 6:52; 8:17,
32–33; 9:18–19, 33–37; 10:13–16, 35–45; 14:3–9, 27–31, 32–42, 53–54, 66–72; with
rebuke: 7:18; 8:17–18, 21, 32–33; 9:19).
Jesus responds by rebuking the wind and telling it to calm down (v 39).
The almost personal feel of the term rebuke makes Jesus’ response to nature
one of challenging the presence of evil. As noted earlier, this handling of
creation is almost like an exorcism (Mark 1:25; 3:12; 9:25; T. Sol 16). It is a
point of his authority that he acts directly against nature. There is no call to
another to act, no prayer, no ritualistic formula. Creation is told to be
muzzled (BDAG, 1060; Deut 24:5 LXX). Creation simply obeys and all is
calm (Ps 104:7 – of God’s power; 107:29; contrast 2 Macc 9:8 of Antiochus
Epiphanes’ arrogant self-belief he could calm the waves).194 As Stein says,
“Like Yahweh, Jesus is also Lord over nature.”195
Jesus rebukes his disciples as well (v 40). He calls them cowardly (Deut
20:8; Judg 7:3; 1 Macc 3:56) and implies that they lack faith. This lack of faith
is not merely in Jesus as a miracle worker, as Mark is consistently against
seeing Jesus in such limited terms. Faith here is about trusting God for his
care and program. God will care for Jesus and for the disciples to accom-
plish his program. For Mark, fear is the opposite of faith (Mark 5:15–17, 36;
6:49–52; 10:32; 11:18; 16:8). This theme sets up the way the Gospel ends. Will
one trust in what God has done and is doing? Jesus knows his disciples will
193
Collins, Mark, 259, seeing the image of a sleeping deity and an epiphany scene, citing the
work of B. Batto, “The Sleeping God: An Ancient Near Eastern Motif of Divine
Sovereignty,” Bib 68 (1987) 153–77. Perhaps this is meant, given that Jesus acts directly.
Unlike Jonah, he will not pray to God to solve the dilemma, but will act on his own. The
image of the teacher works in another less dramatic direction, but the disciples do not
yet get who Jesus is fully.
194
195
Stein, Mark, 244; Collins, Mark, 260, Jesus is “behaving not like a devout human person
but like God.”

be in many difficult spots. They will need to look to God. So he redirects

them to deepen their trust and have courage.
The miracle closes with reflection over what the disciples have just seen
(v 41). They “feared a great fear,” a Semitic cognate accusative construction
retained in Greek that alludes to a deep amazement and awe (Jonah 1:16
LXX). They are asking themselves, “Who is this that the winds and sea obey
him?”196 The question speaks to a control of creation that only God has
(Ps 107:29; 89:8–9) or those, like Moses or Elijah, who worked very closely
with God. At Qumran, this kind of power where heaven and earth obeyed
was tied to the Messiah (4Q521 2 ii 1). It is beginning to dawn on the
disciples that Jesus is a most unusual messenger from God. The scene ends
here, leaving Mark’s reader to contemplate the same question with no
answer except to ponder what has just been described. The event represents
an epiphany of divine authority. The scene sets up a direct confession
coming in Mark 5:7: he is “son of the Most High God.” In light of this, will
fear lead to trust?197
5:1–20 Jesus Exorcizes a Demon-Possessed Man in Gentile Territory

5:1 And they came to the other side of the sea into the region of Geresene,
5:2 and as Jesus was coming out of the boat, immediately a man with an
unclean spirit came from the tombs and met him.
5:3 He had dwelt among the tombs, and no one could bind him, not even
with a chain.
5:4 For his hands and feet had often been bound with chains and shackles,
but he had torn the chains apart and broken the shackles into pieces.
No one was strong enough to subdue him.
5:5 Each night and every day among the tombs and in the mountains, he
was crying out and cutting himself on the stones.
5:6 When he saw Jesus from some distance he ran and bowed before him
5:7 and crying out in a loud voice said, “What is there between me and
you, Jesus Son of the Most High? I implore you by God – do not
torment me.”
5:8 For Jesus had been saying to him, “Come out of that man, you unclean
spirit.”
5:9 And Jesus asked him, “What is your name?” And he said, “My name is
Legion, for we are many.”
196
Witherington, Mark, 177, sees the force as “Who is this masked man?”
197
So asks, correctly, Edwards, Mark, 152.

5:10 And he was begging him a great deal not to send him out of the
region.
5:11 There was on the hillside a great herd of pigs feeding.
5:12 And they requested of him, saying, “Send us into the pigs, that we
may enter them.”
5:13 And he permitted them. So the unclean spirits came out and went
into the pigs. And the herd rushed down the steep slope into the sea,
and about two thousand were drowned in the sea.
5:14 Now the herdsmen ran off and spread the news in the town and
countryside, and the people went out to see what had taken place.
5:15 They came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed man sitting there,
clothed and sane – the one who had the “Legion” – and they were
afraid.
5:16 Those who had seen what had taken place to the demon possessed
man reported it, and they also told about the pigs.
5:17 Then they began to ask Jesus to leave their region.
5:18 And as he was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon
possessed asked if he could go with him.
5:19 But Jesus did not permit him to do so. Instead, he said to him, “Go to
your home and to your own and tell them what the Lord has done for
you, that he had mercy on you.”
5:20 So he went out and began to preach in the Decapolis the things Jesus
did for him, and all were amazed.
From a nature miracle pointing to the powerful presence of God, we turn to
a very expanded exorcism account, the longest such account in the Gospels.
Exorcisms dominate Mark, of which this is the third so far (Mark 1:21–28, 32–
34; 3:11–12, 15, 22–30; 6:7; 7:24–30; 9:14–29). Jesus’ battle goes beyond human
struggle. This miracle is told with far more detail than most, so it is unusual in
its portrayal. Some have called it a mission story, but that is hard to see clearly,
given that the healed man is to remain where he is.
Jesus crosses the Sea successfully, having calmed the storm (v 1). He ends
up in the region of Geresene. There is a complex textual issue here about
the location that also shows itself in the parallels in Matthew and Luke.
Geresene is the best attested in terms of external evidence (‫*א‬, B, D). Luke
8:26 reads like Mark. Gadarene is the best-attested reading for Matthew
8:28. These are overlapping regional references. Geresene is Geresa, which
is the major city of the Decapolis, but is about 37 miles from any water.198
198
S. T. Parker, “The Decapolis Reviewed,” JBL 94 (1975): 437–41, reviews the ancient textual
discussion of the region.

Gadarene refers to a location closer to water (A, C, M ), some 6 miles

removed. Gergesa, yet a third option (‫א‬2, L) is located on the eastern edge of
the Sea. These are references to a region or territory versus a specific
location. It may well be the best known general location has been noted.
The similarity in the spelling and the proximate locales by those who knew
the geography has led to the textual confusion. Mark likely had Geresene as
original.199 The important observation is that this is predominantly Gentile
territory, as the prominence of pigs in the scene shows, although it also had
much contact with Judaism.
Mark describes someone who is seriously possessed by an evil spirit (v 2;
Mark 1:23). The scene is paralleled in Matthew 8:28–34 and Luke 8:26–39,
but it is clear Mark tells it with much more detail. Actually, the man is
multiply possessed, as later verses make clear. He lives in a permanently
unclean state among the tombs (Num 19:11–14; Ps 68:6; Isa 65:4; m. Oholot
17–18; b. Sanh 65b), tied to death. In later Judaism, spending the night on a
grave was a sign that one had gone mad (b. Hagigah 3b).200 People would
want a cemetery cleansed so they could visit the graves of their loved
ones.201 Cave tombs hewn out of the mountains are probably the setting.
The later mention of pigs adds to the unclean imagery (Lev 11:7; Deut 14:8;
Isa 66:17; m. B. Qam 7:7). In fact, there are three layers of uncleanness: the
demons, death, and the pigs. Everything about this scene would make
Jewish readers squeamish, and the man is likely a Gentile, not an expectant
candidate for one ministering Jewish hope.
Some of the details in verses 2–5 about the severity of the power and
destruction of the man are unique to Mark, though Luke 8:29 does note the
inability of chains to contain him (v 3). He was strong enough to break any
199
Cranfield, Mark, 176; Lane, Mark, 181, opts for the specific location of Kersa (Koursi) as
intended here; Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 72. Kersa is located on the sea’s
edge and has a steep slope about one mile to the south. This equals Gergesa. Origen
(Comm. on John 6:41, chap. 24) and Eusebius (Onomasticon 64.1) make this identifica-
tion. Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 275–77, has a full discussion of options, though his option of
a later redaction (of bringing in the sea, as the event was connected to the other miracles)
is complicated, unlikely, and unnecessary.
200
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 343, who notes that the chains may reflect efforts to bind the man long
enough to try and perform magic over him to stop him. Demons were often pictured as
fettered; M. J. Geller, “Jesus’ Theurgic Powers: Parallels in the Talmud and Incantations
Bowls,” JJS 28 (1977): 141–55.
201
Gundry, Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2004), 258, who also explains why a full allusion to Isa 65:1–7, 11 LXX and its association
of demons with tombs is not present, although the text from the prophet does show that
such a demon-tomb connection was sometimes made. The terminology does not match
that text, so, correctly, Stein, Mark, 251. We have at best an echo here, not a full midrash.

chains placed on him (v 4). No one could subdue him. He cut himself
among the stone where he lived and was constantly crying out (v 5). He was
isolated, destructive, and self-destructive. He was in a completely desperate
state. He had been left on his own, as there was nothing that seemingly
could be done. He is “consigned to the land of the dead.”202 In fact, he is the
living dead, left with no life.
Jesus will confront this isolating and terrifying power with a liberating
and saving power of his own (Mark 1:7). Mark likes to reflect on the power
tied to Jesus, used on behalf of others, as Jesus is the stronger one who
overcomes the strong one (Mark 3:27). Jesus has no fear of all the unclean-
ness and bleak forces present in this scene. Jesus ministers among the
untouchables here.
As was the case in the exorcism of Mark 1:24, the demon bows before
Jesus and responds by asking why he would come and what they have to do
with one another (v 6). There he was named Jesus of Nazareth and the Holy
One of God, but here he is identified as Jesus Son of the Most High God. In
3:11 he had been called the Son of God. The title “Most High God” is
common in the LXX; Gentiles in Scripture used it to refer to God (Gen
14:18–20; Num 24:16; Isa 14:14; Dan 3:26; 4:2 [3:32, LXX]; cf. 1 Esdras 2:3; 6:31;
8:19, 21; 2 Macc 3:31; 3 Macc 7:9; Acts 16:17). The title acknowledges God’s
residence in heaven and his sovereignty (Deut 32:8; Dan 4:17). It also is a
sign of respect in a polytheistic context as a reference to Zeus where many
gods are seen as operating (Acts 16:17).203 The title “Son of God” was
discussed in detail in 1:1. 4Q246 uses the title of Messiah in a context like
this, but that is less than what is intended here by these beings who know
who Jesus is and fear his power as a transcendent presence. Once again,
supernatural forces make this confession (1:24).
In verse 6, the bowing is a show of respect, but here it is not likely to
mean worship, as demons are directing the action. It is ironic to see this
powerful presence bow before Jesus, given what has just been described.204
The authority Jesus has shown in Mark up to this latest exorcism helps to
explain the difference in the naming. The demon pleads for Jesus not to
torment him. The demon speaks in a singular voice here even though in
verse 9 it will be noted that many demons are present in possession of the
202
Edwards, Mark, 154.
203
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 344, notes the use by Pindar in Nemean Odes 1.60, where Most High is
the name of one of the gates that give entry to Zeus.
204
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 278.

man (v 7). Everything about the remark indicates Jesus has authority and
power over these malevolent forces and they know it.
In verse 7, the demons recognize Jesus’ authority in the request not to be
punished. They use a term for torment that often refers to the punishment
of prisoners (BDAG 168). This is ironic because the man is already suffer-
ing, as is often the case with demon possession (1:26; 5:2–5; 9:17–18, 20–22,
26). These demons desire not to be judged. The request is confused, as the
spirit has just acknowledged Jesus’ relationship to the God he is invoking. It
also is the reverse of what normally takes place in such scenes, as usually the
exorcist requests of the demon not to torture him.205
Jesus did exorcize the demon, commanding it to come out of the man
(v 8).206 There are no formulas or prayers to invoke another. He just speaks.
His authority is direct and singular. Jesus also inquired as to the name of
the demon (v 9). It is not unusual to seek the name of a demon (T. Sol 2.1;
3.6; 4.3–4; 5.1–2; 11.4–6 – also a legion is present; 13.1–4; PGM 4.3035–50).
“Legion,” he replied, noting that they were many. So this was a multiple
possession. Such multiple possession is rare in the Gospels (Luke 8:2;
alluded to in Matt 12:430–45). Legion refers to thousands as a military
term, a combination of almost six thousand infantry and cavalry that could
include up to six thousand auxiliaries (BDAG 587).207 The point is not a
specific number, but the presence of a vast opposing force. This is not
merely a one-on-one battle; Jesus is confronting a full army of demons. The
battle Jesus wages for the kingdom is a spiritual one against transcendent
forces.
Recognizing he could not stop Jesus (v 10), the demon was begging (note
the imperfect verb) not to be cast out of the region and noted the herd of
swine that were feeding near them (vv 11–12). The presence of unclean
animals indicates we are in a Gentle region (m. B Qam 7:7). The demon’s
desire to reside there as an alternative underscores the lack of sensitivity of
the demon to the ways of God. It is not clear why the demons wanted to
remain in the region, except to continue to have a presence and influence
there. They are trying to limit the damage of the judgment that is to come.
Did they not want to go immediately to the torment of the abyss (Mark
5:7b)? Did they simply want to remain in an area they knew? This text gives
205
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 279.
206
It is clear the narration reaches back in time here to why the demons sought not to be
tormented. The imperfect here functions as a pluperfect (had been saying).
207
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 345, speaks of three thousand to six thousand troops. The term refers
to the largest unit in the Roman army.

us no clue as to the reason, but Luke 8:31 says the abyss is the concern. What
is clear is that the demons are speaking through the man, showing the
possession and “alien occupation.”208
The unclean spirits ask to be sent into the unclean pigs. Jesus grants the
request, but the result is still disaster and judgment for the demons (v 13).
About two thousand pigs rush into the sea and drown. The pigs are
evidence of the exorcism as well as the demons’ destructiveness. The
scene also vividly displays that the demons have been judged, left to the
abyss. The one has overcome the thousands. The moral questions about
the destruction of the pigs that modern Westerners raise would not have
been questions to the ancients. To them it would have been better that the
pigs be destroyed by the demons than that the man who was exorcized be
destroyed.209 The herd is indicative of a large owner. Most herds ran in the
low hundreds.
One of the unusual features of this miracle is the long time spent on its
aftermath, namely, a full seven verses (vv 14–20). The detail shows that not
all responses to miracles were positive, even when people recognized that
something good had been done. Those caring for the pigs went into town
and told what had taken place (v 14). So people from the town went out to
see (v 15). There they found Jesus and the man, no longer possessed, simply
sitting with Jesus. This man was much different from the man who was
unable to be restrained in Mark 5:4. In their view, this man is the demon-
possessed man (note the present participle), yet he is now a completely
different person.210 Rather than being crazed, he was a restored human.
The realization of what had taken place left the city afraid. The value of pigs
was more important than the restoration of human well-being. This was
not a positive fear but one that caused them to not have anything to do with
what God was doing. Often fear in Mark is debilitating (Mark 5:36; 6:50;
9:32; 10:32; 11:18, 32; 12:12; fear is positive in 4:41; 5:33; 6:20). This theme sets
up Mark’s open ending at Mark 16:8. The presence of God can be an
invitation or something to distance oneself from accepting, both in Jesus’
life and in his resurrection. One will see both reactions to the same
208
France, Mark, 230.
209
Edwards, Mark, 159; Witherington, Mark, 183. The pigs’ part of the miracle is not
secondary, as some argue (so, contra, Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 282). Without the act
against the pigs, the reaction of the town makes no sense and cannot exist. Their reaction
is a core part of the scene. Nor is there any political allegory about Rome present. Jesus’
battle in Mark is with Satan. So this is a straightforward exorcism, not a parabolic event.
210
France, Mark, 231.

phenomenon. Given the fear, will one respond with faith or distancing
from what God is doing? Note also how this fear looks back to Mark 4:41.
There the acts of Jesus caused the disciples to ponder who Jesus is. Mark is
driving to the same place. Both events share a calm after a traumatic
experience. The winds die, and the soul is calm and restored. Mark asks
those who encounter his Gospel to ponder who Jesus is and what one will
do with what God is doing through him.211
The townspeople who had seen Jesus’ act of powerful cleansing spread
the word about what had taken place to the man and the pigs (v 16). Both
points are important.212 With sanity and loss side by side, how would
they weigh the contrast? They asked Jesus to leave the region (v 17).
Economic concerns over pigs had trumped human need and restoration,
a common but sad choice. More importantly, Jesus’ power had been
misread. They read him as a problematic miracle worker, whether
economics was involved in the choice or not. It is an unusual end to a
miracle story of any sort, biblical or non-biblical, which normally praises
the healer.213 Something is awry in the assessment of Jesus and what he is
doing.
So Jesus departs (v 18). The man asks if he might come with him. Jesus
gives him a different assignment (v 19). No reason is given for the refusal.
Still the man is to go to his own home and people and tell them about the
Lord’s mercy. God’s kindness had healed him. “Lord” is a reference to God,
as Mark does not use it as a title for Jesus. There is no hesitation to tell what
God had done, no secret here (contrast Mark 7:31–37 also in Gentile
territory). However, what God had done is wrapped up in Jesus’ act. So
the man returned to the Decapolis and told what Jesus had done for him
(v 20).214 He could not tell the story without mentioning Jesus. The report
amazed all who heard it. Gentiles heard about Jesus, just as will be the case
in Mark 7:24–28. Jesus has now shown power over creation and the
demons. His authority over exterior forces is clear. His ministry now
extends beyond the borders of Israel.
211
Edwards, Mark, 159.
212
Contra Stein, Mark, 258, who argues that Mark has no note about economic loss. The
mention of the pigs in the report alongside the man implies this concern as a part of the
reaction.
213
214
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 168, note the ten cities of the Decapolis are: Damascus,
Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hippos, Dion, Pella, Gerasa, and Canatha.

5:21–41 Jesus Heals a Woman and Raises a Girl

5:21 When Jesus had crossed again to the other side, a great crowd
gathered around him, and he was by the sea.
5:22 Then one of the synagogue rulers, named Jairus, came up and when
he saw Jesus, fell at his feet.
5:23 And he asked him urgently saying, “My little daughter is at the end.
Come and lay hands on her so she may be delivered and live.”
5:24 Jesus went with him. A large crowd followed him and pressed around
him.
5:25 Now there was a woman who had suffered with a flow of blood for
twelve years
5:26 and she had suffered much under many doctors and spent all she
had. And it did her no good but rather she got worse.
5:27 When she heard about Jesus, she came up behind him in the crowd
and touched his garment,
5:28 for she was saying, “If only I touch his garments, I will be
delivered.”
5:29 And immediately the flow of blood dried up and she knew her body
had been healed from her torment.
5:30 And immediately Jesus recognized power had come out of him.
Turning to the crowd, he said, “Who touched my garments?”
5:31 His disciples were saying to him, “See the crowd pressing against you
and you say ‘Who touched me?’”
5:32 But he looked around to see the one who did this.
5:33 Then the woman with fear and trembling, knowing what had
happened to her, came and fell before him and told the entire truth.
5:34 He said to her, “Daughter, your faith has delivered you. Go in peace
and be healed from your torment.”
5:35 While he was speaking, people came from the synagogue ruler’s
house saying, “Your daughter died. Why still trouble the teacher?”
5:36 But Jesus, overhearing what was said, said to the synagogue ruler,
“Do not fear. Only believe.”
5:37 He did not permit anyone to follow him but Peter, James, and John,
the brother of James.
5:38 And they came to the house of the synagogue ruler and he was seeing
commotion, weeping, and great wailing.
5:39 And coming into he said to them, “Why are you distressed and
weeping? The child is not dead but is sleeping.”
5:40 And they mocked him. But he put them all outside and taking the
father and mother of the child and those with him and entered to
where the child was.

5:41 And grasping the hand of the child he said to her, “Talitha Koum,”
which means “Little lamb, I say to you, get up.”
5:42 And immediately the girl got up and walked. For she was twelve
years old. And they were greatly astonished.
5:43 And he strictly ordered them that no one should know about this,
and said to give her something to eat.
This scene involves an intertwined double miracle. It has gender balance,
as a man makes one request and two females are healed. It has social balance,
as the man would have had high social status, whereas the woman with the
flow of blood would be on the cultural fringe. The story is abbreviated by
Matthew 9:18–26, who also separates it from the previous two miracles, while
Luke 8:40–56 keeps the miracles intact and uses much of the detail.
Jesus leaves the Decapolis and returns to the Jewish side on the western
edge of the sea (v 21). Jesus ministers among a great gathered crowd. There
he meets a key civic leader of the synagogue, Jairus (v 22). He would have
been a lay leader who directed worship services in terms of designating the
readers and preachers of the text, those who prayed, and overseeing the
building (m. Yoma 7:1; m. Sota 7:7–8). Some synagogues had more than one
such leader (Acts 13:15). He is one of very few Jewish leaders who responds
to Jesus and seeks him out. His position could have been by election or
heredity.215 His bowing at Jesus’ feet is a cultural sign of respect. The use of
a name for a figure healed is rare (see Bartimaeus in Mark 10:46).216 Still his
stature may have led to his name being recalled, whereas the girl who gets
healed remains nameless. It would have been striking to see him bow
before Jesus.
Jairus has a very sick little girl near death (v 23). Mark 5:42 tells us she is a
twelve-year-old. Her condition is described idiomatically as she “is having
her last,” what we might idiomatically express as being on one’s last leg. In
Matthew 9:18, she is portrayed as having already died, but this difference
probably is a result of Matthew’s compressed account and presenting her
state by the time Jesus shows up. Jairus has a simple request: come and lay
hands on the girl so she can be saved from her condition and live (Genesis
Apocryphon 20:20–22). The expression “being saved” here actually means
being delivered from her condition, as the context and so the translation
215
Stein, Mark, 265; C. J. Setzer, ABD 5:841–42. Edwards, Mark, 161, notes inscriptions that
apply the title to women and children, but argues that these are honorific and tied to the
men who ran the service, as was the ancient Jewish practice.
216
Text critically the external evidence for omission of the name is not strong; Metzger,
Textual Commentary (1994), 85–86. Omission is mostly a Western reading.

indicates (Mark 3:4; 5:28, 34; 6:56; 10:52; 13:20; 15:30–31; only 8:35, 10:26,
and 13:13 look to being spiritually saved). Laying on of hands would be
how the healing was communicated in popular terms. The Hebrew Bible
has no such example, but 2 Kings 5:11 LXX does (common with Jesus:
Mark 6:5; 7:32; 8:23, 25). The man is confident Jesus can heal the girl. He
has faith. Jesus goes with him and a great, pressing crowd follows them
(v 24). Luke 8:42 describes the crowd as choking them (Mark 3:9–10).
This miracle will not be done in a way that leaves people unaware of
what has taken place.
As they go to the synagogue leader’s home, a woman approaches. Her
condition and response in seeking Jesus are described in great detail using
seven participles: having, suffering, spending, profiting, becoming, hear-
ing, and coming. Much history had gone into her decision to seek out Jesus
and touch him for healing.
She had a flow of blood for twelve years (v 25). The idiom “flow of blood”
speaks of a perpetual bleeding condition much like a continuous period.
Collins notes how in the ancient world this was seen as a disease, which of
course it could well have been (menorrhagia, DUB, or VWD).217 She lives
on the fringe of society because by Jewish standards she is perpetually
unclean (Lev 12:1–8; 15:25–30, esp. 15:25; 11QTemple 45:7–17; 46:16–18; 48:14–
17; Josephus, Ant 3.261; War 5.227; and m. Nid 7:4). She also might be seen to
be at risk in terms of life, since her condition is so lingering.218 At the least
her condition would have produced anemia. The twelve years indicates the
condition is long standing and particularly difficult, just like the multiple
possession of the previous scene. These are not the simplest of miracles.
She is unclean, as the demon-possessed man was in the previous scene. The
woman’s social status is the exact opposite of Jairus’. Jesus ministers to all
levels of people.
She had been attended to by many doctors (v 26), but it had done her no
good. She had suffered in their hands. In Judaism, doctors were viewed on a
spectrum between esteem (Sir 38:1–5) and contempt (m. Qid 4.14 – the best
217
Collins, Mark, 280, cites Aristotle, Historia Animalum 3.19 (521a.25–27) and Galen, On
the Affected Places, 332, 336, among other texts, and Soranus (3.10–11 §40–44), who did
distinguish between sudden hemorrhages and other more common discharges.
Remedies include magic as well as various washes or attempts to simply relieve the pain.
218
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 357–58, details the social isolation and fear for one’s life, given the loss
of blood, that this condition would have produced. So her condition might be seen as not
being much different from the daughter’s in terms of the threat. The condition led to the
woman being called a zab, a sacrifice.

doctor is worthy of hell!; Tob 2:10 – of failure to heal; 1QapGen 20:20).219

Not only was her money gone, having spent it all, but she had come into a
worse condition. Whatever they had given her to take care of the problem
only accentuated her lingering condition. This might include various
combinations of wine and powder taken from rubber, alum, or garden
crocuses or simply wine and onions.220 She had profited nothing from her
efforts. Her social status had gone from being wealthy enough to seek out
many doctors to having nothing.
So upon hearing about Jesus’ coming (v 27), she decides to try and come
up behind him and secretly touch his garments. This reflects a populist,
almost magical kind of faith (Mark 3:10; 6:56; Acts 19:12). Her faith was that
all she needed to do was touch him and she would be delivered (v 28). The
idea is expressed as a third-class condition with no presumption that the
faith is automatic. It reflects a resolve to be healed. She does as she planned.
Her willingness to go into public and risk it shows both her faith and
desperation. The verb here for her hope is the same as that Jairus uses of his
daughter (sōzō). Again the expectation is of being healed, delivered from
her condition and returned to restored life.221
Upon touching Jesus she senses that she is healed and that the bleeding
has stopped (v 29). Her uncleanness did not defile Jesus upon her touch,
but his cleanness cleanses her. Jesus honors her populist faith because it is
directed at him (Mark 5:34). He does what an army of doctors could not do.
More than that, the healing had cost her nothing but having faith. The
description is vivid. The flow of blood immediately dried up and she sensed
her body had been relieved of its torment or suffering (on mastix, BDAG
620). The term for suffering pictures a whip and the lashing that disease
gives a person. The idea that her flow stopped echoes Lev 12:7 LXX and
points to her being made clean. The suffering was over.
Jesus noted the power that had departed from him so he asked who had
touched him (v 30), a query that amazes the disciples given the press of the
crowd (v 31). Still, Jesus sought out the one who touched him. It is easy to
219
Collins, Mark, 281, cites Greco-Roman sources that show doctors had a reputation of
taking financial advantage of people (e.g., Martial, Epigrams 1.47; 5.9; 8:74; 9.96; Plutarch,
Moralia 177F [9]). In contrast, she notes the Hippocratic work Precepts 4 and 6 calls for
doctors not to worry about their fees and to treat the poor fairly.
220
Lane, Mark, 191, n. 46.
221
Stein’s reading, Mark, 268, that being cleansed is not a concern here ignores the entire
cultural context of the restoration. Mark does not need to mention it explicitly. It comes
with the territory of restoration. The remark ignores the significance of the allusion to
language from Lev 12:7.

forget about Jairus in the midst of this delay. One can only imagine what
Jairus felt as Jesus’ arrival to his house was delayed. However, Jesus is going
to develop the faith of this woman first.
The feminine participle in Mark 5:32 shows that a woman is being looked
for here. Either Jesus or the narrator knew that this was a woman. A
narrative comment to that effect seems superfluous as the story makes
this clear, so there is a hint here that Jesus was aware of who it was. Jesus
sought her out for her sake, not his own. It is also easy to give the disciples a
hard time here, as many commentators do and argue that Mark does, but
the disciples have no idea that the touch of the woman has led to a healing,
so the question from Jesus seems odd to them and is not deserving of their
being criticized, given the limits of what they know. The entire exchange
shows how aware Jesus is of what is taking place.
The woman, recognizing she has been discovered (v 33), and with fear
and trembling for the recognition of power present (Mark 4:41; 5:15), falls
before Jesus. Would he expose the fact she had touched him while
unclean?222 Would public shame be on the way? She takes the high road
and decides to tell her story, all of it, the whole truth out of respect for what
she senses Jesus already knows. Fear has led into trust and faith. Jesus has
forced a personal encounter and growth.223 This is where fear of God’s
presence and action should take one. Again the theme sets up the climactic
events of Mark 16.
Jesus responds in four steps (v 34): a gentle address, a declaration, a
blessing, and a promise. Jesus addresses her gently as daughter, a reassur-
ing address unique in the Gospels. He commends her faith in return (Mark
2:5; 4:40; 5:36; 9:23–24; esp. 10:52; 11:22–24; Luke 7:50; 17:19). Her belief in
Jesus has delivered her, not her touch.224 There is a benediction/blessing
222
On the debate as to how important cleanliness is to this story, pro and con, Collins, Mark,
283–84. She argues that although it is not explicit, it works in the cultural background of
the account. It is not at all clear that the woman’s condition required complete social
isolation, although in some circles it might have; see Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Menstruants and
the Sacred in Judaism and Christianity,” in Women’s History and Ancient History, ed.
Sarah B. Pomeroy (Chapel Hill/London: University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 273–99,
esp. 278–79, and Amy-Jill Levine on Matthew 9:18–26, “Discharging Responsibility:
Matthean Jesus, Biblical Law, and Hemorrhaging Woman,” in Treasures New and Old:
Recent Contributions to Matthean Studies, ed. David R. Bauer and Mark Allan Powell
(SBLSymS 1; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 379–97.
223
224
Lane, Mark, 193; see Marcus, Mark 1–8, 360–61, on faith and miracles and how this
account is distinct from Greco-Roman parallels. There miracles lead to faith, but here
faith leads to miracles. Speculation exists that these were originally two separate miracles
stories now combined, but such arguments are hypothetical and lack solid

and a promise. She can go in peace (Judg 18:6; 1 Sam 1:17; 2 Sam 15:9; 1 Kings
22:17; Luke 7:50; Acts 16:36; James 2:16). This is a common blessing that also
shows God is pleased with what has taken place. She also can know that she
is permanently healed from her tormenting suffering. Note the repetition
of the vivid term for tormented suffering in Mark 5:29. This healing was not
magic, but an act of God. Grace with faith has brought not shame but
peace.225
At this same time, bad news arrives. During the delay, Jairus’ daughter
has died (v 35). There is an interesting juxtaposition with the term daughter
in verses 34–35. One daughter is saved while the other dies in the meantime.
Members from the household bring the announcement. What was gained
in one quarter now seems lost in another. The emissaries suggest there is
no longer need to bother the teacher. There is no expectation of being able
to raise someone from death. The delay appears to have been devastating
for Jairus’ request. All the miracles in this series are consistently great:
nature, multiple demons, a long-term disease, and now death. These are
acts beyond what normal humans might hope to experience (Mark 4:37–38;
5:3–5, 25–26).226
Jesus overhears what is said (v 36). Some translations have “ignored,” but
Jesus reacts to what is said. In effect, he ignores it, but it is a conscious
response to the suggestion that there is nothing that can now be done.227
He goes a different direction than the messengers suggest. He reassures
Jairus, telling him not to fear but only to believe. The present imperative
calls for an ongoing trust, a faith like that Jesus just commended the
woman for having. It also is a call to maintain the faith Jairus had when
he approached Jesus. Collins calls it “a call for courage,” and Lane says it is a
“radical trust.”228 Once again Mark raises the fear-faith contrast with a call
to believe.
Jesus takes only Peter, James, and John, the brother of James (v 37). His
inner circle will see this ability to challenge death, and will be there later at
the Transfiguration, Gethsemane, and at the Mount of Olives with
Andrew. Luke 8:51 also notes that the parents went in with Jesus. They
demonstration. The very uniqueness of the intertwining speaks for authenticity in the
tradition, not a created juxtaposition. It is dissimilar to other miracle accounts.
225
Lane, Mark, 194 notes that this story made a deep impression on tradition. The woman
received the name Berenice in the Coptic tradition and Veronica in Latin (Acts of Pilate
7; Eusebius, Eccl His 7.18.1–4, says she came from Caesarea Philippi).
226
Guelich, Mark, 300.
227
Lane, Mark, 195, says, “Jesus heard what they said but deliberately ignored its import.”
228
Colllins, Mark, 285; Lane, Mark, 196.

will also serve as multiple witnesses. Upon arriving at the home, full-blown
mourning is taking place. These would be friends and/or professional
mourners. Poor families would often have at least two flute players to
participate in the mourning (Jer 9:17–20; Josephus, War 2.1.3. §6; 3.9.5.§437;
m. Ketub 4.4).229 Jairus was not poor, so there likely was a crowd. So Jesus
arrives to commotion and much weeping and wailing. It is a sad indication
that the girl had truly died.
Jesus tells the crowd the girl is not dead but sleeps (v 39; Matt 27:52; John
11:11; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Thess 4:13–15; 5:10; Genesis Rabbah 17.5). It is not a
denial that she has died but rather a consideration of the fact that here
death is not permanent and the power of God he accesses can bring her
back to life. This is a figurative use of the term sleep. Mark is seeing a
potential resuscitation back to life out of death as Luke 8:55 did. It is a
ludicrous claim, if Jesus does not possess the power he will utilize. So the
crowd laughs at him in skepticism and unbelief (v 40).
Jesus now moves to heal the child. He sends all those mourning outside
and moves into the room where the girl is. With his three companions and
the parents, he goes into the girl. The fact that there is more than one room
in the house indicates that Jairus is not poor.230 Jesus touches the child,
grabbing her hand. Touch is sometimes included in Jesus’ miraculous work
(Mark 1:31; 9:27). Just as with the woman with a flow of blood (Mark 5:30–
34), the touch does not render Jesus unclean because he is reversing that
which communicated uncleanness. In Aramaic, which Mark renders lit-
erally and with translation, he tells the girl to get up, picturing her as a little
lamb (v 41).231 This is a simple command to awake and arise from the dead.
It is not a magical formula. Unlike the resuscitation from Elijah and Elisha
(1 Kings 17:17–23; 2 Kings 4:18–37), Jesus does not pray to bring healing. His
word is enough.
Immediately she is healed and walking around (v 42). Because she has
been described as a little girl, Mark notes she is twelve years old, so we
appreciate she is not a toddler, but at the cusp of moving into society. As
the just healed woman had bled for twelve years, this girl had been alive for
229
Stein, Mark 273; Strack-Billerbeck 1:521–23.
230
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 362–63, makes this perceptive observation, but his claim that this
mirrors magical papyri does not follow. Jesus does not use a foreign language or secret
words. Mark says clearly what Jesus says, an expression of simple command rendered in
Jesus’ own tongue; correctly, Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 302; Witherington, Mark, 190.
231
France, Mark, 240, n. 30; Mark often cites an Aramaic expression (Mark 3:17; 7:11, 34;
11:9–10; 14:36; 15:22, 34). The Aramaic term talitha can refer to a lamb or a little child. It is
clearly a term of endearment. The previous translation reflects this ambiguity.

the same period of time. Her life has been restored to a usefulness that will
soon make her able to pursue life to the full.
Jesus instructs them not to make known what has taken place (v 43;
Mark 1:41–45; 7:31–36). Now there is no way people will not suspect what
took place, as mourners had been to the house and knew about the girl’s
death. The goal rather is to prevent more attention coming just to Jesus’
healing. He does not want it publicized and emphasized. Jesus then tells
them to give her something to eat. He cares for her well-being now that she
has been restored to life. This act of eating also shows she is truly raised.
This was no phantom or visionary experience. The entire experience left
those who saw it amazed. This is a rare term appearing only here in Mark
16:8 and in Luke 5:26. So Jesus performs a double miracle, showing his
power over disease and death and completing a sequence where nature,
demons, disease, and death are subject to his power and authority.
6:1–6 Jesus Speaks in the Synagogue and Encounters Skepticism

6:1 Now Jesus left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples
followed him.
6:2 When the Sabbath came, he began to teach at the synagogue. Many
who heard him were astonished, saying, “Where did he get these
things? And what is this wisdom that has been given to him? What
are these miracles that are done through his hands?
6:3 Is this not the craftsman, the son of Mary and brother of James, Joses,
Judas, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?” And so they
took offense at him.
6:4 Then Jesus was saying to them, “A prophet is not without honor
except in his hometown, and among his relatives, and in his own
house.”
6:5 And he was not able to do any miracle there, except when he laid
hands on a few people, he healed them.
6:6 And he was amazed because of their unbelief. Then he went around
among the villages teaching.
This scene is a biographical pronouncement account. It shows how
people are responding to Jesus. Jesus now returns to Nazareth with his
disciples (v 1; Luke 4:16). Mark does not name the specific locale, probably
because Jesus’ origins were well known in the church. Luke 4:16–30 pre-
sents what Jesus taught in terms of fulfilling promise in a description of his
mission, but Matthew 13:53–58 and Mark lack this detail. In fact, what likely

has happened is that Luke has moved forward this event to be representa-
tive of Jesus’ Galilean ministry. In doing so, Luke has given more detail.
Jesus goes to the synagogue to teach (v 2). Many in the audience were
astonished, caught off guard by his teaching. This reaction by a crowd is
common in Mark and usually is positive (Mark 1:22; 7:37; 10:26; 11:18). Here
it is not a term picturing belief, as the end of verse 3 makes clear, but simply
a reaction that says we did not expect this. A series of reflective, rhetorical
questions emerge (vv 2–3). From where did these things emerge for this
man? How did he acquire this wisdom? How can one explain the miracles
he does? The remark appears to suggest the miraculous activity of Jesus has
been recent, whereas some apocryphal gospels portray it as having taken
place throughout Jesus’ life. It also suggests they sense what he has comes
from somewhere other than the natural flow of his life, from beyond in one
way or another. There is a kind of disconnect. How did the Jesus we know
and grew up with come to this? The response is reflective, neither positive
nor negative in itself. It is perplexity, reflecting having pause about the
power of what Jesus is doing alongside their past knowledge of him.232
On the other hand, is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary?233 The
term for carpenter really refers to a craftsman, someone who builds with
wood or stone. The work we see reflected in Sepphoris, a major city a few
miles away, points to this kind of combination. It is likely Jesus did this
kind of work there. That is what they remember about him before he
started to engage in ministry near the age of thirty. He would have engaged
in such trade for about two decades before he launched out to preach and
teach about the kingdom of God.
The absence of Joseph’s name is unusual. It may indicate that he is now
dead or that he is the less prominent of the two parents for some reason.234
232
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 308; contra Stein, Mark, 281, who sees these verses positively,
something that can be done only if one does not give the remark about taking offense
enough weight.
233
The reference to carpenter or craftsman here refers to Jesus, not directly to Joseph, who
goes unmentioned. The bulk of the manuscript evidence from the uncials, minuscules,
and versions makes this clear; Metzger, Textual Commentary (1971), 88–89. Even a text
like p45 assimilates the text to Matthew 13:55 or Luke 4:22 and has a reference to Joseph,
probably on the basis that describing Jesus as a carpenter undervalues who he is. The
point of the various parallels is that Jesus’ family is known to them. For the tradition of
Jesus’ vocation, see Justin Martyr, Dialogues, 88.
234
Among the suggestions are: a veiled reference to the virgin birth, an attack on Jesus’
legitimacy (Lane, Mark, 203; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 375; possibly, Edwards, Mark, 272), his
mother’s prominence (Edwards, Mark, 171), the possibility Joseph had other children
from an earlier marriage, that he had already died (France, Mark, 242), some kind of slur,

The question expects a positive reply. He is just Mary and Joseph’s son. Do
we not know his brothers, James, Joses, and Simon, as well as his sisters?
James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. Joses is sometimes
equated with Jude, the letter writer. Of the other we know nothing else.
How can someone like that come from origins like this? So it says they took
offense at him, possibly because he was claiming more than they thought
he had the right to claim. The reference to offense shows that, in the end,
the crowd found Jesus fascinating but not one to embrace. They are asking,
how could our Jesus have teaching, wisdom, and miracles? Their answer is
that it is a curious situation.
Jesus’ response is a pronouncement in a proverb (v 4). A prophet has
honor everywhere but in his hometown, among relatives, and in his home
(Luke 4:24; John 4:44; Thomas 31; P. Oxy 1.6; Plutarch, De Exilo 604D).
Mark’s version is the most emphatic, as it mentions relatives, and not just
homeland as Matthew and Luke do or home as Mark does with Matthew. It
is a variation of our saying that familiarity breeds contempt. Jesus is noting
that what is causing the crowd to hesitate in this case is a common thing.
They had too much everyday experience with Jesus, especially in the many
years he did not engage in ministry.
So Jesus was not able to perform many miracles (v 5), except lay hands
on a few people. Their lack of faith made for a restriction on his activity.
The issue was not so much on Jesus’ inability to do works of power
(dunamin); rather, the intended linkage between faith and works of
power meant that Jesus would not randomly perform such works for
their own sake. Apparently the rise in opposition led to fewer coming to
him.235 His work was not only about healing, so without some openness to
the message, healing made no sense and had no opportunity to take place.
As Guelich says, “Jesus did not come as a magician or a miracle worker to
display and dazzle his audience.”236 Mark emphasizes the relationship
between faith and healing (Mark 2:5; 5:34, 36; 9:23–24; 10:52; 11:22–24).
(Witherington, Mark, 193), or simply Mark’s lack of interest in Joseph. So little is said
that there is no way to know. Edwards, Mark, 173, and n. 67, treats the issue of these being
half-brothers or cousins, rejecting both options. Marcus, Mark, 375, also rejects the
earlier marriage view, arguing that then another mother would have been mentioned.
Why connect the siblings to one who was not their mother? On the unusual nature of
referring to the mother, Collins, Mark, 290–91.
235
Commentators who spend energy explaining Jesus as “not being able to heal” may be
overlooking a rather simple explanation. Where faith was absent, people were not
coming forward and seeking him out.
236
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 311.

The unbelief amazed Jesus (v 6), so he went to other villages and

taught.237 This is the only passage in Mark where Jesus is described as
amazed. Jesus’ experience in his hometown was a microcosm of what was
coming in ministry. He would teach, act, and heal, but many would not
respond. At one level, the rejection of such clear divine activity is amazing
and tragic to Mark. Even those acting faithfully meet with rejection, as
Jesus’ example shows. This is a key theme of Mark. You can be faithful and
yet be rejected by many who will not see the good you represent.
6:7–8:26 jesus in galilee: jesus’ acts yield a confession

6:7–13 Jesus Sends the Twelve Out into Mission
6:7 Jesus called the twelve and began to send them out two by two. He
gave them authority over unclean spirits.
6:8 He instructed them that they take nothing along the way except a staff
alone, no bread, no bag, no money in their belts,
6:9 but to put on sandals, and not to wear two tunics.
6:10 And he was saying to them, “Wherever you come into a house, stay
there until you leave the area.
6:11 And whatever place does not receive you or listen to you, going from
there, shake the dust from your feet as a testimony against them.”
6:12 And going out, they preached that they might repent
6:13 and cast out many demons and anointed with oil many who were sick
and healed them.
Mission in the face of rising opposition now becomes a key theme for
Mark. This scene is a summary report on mission. Jesus expanded his
message by commissioning the Twelve to minister on their own. The
commission is noted here in Mark 6:7–13 with the report coming back to
Jesus in 6:30. The bookends form yet another Markan sandwich in the
Gospel.
He sent them out two by two with authority to cast out demons as he had
been doing (v 7). Traveling in pairs was not unusual (Luke 7:18; 24:13; John
1:37; Acts 8:14; 9:38; 11:30; 13:1–3; 15:22, 39–40). It might be rooted in the two-
witness requirement (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; just the idea of the
benefits of pairing: Eccl 4:9–10). Mark presents this authority as something
237
Mark 6:6, especially 6b, is often seen to introduce the next unit. That is possible. It is
really a transition verse, explaining what Jesus did after he left his home. The verse
pictures Jesus moving “in a circle” (kuklw) in the region.

Jesus himself gives to them. It is yet another evidence of his prerogatives.

T. Levi 18:12 expected this of messiah, as the messianic high priest would
“grant authority to his children to trample on wicked spirits.”238 So these
commissioned disciples will speak and minster, giving words of grace and
performing deeds to support it. These disciples are still learning, but they
also are to be witnesses for God. Jesus does not wait until they have full
understanding before he sends them out.
They are to travel with the bare necessities, nothing extra (vv 8–9). Their
ministry will be on the move. They can take a staff, but no bread, traveler’s
bag, or money in their belts. The reference to bread could be to food in
general, as the point is to depend on others to provide for them. A staff
helped one walk and could be used for protection against wild animal and
bandits.239 Matt 10:9–10 and Luke 9:3 have similar lists with a few differences,
such as taking no staff or sandals. A distinct commission in Luke 10:4 is also
similar when the seventy-two are sent out. Exod 12:11 have people going with
sandals on and staff in hand.240 As with the Exodus, they are to travel light
and be ready to move on, so the point may be that they can take nothing
extra, which can be expressed in a variety of ways. Another possible point of
background is that m Ber 9:5 forbids a person to enter the temple with staff,
sandals, or wallet, so we may have an indication of a sacred task.241 These
points show how these items were seen culturally. It is clear that Jesus is
making a point about the humble values attached to mission.
Beggars and itinerant philosophers who sought donations often used a
traveler’s bag to collect money (Diogenes Laertius 6.13, 22). Jesus forbade its
use on this trip. They could take sandals, but they were to wear only one
tunic. The second tunic often served as a bedroll for the poor. They were to
trust that God would care for them through the hospitable reception of
others. The Essenes gave such care to other travelers from their own
communities (Josephus, War 2.124–27). There is nothing ostentatious
about the way they would travel.242 The travel with little provision is like
238
Edwards, Mark, 178.
239
240
Stein, Mark, 292, objects that the term for staff is not the same as the LXX, but in dealing
with a translation from Aramaic, the use of synonyms does not discount an allusion;
Lane, Mark, 207, n. 31; Marcus, Mark 1–8, 389; E. Power, “The Staff of the Apostles, A
Problem in Gospel Harmony,” Bib 4 (1923): 241–66, has an older, full discussion.
241
T. W. Manson, The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1957), 181.
242
This stands in contrast to the warning about the advantage later missionaries took in Did
11:4–6, where two days were said to be sufficient. The difference is that the Twelve were
starting communities, whereas Didache addressed established communities.

Cynic philosophers, who did use the traveler’s bag (BDAG 656) Jesus
prohibits, but this light travel was not intended as imitation of them, as
they were not prominent in Galilee.243
They were to stay in the home they entered in any place where they were,
accepting the hospitality offered (vv 10–11). If they were not received, then they
were to depart, shaking the dust from their feet as a testimony against them.244
The people were still accountable before God, even with their rejection.
Culturally, this act meant that the “unclean” state of the town (for rejecting
those whom God had sent) was no longer attached to the feet of the messen-
gers (Matt 10:14; Mark 6:11; Acts 13:51; 18:6; cf. Neh 5:13). The act was a sign that
the responsibility was theirs and the Twelve had “washed their hands” of it. A
variety of more detailed explanations include treating the area like Gentiles, a
separation of future contact, or responsibility for future judgment.245
Accountability for judgment is the key point (Matt 10:15; Luke 9:5; 10:12).
So they went out and preached that all should repent (v 12; Mark 1:15).
They cast out demons and healed the sick, anointing them with oil (v 13).
Mark clearly distinguishes between disease and demon possession here.
This is the only mention of anointing with oil in the Gospels (Isa 1:6; James
5:14–15). It was designed to soothe wounds and represents the presence of
God. The ministry of word and deed Jesus has started will be continued
with the Twelve. They are to mirror his work.
6:14–29 As Herod Contemplates Who Jesus Is, the Execution of John

the Baptist Is Told
6:14 Now the King Herod heard, for Jesus’ name had become known, and
they were saying, “John the Baptist is raised from the dead, and
because of this miraculous works are worked by him.”
243
For the Cynics’ practice, Arrian, Discourses of Epictetus, 3.22.50; Diogenes Laertius 6.85
and Pseudo-Diogenes, Epistles 30.4. For the non-imitation of Cynics in this instruction,
see France, Mark, 248, n. 16; Edwards, Mark, 179–80; and H. D. Betz, “Jesus and the
Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis,” JR 74 (1994): 453–75. On stoic practice and
poverty, Musonius Rufus 19.
244
A text-critical issue here exists where some later manuscripts add a reference to it being
more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the judgment, an expansion that assimilates
this text to Matt 10:15. It is not likely to be original to Mark.
245
Treat like Gentiles, as rabbis viewed Gentile dirt as unclean, m. ’Ohol 2:3; m. Toh. 4:5;
Edwards, Mark, 181; separation, Marcus, Mark 1–8, 384; judgment, Cranfield, Mark, 201.
It is not clear that these are mutually exclusive explanations, as Lane, Mark, 209, argues
for both judgment and separation of broken communication, while France, Mark, 250,
argues for the Gentile parallel and judgment. See especially Neh 5:13 and 2 Esdr 15:13.

6:15 Others were saying, “He is Elijah.” But others were saying, “He is a
prophet, like one of the prophets.”
6:16 Upon hearing this, Herod was saying, “John, whom I beheaded, has
been raised.”
6:17 For Herod himself, having sent men, arrested John and bound him
in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because
Herod had married her.
6:18 For John was saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have the
wife of your brother.”
6:19 So Herodias held a grudge against John and wished him to be killed,
but she could not,
6:20 for Herod feared John, seeing him as a righteous and holy man, and
so he protected him. And he was greatly perplexed by John and liked to
listen to him.
6:21 But a favorable day came, when Herod gave a banquet for his court
officials, military tribunes and the prominent of Galilee.
6:22 When Herodias’ daughter came in and danced, she pleased Herod
and his dinner guests. The king said to the girl, “Ask of me whatever
you wish and I will give it to you.”
6:23 He swore to her, “Whatever you ask of me I will give to you up to half
my kingdom.”
6:24 And coming out, she said to her mother, “What should I ask for?”
Her mother said, “The head of John the Baptist.”
6:25 And coming in immediately she hurried back to the king and asked
saying, “I want the head of John the Baptist on a platter immediately.”
6:26 And becoming exceedingly sad, the king, because of the oaths and
those reclining with him, did not want to deny her.
6:27 So the king immediately sent an executioner to bring John’s head.
And going out he decapitated him in the prison.
6:28 And he brought his head on a platter and gave it to the girl, and the
girl gave it to the mother.
6:29 And upon hearing John’s disciples came and took his body and set it
in a tomb.
The next scene involves two intertwined reports: popular views of Jesus
juxtaposed to the account of John the Baptist’s death. The link is the
popular association of Jesus with the return of John the Baptist. The
cloud of potential opposition noted in the previous mission also leads at
a narrative level into the report about Jesus to Herod and his reflection
about John and Jesus. The mission of Mark 6:6–13 may have been part of
what got Jesus the attention, although he had done much in the region to
gain attention otherwise and there is no mention of the disciples in the

report. The report on John is the only account in the Gospel not about
Jesus. It shows that God’s messengers may not always be well received,
something the warning about opposition to the disciples in their mission
also indicated. John’s story will parallel that of Jesus.246
The popular reflection in verses 14–16 leads into the retelling of how
John died.247 Opposition to the prophets of God had already led to a
martyr. In fact, the telling of the story of John’s death might be considered
a martyrdom account (Azariah – 2 Chron 24:20–22; Eleazar – 2 Macc 6:18–
31; the Maccabean brothers – 2 Macc 7).248 The speculation, perhaps out of
a sense of guilt for Herod, was that Jesus was John raised (v 14). Some in the
public raised that possibility and Herod appears to have taken it seriously.
The idea of John being raised may simply mean John’s spirit worked in
Jesus, as resurrection was strictly an idea left to the end of history for Jews.
The example is Elijah’s spirit resting on Elisha (2 Kings 2:1–15).249 Others
thought Jesus was Elijah (v 15), heralding the end time (Mal 3:1; 4:5–6), or
one of the prophets. The association with miracles and John is somewhat
odd, since there is no tradition of John working miracles (John 10:41).
Another key point is that messianic speculation is not a part of this
popular report, perhaps because Jesus was not as overtly political as the
Messiah was anticipated to be. The crowd does not get who Jesus is, but
246
C. Wolff, “Zur Bedeutung Johannes des Taufers im Markusevangeliums,” TLZ 102
(1977): 857–65. Wolff shows the structural parallels between the sequence of the two
stories: arrest, death plot, fear, innocent executed under pressure and burial; also
Witherington, Mark, 213. Especially noteworthy is that both sense that the person they
hold is innocent (Mark 6:20, 26 and 15:14).
247
Read in verse 14b “they were saying” (elegon) here, not “he was saying.” The plural is the
more difficult reading and has better, older manuscript support (B, W, key old Latin
witnesses).
248
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 326. Josephus also discusses John’s death (Ant 18.116–19). On
page 331, Guelich argues that Josephus and Mark look at events from complementary
angles. Josephus mentions the war with Aretas IV, king of Nabatea, that Herod faced for
divorcing his first wife to marry Herodias, exacting the earlier wife’s father’s revenge.
This act violated Lev 18:16 as Herodias was Herod Antipas’ brother’s wife while he was
still alive, and Herodias initiated that divorce. Jewish law also forbade a wife to divorce a
husband, so there was a double violation; France, Mark, 256. Herod Antipas also was
Herodias’ uncle, as Herodias was a granddaughter of Herod the Great (a marriage
prohibited in CD 5:8–11). Josephus says this was seen by some as divine revenge for
immorality. For both writers, the ruler’s morals were seen as less than stellar. The role of
Herodias is at the center of Mark’s account starting in Mark 6:17; also Harold Hoehner,
Herod Antipas (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), 136–46. Potential
sources for such a story are Joanna, wife of Herod’s steward (Luke 8:3) and Manaen
(Acts 13:1); Stein, Mark, 303.
249
Stein, Mark, 301; France, Mark, 203. Mark 1:6 alluded to Elijah’s connection to John the
Baptist. Matthew 11:14 presents John as Elijah.

leaves him in a popular and high category where people often like to leave
him. Such a view blocks the way to real faith.250 For Mark, Jesus is far more
than a prophet (Mark 15:39). Matthew 14:3–12 and Luke 9:7–10 also treat the
speculation about Jesus, and Matthew also tells the story of John’s death.
Herod was one of the client-kings of Rome, the son of Herod the Great,
and of Idumean descent. He was born in 20 BCE. He had authority over the
neighboring regions of Galilee and Perea from 4 BCE to CE 39. Officially he
was a tetrarch, which was lower than a full client-king. Still the title king
was popularly applied to him. The presence of tetrarch in Luke 9:7 and
Matt 14:1 versus king in Matt 14:9 shows the usage. He was insensitive to
Jewish concerns, as he founded a major city on the site of a cemetery,
ignoring concerns for ritual cleanliness (Ant 18.36–38). He did so to give
land and property to some in his region in an area many Jews would
hesitate to inhabit.
John is imprisoned by Herod because of his illegal marriage to Herodias
(v 17; Lev 18:16; 20:21; Luke 3:19). The arrest was already noted in Mark 1:14.
In contrast to Jesus sending out messengers to tell them about God’s
program (Mark 6:7), Herod sends out men to arrest John. John likely was
held at Machaerus, a military headquarters east of the Dead Sea not far
from Perea (Ant 18.119). It is possible he was moved to Tiberias, as the
banquet has Galilean attendees.
John had criticized this breach of Torah when Herod married his
brother Philip’s wife (v 18), and so Herod took him into custody.251
Herodias wanted John dead, but Herod protected him because he saw
John really as a righteous and holy man. In fact, the text says Herod feared
John, in contrast to Herodias who held a grudge against John (vv 19–20).
The idea of a grudge is rare in the NT, appearing only here and in Luke 11:53
of the Pharisees against Jesus. The prophet was confusing to Herod, for the
prophet’s rebuke was a sharp and embarrassing public critique, but he liked
listening to the prophet. Matthew 14:3–5 says Herod wanted him dead.
250
Edwards, Mark, 185; Hooker, Mark, 159–60.
251
Some argue that Mark erred here in referring to Philip the tetrarch, but Mark probably
referred to another Herod, who also may have been called Philip, adding only the second
name Philip to make his identity clear (Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 331). The multiple wives
Herod the Great had (ten total) makes tracing descent difficult. Herod the Great also had
two wives named Mariamne. Josephus called him only Herod according to Lane, Mark,
216, referring simply to his family name. There is no source that has both names. Some
do see her married to Philip the tetrarch; noted by Collins, Mark, 307, n. 101, but she is
skeptical about the account seeing assimilation to Jezebel (1 Kings 19:2). Guelich, Mark
1:1–8:26, 331, notes that Herodias succeeds where Jezebel fails and so questions this
typology as the key detail here.

Mark has more detail here and shows Herod conflicted. The Greek term
aporeō means to be at a loss about something (BDAG, 119).252 It describes
the disciples’ reaction when Jesus initially announced that he would be
betrayed by one of them (John 13:22). It was the women’s first reaction
when they discovered the empty tomb (Luke 24:4). Herod was at an
impasse about what to do with John. Should he heed him or kill him?
Things change at a banquet given on his birthday with governmental
nobles, and military and social leaders of Galilee present (v 21). The
mention of Galileans makes the scene appear to be located in Tiberias.
His daughter, Herodias, dances for the crowd and pleases them all (v 22).253
She would have been in her mid-teens, of marriageable age. The term
pleased (areskō) can refer frequently to sexual arousal (Gen 19:8; Esth 2:4, 9;
Job 31:10; Jdt 12:14). Herod offers her whatever she wishes (v 23), seals it with
an oath, and says whatever she desires he will give her up to half the
kingdom – clearly hyperbole but an indicator of Herod’s being quite
pleased with her.254 The promise echoes Esth 5:3. These banquets usually
have the feel of symposia, a celebratory meal where drinking and carousing
takes place, that was criticized by Jews (m. ‘Abod Zar 1.3). However, since
this is a family member, it is debated how raucous this scene would have
been. It may have simply been the display of a child’s talent.255 Either way,
Herod makes a rash promise with a public oath that binds him.
The daughter did not know what she wanted to do (v 24), so she ran to
her mother to ask what she should request. The mother told her to ask for
the head of John the Baptist, which she did with enthusiasm when she
asked for his head on a platter (v 25). Herod was caught. He was very sad
because he sensed that the oath (Num 30:2; Judg 11:29–40) and the public
nature of making it in front of guests gave him no other option (v 26). He
had to honor her request.
252
The imperfect of this verb is the likely reading here (with ‫ א‬and B). The variant (epoiei) is
likely a fix for this rare term.
253
In Mark 6:24, Herodias is called his daughter by ‫א‬, B, D and L. Technically she is his
stepdaughter. Alternatives smoothing out the text call her the daughter of Herodias. We
are dealing with popular expression in the more difficult reading, since she is the
daughter of Herod’s wife. She is known as Salome (Josephus, Ant 18.136). We may also
be dealing with an alternate name.
254
The reading without polla in Mark 6:23 is slightly more likely to be original. NA 28
brackets it. ‫ א‬and B lack it with the majority text and some Western witnesses, although
p45 has it, making it possibly original.
255
For a raucous dance, Lane, Mark, 221; for a child’s performance, Donahue and Harrington,
Mark, 198–99. Noting that Herod was not a paragon of virtue, Marcus, Mark 1–8, 396, and
Hooker, Mark, 161, hold the scene as plausible, even though this is a family member.

So Herod sends an executioner to carry out the promise (v 27). The

executioner is actually a bodyguard (the Latin loan word is spekoulatora)
who does what the king requires. John is beheaded in prison and the head
is brought to the girl (v 28), who in turn gives it to her mother. The plan
now carried out, the disciples of John come and collect the remains and
place the body in a tomb, giving him an appropriate burial (v 29). The
notice echoes Mark 15:42–46 about Jesus’ burial. The Midrash on Esther
1:19–21 has a similar story where the head of Vashti is brought to the king
on a platter. John dies unjustly for standing up for righteousness.
Sometimes death is the fate of the one who speaks for God. It is a lesson
not lost on Jesus (Mark 9:12–13). Herod is portrayed as conflicted: fasci-
nated by John but afraid of the moral challenge he represents. In the end,
Herod opts to protect his own interests and behavior. The guilt of the
choice shows up in Herod’s reflection that Jesus may be John raised from
the dead, which probably means his spirit now guides Jesus, as Jesus was
John’s contemporary.
6:30–44 Jesus’ Compassion Is Displayed and the Miracle

of the Feeding of the Five Thousand
6:30 Then the apostles gathered around Jesus and told him everything
they had done and all they had taught.
6:31 And he said to them, “Come with me privately to an isolated place
and rest for a time” (for many were coming and going, and there was
no time to eat).
6:32 So they went away by boat to an isolated place.
6:33 But many saw them and they ran out from all the towns and came to
them.
6:34 As Jesus arrived, he saw the large crowd and had compassion on
them for they were as sheep without a shepherd. So he began to teach
them many things.
6:35 And when it was already late, his disciples came to him and were
saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is advanced.
6:36 Send them away in order that going onto the surrounding country
and villages they may buy something for themselves to eat.”
6:37 But he replied to them, “You give them something to eat.” And they
said, “Should we go and buy bread for two hundred silver coins and
give it to them to eat?”
6:38 He said to them, “How many loaves do you have? Go and see.” When
they found out, they said, “Five and two fish.”

6:39 Then he commanded them all to sit down in groups on the green
grass.
6:40 So they reclined in groups of hundreds and fifties.
6:41 And taking the five loaves and two fish and looking up to heaven, he
blessed and broke the bread and gave to the disciples that they might
set before the people, and he divided the two fish among them all.
6:42 They all ate and were filled,
6:43 and they picked up the broken pieces of bread that were left over,
twelve baskets full, and from the fish.
6:44 Now those eating the bread were five thousand men.
This scene comes in two parts: a ministry summary (6:30–34) and the
provision-gift miracle of the feeding of the five thousand (6:35–44). The
miracle is the only miracle of Jesus in all four Gospels (Matt 14:13–21; Luke
9:10–17; John 6:1–15). It recalls some OT scenes, where God is the provider
of food and care (Exod 16; Num 11; Ps 78:18–30; 105:40; 1 Kings 17:8–16; 2
Kings 4:1–7). The miracle of provision of food stands in contrast to the
viciousness of the meal just described where John is slain. Jesus’ care and
provision are the focus. A feeding of four thousand will come later in
Mark 8:1–10.
The apostles, Jesus’ commissioned representatives, returned from the
mission noted in Mark 6:6b–13, completing the sandwich structure (v 30).
This is the only time Mark uses the term apostles. It is time to rest (v 31).
The association of rest in the wilderness is a biblical theme (Deut. 3:20; 12:9
f.; 25:19; Josh. 1:13, 15; 21:44; Ps. 95:7–11; Isa. 63:14; Jer. 31:2; Heb. 3:7–4:13).256
So Jesus calls them to go with him to a private place to eat and rest (v 32), as
they had been so busy with people coming in and out they could not eat
(Mark 3:20). The locale was an isolated spot in the wilderness (erēmos). As
in Mark 1:35 and 1:45, Jesus withdraws for a time to collect himself and those
with him (also Mark 6:46; 7:24).
The withdrawal fails to gain the respite (v 33). Upon arriving, a great
crowd has come out from all the towns. Luke 9:10 has associated the event
with Bethsaida, and John 6:2 ties it to the Sea of Tiberias, naming the water
after its most prominent town, and John 6:23 also ties the event to Tiberias.
So we may be thinking of an area between these two locales, as Mark 6:45
has Bethsaida on the “other side of the sea” from where they now are.257
Tradition suggests a site near Tabgha, next to Capernaum, which might fit.
256
Lane, Mark, 225.
257
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 340; France, Mark, 264.

Jesus has compassion for them as they are compared to sheep without a
shepherd (v 34; compassion: Mark 1:41; 6:34; 8:2; 9:22; Matt 9:36; 14:14; 15:32;
20:34; Luke 7:13). People with no shepherd lack true leaders, who are often
seen as fighting the battle for them (Num 27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chron 18:16;
Ps 78:71; Ezek 34:5; Nah 3:18; Zech 10:2; of a Gentile leader as shepherd, Jdt
11:19). The nation is pictured as being adrift at sea. Moses and David had
been shepherds, but no one like them was leading the people now. God
promised the people a shepherd one day (Jer 23:1–6; Ezek 34:22–23; 37:24).
That also was a Jewish expectation in the period (Ps Sol 17:40–41). The
figure is old and broad, going back as far as Hammurabi (Code of
Hammurabi, Prologue 1).258 Lost sheep are those who stray from God’s
way (Ps. 119:176; feeding as teaching: Torah, 2 Bar 77:13–15). Moses is seen in
this light, especially when people longed for leadership (Isa 63:11). So out of
compassion for their need, Jesus begins to teach them many things.259 Jesus
is that good shepherd and cares for them through his teaching them the
way of God. Jesus appears as a “greater Joshua” (Hebrew Joshua = Jesus in
Greek) here (Num 27:18–23; Mark 14:27; John 10:1–18).
As the day grew dim (vv 35–36), the disciples come to Jesus and suggest
releasing the crowd so they can find food, as they will not find it in the
isolated locale where they are meeting. In the area and villages around
them, they can go and buy something to eat. Jesus surprises the disciples by
saying that they should provide the food (v 37). He gives the command with
the personal pronoun included, so the response is emphatic. The disciples
ask if they should go and spend the two hundred silver pieces it would take
to feed the crowd (v 38). This was not cheap, but equivalent to more than
two-thirds of a year’s labor for someone, as John 6:7 says it would cost more
than 200 denarii. Even split across the twelve, it would be an expense. The
question might echo a similar scene of provision involving Moses (Num
11:13, 22). Here, not only was there the expense, but there also was the sheer
logistics of such an operation to consider. The disciples are clueless as to
what Jesus really intends. For the disciples, Jesus’ idea of providing food is
an impractical suggestion. Collins is surely right that they would have been
puzzled by Jesus’ approach, having no idea what is coming.260 So Jesus asks
for an inventory. They return having determined there are five loaves and
two fish, hardly enough to deal with the crowd. A loaf was about 8 inches
258
259
One could also read Mark 6:34 as saying he taught them at length, reading polla as
adverb. The point is the same. Jesus taught them much.
260
Collins, Mark, 324.

long and an inch thick. Each person would get a crumb, if that. Neither the
numbers nor the material are symbolic; they simply show the paltry
resources available.261
Jesus has the people recline on the green grass in groups of fifty and a
hundred (vv 39–40). They recline (anaklinai) as at a banquet (Matt 8:11;
Luke 12:37; 13:29). The green grass possibly points to spring time when grass
grew on the desert hills of Galilee. These are very vivid details. The scene
has a serene, pastoral feel (Ps 23:1–2), even though it was not yet clear where
all the food would come from. The mood contrasts with the dilemma. The
gathering in fifties and hundreds partially echoes the Mosaic camp of the
wilderness (Exod 18:21–1000, 500, 100, 10; also CD 13:1–8).262 The phrase “in
groups” uses the term συμποσια, pointing to a company, but also to a
symposium or banquet meal (BDAG, 959). A new exodus is taking place.
This is a second Moses.
After a prayerful glance to heaven, Jesus breaks the bread so the263
disciples can distribute it and then divides up the fish for all to eat (v 41).
The glance to heaven is rare in a miracle (Mark 7:34; John 11:41). Luke 9:16
has the food blessed by Jesus. A common Jewish blessing over bread or a
meal was, “Blessed are you. Lord our God, King of the world, who brings
forth bread from the earth” (m. Ber 6:1). Jesus is not seeking power for the
miracle but is thanking God for the provision, as was commonly done at
meals.264
The Greek in verse 41 is clear: the two fish are divided among the entire
crowd. Some see an echo of the Last Supper here, because much of the
terminology overlaps with that of the meal,265 but it really is an expression
of divine provision for all meals, especially since there is no wine and the
leftovers point to a focus on provision in general. Still, John 6 does lean in
this direction in terms of the significance of the act. The provision of food
for people mirrors the provision of manna in the desert (Exod 16; also
261
Marcus, 407, suggests bread for Torah (Deut 8:3; Prov 9:5). Though possible, the fish
have no clear symbolic force, weakening the supposed link; correctly, Hooker, Mark,
166.
262
Although this is not exact in number, the other overlaps with Moses point to a new era
and a typology appealing to the arrival of a new era.
263
Some manuscripts, such as p45, A, and D read “his” disciples here, but ‫ א‬and B, among
others, lack it. The shorter reading with the disciples is slightly more likely; Metzger,
Textual Commentary (1994), 78.
264
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 342.
265
Lane, Mark, 230. Those terms are taking, bread, blessed, broke, gave, and to the disciples
(Mark 6:41; 14:22). Except for giving to the disciples, the language would fit any meal.

Elijah and Elisha, 1 Kings 17:7–16; 2 Kings.4:1–7, 42–44). Jesus’ creative

power is illustrated, as is his ability to give the sustenance of daily bread.
God cares for his people through Jesus and the disciples.
The people ate their fill (vv 42–44), expressed in a way that echoes Psalm
78:29 and 42, with the picture of manna in the wilderness.266 Five thousand
men in all, plus whoever else had come, partook of the meal. Matthew 14:21
speaks of the count “besides women and children.” The count is possible
because of the way people were organized to eat the meal. When the
leftovers were gathered, twelve baskets full remained. The bread is high-
lighted over the fish in the Greek word order. These baskets were either as
small as a wicker basket or as large as fish baskets, which could have been
large enough to hold a person squatting down (Acts 9:25).267 Jesus had
more than satisfied the need. It is hard to know if the capability of meeting
Israel’s need is meant in the number twelve, but perhaps it is. What is clear
with the picture of bringing blessing is that Jesus can provide and minister
through those who serve him. The miracle ends here, somewhat surpris-
ingly without a note of reaction. It may be that the people did not realize
what had taken place, and that only the Twelve did.268 The focus is totally
on what Jesus has done as a shepherd (John 10:10).
6:45–52 Jesus Walks on Water

6:45 And immediately Jesus urged his disciples get into the boat and go
on ahead to the other side, towards Bethsaida, while he dismissed the
crowd.
6:46 After saying farewell to them, he went to the mountain to pray.
6:47 When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake and he
was alone on the land.
6:48 And as he saw them straining at the oars, for the wind was against
them, during the fourth watch of the night, he came walking on the sea
to them, for he wanted to pass by them.
6:49 Those seeing him walking on the water thought he was a ghost, and
they cried out.
266
Collins, Mark, 326. See also Isa 25:6–9.
267
Taylor, St. Mark, 325, opts for a large basket. BDAG, 563, speaks of baskets of a variety of
sizes with this word (kophinos).
268
Lane, Mark, 232. Mark lacks any note about people wanting to make Jesus king such as
exists in John 6:15. This means some may have had political hopes for Jesus versus Rome.
Jesus did not go there in John. Mark mentions nothing like this at all. The Kingdom
Jesus brings is about something more profound than political power.

6:50 For they all saw him and were terrified. But immediately he spoke to
them, “Have courage. It is I. Do not fear.”
6:51 And he went up with them into the boat, and the wind ceased. They
were totally astonished,
6:52 because they did not understand the loaves but were hardened on
their hearts.
The next scene is yet another nature miracle and also an epiphany, like
the Transfiguration.269 The scene also is described in Matt 14:23–33 and
John 6:15–21, likely making it multiply attested.270 Matthew’s account has
the additional detail of Peter’s attempt to walk on the water as well. In this
Markan scene, the juxtaposition of Jesus showing his authority over crea-
tion here versus the provision he just accomplished is the account’s key
point. That is its sole purpose, as no one gains any benefit from what Jesus
does here, unlike many other miracles. Some see a rescue miracle here, but
the disciples are not really in danger. They simply have to take their time to
cross the lake against the wind.271
This is another Markan scene where Jesus has divine prerogatives, as
God controls the seas (Job 9:8; Ps 77:19–20; Isa 43:16; 51:10). The background
to such a theme is extensive but also complex.272 It is clear that some
entertained the idea for gods and exceptional rulers. Ps 77–78 are impor-
tant, as they depict the crossing of the sea under Moses. Combined with the
picture of food provision of the previous scene, we again look back at
the first great corporate saving event God performed for his people
(Ps 78:13–25). The key Markan theme of fear also reappears in this passage.
269
Hooker, Mark, 169, develops the background of this scene as a whole.
270
This judgment depends on whether one sees John as knowing and using the Synoptics or
as independent. In all likelihood, John is independent, though he certainly knows some
of the events the Synoptics depict.
271
The text is similar to but distinct from Mark 4:35–41; France, Mark, 269–70.
272
In the Greco-Roman world, such control was seen in the figures of Poseidon and
Neptune, as Collins, Mark, 328–33, details the texts we note. In Jewish materials, God
divides the sea (Exod 14:21–29), as do Joshua, Elijah, and Elisha with God’s help (Josh
3:7–4:18; 2 Kings 2:8; 2:14). This dividing of the sea is not quite the same thing as walking
on it. Striding over the sea was attributed to Euphemus of Taenarum (Apollonius
Rhodius, Argonautica 1.182–84) and Orion (Apollodorus, Library 1.4.3; Pseudo-
Hesoid, Astronomy 4; other examples include Seneca, Hercules furens 319–24). What is
hard to know in some cases is whether these are figures of speech for being able to
survive as one travels over the sea, but the scene in Seneca is not. Zeus is said to enable
Xerxes to do this (Herodotus 7.56). The skill is extolled to Socrates in a later text, but
Socrates rejects the idea (Dio Chrysostom 3.30–31). It is hard to determine whether this is
literal or figurative in the Menander text on Alexander (frg 924K) and also in 2 Macc 5:21,
which describes Antiochus’ arrogance.

The disciples are still struggling to figure out who Jesus is and what he is
capable of doing. This struggle to truly perceive how Jesus can do such
things is the second key theme of the account.
It begins with a boat journey for the disciples as Jesus sends them ahead
of him to cross the lake (v 45). Unlike John 6:14–15, Mark gives no motive
for the action. We simply are moving on. John has the pressure to be made
a political king as the reason for getting in the boat and moving on.
He sends them to Bethsaida. They will end up at Gennesaret, between
Tiberias and Capernaum southwest of Bethsaida (Mark 6:53) and arrive at
Bethsaida later (Mark 8:22). It is located at the northern tip of the Sea of
Galilee at the mouth of the Jordan River. In Mark 8:22, it is the setting for
the healing of a blind man. In Matt 11:21 (Luke 10:13), it is one of the villages
over which Jesus pronounced a woe. Jesus takes some time to withdraw
and pray (v 46). This is the last prayer by Jesus mentioned until
Gethsemane (Mark 1:35; 6:31). That evening the disciples are halfway across
the lake (v 47), having gotten a late start after the feeding at the end of the
day. Jesus is still on the land alone. When Jesus separates from the disciples
in Mark, there always is a crisis that follows.
It is the fourth watch of the night (v 48), which involves the hours before
dawn sometime after 3:00 AM. Four watches means Mark is reckoning by
Roman standards, as Jews had three watches (also in Mark 13:35). This
timing meant that since they left shore, they had been rowing for hours.
Jesus saw the disciples stuck at sea, rowing but going nowhere as they
fought against the wind. The Greek says they were “being tormented in
their rowing.” They were struggling. So Jesus walks out on the sea toward
them. In the OT, only God walks on the water (Job 9:8; 38:16; Ps 77:19; Isa
43:16; Sir 24:5–6, Odes Sol. 39:10).273 Jesus is taking on this divine preroga-
tive. Clearly Mark portrays a miracle here, as the seeing a ghost makes it
clear something unexpected was taking place.
The text in verse 48 says he wanted to pass them by, an expression with
OT significance for God revealing himself (Exod 33:22; 33:19; 34:6; 1 Kings
19:11; Job 9:8, 11). At another level, his presence is a reminder that he knows
what is happening to them.274 His power shows he can care for them. The
event is much like the earlier calming of the storm when he was with them
sleeping, and they were to have faith. But his presence disturbed them
(v 49). They thought he was a ghost and cried out with a terrified fear. So he
273
Edwards, Mark, 198.
274

told them to have courage (v 50). He affirms it is he and they are not to fear.
Although some see an allusion to the divine name “I am” here (Exod 3:14;
Deut 32:39; Isa 41:4; 43:25; 47:8, 10; 48:12; 51:12), if the name is the point it is
very subtly expressed, as his power, presence, and awareness are the point
of the scene. This presence should relieve their fear. He is with them as one
who walks through creation is more the point (Ps 23; Heb 13:5). This is an
epiphany, but not at the level of the divine name as much as at the level of
divine activity. The scene is rooted in OT expression and worldview. Jesus’
actions reveal who Jesus is. Once again Mark notes that fear should lead not
to being disturbed or bothered but to faith.
Jesus enters the boat, and the wind working against them ceases (v 51).
The disciples are completely astonished. The Greek piles on the language of
the reaction (“very, exceedingly astonished”). This is the third and last time
Mark notes amazement using existēmi (Mark 2:12; 5:42; in 3:21 the term has
a different meaning).275 Each time involves a divine prerogative (forgive-
ness of sins, raising from the dead, walking on water). Awe is a part of the
calming of the storm in Mark 4:41.
A narrative comment notes that their hearts were hardened and they did
not understand the loaves (v 52). Hardening had been mentioned of
opponents in Mark 3:5. Some say Mark portrays the disciples as outsiders,
or like outsiders,276 but this comparison is overdrawn, given texts like Mark
4:10–12. Here it is not hostility, but simply being slow to perceive what is
taking place and understand what is meant in terms of being an epiphany.
Jesus’ capabilities have not registered with them.277 The previous miracle
should have registered with them, but had not. This is part of what these
miracles indicate, as they extend beyond the act to the person. It is that
their hearts did not totally perceive. Unlike opponents, they were open to
Jesus, but like them, they did not yet understand all that Jesus was. Still,
their openness will let them, unlike opponents, get there.
Matthew 14:33 shows that they did eventually sense the point as they
responded to Jesus as Son of God. Mark describes and points to their
failure to understand how the event could be taking place. Matthew deals
with the result of the event after it was done. Mark shows the disciples as
needing to grow, as well as indicating that Jesus is about more than
performing miracles. These miracles are pointers to his person.
275
Mark also uses thaumazō to describe amazement (Mark 5:20; 6:6; 15:5, 44).
276
Collins, Mark, 336.
277
Lane, Mark, 237–38.

6:53–56 Another Summary: Jesus Heals Those Brought to Him

6:53 After they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret and
anchored there.
6:54 And as they came out of the boat, immediately people recognized
Jesus
6:55 and ran through the entire region and began to bring the sick on
mats to wherever he was heard to be.
6:56 And wherever he would go – into the villages, towns, or
countryside – they would set the sick in the marketplaces, and would
ask if they could touch the hem of his garment, and all who touched it
were healed.
This is Mark’s third summary (Mark 1:35–39; 3:7–12). Matthew 14:34–36
is parallel. The locale of Gennesaret is not known and is only noted here
and in Luke 5:1 (v 53). It is related to Gennesar (1 Macc 11:67; Josephus, Ant
5.7; War 3.506–507). It is either on the northwestern shore of the Sea south
of Capernaum between it and Tiberias or a town on the plain that runs for
3 miles near that shore. Neither is it clear if they crossed over from
Bethsaida (Mark 6:45) or from the middle of the sea (Mark 6:47), but
given the situation, the latter is more likely. Still with the wind having
died down, they now could reach their goal. So, why they ended up here
versus the seeming goal of Bethsaida is discussed. Mark 6:45 likely speaks of
travel in the direction of Bethsaida or toward Bethsaida versus to a specific
locale, so there is no need for this discussion. If the travel note is broad,
then this means appeals to Mark’s confusion about geography or a com-
bining of sources is not at work here. We are speaking of ministry in a
region.
The people recognized Jesus and sent out word into the entire region
that he was there (v 54). So the people brought the sick on mats to him
wherever he was. They would place them in the marketplace and ask to
touch the edge of his clothes. The attitude here is like that of the woman in
Mark 5:25–28 (Matt 9:20; Luke 8:44; Acts 5:15; 19:11–12 for healing through
touch). It reflects an almost magical view of Jesus’ power that the populace
had, since it is not Jesus’ word alone that is required but actual contact with
him. Regardless Jesus still showed his care by extending his healing power.
The reference to the garment is probably to the tassels on the fringe of
Jewish clothes that signified dedication to God and served as reminders of
God’s commandments (Num 15:38–40; Deut 22:12; Matt 23:5; Aristeas 158).
Those that did touch him were healed.

The power and compassion of Jesus continued to minister to people

(vv 55–56). In this summary, the stress is completely on Jesus’ healing and
what he does with the faith of those healed, noted in passing as they seek
Jesus’ power out. Nothing is said about his teaching. The draw for people
was his work of compassion, which Jesus offered freely even though it was
not the ultimate point of his work. God cared, and so his messenger
ministered comfort to any who came. Jesus cared about more than healing
the sick, but he did so nonetheless. Marcus calls the scene unrealistic,
because people would just seek to touch Jesus and not ask him to heal,
but this reads the text too literally. The language likely expresses the intent
of their action and also ignores the fact that the sick on mats were set before
Jesus as he went down the line to heal because most of the sick would not
have been able to move.278 The term for healing here is the everyday use of
the term for being saved (esōzonto), which means being delivered from a
particular circumstance. Jesus continues to reach out and meet needs even
as people as are trying to figure out exactly who he is.
7:1–23 Jesus Discusses that True Cleanliness Comes from the Heart
7:1 And some Pharisees and some of the scribes coming from Jerusalem
gathered around him.
7:2 And they saw that some of the disciples ate their bread with unclean
hands, that is unwashed –
7:3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash the
hands with the fist, holding fast to the tradition of the elders.
7:4 And when they had come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless
they wash. They hold fast to many other traditions; the washing of
cups, pots, bronze vessels, and dining couches.279
7:5 The Pharisees and scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live
according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with unwashed hands?”
7:6 He said to them, “Isaiah prophesied correctly concerning you
hypocrites as it is written, ‘This people honors me with the lips, but
their heart is far from me.
7:7 They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments
of men.’
278
279
A textual issue is tied to this last entry in the list. Should it be included or not? It could
reflect harmonization with Lev 15 or it could have been accidentally omitted with all the
words ending in –ōn in the list. It is hard to be sure. Metzger, Textual Commentary
(1971), 93–94.

7:8 Abandoning the commandment of God, you hold fast to the tradition
of men.”
7:9 He also was saying to them, “Well you set aside the commandment of
God that you might establish your tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘whoever
insults his father or mother must be put to death.’
7:11 But you say if anyone says to the father or mother, ‘whatever benefit
you would have received from me is korban, that is a gift for God,’280
7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for the father or
mother.
7:13 You nullify the word of God by your tradition which you handed
down. And you do many things like this.”
7:14 And calling the crowd again, he was saying to them, “Listen to me,
everyone, and understand.
7:15 There is nothing outside the man coming into him that can defile a
person, but it is what comes out of a person that defiles him.”281
7:17 Now when Jesus had entered the house having left the crowd, his
disciples asked him about the parable.
7:18 And he said to them, “So also are you without understanding? Don’t
you understand that whatever goes into a person from the outside is
not able to defile him?
7:19 For it does not enter the heart, but the stomach, and then goes into
the latrine.” (Cleansing all foods)
7:20 He was saying, “What comes out of a person defiles the person
7:21 For from within out of the heart come evil ideas, sexual immorality,
theft, murder,
7:22 adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery, a wicked eye, slander, pride,
and folly.
7:23 All these evils come out from within and defile a person.”
This scene is a controversy account that contains pronouncements as
part of a teaching. It is likely an anthological treatment of a dispute that was
ongoing between Jesus and the leaders. It is the longest controversy scene
in Mark, making it an important passage that reveals an ethical core to
Jesus’ teaching. Morality and defilement are about the heart, not superficial
activity from outside the person.
Jesus has now received the attention of those in Jerusalem (v 1). They
now have a group of Pharisees and scribes coming up from there to see
what Jesus is doing. They observe some of Jesus’ disciples now washing
280
Korban in this context means something dedicated to God.
281
Verse 16 is not present in most early manuscripts.

their hands to render themselves clean before a meal (v 2). Jesus is

responsible for the activity of his followers. Mark notes that the Pharisees
and Jews do this as they follow the tradition of the elders, or the oral law
from teachers who ruled about legal disputes (v 3), to wash their hands up
to the fist before a meal to prevent being unclean. Unclean hands were seen
as “common.” The fact that Mark has to explain this practice shows that his
audience is Gentile. Oral law was seen as a “fence around the Torah” to
protect it being faithfully kept (m. ‘Abot 3.14’ m. Yadim deals with this
custom).
Mark says in verse 3 that all Jews keep this law, an expression that is
hyperbolic to refer to most Jews. The fact the Pharisees are singled out as
doing so shows the hyperbolic nature of the remark. Mark uses the term all
(pas) this way (Mark 1:5, 32–33; 6:33; 11:11; also Aristeas 305). The practice is
rooted in priests washing their hands before offering a sacrifice and being
clean at the temple (Exod 30:19; 40:13; Lev 22:1–6; Num 18:8–13), a practice
extended to the home for all by the Pharisees and Essenes, perhaps with the
view that the home was a small version of the temple (m. Hag 2.5).282 Most
of the traditions we have noting this view are late, from the fifth or sixth
century (b. Hullin 105a; b. Shab 13b–14b). The reference to the fist means
either that a fistful of water was used, that the water was poured onto hands
cupped at the fist, or that the hands were washed up to the fist (m. Yad 1.1;
2.3).283 The Mishnah notes that the amount of water is compared to an egg
and a half. Contracting uncleanness from the marketplace among other
locales is in view (y. Shev 6.1, 36c).284 Other possibilities include from
uncleanliness include lepers (Mark 1:40), contact with tax collectors, and
women during their periods or dead bodies.285 The range of washings is
covered in Lev 11–15, which is why Mark notes various objects (cups, pots,
bronze vessels, and dining couches) covered for cleanliness (v 4).286 Jewish
tradition came to expand this practice to discuss the specific objects washed
in detail so as to protect a person from uncleanliness. This raised issues of
teharot (cleannesses) for the Jews. This practice was seen as an important
expression of faithfulness to being Jewish in a context where Hellenistic
282
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 363–64.
283
Hooker, Mark, 174–75.
284
285
Edwards, Mark, 205.
286
A reference to couches or beds is uncertain, as several manuscripts lack it (p45, ‫א‬, B). It is
a harder reading and pulls in Lev 15, so it may well be original (also m Kelim 19.1).
Edwards, Mark, 207–208, notes how important this theme of purity was to Judaism,
noting that 25 percent of the Mishnah covered such issues.

practices risked overwhelming Jewish distinctiveness. Archaeological evi-

dence shows many Galileans were Torah observant because stone vessels
for such ritual water were found.287
The Pharisees and scribes ask why Jesus’ disciples do not live according
the tradition of the elders and instead eat with unwashed hands (v 5).
Josephus notes how much of what the Pharisees practiced was not in the
Law (Ant 13.297). To walk is to live in a certain way. Jesus calls them
hypocrites and cites Isaiah 29:13. The prophet says the people honor God
with their speech and words (vv 6–7), but their heart is far away from God.
This contrast is a common prophetic theme (Isa 1:12–17; Ho 6:6; Amos 5:21–
24; Mic 6:6–8). Josephus notes a similar condemnation of Pharisees (Ant
17.41) and the Dead Sea community called them the “seekers of smooth
things,” who suffered from a “stubbornness of heart” (1QH 4:7–15).288 Mark
uses a version close to the LXX, but the Hebrew wording makes the same
core point. Their worship is empty because they keep the traditions of men
and do not do God’s will. This is the only place in Mark where Jesus calls
the Jewish leaders hypocrites, in comparison to Matthew who does it
thirteen times and Luke who does it thrice. Also different from Matthew
14 is the sequence, as Matthew has not following God’s commandment, the
korban illustration, and then the citation. Mark has the citation, not follow-
ing God’s command, and then the illustration. In citing Isaiah, Jesus com-
pares the current generation to a failure in Israel from long ago. The
principle from the prophet applies to them. Jesus charges them with holding
fast to tradition and separating from the commandment of God. The
singular commandment may be a focus on the call to love in line with
God’s will, given the illustration that follows (Deut 6:5; Mark 12:29–30).
So they reject God’s command and establish their tradition (v 8). This
gives the result of their way of spirituality. What was set up to protect the
keeping of the Law now ends up nullifying it. Tradition that does not lead
to following God’s will is worthless. It results in a false piety. Jewish texts
also sometimes made this charge (T. Levi 14:4; T. Asher 7:5).289 Jesus is
ironic here (v 9), saying that they set aside God’s command “well” or
“beautifully” (BDAG 505). The term for honor (tima) links back to the
idea of honor from the earlier Isaiah 29:13 citation, forming a gezerah
shewa. Another link is the contrastive use of the term kalōs in Mark 7:6
and 9. The practice Jesus is about to describe is a very effective nullification
287
Collins, Mark, 346.
288
289
Focant, Mark, 289.

of God’s command. The contrast between rejecting God’s command and

what this tradition does is stated three times in this text, adding intensity as
it goes (Mark 7:8, 9, 13).
Jesus uses the example of honoring one’s parents, one of the Ten
Commandments and a core social value (v 10). Parents should be honored
and not insulted. The texts are from Exod 20:12; 21:17; Deut 5:16; and Lev
20:9 (also m. Sanh 7:8). That such dishonoring could lead to death shows
how serious this act of disrespect is in God’s eyes. The LXX has a term that
means “insult,” which renders a Semitic idea of cursing from the Hebrew
text, and surely is the opposite of loving and giving honor. Jesus argues the
oath of korban nullifies this command (v 11).290 The term korban means a
gift (Josephus, Ant 4.72–73; Ag Apion 1.167; m. Nedar 5.6 – shows how
binding this was, 8.7 and 9.1 – shows honoring parents can nullify it in the
view of some, but the point was disputed). To declare something korban is
to say it is dedicated and reserved for God. For whatever is called a gift for
God is not available to help the father or mother (v 12). It is unclear whether
it had already been given or was declared such. Either way, it could not help
the parents, as it was reserved for the temple either with the vow or upon
death. Such a vow would need to be honored (Num 30:1–2; Deut 23:21–23).
The result is that the word of God is nullified by tradition (v 13). By the
third century, this practice was rescinded, so some may have been aware of
the misuse of this act of dedication.291 Jesus adds to the charge of a lack of
love and its implicit rebuke by saying in verse 13b that this is only one
example of such inconsiderate behavior. The five uses of what “you” do in
Mark 7:12–13 underscore the example. Jesus’ initial reply to the query about
keeping tradition is that tradition can result in God’s command not being
followed. So it is not binding.
The second part of Jesus’ reply involves remarks to the crowd about
what defiles (v 14).292 He issues a call to hear as he makes the declaration
290
Witherington, Mark, 226, argues that the illustration gives evidence of being authentic,
as a dispute over the practice of korban is not likely to have been an early church dispute.
291
292
Thomas 14 has a variation of this saying in another context. Witherington, Mark, 228–30,
defends the originality of the Markan form of the saying in Mark 7:15. Hooker, Mark,
178–79, may be right to read 7:15 as a Semitic comparison stated as a contrast; so
Kuruvilla, Mark, 147–48. One thing defiles more than another (Isa 1:11–17; Hos 6:6;
Amos 5:21–27; Jer 7:22–23). It is important to note that uncleanness is not always about
sin, even in the Old Testament, so there is an inherent gradation even in the Torah.
However, Mark 7:19 appears to suggest that the contrast ultimately is intentional and far
reaching, extending to how food is seen. The remark by Mark there is reflective of
something realized later as implied in what Jesus said. If so, then Jesus makes a

(Mark 4:3, 9, 23–24). It is not about what goes into a person but what comes
out of the heart (v 15).293 The complaint that the saying is off-target because it
is the condition of the eater as unclean that was the point of the question in
Mark 7:5, not the nature of the food, misses the point that the contraction of
defilement comes from contact with something unclean and thus extends to
the food, not to mention that certain foods were also prohibited by such
laws.294 The saying “attacked the delusion that sinful men can attain to true
purity before God through the scrupulous observance of cultic purity which is
powerless to cleanse the defilement of the heart.”295 Jesus seeks a true purity
and cleanliness, one that comes from the heart. When Jesus returned to the
house, the disciples asked him what he meant (v 17). Such private teaching is
common in Mark (Mark 1:32–34; 2:1–2, 15; 5:37–40; 7:24; 9:28, 33; 10:10; 14:3).
After a short rebuke about lacking understanding (v 18; Mark 4:13; 6:52;
8:17), Jesus repeats the principle that what goes into the person cannot
defile him (Mark 7:15).296 The remark is stated as a rhetorical question that
expects a positive reply given the interrogative used (ou). The explanation
is that what goes into the person goes to the stomach and then passes out of
the body as waste. What defiles involves what comes out of the person in
terms of actions – what comes from the heart. Jesus has shifted attention
from hands to what they handle, because it is eating with unwashed hands
that is the issue with the food. By arguing that food also does not defile,
then the hands cannot impact the food that is consumed.297
In the midst of this reply in Mark 7:19b is a parenthetical remark
that Jesus’ remark made all foods clean.298 Mark often makes such asides
declaration about what is clean that shows yet another exercise of a divine prerogative in
Mark. He can declare what is clean and unclean. France, Mark, 289, correctly observes
that some issues of uncleanness do not involve what goes into a person (like touching the
dead or certain skin conditions), so the remark about defilement here is specific to food.
It also seems likely that the most radical reading emerged on reflection, so later disputes
about clean and unclean food in the church preceded this more reflective reading of the
saying. The reflection might emerge from seeing the range of situations in which Jesus
allowed himself to be defiled, only to reverse the effect (a leper, Mark 1:41; a corpse, Mark
5:41; a bleeding woman, Mark 5:27–29).
293
Mark 7:16 repeats Mark 7:14 and is only attested in later manuscripts. It is omitted in ‫א‬
and B, among other earlier manuscripts. It is not likely to be original to Mark.
294
H. Hubner, Das Gesetz in der synoptischen Tradition (Witten: Luther, 1973), 160–64.
295
So Lane, Mark, 254.
296
Other Markan texts on “not getting it” are Mark 4:40–41; 8:32–33; 9:5–6, 32; 10:24; 14:40.
297
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 378.
298
The parenthetical nature of the remark is clear from the fact that the participle for clean
is syntactically unattached, having no masculine singular antecedent subject in the
sentence; France, Mark, 291.

(Mark 3:30; 5:8; 7:3–4; 13:14). The detail is unique to Mark’s Gospel and
presents a reflection on the implications of what Jesus was saying. What
goes into a person cannot defile him, so no food can defile. The vision of
Acts 10:9–16 and its exposition in Acts 11:2–18 makes the same point about
diet, something also suggested by the discussions in Rom 14 and Gal 2:11–
14. Jesus is demonstrating his authority to make judgments about the Law.
It is likely, given the Torah’s teaching on clean and unclean foods, that
Jesus is making a declaration about a new reality coming as a result of the
eschatological arrival of the kingdom.299 This is part of the “new wine-
skins” that Jesus brings as the promise is realized (Mark 2:22). Defilement is
now exclusively moral and not cultic (v 20). The following of food laws is
not obligatory, but optional (1 Cor 8:8). Jesus’ point is that ultimate purity is
a matter of the heart (Rom 14:14, 20).300
So Jesus lists thirteen vices that come from within (vv 21–22): evil ideas,
sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, evil, deceit, debauchery,
a wicked eye, blasphemy, pride, and folly. These are the acts that defile a
person (v 23). It appears we have a general category of evil ideas followed by
a list of six things in the plural for a series of acts and six in the singular for
core vices.301 The echo in the general term, evil ideas, comes from Gen 6:5
on the inclinations of the human heart toward evil (also 4 Ezra 3:21 of
Adam).302 Washed hands are nothing compared to these acts that we are
responsible for doing and that do damage to others. Defilement is not only
about what we do but also about how that impacts others. This list of vices
resembles the “deeds of the flesh” in Gal 5:19–21 (Wis 14:25–26; 1QS 4:9–11;
Rom 1:29–31; 1 Cor 5:10–11; 6:9–10; 2 Cor 12:20–21; Col 3:5–8; 1 Tim 1:9–10; 2
Tim 3:2–5; 1 Pet 4:3, 15). Such lists were common, and some were very long
(Philo, Sacrifices of Cain and Abel 32 has 150 items; T. Isa 7:2–4; T. Gad 5:1;
T. Reub 3:2–7).303 Mark’s order of adultery, stealing, and murder follows
the LXX of the Ten Commandments, in contrast to Matthew who follows
Hebrew order and has a shorter list of seven vices, with the first being
general and then six items (Exod 20:13–15). These destructive behaviors
damage relationships. How one handles the sexuality of the body,
299
Stein, Mark, 345. Hooker, Mark, 180, points to the authority of Jesus this implication
reveals, citing Mark 1:22. He is not merely a scribe who debates; he declares God’s
commands directly. Witherington, Mark, 231, notes that the view takes us back to a place
before the Mosaic Law where all food was clean (Gen 9:3).
300
Lane, Mark, 255.
301
France, Mark, 292–93, is correct to point out that vices also appear in the plural listings.
302
Collins, Mark, 357–62 covers the list in detail; also Cranfield, Mark, 242–44.
303

possessions, and life completes the list in 7:21–23. The “evil eye” likely refers
to jealousy or envy and is not language of giving someone a curse, as is
often the case in usage today (Deut 15:9; Prov 28:29 – the man with an evil
eye runs after riches; Sir 14:8–10; BDAG, 744). Defilement that dishonors is
about damage to reputation and relationships. This point is the key to
Jesus’ response. Jesus is prioritizing in this dispute over handwashing.
More important than following traditions built up around the law is
considering the heart and what defiles relationships.
7:24–30 Jesus Honors the Humble Faith of a Syro-Phoenician

Woman
7:24 And arising from there, Jesus went out to the region of Tyre. And he
went into a house, he did not want anyone to know, but he was not able
to escape notice.
7:25 But immediately having heard about him, a woman, who had a
daughter with an unclean spirit, came up to him and fell at his feet.
7:26 The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician in descent. And she
asked him to cast out the demon from her daughter.
7:27 He was saying to her, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not
good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”
7:28 She replied and said to him, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the
table eat the children’s crumbs.”
7:29 Then he said to her, “Because you said this, go. The demon has left
your daughter.”
7:30 And going to her house, she found the child lying on the bed, and the
demon having gone.
This healing scene is the one miracle that involves a Gentile in Mark. It
also has features of a pronouncement account. As we shall see, it is the
pronouncement exchange that drives the passage. Gundry rightly calls this
a “duel of wits,” and the resolution in favor of the woman makes an
important statement for Mark.304 Matthew 15:21–28 is parallel.
With this act, Jesus moved across all kinds of boundaries: geographical,
ethnic, gender, and theological.305 However, the scene is exceptional for
Mark. There is no account of Jesus having a sustained mission to Gentiles.
304
Gundry, Mark, 374.
305
Witherington, Mark, 231. He also notes that the passage, with its difficult remark about
Gentiles from Jesus, must be authentic (also Hooker, Mark, 182). The church would not
invent such a scene with such a saying.

The best we have is a trip briefly into the land of the Decapolis. Still, there is
no accident that the preceding scene involved a debate over cleanliness and
now we are in contact with Gentiles, who often were seen by Jews as
unclean. It is interesting that healing from a distance involved Gentiles,
with the centurion’s son as another example (Matt 8:5–10/Luke7:1–10),
which Mark lacks.306
Jesus now moves into Tyre to the north and west of Galilee (v 24), a
locale that had an ethnically mixed population.307 Relations were strained
between Galilee and Tyre because agricultural resources often migrated
from Galilee to Tyre, leaving some Jewish folks in Galilee with little to eat
(Josephus Against Apion 1.70 notes the ill will between the two groups, “our
bitterest enemies”; War 2.478).308 The roots of this go way back (Isa 23:1–12;
Jer 47:4). So people there were often resented by Galileans. The move was
an attempt to withdraw and gain some quiet, but the effort failed. Jesus was
noticed and word went out about his presence. A Greek, Syro-Phoenician
woman had a daughter who was possessed by an unclean demon (v 25).309
Everything about her background and the situation made her look like an
unlikely candidate for help: a Gentile, a woman, a girl with spiritual
uncleanness, later described as demonic possession in Mark 7:29–30. She
had no commending credentials. The description also makes it clear she is
not from Libophoenicia in Africa, but is from the region of Syria, a native
not from Coele-Syria, perhaps a Phoenician married to a Syrian.310
Whatever the detail, she is not a normal candidate for ministry from a Jew.
She came to Jesus, fell at his feet, and asked him to cast out the demon
(vv 25–26). In Mark, only she and Jairus fall at Jesus’ feet as a sign of respect,
besides those possessed by demons (demon-possessed: Mark 3:11; 5:6;
Jairus: 5:22).
Jesus’ response seems harsh (v 27). He says food is for children, not dogs.
The term kunariois is diminutive and can look to a puppy, a domesticated
dog, although whether it has this exact force is less than clear given how
many diminutives are in the scene (BDAG, 575).311 The term is describing a
306
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 382–83.
307
The words “and Sidon” are likely an addition in Mark to assimilate to Matthew 15:21.
308
Edwards, Mark, 217, says the locale of Tyre is “the most extreme expression of
paganism . . . a Jew could expect to encounter.”
309
Later tradition named her as Justa and her daughter as Bernice (Pseudo-Clem. Hom 2:19;
3:73); Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 385.
310
311
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 386.

house dog.312 However, this is not the tender, emotive image it is to modern
people. Dogs normally were seen in a negative light (2 Sam 16:9; Ps 22:16; Isa
56:10 – of useless dogs because they are mute and only sleep; Matt 7:6; Luke
16:21; Phil 3:2), although there are a few Jewish texts where the dog is seen as
a companion (Tob 6:1; 11:4; Eccl 9:4; Midr Ps 4:11).313 The image is very
much within a Jewish mentality, with the point being that Jesus came to
minister to his own, at least initially.314 The term “first” (prōton) points to
priority, not exclusion (Rom 1:16–17; Acts 13:46), but his attention is aimed
at Israel.315 Jesus had been in the Decapolis when he healed the Gerasene
demoniac, but his mission was to his own people. They are the children
who are in the line of the promise (Exod 4:22; Hos 11:1; m. Abot3.15) and
thus are to have the food.316 Jesus’ remark is a challenge to the woman’s
request, but not a closed door. The woman persists, sensing the opening.
The woman’s reply does not challenge the premise and comes with
intense respect as she calls him Lord, probably in a simple cultural sense
based on his role as a respected teacher (v 28).317 Given the ethnic history
between the groups, she may well understand the difference of perspective
Jesus has as a Jew. This is how Jews think of us. Still she argues that beyond
what the children get are the crumbs that fall down to the dogs.318 As
politically incorrect as this reply sounds today, it indicates that she is not
entitled to what she is requesting. She is asking for mercy. In effect, she
argues that she does not deserve anything but those meager leftovers. Jesus
is clearly impressed (v 29). He tells her she can depart because her daughter
is healed on account of the word she said. This was a word of faith. The
312
Stein, Mark, 351–52.
313
Edwards, Mark, 219–22, who notes Luther’s words, “She took Christ at his own words.
He then treated her not as a dog but as a child of Israel.” Collins, Mark, 366–67, probably
speaks too negatively in saying we are dealing with scavenger dogs. Some dogs herd and
guard. The term here is not positive as it is for moderns, but it likely is not as negative as
it could be for ancients. The idea that first the children are fed suggests that the reference
to dogs is not entirely negative.
314
On Gentiles as dogs, 1 En 89:4, 46–47, 49.
315
Marcus, Mark 1–8, 463, notes how Mark uses the term first to indicate such a divinely
ordained order: Mark 3:27 – Satan bound first; 9:11–12 – Elijah comes first before
Messiah; 13:10 – Gospel proclaimed before the end.
316
The perspective shows this is not an early church perspective and thus points to an
authentically rooted event; Hurtado, Mark, 115.
317
Some translations have a “yes” here reflective of some manuscripts, but the remark is not
likely original, as it looks like assimilation to Matthew 15:27; Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 95.
318
Israel’s history gives precedent for this kind of “outside” activity, as Elijah healed a
Gentile woman (1 Kings 17:8–24).

word to go is how Jesus notes healing (Mark 2:11; 5:34; 7:29; 10:52). The
woman leaves and finds the child in bed and exorcized of the demon (v 30).
The account is an unusual pronouncement account in that the last word
is left to the woman. The exchange is the key to this text more than the
miracle. As harsh as the exchange seems, the passage as a whole actually
ends up affirming the woman by allowing her final word to dictate events
and reveals an intent to minister to anyone who approaches God with
humility. This is part of what Mark is intending to show, so one should not
isolate the initial reply and sever it from the rest of what happens. The text
shows that Jesus came as “glory for Israel and revelation to the Gentiles”
(Luke 2:32). It is also interesting that the humility and persistence of the
woman are like that of the centurion in Matthew 8 and Luke 7, and there is
yet a second similarity in how the event is recounted, along with the healing
from a distance. The fact that the next event involves a deaf mute shows
how common people are doing well in responding to Jesus. The woman in
this scene also stands in profound contrast to the religious leaders of the
previous scene. She seeks mercy from Jesus and does not make a critique of
him because her heart is right. In the end, despite being initially compared
to a dog, she is affirmed and lifted up as an example. Faith and humility
have transformed her worth. The woman comes off as one who under-
stands Jesus profoundly, looking as sensitive as the disciples, if not more so,
in her appreciation of Jesus.
7:31–37 Jesus Heals a Deaf Mute, but His Effort Not to Publicize
the Healing Fails
7:31 And again coming out from the region of Tyre, he came through
Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the region of the Decapolis.
7:32 And they brought to him a deaf man who also was muted, and they
asked him that he might lay hands on him.
7:33 And taking him away from the crowd privately, Jesus placed his
fingers into the man’s ears, and after spitting, touched his tongue
7:34 and looking up to heaven, he sighed and said to him, “Ephphatha”
(that is, “be opened”).
7:35 And immediately the man’s ears were opened, the bonds of his
tongue loosened, and he spoke plainly.
7:36 And Jesus ordered them that they should say nothing to anyone. But
as much as he ordered them, they proclaimed it all the more.
7:37 People were completely astounded and said, “He has done
everything well. He even makes the deaf hear and mute speak.”

This scene contains another healing account. Jesus returns to the place
of his primary ministry in Galilee (v 31), having passed through Tyre and
Sidon. He ends up to the east in the Decapolis area again, a mostly Gentile
region to the east of the Jordan River where the Gerasene demoniac also
was healed. The route seems odd, as Sidon is 22 miles north of Tyre,
whereas the Decapolis is to the south and east. This route is not exactly
as the crow flies! Some have argued that it shows Mark’s ignorance of
geography, but it more likely indicates that Jesus did make a circuit
through the neighboring region before returning.319 There was biblical
precedent for such a route (2 Kings 2:2–6, 23–25).320 What the description
of the route does not make entirely clear is whether we are to think of this
healing as also involving a Gentile, since the Decapolis could point that
way, whereas the Sea of Galilee could suggest a Jewish setting. We have
gender balance here at the least with the previous scene. We may have
ethnic balance (Gentile and Jew) as well, as opposed to an ethnic emphasis
only on Gentiles. Matthew 15:29 seems to read the text as involving a Jewish
setting.321
Here some people bring Jesus a deaf and a partially or fully mute man
and urge Jesus to heal him by laying hands on him (v 32).322 This “bringing”
by people will be mirrored in the description of the healing of a blind man
in Mark 8:22. The laying on of hands is almost always for healing (Mark
5:23; 6:5; 8:22, 25; similar “by the hand,” 1:31, 41; 5:41; 9:27; one exception –
10:16). The term mogilalos used here can mean partially or completely
mute. It is important, as it appears only here and in Isa 35:5–6, which is
about healing that will take place during the time of salvation (BDAG, 656).
The idea that the man is not completely mute is suggested by his being able
to speak correctly, that is, more plainly in Mark 7:35 after he is healed
(although, for full muteness, could be the term used in Mark 7:37).323
Jesus works hard to keep this healing as private as possible (v 33), as he
did in Mark 5:40–43 and will do in 8:23. So he takes him away privately.
319
F. G. Lang, “‘Über Sidon mitten ins Gebiet der Dekapolis’: Geographie und Theologie in
Markus 7,31,” ZDPV 94 (1978): 145–60.
320
321
Mark 8:11 also suggests a Jewish setting, as the next event has Pharisees present. They are
not likely to have been in a Gentile area; Stein, Mark, 358, versus Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26,
391, who argues for a Gentile setting.
322
The ambiguity of the term mogilalos explains our translation “was muted” where the
degree is left open. See the following discussion.
323
Full muteness would have likely used alalos, but the fact that the term appears in Mark
7:37 means the exact condition is not clear. Either way the healing fully restores the man.

Jesus is working hard not to draw attention only to his healing, which is
what many are focused on when it comes to his ministry. This is another
indication we are on the Jewish side of things, as in the Decapolis before he
had no such hesitations for Gentiles would not have had messianic
expectations.
Jesus places his fingers in the man’s ears and spits, probably on his own
fingers, to touch his tongue. Spit was believed to have medicinal or healing
power (Galen, Natural Faculties 3.7; Pliny the Elder, Natural History
28.5.25; 28.7.37 are but two examples from him).324 So Jesus was using
means familiar to the culture. Although some see elements of magic here
or see this as pointing to a particularly difficult miracle, the act of spitting
may have the simpler explanation that his actions allow the deaf man to
sense the healing and the directness of it (Mark 8:23; John 9:6; and the
healings alleged of Vespasian, an emperor who came after Jesus – Tacitus
Histories 4.81; Suetonius Vespasian 7.2–3 – at the behest of Serapis; later
Jewish text, b. Baba Bat 126b).325 He can both see and feel Jesus act, even
though he cannot hear what Jesus says. Jesus “entered into the mental
world of the man”326 and showed his care for him with intimate touch.
Interestingly, neither Matthew nor Luke have this miracle, which is unu-
sual, as between the two most of Mark is present in their Gospels. Matthew
15:29–31 has a more general summary about the array of Jesus’ healing at
this point in his narrative. This healing also echoes Isa 35 among other texts
and looks like Jesus’ reply to John the Baptist in Luke 7:22 and Matt 11:5.
Jesus looks up to heaven (v 34), possibly praying with a compassionate sigh
(Mark 9:25; Rom 8:26). The act of sighing also parallels magical healings, but
here we are dealing with appeals to God, not a conjuring up of spirits. Jesus
says to him in Aramaic that his ears be opened (ephphatha – BDAG, 419).327
His ears opened, the “chains” of his mouth were loosed, and he spoke
correctly.328 It is interesting that Jesus speaks in private a command the man
324
325
See discussions in Hurtado, Mark, 117, and Taylor, St. Mark, 354; for spit and healing,
326
327
Citing Aramaic occurs here and there in Mark (5:41; 14:36; 15:22, 34). Whether this is
Aramaic or Hebrew is debated, but Mark normally notes Aramaic; see details on
parallels with magic, Marcus Mark, 474; and on the language of Jesus’ response,
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 395–96.
328
Is this a hint that this is an exorcism? Perhaps, even likely, but this conclusion is not
entirely clear. Nothing else in the text points to an exorcism. What especially is missing
is any exchange pointing to an exorcism or the mention of a spirit. See Lane, Mark, 267.

cannot hear. The utterance produces the healing (v 35), a speech act in the full
sense of the term. So the tongue is pictured as being freed from prison. Jesus
then tells the man and his companions not to say anything, as elsewhere in
Mark (1:34, 44–45; 3:12; 8:26). Jesus’ goal is simply to keep the focus from being
on his healing alone. The effort fails. The reality is that Jesus’ work is too
amazing to engender silence. He cannot be hidden.
They went out and proclaimed extensively what had taken place (v 36).
The verb here is one used for preaching and generally is not seen as
negative. The crowd’s reaction is acclaim for Jesus that he has done all
things well, even to the point of curing the deaf and mute – a hope of the
eschaton, as Isa 35:5–6 shows (Wis 10:20–21). They were astounded “above
and beyond” (huperperissōs – BDAG, 1034). The healings of Jesus are
creating an impression about him, although the focus is on something
other than the main point of Jesus’ work. The kingdom comes with
continuing acts of compassion that are noticed but not entirely appreciated
for all they are. Jesus is an agent of divine fulfilment, not just a healer.
8:1–9 Jesus Feeds the Crowd a Second Time

8:1 In those days there was another large crowd with nothing to eat. So
calling his disciples, Jesus said to them,
8:2 “I have compassion on the crowd, for already they have been here
three days with me, and have nothing to eat.
8:3 If I send them to their home hungry, they will become weary on the
way, and some of them came from a great distance.”
8:4 And his disciples replied, “From where can someone get enough
bread in this desolate place to satisfy these people?”
8:5 He asked them, “How many loaves do you have?” They replied,
“Seven.”
8:6 Then he directed the crowd to sit down on the ground. After taking
the seven loaves and giving thanks, he broke them and began giving
them to the disciples to serve. So they set them before the crowds.
8:7 And they had a few small fish. After giving thanks for these, he told
them to set these before them as well.
8:8 Everyone ate and was satisfied, and they picked up the left over
broken pieces, seven baskets full.
8:9 There were about four thousand who ate. And he dismissed them.
This gift miracle of provision repeats the earlier feeding of Mark 6:35–44.
A parallel is found in Matt 15:32–39. Mark has it reinforce what the disciples
are to learn about Jesus. Despite the view of some that this is the same event

or tradition used twice, it makes little sense of Mark’s remarks in 8:19–20.329

So either one takes Mark’s direction seriously or else we are left with a
doublet that Mark knew was not. The latter is an unlikely scenario.330
The scene starts simply (v 1). We are somewhere on the Sea of Galilee. It is
discussed whether we are on the eastern side or the western. The presence of
Pharisees in Mark 8:11 without a note of crossing points to the west. It is true
the last locale noted is the Decapolis in Mark 7:31, which might point to the
east. Yet it is clear Jesus is working his way back to Galilee, so he could be
anywhere in between.331 Still, a Jewish setting is more likely, although a
reference to the distance some have come may well suggest Gentiles are
included, perhaps having tracked with him in his earlier circuit. The discus-
sion has some significance, as a ministry in the east points to a Gentile
audience, one in the west looks to a Jewish setting.
A crowd has gathered with Jesus and has been with him for three days
(v 2). Jesus is spending a great deal of time and effort teaching them. This is
the first mention of a crowd in Mark since that last feeding. Jesus desires to
send the multitude away but knows after three days they would be made
weary from a journey and no real provisions. In effect, they have been fasting
or eating a minimal amount of food. His compassion tells him that he needs
to act on their behalf (Mark 1:41 – of lepers; 6:34 – of the people; 9:22 –
demon-possessed). This compassion is distinct from Mark 6:34, where it was
for the lack of leadership the people had. Here it is simply about caring for
their need. A second distinction is that Mark 6:35–37 has the disciples tell
Jesus to dismiss the crowd so they can get food. Here Jesus takes the initiative
(v 3). The dilemma leaves the disciples perplexed (v 4). They do not draw on
the previous experience, and that is not entirely surprising.332 Mark wants
you to sense how slow they were to respond. So they ask where they can get
enough bread for the crowd (v 5). Jesus asks how many loaves are present.
Seven is the reply. There is no clear symbolism in the number.333
329
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 401–402, speaks of “an independent traditional variant of the
Feeding tradition.” He sees Mark as having understood it as a second miracle because of
the way he found it in the tradition. So Mark is confused. However, this also is an
unlikely scenario given Mark 8:19–20. The hardest point for seeing two events is the
disciples’ lack of reference to the previous event, a response seen by some as unlikely. It
is hardly the case that they expected such unusual acts as a matter of course. They
defaulted to the normal response to this scenario.
330
Lane, Mark, 272; France, Mark, 306–307.
331
Collins, Mark, 369, 378; Hooker, Mark, 187–88.
332
Edwards, Mark, 231, notes how Jesus is not a “vendor” of miracles in Mark.
333
Stein, Mark, 369–70, presents the various options and notes that no clear answer
emerges from the choices.

The actual miracle is told in a simple, matter-of-fact manner, similar to

the telling of the previous feeding (v 6). Jesus has the crowd sit. He takes the
bread, as well as the few fish they had, and gives thanks for the bread and
fish separately (v 7). The presence of the fish speaks against a Eucharistic
allusion here, especially given that its mention is almost like an after-
thought. He hands the food to the disciples to distribute. Everyone ate
and was satisfied (v 8). Around four thousand were present. Seven baskets
full were left over, so there was more than enough.334 In Mark 8:8, the term
for baskets, spyridas, differs from the earlier account (kophinōn in 6:43). It
is not clear what size the baskets were or if there is any real difference in the
choice, but this term usually refers to larger kinds of baskets. The term used
can describe a basket that can hold an entire person (Acts 9:25). It is the
mere superabundance that is the point. There is no comment or crowd
reaction. Jesus simply got the crowd fed (v 9); needs were met, with Jesus
providing as God did in the past. The disciples are to appreciate that Jesus
can provide and does so through them.
8:10–13 Jesus Rebukes the Request for a Sign

8:10 And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples, he came to
the region of Dalmanutha.
8:11 And the Pharisees came out and began to argue with him, seeking
from him a sign for heaven, testing him.
8:12 And sighing in his spirit he said, “Why does this generation seek a
sign? Truly I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
8:13 Then he left them, and getting back into the boat, he went out to the
other side.
This scene is a pronouncement account. It is triggered by the presence of
Pharisees and their reaction to Jesus’ work in a request for a sign in the midst
of a series of miracles. The sense is: what would it take to be convincing?
Parallels are Matt 16:1–4, as well as Matt 12:38–39 = Luke 11:29. Jesus refuses
the request emphatically.
In a transition verse (v 10), Jesus then traveled in the boat to a new
region, Dalmanutha (read by all key manuscripts but D).335 The locale is
unknown today, but the parallel in Matt 15:39 reads “Magadan,” whereas
334
There is much discussion of possible symbolism in the numbers seven and four
thousand, but the fact that no association is clear makes such a meaning unlikely.
335
Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 83.

variants for Mark read “Mageda” (Dc) or “Magdala” (Θ). Lane suggests that
this is an alternate name for Magdala.336 Others have placed the event in the
Gerasa region. Taylor mentions Eusebius and Jerome for this view, while
suggesting that the locale was near Tiberias and that the obscure name
shows that the tradition was primitive.337 So the exact locale is not clear
except for being on the western side of the Sea.
The Pharisees ask Jesus for a sign (v 11), an indicator by an unusual act
that God is at work. This must be some type of specific request, perhaps for
a sign from heaven or some type of specific divine confirmation, given that
Jesus has been performing all kinds of miracles. So something very specific
is likely. John 2:18 has another such challenge about his authority to act.
The last week will have a final such challenge (Mark 11:28). The request
shows that the person of Jesus is becoming an issue to the leadership. Show
us you have the right to do what you are doing is the point of the question.
The synoptics never call a miracle a sign, as John’s Gospel and the book of
Acts do. A miracle is “power” (dynamis), but the source of the power and
the nature of the miracle points to the same thing. That activity makes this
request look hard-hearted, even though it is asked because they think Jesus’
work is from the devil (Mark 3:22). In sum, it seems little would have
sufficed here. Later, even resurrection will not suffice.
In verse 11, Mark calls this challenge a test, clearly a critique of their
motive (Exod 17:1–7; Mark 1:13; 10:2; 12:15).338 So it appears to be an attempt
to have Jesus prove who he is with a specific indicator they are demanding
be shown (1 Cor 1:22). Jesus’ reaction is strong and somewhat emotional as
the response comes with a sigh (v 12; the noting of emotions in Mark: 1:41;
3:5; 6:6; 10:14; 14:34).339 This kind of dispute is common in Mark (Mark 2:6–
12, 16–17, 18–22, 23–28; 3:1–5; 7:1–23). There will be no sign given, as here is
plenty of indication of Jesus’ authority all around. The reference to “this
generation” is a rebuke that is common in the OT (Gen 7:1; esp. Ps 95:10;
Deut 32:5, 20). The use of the conditional particle ei without an apodosis is
Hebraistic and reflects an emphatic negation (BDAG 278, 4). Its full sense is
to invoke a curse if something done. So, “May I die, if a sign is given.”340 No
sign is given in part because no sign is good enough, as Jesus’ past activity
336
Lane, Mark, 275.
337
Taylor, St. Mark, 361.
338
Requests for signs are not always negative (Judg 6:36–40; 2 Kings 20:8–11; Isa 7:10–12).
Such a request, when wed to unbelief, as it is here, is negative.
339
Sighing texts in the LXX include Sir 25:18 and 2 Macc 6:30.
340
Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 415. 2 Kings 6:31 has a full example.

has shown. Matt 16:1–4 and Luke 11:29 do mention the sign of Jonah, but that
is not the kind of sign requested, as it is either repentance or a resurrection
that is meant versus a heavenly sign, so Mark speaks of no sign.
With that said, Jesus departs (v 13). Jesus supplies the evidence for who
he is. No one can demand how he should do that. The departure points to a
growing distance between Jesus and the Pharisees. Unbelief has created
that distance. Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees in Mark is one continual
story of conflict (Mark 2:16–18, 24; 3:6; 7:1–5; 10:2; 12:13–15).
8:14–21 Jesus Reviews the Two Feedings, Making a Call to Faith

8:14 And they had forgotten to take bread, except for one loaf they had
with them in the boat.
8:15 And Jesus commanded them, “Watch out! Beware of the yeast of the
Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.”
8:16 So they began to discuss with one another about having no bread.
8:17 And when Jesus knew, he said to them, “Why are you discussing that
you have no bread? Do you neither perceive nor understand? Have
your hearts been hardened?
8:18 Though you have eyes, do you not see and having ears, do you not
hear? And do you not remember?
8:19 When breaking the five loaves for the five thousand, how many
baskets full did you pick up?” They replied, “Twelve.”
8:20 “When breaking the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many
baskets full did you pick up?” They replied, “Seven.”
8:21 Then he said to them, “Do you still not understand?”
This scene is another didactic pronouncement. Matthew 16:5–12 is the
parallel passage. It contains a warning and a rebuke. The disciples are
traveling with only one loaf of bread (v 14). Although some argue for some
type of symbolism here for the number one, the issue is simply a lack of
provision. The dilemma leads Jesus to warn the disciples about the leaven
of the Pharisees and Herod – one religious, the other political (v 15). Herod
had shown his rejection by slaying John the Baptist. Leaven here is nega-
tive, looking to corruption or that which is destructive, driven by evil
impulses in people (1 Cor 5:6–8; Gal 5:9; of hypocrisy, Luke 12:1).341 They
are to be careful not to be like them. Matthew speaks of the Sadducees, not
Herod. Luke 12:1 in a distinct context only speaks of Pharisees. The allusion
341

is to their lack of openness to what God is doing, something the last scene
showed of the Pharisees.342 The disciples are more concerned with having
bread in the movement of normal life than the spiritual warning Jesus gave
them as they go back to discussing the lack of bread (v 16). They still show
themselves to be slow to understand what Jesus is doing, as has been the
case in a sequence of texts in Mark (4:13, 41; 6:37, 52; 7:18; 8:4). The passage
treats both their incompetence and Jesus’ power. One need not choose
between these themes.343 The disciples should have been perceptive enough
to know that Jesus and his presence had the ability to care for them.
When Jesus heard that they were discussing the lack of bread, he moved
to remind and teach them (v 17). Five questions follow: (1) Why they are
discussing this? (2) Do they not see? (3) Do they not understand? (4) Do
they have hardened hearts (Mark 4:13, 40; 6:52)? (5) Without eyes that see or
ears that hear, do they remember (v 18)? The fifth question alludes to a
theme expressed in texts like Ps 115:5–6, Isa 6:9, 40:21, Jer 5:21, and Ezek 12:2.
In many contexts, the issue is correctly the perception of what God is able
to do. This is a rebuke that calls them to see hear, understand, and recall, as
other earlier texts in the Old Testament had done (Deut 29:2–4; Ps 63:17;
95:8). The language echoes back to earlier rebukes (Mark 6:52; 7:18). Jesus
can sustain them.
So he reviews when they fed the multitudes (vv 19–20). First to be
recalled, the twelve baskets of leftovers that came from feeding the five
thousand. Then they recall the collecting of seven baskets after feeding the
four thousand. The second scene is evoked with elision, so that the actions
need to be supplied from the previous event. They do recall details of these
events.
Jesus simply asks a reflective question (v 21). Do they not yet under-
stand? The open-ended conclusion is left for the disciples and readers to
ponder. They recall the event but have not yet grasped its significance.
Unlike the earlier Pharisees, the disciples are not hostile, seeking specific
signs, but they still fall short of being where events should have taken them.
They need to appreciate what Jesus’ ability to provide means and also what
it implies about who he is. Just as God had supplied manna, so he provides.
He is the one through whom God is bringing a new opportunity for
salvation. With Peter’s confession about to take place, the question sets
342
Edwards, Mark, 239.
343
Stein, Mark, 382, argues that Jesus’ power is the only point.

up that scene and shows that the disciples will begin to get it. They should
already be there, but they are not.
8:22–26 Jesus Heals a Blind Man

8:22 And they came to Bethsaida. And they brought him a blind man and
asked him to touch him.
8:23 And taking the blind man by the hand, he brought him outside the
village. Spitting on his eyes and placing his hands on his eyes, he was
asking him, “Do you see anything?”
8:24 And regaining sight, he was saying, “I see people, that I see walking
like trees.”
8:25 Then again he placed his hands on his eyes. And he opened his eyes,
was restored and saw everything clearly.
8:26 Jesus sent him to his house, saying, “Do not come into the village.”
The final scene before Peter’s confession, the healing of a blind man in
Bethsaida, serves as a bridge into the latter part of the Gospel, as Peter’s
confession is a turning point in this Gospel.344 One can see this event as
closing the first part of Mark or beginning the second half of the Gospel.
This miracle appears only in Mark. It is the first healing of a blind person
in Mark. John 9 has a similar kind of healing.345 The opening of blind eyes
to light also serves as symbolic of the process the disciples are going
through. Their eyes are being opened as to who Jesus is. It is an “acted
parable of faith.”346 The opportunity to really see Jesus’ identity is there.
Jesus is touching them.
Bethsaida is a town of a few thousand located on the northeastern shore
of the Sea of Galilee (v 22; only other mention: Matt 11:21; Luke 10:13). It is in
the region overseen by Herod Philip, who had fortified it recently and
renamed it after Augustus’ daughter, Julia (Josephus, Ant 18.28).347 Thus, it
could be called a village or a city, depending on whether one thinks of its
344
France, Mark, 321–22.
345
On ancient claims of healing of the blind, see Collins, Mark, 391–92. She notes healings
tied to Asclepius in Epidaurus (Inscription nos. 4, 9, 11, 18, 20, 22, 32, and maybe 40). She
cites 18, as it involves gradual seeing. She also notes a later report of Suetonius in Twelve
Caesars, Vesp 7.2–3, where spitting at the behest of Serapis leads to a healing of a partially
blind person. The much later report of Philostratus about Indian sages is also noted (Life
of Apollonius 3.39). Of these claims, only those tied to the god Asclepius predate Jesus.
346
347
Marcus, Mark 8–16: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale
Anchor Bible 27 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 593.

size or its more recent, more official status.348 The miracle is told very
simply, very much like the healing of the deaf mute in Mark 7:32–37 and the
healing of Bartimaeus to come in Mark 10:46–52. Isa 29:18 and 35:5 are
evoked.
In the Bethsaida scene, some simply bring the blind man to Jesus and ask
for his healing touch (on touch: Mark 3:10; 6:56). The advancing stages of
the healing are out of character for Jesus’ miracles and point to a symbo-
lism beyond the mere healing. It shows the gradual nature of things coming
into view for the disciples.
The healing comes in two stages as Jesus takes the man by the hand
outside the city (v 23), just like Mark 7:33 where Jesus acted in private with
the deaf mute. This is yet another act in Mark to make sure excessive
attention to the healing is not the focus of attention, something Jesus does
now and again (Mark 5:35–43; 7:33; on such concerns: 1:35–39, 45; 3:7–9;
6:45).349 First, Jesus spits on his eyes and places his hands over them, again
just as he did in Mark 7:33 (also John 9:6–7).350 When Jesus asks what the
man sees, the man says he sees people moving like trees (v 24). So the sight
is back, but not clear. The fact that the man could sense what trees looked
like may mean he had not been blind from birth. This is the only miracle
account where Jesus asks about the state of the one being healed after
acting. It also is the only miracle that takes place gradually.
So Jesus places his hands on the man’s eyes again (v 25). With this second
step, the man’s sight is restored as he reopens his eyes, and now he can see
everything clearly. The healing is underscored by using three verbs to
describe the recovery: opened his eyes seeing clearly, he is restored, and
saw everything distinctly.
Jesus sent the man home, telling him to not return to the village (v 26).
Mark 5:19 is distinct in that the demoniac there is not to travel with Jesus
but is to tell those among his people what the Lord had done. Mark 7:36 has
Jesus command those who know about the healing to say nothing, but they
do not keep silent. Once again here Jesus tries to keep miracles from being a
focus of his work. It is a hard thing to accomplish.
With Mark’s placement, the entire exercise is symbolic of how the
disciples’ eyes were being gradually opened, although the miracle itself
348
Efforts to express that Mark speaks inaccurately by calling it a village versus a city fail to
recognize how recently the status of the location had been lifted up; Lane, Mark, 283, n. 42.
349
Lane, Mark, 285.
350
2 Kings 5:11 is the only example of healing coming from touch in the OT. In Mark 1:41;
7:33; and here we have touch.

had been passed on as a healing in stages.351 When Peter calls Jesus the
Christ in the next scene, they are beginning to see more clearly; total sight is
on the way. The point of the symbolism is not to read it strictly as two
stages and identify which events are in view, but to simply see it as pointing
to a gradual dawning of understanding the disciples have in coming to
appreciate who Jesus is.352
8:27–10:52 after a key confession, jesus heads to

jerusalem and prepares his disciples for the suffering
that is to come
8:27–30 Peter Confesses Jesus as the Christ
8:27 The Jesus and his disciples came out to the villages of Caesarea
Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, saying to them, “Who
do people say I am?”
8:28 They said, “John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others one of
the prophets.”
8:29 He asked them, “Who do you say I am?” Peter said to him, “You are
the Christ.”
8:30 And he warned them not to tell anyone about him.
This scene is the pivot in Mark’s Gospel. It is a dialogue and confession
scene, in which the disciples compare their view of Jesus with that of the
public.353 The parallels are Matt 16:13–20 and Luke 9:18–21. Matthew’s
version has far more detail, especially with a full commendation of Peter
and his reply, than Mark or Luke.
Whereas the public sees Jesus as some kind of a prophet (vv 27–28) –
John, Elijah, or someone else – that is, Jesus as one of the prophets (Deut
18:15, 18; Mark 6:14–16), Peter confesses Jesus to be the Christ, the one at the
351
So, correctly, Guelich, Mark 1:1–8:26, 433.
352
Stein, Mark, 392–93, questions the symbolic view, arguing that the clear seeing does not
take place until Easter. This critique interprets the imagery in too precise a way. The
point is not two events, but an unfolding of understanding. Clearly Peter’s confession is
a first step that puts the disciples ahead of both the Pharisees and the crowds. The
existence of continued dullness until the resurrection simply shows that seeing clearly is
going to take them time, and the confession is only the start, not the finish; see Collins,
Mark, 394–95.
353
Bultmann called the scene a “legend,” History of the Synoptic Problem, 257–58, but the
case for it being an authentic event in Jesus’ life is strong; see the full discussion by
Wilkins, “Jesus’ Declaration concerning Jesus’ Identity in Caesarea Philippi,” in Bock
and Webb, Key Events, 293–381.

center of God’s program and promise. The difference may seem slight, but
it is huge. Prophets come regularly to Israel in her history, but there is only
one Messiah for most in Israel. John the Baptist and Elijah were associated
with the eschaton (Isa 40: 3 cited in Mark 1:2–3; Mal 3:1: 4:5–6), but only
point to it. The expectation for Elijah had been of a return from the dead.
Something similar is in view with John, perhaps directed by his spirit (Luke
1:16–17; 2 Esd 2:18 looks to a return from the dead for Jeremiah and
Isaiah).354 Jesus is unique. What lies ahead is “the way,” a theme Mark
consistently invokes in Mark 8–10 (8:3, 27; 9:30, 33–34; 10:1, 17, 32, 46, 52).
Jesus’ calling and destiny lie before him. The disciples must learn about
what is in store for Jesus and for them.
The confession takes place among the villages of Caesarea Philippi. This
also is significant, for the site was full of sacred Hellenistic sites, including
temples to the emperor Augustus built in 20 BCE and to the god Pan,
guardian of the flocks.355 The dedication of the temple to Pan explains why
the site was also known as Panion or Paneas (Banias today; Josephus, War
1.404–406; 2.168; Ant 15.363–64; 18.28). The major village is located north of
the Sea of Galilee at the source of the Jordan River, southwest of Mount
Hermon. It was a predominantly non-Jewish area ruled by Herod Philip.
Philip named it after Caesar and himself in 3 BCE, no doubt to underscore
his connections to Rome. It was known for its beauty. This is the only
reference to the locale, and the reputation of the locale is out of character
with much of Jesus’ ministry to Israel, so the detail points to authenticity.
Jesus as the Christ has come to take on the spirituality of the world.
Jesus then asks the disciples for their understanding of who he is (v 29).
Jesus asks, “But who do you say I am?” The “you all” in this question is
plural and emphatic in Greek. Peter replies for the group that Jesus is the
Christ. Peter often has this role in Mark (Mark 9:5; 10:28; 11:21). The
Messiah is the Christ, or anointed one. It is the first time this title has
appeared in Mark since the opening verse.
The point of Peter’s answer stands in the contrast between Jesus as
merely a prophet versus the promised, chosen One of God. If Jesus was
the Messiah, then he stood at the center of God’s plan and there was no
other like him. The disciples understood this much, but they had much
more to learn about the Messiah. Many saw this role in Judaism as
involving a key figure of deliverance for the nation, a Davidic-like king,
354
Witherington, Mark, 239–40.
355

the one who brought God’s promise of salvation. It is likely the disciples
shared this expectation, which was only partially correct. Their view of who
the Messiah is will need reshaping.
Jesus accepts the remark but warns them not to tell anyone (v 30).356 This
hesitation to disclose has been called the messianic secret. To some it
means that Jesus really did not claim to be a Messiah, and so Mark overlaid
the story with this secrecy theme to cover up that fact.357 But it is highly
unlikely the church would take up such a risky messianic claim about Jesus
if he denied or completely discouraged it. A better explanation is an
appreciation of the delicacy of the claim in its historical context.
Such a public disclosure would be dangerous. Most messianic expecta-
tion involved a political ruler, and Rome was careful to protect Caesar’s
interests. Whether one thinks of Psalms of Solomon 17–18 or 1 Enoch 37–71,
Jewish expectation involved either a human figure or some kind of trans-
cendent figure who would defend and vindicate God’s people against the
nations.358 It was rooted in texts from the OT (2 Sam 7:14–16; Pss 2; 110:1–4;
Isa 55:3–5; Jer 23:5).359 So the title bore significant political expectation. Such
hope carried revolutionary overtones for many. So the disciples were to
keep this to themselves for now because of potential misunderstanding of
what Jesus meant by it.360 There would be a time to reveal it, but not yet.
356
Stein, Mark, 399–400, has a long discussion showing that Jesus accepted this title and
challenging the view that he rejected it here. Among the key points are Mark 1:1, Jesus’
acceptance of the title in Mark 14:61–62, and Jesus’ crucifixion for being King of the Jews
in Mark 15:2, 12, 18, and 26. Weeden, Mark – Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1971), 64–69, is among those who argue that Jesus rejected the title.
357
This view is tied to W. Wrede, The Messianic Secret. Trans. J. C. G. Grieg (Greenwood,
NC: Attic, 1971).
358
Qumran apparently held to two Messiahs, one political and conquering Davidic leader
and one Aaronic, who served side by side (CD 12:23–13:1; 14:17–19; 19:10–11, 20:1; 1QS 9:11;
1QSa 2:11–22). Ps Sol 17:23–30 says things like “gird him with strength that he might
shatter unrighteous rulers” and “he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall
lead in righteousness, and he shall judge the tribes of the people that have been sanctified
by the Lord.” 1 Enoch has a more transcendent figure who sits with God in heaven, is
called Son of Man, and is pre-existent. On these texts, see Darrell L. Bock and
James Charlesworth, eds., Parables of Enoch: A Paradigm Shift (London: Bloomsbury,
2013). Craig Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20 (Dallas: Word, 2001), 15, notes that the key messianic
text at Qumran 4Q521 (=4QMess Apoc) 2 and 4 ii 1 speaks of the gospel of the poor and
of healing, as well as the Messiah raising the dead (lines 8–12).
359
For a detailed look at such expectation, Herbert Bateman IV et al., Jesus the Messiah:
Tracing the Promises, Expectations, and Coming of Israel’s King (Grand Rapids: Kregel,
2012). For a focus on Second Temple expectation, J. Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their
Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1987).
360

Instead, the disciples needed to appreciate what kind of Messiah Jesus

would be. Next Jesus turns to describing those features of his calling.
8:31–33 Jesus Predicts His Coming Suffering as the Son of Man

8:31 And he began to teach them that it is necessary the Son of Man suffer
many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests, and scribes,
and be killed, and after three days rise again.
8:32 He was speaking openly about this matter. So taking him aside, Peter
began to rebuke him.
3:33 But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said,
“Get behind me, Satan. You are not thinking about God’s interests, but
man’s.”
This scene continues the dialogue emerging from the confession of Jesus
as the Christ. It has parallels in Matt 16:21–23 and Luke 9:22. It is a
proclamation and prediction by Jesus of his coming suffering using Jesus’
favorite self-designation, the Son of Man (Mark 8:38; 9:9 12, 31; 10:33, 45;
13:26; 14:21, 41, 62). Certain things must be (dei) for him as a part of his
divine calling (Mark 9:11; 13:7, 10, 14; 14:31). This is the first of three such
predictions in Mark (Mark 9:31; 10:33–34).361 It is the rejection of Messiah
and his suffering that is an unanticipated feature of Jesus’ messianic calling.
The disciples need to understand the kind of Messiah Jesus will be before
they proclaim him as such.
That this theme is missing for the promised one is somewhat surprising
given texts on the suffering of the righteous (Pss 22, 69, 118), a smitten
messianic figure in Zech 9–14, and the picture of Isaiah 52:13–53:12.362
Nonetheless, this dimension to God’s sent one was lacking in eschatologi-
cal expectation.
So Jesus will be rejected by the leadership (v 31): elders, chief priests, and
scribes. Some of the language ties to Ps 118:22. He will be put to death and
after three days rise. The disciples will have a hard time processing that the
Messiah can suffer like this. It does not make sense to them how such a
glorious figure can suffer such a fate. The three days to the resurrection are
361
For a full study and defense of the historicity of these predictions, see Hans Beyer, Jesus’
Predictions of Vindication and Resurrection (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986). That Jesus
could have foreseen his suffering and death is rooted in as simple an observation as his
being able to sense the level of opposition he was facing and the example of John the
Baptist. Knowing his kingdom claims, a response by Rome was not difficult to anticipate.
The hopes of vindication are rooted in trusting God in this calling.
362

counted inclusively. The disciples do not get that far in the prediction. The
idea that the Messiah will be killed by the nation’s leaders just does not
seem right, as the following conversation with Peter reveals.
Jesus was speaking of his coming suffering openly (v 32). It was shocking
to the disciples. So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. In his
view, this was not what would happen to the Messiah. Matt 16:22 says “God
forbid, Lord. This shall never happen to you.” Jesus’ response was pointed
and directed at all the disciples, not just Peter (v 33). This may suggest that
Peter was speaking for more than himself. Addressing a rebuke to Satan,
Jesus declared that Peter was not thinking the thoughts of God, but of men.
The directness of the address is another indication of authenticity, as it is
hard to imagine the church making up and circulating such a rebuke of what
was then one of her major leaders. Peter’s view is a hindrance to Jesus that
needs to be altered. Peter needs to return to being the disciple.363 Peter is
addressed as Satan not because he is possessed but because he is thinking in
ways opposed to God. What was an expectation of deliverance by power
would be accomplished in another way, by suffering and sacrifice. Of this the
disciples should be assured. The following teaching on the cost of disciple-
ship and suffering only underscores the point. Instruction is needed because
of the lack of real understanding Peter has of his earlier confession.
8:34–9:1 Jesus Calls for Total Commitment from Disciples

8:34 Then Jesus called the crowd together with the disciples and said to
them, “If anyone wants to follow after me, he must deny himself and
take up his cross and follow me.
8:35 For whoever wishes to save his soul will lose it, but whoever loses his
soul for my sake and for the gospel will save it.
8:36 For what benefit is it for someone to gain the whole world and lose
his soul?
8:37 For what can a person give in exchange for his soul?
8:38 For if anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of Man also will be ashamed of him when he
comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
9:1 And he was saying to them, “Truly I say to you, there are some
standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom
of God has come with power.”
363
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 607, nicely covers what “get behind me” means as a call to return to
discipleship. It is not a dismissal of Peter, as Peter is very much still around after this.

Jesus presents a short discourse on discipleship. It is an individual

address to anyone, male or female (v 34). The parallels are Matt 16:24–28
and Luke 9:23–27. It is about the cost and total commitment it will require
to walk the same path as Jesus is taking. Discipleship involves self-denial,
rejection with suffering and preparation for martyrdom as pictured by a
crucifixion, and following the path and example Jesus is setting.364 The idea
of crucifixion was widespread enough and so well known we need not
think of a post-Easter perspective.365 This focus on suffering and rejection
is a lesson that reverses all the expectations the disciples had of how Jesus
would bring promise. Jesus says this to the entire crowd. He wants them to
know what he is calling for from them to walk in God’s kingdom ways. It
will take initial commitment (deny, take up the cross) and perseverance
(follow). The first two verbs are aorist imperatives, whereas the last one is a
present imperative pointing to this difference.
Jesus explains himself that to preserve a soul only to really lose it is no
gain (v 35). He gives what looks like four reasons, using gar three times, in
verses 35–37, but there really is one point: nothing is worth giving up real
life. To lose the soul in self-denial and identification with God is to gain it.
The reference to losing one’s life for Jesus’ sake and for the Gospel points to
life’s connection to God and promise. Note how the two are linked. Jesus
and the fate of people are linked in several texts (Matt 7:21–23=Luke 13:25–
27; Matt 10:32–33=Luke 12:8–9; Matt 10:35–36=Luke 12:51=53; Matt 10:37–
39=Luke 14:26–27; Matt 11:6=Luke 7:23).366 The Gospel is tied to the Jesus
who brings it. In this passage the soul is seen as the inner life, that which
represents real life, the self in the full sense of that term.367 To gain the
world and have the things of it but lose the connection to the Creator which
is life is of no benefit (v 36). To preserve one’s life and lose the spiritual life
that one really has and that really matters is a tragedy. Nothing is more
precious than that spiritual life connection.
The language of gain and exchange is the language of commerce (v 37).
This is a loser’s deal, as nothing can replace the life that has been lost. The
364
Lane, Mark, 307, discusses Jesus as describing a “death march” with this image of the cross.
365
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 263, make this correct observation, as does Taylor,
St. Mark, 381. Josephus notes many such examples in passing (War 2.241, 306; 5.449–51;
Ant 17.295); see Marcus, Mark 8–16, 617. Also Plutarch, De sera numinis vindicta §554b,
where he describes the fact that the crucified normally carries his own cross, something
Jesus did not do because of weakness later; Stein, Mark, 407, notes that this difference is
another point for authenticity here. Thomas 55 is a parallel.
366
Stein, Mark, 408.
367
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 263; France, Mark, 340–41; BDAG 1098–99.

ideas expressed reflect themes from the OT and Judaism (Ps 47:7–9 – of
choosing riches; 2 Bar 51:15 – did not choose glory to come). The term
antallagma looks to an exchange rate and here points to no amount being
worth real life (BDAG, 86). There is irony throughout the imagery, as to
gain one must lose, whereas seeking to gain in one’s own way results in loss.
To be without God’s promise is to be in the red and quite dead, having
nothing.
Jesus warns of his coming authority in the face of the rejection disciples
will face. This is a reminder of accountability before God. Anyone ashamed
of the Son of Man in response to this adulterous and sinful generation will
experience shame from the Son of Man when he comes with the angels on
behalf of the Father at judgment time (v 38). It is a reminder that connec-
tion to the kingdom and faithfulness to it is the primary relationship one
should prioritize, especially in the face of pressures that pull people away
from God. So rejection of Jesus and persecution of those allied to him are in
view as the dangers of this generation. Shame here would refer to denying
Jesus or failing to confess him.
Only Mark has the warning about being ashamed of the Son of Man. The
positive side of acknowledging the Son is in the parallels (Matt 10:32–33;
Luke 12:8–9). Of course, Jesus is the Son of Man, as this is his favorite way to
refer to himself. Matt 10:33 simply speaks of “I” instead of using the title.
The authority background tied to judgment comes from Daniel 7. The
reference to “his Father” means that the images of the Son of Man and Son
of God are juxtaposed here as well. Everything tied to promise, salvation,
and judgment converges around Jesus.
So Jesus raises a core question at this point of his teaching the crowds.
Will one identify with Jesus, the Son of Man to whom one’s soul is
ultimately accountable? To shun the Son is to face the prospect of being
shunned by him when he returns with the angels to exercise judgment in
the power and glory of the Father (14:62). The risk is that one will lose one’s
soul. This is the first clear reference to a return in Mark, though 4:21–22 and
30–32 have suggested it. Of course, it is merely presented as a time when
judgment will take place, so the return element is not clear to those hearing
Jesus. The idea of a return becomes clearer later (Mark 13; 2 Thess 1:7).
This is the only public reference to the Son of Man before Jesus replies to
the High Priest in Mark 14:62. Lane says it this way: Mark “8:38 served to
warn those who choose to stand with the world in its contempt for
Jesus that his apparent weakness and openness to humiliation will be
reversed in an awesome manifestation of his glory as the eschatological

Judge.”368 No matter how things look now, there will be glory and vindica-
tion to come. This makes the choice to side with Jesus worth it.
Jesus also promises that some present with him will see the kingdom in
power before they taste death (9:1). “Tasting death” is a metaphor for
experiencing death (Matt 16:28; Luke 9:27; John 8:52; Heb 2:9). This is a
controversial text.369 What event does Jesus have in mind? Is it the judg-
ment he just described? That would seem natural enough. However, given
the timing of when Mark is written and the fact Jesus suffered without
bringing consummation, this judgment is unlikely to be the meaning.370 Is
it some other event that points to the presence and power of the kingdom?
Could it be the resurrection?371 This seems possible, since salvation and its
provision from Jesus are tied to resurrection. Might it be the Pentecost and
the evidence of Jesus’ saving power at work? That could fit Luke-Acts, but
Mark has no sequel to point to this event specifically. Could it be the Fall of
Jerusalem? This is unlikely, since the scene assumes acceptance and shame,
not mere power. Is it the simply already presence of the kingdom?
However, this is already present with Jesus, so what then is the point of
saying it is in the future? Better to point to the resurrection itself and the
exaltation and benefits of the life in the Spirit tied to it, if this is the point.
The juxtaposition of this saying to the Transfiguration that follows imme-
diately suggests at the least that that event is a preview of what he is
describing here. As such, the Transfiguration serves at least as an indicator
for the authority still to come. It seems likely this is what is referred to and
the connection to consummation is in the preview that the Transfiguration
represents. Not far away is the experience of resurrection-exaltation that
discloses more fully who Jesus is and what he is ultimately to bring. Jesus
may suffer and experience rejection. So will his disciples. However, that is
368
Lane, Mark, 313.
369
Cranfield, Mark, 286–89, notes seven views about what is being referred to here.
370
Nonetheless, Hooker, Mark, 211–12, argues that Jesus was wrong in some sense to
anticipate the kingdom as soon as he suggests here, although he was right in that the
vindication pointing to this did take place. One could argue that Mark holds out hope
the consummation may still come in the lifetime of those who are left, but his placement
of the Transfiguration as a full epiphany after this remark suggests he had something else
in mind. See Witherington, Mark, 261. Idiosyncratic is the view of France, Mark, 343–45,
who sees the fulfilment as not involving a coming to earth in judgment at all, but as tied
to Jesus’ vindication only. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 620–21, has a good overview of the debate
about authenticity and opts for the saying being authentic, seeing it as unlikely the
church would create such a statement that raised so many questions about “Jesus’
predictive powers.”
371
Edwards, Mark, 260, and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 622.

not the last act in this drama surrounding the kingdom and Jesus’
authority.
9:2–8 A Voice from Heaven Commends Jesus as the Beloved Son as

He Is Transfigured before a Few Disciples
9:2 Six days later Jesus took Peter, James, and John and led them alone up
a high mountain in private. And he was transfigured before them,
9:3 and his clothes became radiantly white, more than a launderer in the
world could bleach them.
9:4 Then Elijah appeared before them along with Moses, and they were
speaking together with Jesus.
9:5 So Peter said, to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us make
three shelters – one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
9:6 For they did not know what to say, for they were very afraid.
9:7 And a cloud overshadowed them, and a voice came from the cloud,
“This is my beloved Son. Listen to him.”
9:8 Suddenly, looking around, they no longer saw anyone but Jesus alone
with them.
This scene is an epiphany and a theophany wrapped together. Its parallels
are Matt 17:1–8 and Luke 9:28–36. It parallels the voice from heaven at the
baptism and serves as a confirmation of all that has been said since Peter’s
confession. Jesus says nothing in this scene. It is a disclosure about him. He is
more than a teacher; he is a Messiah – Son of God of cosmic proportions.372
Six days after the remarks on discipleship (v 2), Jesus takes three disciples
in his inner circle to a high mountain for a private experience.373 Outside the
Passion Week in Mark 14:1, this is the most precise note of timing we have in
Mark. It points to the importance of this event. 2 Peter 1:16–18 alludes to this
event. Six days was the time tied to the revelation at Sinai (Exod 24:16–17).
The later mention of Moses also points to a key event like the disclosure at
Sinai in Exod 24. The mountain is simply described as being high and is not
named. Three sites are proposed: Mount Tabor, Mount Hermon, or Mount
Meron.374 Mount Tabor is the traditional site, but it is not such a high peak as
Mount Hermon. There is no clear way to decide.
372
373
On an inner circle among the Twelve, Mark 5:37 and 14:33 have these same three with
Jesus, while 13:3 adds Andrew.
374
France, Mark, 350. Collins, Mark, 421, opts for Mt. Hermon as a more sacred site, as does

It begins with Jesus being transformed before them into a dazzlingly,

bright appearance (Dan 12:3; 2 Baruch 51:3, 5, 10, 12; 1 Enoch 38:4; 104:2;
another conceptual parallel could be the Transfiguration of Moses’ face at
Sinai).375 His clothes shone brighter than anyone could wash them. This
was a glimpse of his glorified state, Jesus as a figure come from the side of
heaven, a cosmic character (Dan 7:9; Matt 28:3; Mark 16:5; John 20:12; 1 Cor
15:43, 49, 51–53; Rev 1:9–18; 1 Enoch 14:10; 2 Enoch 22:8–9).376 The compar-
ison is made that Jesus’ appearance is brighter than what a launderer (v 3;
gnapheus) could do with a piece of wool or cloth (BDAG, 202). This person
does all kinds of things with clothes, including washing them with lye.
Usually such cleansing is tied to a spiritual washing in the OT (Ps 51:7; Jer
2:22; Mal 3:2–3).377
Next Elijah appeared with Moses, conversing with Jesus (v 4). The
presence of these two indicates restoration in the eschaton. Moses appears
as the father of deliverance, while Elijah points to the promise and hope of a
new era as the promised herald of that period (Mal 4:5–6). They also are
associated with revelation at Sinai (Exod 19–24; 1 Kings 19). It is a little
unusual that Elijah would be named first, and both Matt 17:3 and Luke 9:30
reverse the order. It may be the stress on restoration is the point in the
unusual word order, as well as the fact Elijah is discussed again in the next
scene. The common idea that they point to the Law and the Prophets is
probably too vague to work, and Mark’s order of presentation is against
that suggestion.378 Moses certainly is associated with the idea of restoration
in the image of the prophet like Moses (Deut 18:15–19). The age of salvation
and messianic presence is the point. Might we understand that we have two
great witnesses to the new era here? Mark notes no detail about the
conversation. Luke 9:31 says they spoke of Jesus’ coming exodus from
Jerusalem.
The disciples are overwhelmed with fear according to verse 6b. This is a
common reaction to the presence of heavenly power and shows respect for
375
Hellenistic parallels starting with the Illiad 20.81–82, 131, and Odyssey 7.20, 13.222–23,
13:288–89, 17.485–87, are noted by Collins, Mark, 418–19. Most of these are more general
in the idea of a god taking on human form. The closest parallel in terms of brightness is
the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 275–80. Jewish analogies from angels are closer parallels.
376
377
378
Collins, Mark, 422, suggests the fact that both are tied to traditions of being taken up to
heaven is also in play (Elijah in 2 Kings 2:11). That might be the case, although Moses is
portrayed as having experienced a normal death in Deut 34:5, despite that tradition
Josephus, Ant 4.325–26, notes (also Assump Moses).

the transcendent. The uncertainty their emotional state produced explains

how they reacted. Peter had spoken up, suggesting building booths for the
three of them–one for Jesus, one for Moses, and one for Elijah (v 5). The
background is the feast of Tabernacles (Lev 23:39–43), and Peter is suggest-
ing prolonging the experience along similar lines of reflection. The request
is not so foolish at this level, as Mark’s narrative comment might suggest in
that there was the hope that in the new day God would tabernacle with his
people again (Tob 13:11).379 That feast celebrated the Exodus, the original
event of deliverance, and God’s provision and care during that time. The
problem with the request lies elsewhere. The equality of the three of them is
also implied in his remarks (v 6). It is this presumption that the voice from
heaven addresses, showing yet another need for the disciples to learn. Peter
has missed the import of his earlier confession and that only Jesus appears
glorified.380
The correction comes in a voice from heaven announcing Jesus to be the
beloved Son and a command to listen to him. The voice comes out of a
cloud that overshadows them (v 7). This seems to suggest they have been
brought into the cloud and God’s presence with access to revelation; but
discussion does exist about whether Jesus, Moses, and Elijah only are in the
cloud or the disciples as well, since one can argue that the voice came out of
the cloud, making it a distinct locale from those who were intended to hear
the voice. The text is not entirely clear on the point. The symbolism does
point to the revelation and presence of God, the Shekinah, just as at Sinai
(Exod 19:9, 16; 24:15–16; 33:9; 40:35; 1 Kings 8:10–11; Isa 4:5).381 This is a
theophany (Matt 17:5 and Luke 9:34–35 are the parallels). What is interest-
ing is how in the NT clouds are often tied to Jesus or the revelation of his
return (Son of Man on the clouds: Matt 24:30=Mark 13:26=Luke 21:27; Matt
26:64=Mark 14:62; Rev 14:14–16; cloud tied to ascension, Acts 1:9; Shekinah
presence in the wilderness, 1 Cor 10:1–2; future meeting with a returning
Jesus, 1 Thess 4:17; return of Jesus, Rev 1:7; angels and clouds, Rev 10:1; two
witnesses taken up, Rev 11:12). The disciples are clearly intended as the
recipients of the voice’s testimony. 2 Macc 2:8 shows that some Jews
expected a return of the cloud to reveal the things of the end.382
379
Edwards, Mark, 266.
380
Stein, Mark, 418.
381
Lane, Mark, 320, notes that the voice and cloud combination appears only at Sinai in
the OT.
382

What is said here about being the beloved Son was said earlier at Jesus’
baptism to him (Mark 1:10–11). This statement alludes to Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1.
Jesus is the royal son who serves the program of God (Mark 12:6; Heb
1:1–2). Peter’s confession in Mark 8:29 is affirmed. Unlike the earlier
declaration, there is no declaration that the speaker is pleased with the
Son, and the address is now to the disciples (“this”) versus the earlier direct
address to Jesus (“you”). Added to the earlier declaration is the call to hear
what he says, an allusion to Deut 18:15, and the prophet like Moses, a leader-
deliverer-prophet. The disciples have shown they have much to learn. So
they need the instruction he will give.
They also need to appreciate who Jesus is. That this word comes in the
midst of teaching on the impending suffering points to one key thing that
still needs to be learned – Jesus will suffer despite who he is. Jesus’ power is
unique and yet will show itself in unique ways.383 It is important that this
divine attestation and vindication has followed right after Peter’s confes-
sion and Jesus’ announcement of coming suffering.
After the voice, Jesus is left alone (v 8). The need for witnesses has
passed. Jesus has been shown not to be equal to Moses and Elijah, as Peter’s
remark had implied, but unique in God’s program. The unusual moment
of disclosure and preview is done. Jesus teaches on suffering, but he does so
as Son who is to be heard. Suffering is not a disqualifier for bringing the
new era or for Jesus’ status. It is a part of his calling as Son.
9:9–13 Jesus Commands Silence until the Resurrection about the

Transfiguration and Discusses Elijah as Having Come
9:9 As they were coming down from the mountain, he gave them orders
not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen
from the dead.
9:10 They held this matter to themselves, discussing what rising from the
dead meant.
9:11 Then they were asking him, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must
come first?”
383
There is no need to choose between these two themes of Christology and suffering tied to
discipleship, as Stein, Mark, 419, and Edwards, Mark, 268, opt for the Christological
point and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 81, points to the need for more instruction tied to
discipleship. The two themes are related and go together. Part of Jesus’ unique role as
Son is that his sonship will also emerge from his suffering. Power comes out of weakness.

9:12 He said to them, “Elijah does indeed come first and restores all
things. And why is it written that the Son of Man must suffer many
things and be despised?
9:13 But I say to you that Elijah has come, and they did to him what they
wanted, even as it written about him.”
This scene contains short didactic dialogue about what has just taken
place. Matthew 17:9–13 is a parallel. The program of God is affirmed as
announced and arriving with Elijah having come and suffered. The char-
acter of the new era as including suffering is highlighted once again. The
idea is so surprising that it needs repeated affirmation. It also took some
time to sink in and be understood.
As they were coming down from the mountain (v 9), he commanded
them not to discuss with anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man is
raised from the dead.384 Full disclosure awaits a fuller understanding of
what is taking place and requires other events before that, such as his death
(Mark 10:45). That more complete understanding takes place with the
raising of the Son of Man from the dead. This remark echoes Mark 8:31.
The call to be silent reaches back to Mark 1:25, as do similar commands
elsewhere (Mark 5:43; 7:36; 8:30).
These three disciples did keep silent (v 10). They guarded (krateō) this
matter and kept it to themselves (BDAG, 564). The one thing they did
discuss was the meaning of the resurrection from the dead. This was
anticipated to be at the end of history before the judgment, so how could
this work? Was Jesus discussing a singular resurrection by itself? The
disciples had no idea.
The disciples then raise the topic of Elijah (v 11), asking why those who
study Scripture say Elijah must come first before a Messiah (Justin Martyr,
Dialogue 49:1). Jesus affirms with the OT hope (Mal 3:1; 4:5–6; Sir 48:10) that
Elijah does come and will restore all things. Although this hope only had
384
This is a key text in the messianic secret view tied to William Wrede in 1901 that Mark
overlaid a messianic understanding projected back to Jesus that did not originally exist
with the command to silence being the way he made the move. Wrede actually stepped
back from this view, but it continued to influence many scholars in NT studies; see
Wilkins, in Key Events, 333, n. 143, and Martin Hengel and Anna Maria Schwemer, Der
messianische Anspruch Jesu und die Anfänge der Christologie: Vier Studien (Tübingen:
Mohr/Siebeck, 2001), ix. The major problem is why the disciples would turn to a category
that would only bring trouble for them if Jesus had not taken them there earlier. In
addition, the tradition with these messianic themes is too widely attested to be only a later
construct. Even Jesus’ death for sedition assumes some type of regal claim, and the titulus
over the cross claimed Jesus as a regal figure, a messianic category in this context.

Elijah coming at the end, it is not a far step to think this is before the
Messiah as well, since the Messiah is a key figure of the end.385 A question is
raised whether Jesus makes a statement or raises a question about Elijah’s
coming.386 Even if this is a question, which is not at all certain, a query
using the Greek men looks to expect a positive reply. More commonly, it
reflects the first part of a two-part statement, making a statement more
likely here. The parallel in Matthew 17:11 also reads it as a statement. The
claim that Jesus’ later remark about the Son of Man contradicts this claim
about Elijah ignores another possibility being raised by Jesus. Elijah has
come and apparently will come as well. As Jesus is about to show, Elijah has
come now in the figure of John the Baptist. This sets up restoration with the
coming of Messiah. The Messiah’s work will complete it when it looks as
though Elijah or a figure like him also will reappear.
Jesus has a question of his own (v 12). Why must the Son of Man suffer
and be despised? This idea recalls Isa 53:3 where the Servant is despised, and
the language reflects a related verb of being despised in Ps 22:6 (= 21:7 LXX)
or the verb used in the Acts 4:11 citation of Ps 118:22.
There also is the righteous sufferer of the Psalter (Ps 22, 41, 69). Jesus is
again returning to the theme of suffering tied to his work, whereas the
disciples are focused on victory. Jesus goes on to say that Elijah has come
already (v 13). This is almost certainly an allusion to John the Baptist. He
continues by saying that they did to him whatever they wanted. This points
to his suffering, death, and martyrdom (Mark 6:14–29). It is the template
for what Jesus is saying about discipleship. If John did not survive rejection,
neither will he. If he does not survive rejection, neither will the disciples.
This fits with what was said about him. Here it is harder to know what is
being alluded to beyond the picture of the righteous sufferer and the
general precedent that prophets in general, including Elijah, did not fare
well in Israel’s history. So we should expect that pattern to continue.
Elijah’s conflict with Jezebel comes to mind as the basis for the evocation
of a pattern of suffering (1 Kings 19:1–3, 10, 14).387 Yet the differences are
important. Elijah does not die at the hands of a ruler who opposed him, as
John the Baptist did, and yet the text is rooted in the pattern the historical
Elijah established, not the eschatological figure. Still, Jesus’ point is that
suffering attends the work of this key prophet, something the precedent of
385
386
387
Taylor, St. Mark, 395; Witherington, Mark, 265.

Scripture points to as possible. The innovation in thinking has roots in the

example of Elijah. So when heaven speaks, earth often resists.
Interestingly, this is a role John denied having (John 1:21), when he said
he was not Elijah. Luke 1:16–17 says John came in the spirit of Elijah. The
denial may be seen as an attempt to preserve a role for Elijah coming at the
end or a denial that John will restore all things versus setting up its
restoration through the call to repent. The parallel in Matt 17:13 makes a
connection to John explicit. Elijah may well be functioning as a type or
pattern category here. John is a type of Elijah.388 The evocation of Elijah
tied to John says that the new era has come and that restoration will follow.
9:14–29 Jesus Heals a Demon-Possessed Boy Who Is Epileptic after

the Disciples Fail to Heal Him
9:14 And when they came up to the disciples, they saw a large crowd
around them and the scribes disputing with them.
9:15 And immediately when the entire crowd saw him, they were amazed
and greeted him.
9:16 And he asked them, “What are you arguing about with them?”
9:17 One of the crowd replied to him, “Teacher. I brought you my son,
having a spirit that makes him mute.
9:18 Whenever it seizes him, it throws him down, causes him to foam at
the mouth, grind his teeth, and he becomes rigid. I requested your
disciples cast it out, but they were not able to do it.”
9:19 He answered them, “O unbelieving generation! How much longer
shall I be with you? How much longer will I have to endure you? Bring
him to me.”
9:20 So they brought the boy to him. And when the spirit saw him, it
immediately convulsed the boy. And falling to the ground, he was
rolling around, foaming at the mouth.
9:21 Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been taking place with
him?” And he said, “From childhood.
9:22 And many times also into fire he has cast him and into water that he
might destroy him. But if you are able, help us. Be merciful to us.”
9:23 Then Jesus said to him, “If you are able – all things are possible for
the one who believes.”
9:24 Immediately the father of the child cried out, saying, “I believe; help
my unbelief!”
388
Lane, Mark, 326.

9:25 Now when Jesus saw that a crowd was quickly running together, he
rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “Mute and deaf spirit, I
command you, come out of him and never come into him again.”
9:26 And crying out and with many convulsions, he came out. And the
boy became like a corpse, so many said, “He is dead.”
9:27 But Jesus, taking his hand, raised him up and he stood up.
9:28 Then after coming into his house, the disciples asked him privately,
“Why could we not cast it out?”
9:29 And he said them, “This kind can only come out by prayer.”389
This long miracle account shows that despite all the revelation that had
been taking place, the disciples are still learning. It is the last of four
exorcisms in Mark (Mark 1:21–28 – a Jew; 5:1–20 – a Gentile; 7:24–30 – a
Gentile daughter; now – a Jewish son). The parallels are Matt 17:14–21 and
Luke 9:37–43, but Mark’s account is far more detailed, being more than
twice as long as the parallels. While Jesus had been up on the mountain
with the three, the rest of the disciples had been struggling to perform a
healing of a demon-possessed boy who had seizures and was mute.390 This
is the only scene in which the disciples fail at such an effort.
The four returned to find the disciples in dispute with some scribes
about what was taking place (v 14). When the crowd that had gathered
around the discussion saw Jesus, they came and greeted him, being amazed
(v 15). They seem to be surprised that he had shown up. Normally such
notes of amazement follow a miracle, but here the mere appearance of Jesus
is enough. The use of exthambēthēsan here is the first of four uses of this
verb in Mark (14:33; 16:5–6), the only NT writer to use the word. It refers to
great surprise or perplexity (BDAG 303).
Jesus asks the crowd or the scribes within the crowd what is taking place
and what the fuss is about (v 16). Scribes are more likely here, as the crowd
has no disagreement with the disciples. They are simply witnessing what is
going on.
However, the one in the crowd who brought the boy to the disciples
explains why there is an argument (v 17). As he comes forward to explain,
he respectfully calls Jesus teacher. Usually Mark uses this term when an
issue needs resolution (Mark 4:38; 5:35; 9:17, 38; 10:17, 20, 35; 12:14, 19, 32;
389
There is a textual problem here, as many manuscripts add a reference to fasting. It could
well be original, given some early support in p45, but it seems more likely to have been
added by a scribe versus being deleted. Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 101.
390
On the ancient background of how epilepsy was seen by the ancients as a “sacred
disease,” an affliction from the gods, Collins, Mark, 435–36; Pseudo-Hippocrates, The
Sacred Disease; Lucian, Philopseudes, Lover of Lies, 16; Apuleius Apology, 42–51.

other uses are simply as a title, Mark 13:1; 14:14). The father notes that his
son has a spirit that makes him mute. It also seizes him and throws him
down to the ground, making him foam at the mouth, grind his teeth, and
become rigid (v 18). When the attack is done, the child lies paralyzed. The
condition appears to reflect epilepsy. Matt 17:15 says as much, calling him
“moonstruck,” an ancient description of that condition. Later, in Mark
9:25, we are told that he is deaf. This is a disturbing condition for a parent to
watch a child go through. In fact, the condition is described four times in
the scene, showing how violent and painful it is (Mark 9:18, 20, 22, 26). He
came and asked the disciples to cast out the demon, but they had met with
no success. The verb used to describe the failure is vivid (ischuō), as it
means to have the power or strength to do something (BDAG, 481). They
did not have the power or strength to overcome the demon that possessed
the son. The failure had likely precipitated the disagreement.
Jesus responds with a rebuke for a generation lacking faith (v 19). He
asks how long must he be with them and endure them. The absence of
belief is painful. Who is in view? Is it the crowd apart from the disciples,391
the disciples alone,392 or the whole group?393 The rebuke is more like Num
14:11 than Deut 32:20, since in Numbers a rationale for the rebuke appears.
However, it is a theme that is at work here as Matthew 17:17 and Luke 9:41
echo Deut 32:5, speaking of a perverse generation. In those OT texts, it is
God who is reacting; here it is Jesus in line with the Christological elevation
Mark consistently gives to Jesus.394 It is hard to be sure why this particular
failure provoked such a thorough rebuke, but the persistent failure of the
disciples is something Mark has been noting, so it may not be just this one
situation that brings the rebuke but a cumulative set of responses. After all,
they failed twice to get the provision of food, failed to accept the idea of
coming suffering, mistook the presence of Moses and Elijah as pointing to
people equal to Jesus, and now this. So Jesus’ labor to encourage faith has
met with many exasperating hurdles, even from those closest to him. Of
course, the crowd and others have been slow to embrace Jesus as well. The
term “generation” (genea) normally refers to a broad group in Mark (8:12
[twice], 38; 9:19; 13:30), so the crowd is probably included in the rebuke, and
the lack of faith in the father confirms this. The point is to issue a call for a
renewed faith.
391
Edwards, Mark, 278.
392
Cranfield, Mark, 301.
393
Hooker, Mark, 223; Witherington, Mark, 267; Stein, Mark, 433.
394

Nevertheless, Jesus asks that the boy be brought to him (v 20). This leads
to an episode as the spirit takes the boy and throws him to the ground and
into convulsions. On the ground, the boy rolls around and foams at the
mouth. Jesus now sees the desperate and dangerous condition that has
been described. The spirit has responded to Jesus’ presence, and a power
encounter is set up by the language about Jesus’ ability to heal.
In an exchange unique to Mark (v 21), Jesus asks how long this condition
has existed. The father has to speak, since the boy is mute, and replies from
childhood. It may be that the duration of the condition points to a chronic
condition and a sense that it will never change.395 He also adds that many
times the spirit throws the child into fire or water to destroy him, either by
burning or drowning (v 22). The demon is portrayed as destructive, look-
ing to damage the one occupied. So he asks again for Jesus’ help, compas-
sion, and mercy. This is the final note about compassion from Jesus in
Mark, but it is the first time it is requested (1:41; 6:34; 8:2). Help will be
requested again in the scene in 9:24 for a lack of faith. This unique exchange
means that the development of faith is being highlighted beyond the fact of
the miracle.
The father predicates the request on Jesus’ ability to do something, “if
you are able.” The failure of the disciples has led to uncertainty. The father
is proceeding, but is not confident something will happen. Jesus responds
by asking, with some mild rebuke (v 23), “If you are able?”396 He breaks up
the thought, as if it is not appropriate to finish, and instead turns to a call
for faith. All things are possible for the one with faith, another consistent
Markan theme (Mark 5:36; 10:27). The remark is purposely open in terms of
audience, but is aimed at the father. The father confesses he is torn (v 24).
He believes, but needs help for his unbelief. He has brought his son for
healing, but is Jesus really able to help? That is enough for Jesus to act and
show that faith is honored. Doubt is met with affirming action. Imperfect
faith can be perfected (Mark 5:34, 36). He can believe in Jesus and that he
is able.
A crowd comes running toward the scene (v 25), adding to those already
present in Mark’s account (Mark 9:14–15, 19). Jesus performs the miracle
with a command to the demon to come out and never come back again.
395
This sense is raised by Collins, Mark, 438, who notes that once a child reaches puberty,
the sense settled in that one would not outgrow a condition like this. The reference to
childhood may indicate that the boy had reached such an age, and was not a child.
396
France, Mark, 367. He says the force is “If you can indeed!” For the Greek on an article
before a set of quoted words, see BDF §267, 1.

The idea of a demon returning is present in other Synoptic accounts of

another saying (Matt 12:43–45; Luke 11:24–26), but this is not like other
exorcisms in Mark (Mark 1:25; 5:8).397 His word is able and strong enough
to overcome the demon. Mark had used various terms for a command or
rebuke for previous miracles (epitiman; epitassein; Mark 1:25, 27; 4:39). The
demon is said to have made the boy both deaf and mute here. Jesus is about
to shatter the world of the boy’s silence. Shaking the boy into convulsions as
he left (v 26), the boy was dropped to the floor one final time. Those watching
thought he was dead, since he was as still as a corpse. They thought Jesus had
failed and the result was disaster for the boy. But Jesus took his hand and
raised him up alive and well (v 27), a description that mimics resurrection,
given what was said about being dead, and echoes Mark 5:41–42 and the
raising of Jairus’ daughter. Unlike many miracles, no reaction is narrated for
the healing. The miracle and power over the demon are the story.398
Alone at home (v 28), later the disciples asked him why they could not
exorcize this demon. Jesus’ private teaching is another common Markan
theme (after public teaching: Mark 4:10; 7:17; 9:14; 10:10). Jesus responded
that this kind could be removed only with prayer (v 29).399 Only here and in
Mark 11:17 does Mark use this term for prayer that points to petition
(proseuchē), although other texts use other terms (Mark 1:35; 6:46; 11:24–
25; 12:40; 13:33; 14:32–39).400 Their healing gift was not automatic.
Dependence was the lesson of faith for the disciples. Inadequacy outside
of God must cause them to turn to him. They must rely on God as they
minister with the enablement God has given them.
9:30–32 Jesus Predicts His Suffering One More Time

9:30 And going out from there, they passed through Galilee, and he did
not wish anyone to know,
397
Foucant, Mark, 374, adds the note from Josephus that exorcism often came with a
casting out that did not allow a return; Ant 8:45–47.
398
Lane, Mark, 336, comments, “When faith confronts the demonic, God’s omnipotence is
its sole assurance, and God’s sovereignty is its only restriction.”
399
This association of prayer and healing left its mark on the early church; James 5:15; Acts
9:40, as did invoking Jesus, Mark 9:38–39; Matt 7:22; Luke 10:17; Acts 3:6; Collins, Mark,
439, though she makes too much of the fact that Jesus himself does not pray for this
healing. This is because his power is seen by Mark as unique. His word is enough.
400
Some manuscripts add a reference to fasting here, but a key array of witnesses in various
textual families lack the term, pointing to its not being original; Metzger, Textual
Commentary, 85. God alone acts to make this possible, so what is required is faith,
another indication of the close connection between Jesus and God (Mark 9:23).

9:31 for he was teaching his disciples and saying to them, “The Son of
Man is being given over into the hands of men, and they will kill him,
and being killed after three days he will rise.”
9:32 But they did not understand this statement and were afraid to
ask him.
This scene involves another pronouncement and passion prediction.
The first was in Mark 8:31. Matt 17:22–23 and Luke 9:43–45 are the parallels.
Jesus continues to travel through Galilee, teaching his disciples and seeking
not to be detected. His attention is turning to preparing his disciples for
what is ahead. This is the last time Galilee is noted until we are well into the
Passion Week (v 30; Mark 14:28; 16:7).401
The text predicts in a general way what Jesus was teaching them about his
coming suffering (v 31). This uses an imperfect tense, underscoring these
repetitions as a theme. He offers a second prediction of what is coming:
handing over, death, and then resurrection after three days. It is the least
detailed of the three predictions. The handing over to men is the new feature
in this prediction. The passive is a divine passive. God’s program is at work.
It is portrayed in a vivid present tense as in process (is being handed over).402
The following verbs are future: he will be killed and raised. As in Mark 9:10,
the disciples still do not get it and are afraid to ask him (v 32; Luke 9:45). The
remark had to have struck fear in them and produced some uncertainty.403
The expectation of a deliverer who suffers death is hard for them to com-
prehend. The Son of Man is a figure from Daniel 7 who vindicates the
persecution of the righteous who are delivered into the hands of men (Dan
7:25). What had not been anticipated is that he himself would suffer, leading
God’s people in and out of rejection. The image of the leader-sufferer is a
theme of the righteous sufferer of the Psalter and of the Servant figure of
Isaiah. Marcus sees an allusion to Isa 53:6 and 12, as well as to language in Dan
7:25–27.404 A general resurrection is affirmed in Dan 12:2. So a specific
individual resurrection is a distinctive teaching.
401
Edwards, Mark, 283.
402
The alternative is a futuristic present tense, pointing to the certainty of what is coming.
Though true, it is perhaps better to see the wheels already turning for Jesus’ fate in the
reaction he has been facing and where God is taking him on this journey to Jerusalem.
The verb given over (paradidonai) dominates from here (Mark 10:33; 13:9, 11–12; 14:10, 11,
18, 21, 41, 42, 44; 15:1, 10, 15).
403
France, Mark, 372, citing Best, Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1981), 73, explains, “They understand enough to be afraid to ask to understand
more.” Lane, Mark, 337, says, “They suspect that to know would be more painful.”
404
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 667. Focant, Mark, 377, argues that the language is closer to Dan 7:25,
but, even so, a theme is in play.

There are three such prediction scenes in Mark. One was in the north
near Caesarea Philippi, the second in Galilee, and the third as they head to
Jerusalem. Jesus is on his journey with divine destiny. He wants the
disciples to be ready. Mark 10:33–34 is yet to come. Each prediction is
followed by a failure by the disciples: Peter’s refusal to see suffering, the
debate about who is the greatest here, and the request to sit on thrones with
Jesus in the last.405 Power drives the disciples’ hope. Jesus is taking them to
another place: suffering and service. They sense danger and fear asking.
Fear, usually out of a sense of self-preservation, is another key Markan
theme (Mark 4:41; 5:15; 10:32; 11:18, 32; 12:12), which is likely to be what is at
work here, in contrast to a “holy fear” that the lack of understanding would
not generate.406
9:33–50 Jesus Teaches on Humility, Service, and Sin

9:33 Then they came to Capernaum. And after Jesus was in the house, he
asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”
9:34 But they were silent, for they had argued with one another about
who was the greatest.
9:35 After sitting down, he called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone
wishes to be first, he must be last of all and a servant of all.”
9:36 He took a little child and had him stand in their midst. Taking him
into his arms he said to them,
9:37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name
welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but
the one who sent me.”
9:38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone in your name casting
out demons and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us.”
9:39 But Jesus said to him, “Do not hinder him. For no one who performs
a miracle in my name will be able soon afterward to say anything bad
about me.
9:40 For whoever is not against us is for us.
9:41 Truly I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water because you bear
Christ’s name will never lose his reward.
9:42 If anyone causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it
would have been better for him to have a huge millstone hung around
his neck and be thrown into the sea.
405
406
Contra Stein, Mark, 440.

9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter
life crippled than to have two hands and depart into Gehenna, into
unquenchable fire.407
9:45 If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better to enter life lame
than to have two feet and be tossed into Gehenna.408
9:47 If your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better to enter into the
kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be tossed into
Gehenna,
9:48 where their worm never dies and the fire is never quenched.
9:49 Everyone will be salted with fire.
9:50 Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty
again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with each other.”
This section contains a short discourse of related teaching on disciple-
ship. It is linked by a series of catchwords that tie the parts together (e.g,
“servant,” 9:35–36, assuming an Aramaic background from the word for
servant, talya; “in my name,” 9:37–38, 39, 41). The parallels for Mark 9:33–37
are Matt 18:1–5 and Luke 9:46–48. Parallel to Mark 9:38–40 is Luke 9:49–50.
The parallels to Mark 9:41–50 are Matt 5:13; 18:6–9; and Luke 17:1–2 and
14:34. The nature of the parallels suggests we may be dealing with either
themes Mark has pulled together into one place or teaching Jesus repeated.
Once again the disciples need instruction and correction, a theme of the
last few chapters.
Jesus returns to Capernaum and asks the disciples what they had been
discussing (v 33). This is the final mention of Capernaum, as Jesus is moving
on to Jerusalem. The verb here (dialogizesthai) is often used of arguing in
Mark (2:6, 8; 8:16–17; 11:31). The discussion of status had resulted in disagree-
ment and debate. They were reluctant to let Jesus know this (v 34), so they
initially were silent, because they had argued over their relative greatness.
The comparative (meizōn) is used for the superlative here. It may be that
Jesus’ earlier separating out of three for the Transfiguration led to the
discussion (Mark 9:2). Qumran had such a ranking, and seated people
accordingly (1QS 2:19–23).409
So he sat them down to teach them a lesson (v 35). The seated posture
points to formal teaching. The position of being first is for those who are
407
Matt 9:44 is missing in key early witnesses and looks to be added to create a parallel to
verse 48.
408
As with Mark 9:44, the earlier manuscripts lack this verse, as the phrasing matches verses
44 and 48.
409
Edwards, Mark, 286, who calls the discussion a debate on the “whine of rank.”

last and serve all. The term “first” normally would refer to those at the top
of the social ladder (Mark 6:21; Luke 19:47; Acts 25:2; 28:17; Josephus, Ant
11.140–41; 18.121).410 Jesus says this more than once in this Gospel, showing
its importance (Mark 10:43–44; Luke 10:16; also Matt 20:26–27; 23:11; Luke
22:26). The term servant (diakonos) points to one who aids another like
Elisha for Elijah (Josephus, Ant 8.354), government servants (Rom 13:4), or
messengers on behalf of another (Col 4:7). Service is like household service
and points to a form of self-denial (Mark 8:34). Plato (Gorgias 491e) asks,
“How can a man be happy when he has to serve someone?” Here is the
contrasting attitude of the larger culture. Luke 22:27 shows Jesus as the
example of such service.
To drive home the point (v 36), he took a child and put him in front of
them. In the ancient world, a child had virtually no status until he or she was
useful. A later text in Pirqe ’Abot 3:10 reads, “Sleep in the morning, wine at
noon, babbling with children, staying at the synagogue with ‘people of the
land’ accelerates the loss of humanity.”411 In fact, young children, who were
unwanted, were abandoned and left to die in some Greco-Roman contexts.412
These examples show the Greco-Roman attitude about children is different
from that in modern times. The OT saw children as a blessing, but this was
often because of the role they performed in helping around the home and
perpetuating the family name (Ps 128). Jesus takes a different route. Jesus told
them that the one who welcomes a child in his name welcomes him (v 37).
They are to follow his example in welcoming and lifting up the child.
Jesus’ action and remark in verse 37 raised the status of the child and
presented the child as important. Then he also noted the one welcoming
him also welcomed the one who sent him. So to welcome a child was to
welcome God and be responsive to him. Matt 25:31–46 is a conceptual
parallel. The point not only affirms the importance of all people; it also, in
the context of this dispute, is a call to humility. One is to love one’s
neighbor, even ones the culture sees as irrelevant. In fact, rather than
thinking that such “lesser” people should serve us, disciples should serve
410
Focant, Mark, 381.
411
P. Achtemeier, “An Exposition of Mark 9.33–37,” Int 39 (1976), 182; Donahue and
Harrington, Mark, 285, call children “a ‘non-person’ who is totally dependent”;
Witherington, Women in the Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1984), 13–15.
412
Collins, Mark, 445–46. She sees a direct contrast to such exposure in the picture of
acceptance of the child, but this applies too narrow a meaning to the text. It is the social
status of the child in general that is in view in the choice of a child as an example.
Collins’s example is but a vivid illustration of the point.

them. The remarks turn the tables on how one sees issues of rank and
power; a hierarchy has become a lowerarchy. In making the low important,
all are made important.
Such humility also means that others may serve in Jesus’ name. John
raises the issue, noting that someone was casting out demons in Jesus’
name (v 38). The disciples tried to stop him because he was not among the
followers. Jesus responded not to try and stop him (v 39), because the one
who does a miracle in Jesus’ name will not speak badly about him. This
appears to foresee the experience of invoking Jesus as solidifying a sense of
connection to him. Is the one invoking Jesus a believer outside the circle or
anyone just trying to use the power of his name? The text is not clear and
may be purposely open in terms of its scope. Still, the text seems to assume
that the one who is effective in the use of the name has a relationship to the
kingdom, or at least, an openness to it (1 Cor 12:3; counterexample, Acts
19:13–16).413 Simply put, the one who is not against us is for us (v 40). So,
support for the ministry or openness to it is to be encouraged. Jesus is not
offering a closed club, but one with an open invitation to enter into
ministry on Jesus’ terms. Disciples are to be generous to the array of
support Jesus garners from wherever it comes.
In fact, service in Christ’s name should be honored as God honors it (v 41).
So Jesus uses the example of someone giving disciples a cup of water in the
Christ’s name. This is the only text in Mark where Jesus makes a self-
reference to the Christ or explicitly refers to reward, though Mark 10:28–30
is close.414 The scorching sun made the offer of water a gift in this region.
That person will receive his reward (Wis 5:15–23; 4 Ezra 7:83; 13:56; m. Abot
2:1–2, 14–16; 5:1). The implication is that God will supply the commendation.
On the other hand, to drive a follower into sin is to commit a crime
before God (v 42). The picture is leading a person into serious sin, to cause
them to stumble over the kingdom. France speaks of “spiritual ship-
wreck.”415 The verb skandalizō refers to stumbling over an obstacle and is
a link word tying the passage together.416 It would be better for that person
to drown in the sea, having been tossed in with a millstone around his or
her neck, than to face the judgment that is the outcome for causing
followers to stumble. A millstone was a heavy stone driven by a donkey
to grind grain (BDAG, 661). Capital punishment in Rome sometimes
413
Lane, Mark, 343.
414
France, Mark, 378.
415
France, Mark, 380.
416
Cranfield, Mark, 313; BDAG, 926, speaks of leading to a downfall.

involved drowning.417 One is warned not to be a cause of spiritual defec-

tion. It will have severe consequences.
Three examples to avoid personal sin follow in verses 43–47 involving
hands, feet, and eyes – the parts of the body that carry out action (Job 31:1,
5, 7). Note how the attention has moved. It has gone from the previous
example of causing another to sin to the issue of personal responsibility for
sin, personal stumbling.418 If your hand causes sin (v 43), then cut it off. For it
is better to continue life crippled than to allow sin to lead you into judgment
(v 45), to be sent into Gehenna with its unending flames of torment. The
picture is figurative, for otherwise only two violations would be permitted,
and Deut 14:1 prohibited self-mutilation, so this is a shocking image out of
line with aspects of the Law to show the seriousness of the exhortation.419
Nonetheless, the cutting off of body parts was a punishment rendered in
some situations (Deut 25:11–12; Exod 21:23–25 – “eye for eye”; Josephus, Life
34–35; War 2.642–46; m Niddah 2:1). Life (Mark 9:43, 45) and the kingdom of
God (Mark 9:47) are in parallelism across the three examples showing they
are connected. One’s fate in life is related to the presence of the kingdom.
Jesus is urging separation from sin as part of the kingdom’s call.
This is not a literal cutting off of the hand, but a separating from that which
causes one to sin. It is better to do without such destructive freedom that leads
into spiritual accountability and death. The challenge points to the seriousness
of sin and the reality of accountability to God for it. The picture of unquench-
able fire also is figurative of a torment and judgment that has no end. That is
the result of being permanently separated from a God you knows exists and
with whom fellowship had been possible. The Greek term for hell is Gehenna,
named after a place, the valley of Hinnom in south Jerusalem, where infants
were sacrificed to Molech and in later times where refuse was burned (BDAG,
191; 2 Kings 23:10). The picture of endless torment reflects imagery like we see
in Jdt 16:17, where the condemned weep forever, and Sir 7:17, where fire and
worms await the dead (also 1 Enoch 27:2; 90.26–27; 4 Ezra 7:36). Annihilation
does not look to be present, but unending torment.
As with the hands, so it is to be with the feet and eyes.420 With the final
example of the eyes, the picture of the permanence of judgment is
417
418
Stein, Mark, 447.
419
France, Mark, 382; Edwards, Mark, 293–94.
420
Mark 9:44 and 46 (with their “where their worm never dies and the fire is never
quenched”) is not as well attested as original as the appearance of the same phrase in
9:48. Although the majority text and D have it, most early manuscripts, including ‫ א‬and
B, lack it. So it is likely a scribal addition to bring more balance to the text with verse 48.

reinforced (v 47). The image of a non-perishing worm and an eternal flame

is invoked (Isa 66:24). The suffering depicted from judgment is unending.
If your actions cause you to sin, separate from what causes the sin, for entry
into heaven with a loss of freedom is better than to exercise those destruc-
tive acts and face a judgment that has no end. The picture is rhetorical, not
literal. The call of the disciple is to take responsibility to separate oneself
from the causes for sin.
Jesus closes the short discourse with an enigmatic (v 48), quickly shifting
phrase about salt that makes three distinct points. First, everyone will be
salted, that is, tested with fire, as Jesus puts it (vv 49–50). All are accoun-
table and tested (Ezek 16:4; 43:24; 1 Cor 3:15). The imagery appears rooted in
the OT where sacrificial flames were purified with salt that symbolized a
special connection to God. Lev 2:13 reads, “Do not let the salt of the
covenant be lacking from your cereal offering.”421 Fire purges and shows
what remains of worth. Salt pictures that which is special in a connection
with God. It is to be utilized.
Second, Jesus shifts the image. Salt is good, but once the saltiness is lost,
it cannot be regained. It becomes useless. Salt mixed with gypsum at the
Dead Sea could show such characteristics.422 The point here is not to lose
the salt and become useless.
Third, and as a summation, Jesus urges them to have salt in themselves,
to put to use the covenant relationship that they have been given and
exercise capabilities they have received that are distinctive. If they do that
by working together, they will be at peace with themselves. The rivalry of
trying to determine rank will be gone. So Jesus ends by coming full circle to
where he started. Humility will lead to peace.
10:1–12 Jesus Discusses Divorce and Emphasizes the Design

of Marriage as Male and Female Made One for Life
10:1 Then Jesus having gotten up from there came into the region of
Judea beyond the Jordan River. And again crowds gathered to him,
and again as was his custom, he taught them.
It is harder to explain how the verses dropped out later, if original, than to explain their
addition.
421
Some manuscripts (D, it) of the verse actually allude directly to this Leviticus text with
additional wording, but that is unlikely to be original.
422
Witherington, Mark, 273, who also notes Num 18:19 for covenant imagery; also Exod
30:35 for purity and holiness.

10:2 And coming, some Pharisees asked him, testing him, ”Is it was lawful
for a man to divorce his wife?”
10:3 He replied to them, “What did Moses command you?”
10:4 They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of dismissal
and to divorce her.”
10:5 But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote
this commandment for you.
10:6 But from the beginning of creation he made them male and female.
10:7 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother, and the two
will become one flesh.
10:8 So they are no longer two, but one flesh.
10:9 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
10:10 In the house again, the disciples asked him about this.
10:11 So he told them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another
commits adultery with her.
10:12 And if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she
commits adultery.”
This scene is a controversy account that ends in a pronouncement. Matt
19:1–12 is the parallel and appears to be a more detailed account. Luke 16:18a
is like Mark 10:11.
Jesus’ journey moves on (v 1). He now enters Judea. Galilee is left behind.
He comes south probably by way of the eastern side of the Jordan River or
Perea, so he comes from the other side of the Jordan. On this trip he
apparently avoids Samaria, as was common (contrast John 4). There is a
textual issue here, but the more difficult reading refers only to the other side
of the Jordan. The variants appear to clean up what is otherwise a somewhat
unclear description, given that Judea was not on the other side of the Jordan.
The expression is probably a highly condensed reference to the route.423
Crowds are drawn to him, and he teaches them as is his custom (v 2). In a
test, the Pharisees ask him a question about divorce. Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife? Matt 19:3 presents the question in a more detailed way as
being about divorce for any reason, which would be the point of such a
question. Collins reads the question as artificial by reading it too narrowly
and literally about allowing divorce at all.424 The OT allowed this for
something unseemly (Deut 24:1), but the interpretation of this was dis-
puted. In addition, Mal 2:13–16 expressed the view that God disliked
423
Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 88. The addition speaks of “into the coast of Judea
by the far side of the Jordan” (A, K, X, Π).
424
Collins, Mark, 465.

divorce, so it may have been permitted but was not advised. When permitted,
was it for immorality alone (School of Shammai) or could it submitted for
something as simple as a poorly cooked meal, finding another more beauti-
ful, or general insubordination (Sirach 25:26; Josephus, Life 426; Ant 4.253; m.
Gittin 9.10; School of Hillel)?425 At Qumran, CD 4 may preclude divorce as
an option.426 This was the range of views in Judaism. The question assumes a
patriarchal right to divorce, but generally in Judaism women do not divorce
men, though there are exceptions as the example of Herodias showed.427
Greco-Roman divorce was more open for an array of causes and involved
both genders.428
Another element of the test is more likely to have been to draw him into
the dispute over Herod’s marriage to Herodias.429 This challenge had led to
John the Baptist’s death according to Mark 6:14–29. Jesus has passed
through Perea where Herod rules. The account looks to be authentic,
since Paul is aware of it in 1 Cor 7, where the apostle expands on what
Jesus is known to have taught.
Jesus asks what Moses commanded, pointing to Scripture for guidance
(v 3). They note that Moses permitted a man a certificate of divorce (v 4),
citing Deut 24:1, but not presenting the reasons. Technically this does not
permit divorce but regulates it.430 Jesus’ response is that it was hardness of
heart that caused Moses to say this (v 5). Stubbornness and sin meant
divorce was acknowledged in certain situations. So this was how to do it,
giving protection to the woman with a certificate of release. In Greek the
reference to “hardness of heart” is thrown forward for emphasis. The
425
The Gittin text reads, “The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife
unless he has found unchastity in her, for it is written, ‘Because he hath found in her
indecency in anything.’ And the School of Hillel says: [He may divorce her] even if she
spoiled a dish for him, for it is written, ‘Because he hath found in her indecency in
anything.’ R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, ‘And it
shall be if she finds no favour in his eyes.’ ” In 9:1, the Mishnah presents a divorce decree
that provided for remarriage if it was granted. A woman got to keep her dowry unless
she had been unfaithful.
426
There is dispute about whether this is about divorce or simply prohibiting polygamy.
427
See Ernst Bammel, “Markus 10,11f und das jüdische Eherecht,” ZNW 61 (1970), 95–101.
The Jewish Elephantine community allowed this. There also is the example of Salome
with Costobarus, but Josephus noted that it was exceptional (Ant 15.259). On Jewish
Second Temple practice, John D. Rayner, “Unilateralism to Reciprocity: A Short History
of Jewish Divorce,” Journal of Progressive Judaism 11 (1998):48–49.
428
Collins, Mark, 465, who notes that immorality, infertility, or mutual agreement of the
families could lead to divorce.
429
Hurtado, Mark, 160; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 85–86.
430

answer slips the trap, for he is not affirming divorce nor pointing to it being
the right thing to do.
Jesus is focusing on the fact that marriage was not designed to be entered
into with the hopes of getting out of it. So he turns to the beginning of
creation (vv 6–8). He starts with Adam and Eve, looking to the start of
marriage. He notes that God made humans as male and female, citing Gen
1:27. He then cites Gen 2:24 where a man leaves his father and mother and
the two become one flesh. So the marriage of a man and a woman makes
the couple a one-flesh unit, their own family. What God brings together is
not to be put apart. Jesus defines marriage by this remark (v 9). As Edwards
says, “By expressly mentioning the two sexes, Jesus declares that maleness
and femaleness are rooted in the creative will of God and are foundational
for marriage.”431 The verb for “put together” is suzeugnumi, referring to
yoking together, fusing into a unit something that was in two parts (BDAG,
954). That was the intent in the design of marriage. It was a relationship,
not merely a contract. This is what Jesus chooses to emphasize. Marriage
was intended to be for life. It is God’s will, not what the Torah permits, that
is the point.432 So to separate or divorce what God has brought together is
not desired. The verb is the term also used for divorce (chōrizō – BDAG,
1095; 1 Cor 7:10–11). Jesus is asking not what is the least one can do, but what
one should seek in pursuing marriage. These are the high standards Jesus
says God has set for marriage, and those in his community should seek to
follow it.
In a private discussion after the exchange with the Pharisees (v 10), Jesus
reaffirms the oneness of the marriage bond. Interestingly, Matthew omits
reference to a private teaching at this point, as he lacks anything like Mark
10:10. Teaching in private is common in Mark (4:1–12, 33–34; 7:17–23; 9:28–
29; 13:1–4). Hooker speaks of a contradiction between Mark 10:9 and Mark
10:10–12, since in verse 9 divorce is prohibited, but in verses 10–12 it is
remarriage that is in view after a divorce.433 However, we are dealing with
real life here. People did get divorced and did so to get remarried, so both
circumstances are relevant.434 Both took place, so how should those reali-
ties be seen?
Jesus notes that remarriage after a divorce leads to adultery because the
bond of marriage is an issue tied to God bringing the couple together and
431
Edwards, Mark, 303.
432
Hooker, Mark, 235.
433
Hooker, Mark, 236.
434
France, Mark, 393.

making them one (vv 11–12). The seventh commandment is violated (Exod
20:14). This is the result regardless of whether the man or the woman seeks
the divorce.435 An effect of Jesus’ remarks was that women, who were often
regarded as property in marriage, should be seen as equal partners, since
marriage is a male-female unit with no special preference given to men436
The fact that the same rules apply to the man and woman is important,
since normally an adultery was seen as an offense against another husband
and not against the wife.437 Mark’s mention of the woman’s divorcing is a
detail not in the parallels. Some suggest Mark has added it to take account
of Greco-Roman practice,438 but the example of Herodias shows the
possibility in the mixed context of first-century life, so a later Markan
addition is not a given at all.439
One impact of Jesus’ remarks about divorce is to protect women, who in
a patriarchal society were vulnerable to arbitrary divorce.440 The act is
“against her.” Matthew 5:32 makes the same point. Jesus’ teaching pro-
tected the mother and children from capricious neglect. To value marriage
is to value the family formed by it. Adultery is not an independent act of an
adult exercising privileges of freedom of choice. It has implications for the
social relationships one has made commitments to honor. It is a violation
of ties made with another before God.
Mark’s version notes no exceptions. This differs from Matthew where
porneia is noted in both Matt 5:32 and 19:9. Although it is common to argue
that Matthew is responsible for this addition, it may simply be that Mark
has focused on the emphasis that marriage is designed to be permanent.
For this idea, Paul in 1 Cor 7 knows what Jesus taught and is comfortable
435
Textual variants in a few Western and Caesarean manuscripts raise the issue of a
woman’s desertion and remarriage and speak of the woman leaving the husband versus
divorcing, but that reading is less well supported and is not original.
436
Hurtado, Mark, 160–61.
437
Cranfield, Mark, 321; Hooker, Mark, 236.
438
Hooker, Mark, 236–37. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 706–707, notes the right of women to seek
divorce, as noted in Cicero, Letters to His Friends 8.7.2; Gaius, Institutes 7.137a, but says
too much in saying that this cannot fit Jesus’ context; again, see Ernst Bammel, “Markus
10,11f und das jüdische Eherecht,” ZNW 61 (1970), 95–101. Marcus’s later discussion
shows how complex this debate is, as there is some indication that even though divorce
rights were primarily patriarchal, exceptions did exist; however, they were viewed as less
than ideal. Edwards, Mark, 304–305.
439
Yet another example is Salome, Herod the Great’s sister, whose divorce Josephus
described as exceptional (Ant 15.259–60). To claim only a Hellenistic context for this is
to claim too much, given how prominent these Herodian examples were.
440
Placed with the example of the Syro-Phoenician woman with great faith, one can argue
Mark is positive toward women in the book.

adding his own exception, unbeliever desertion. If Jesus had taught an

absolute view with no exceptions, then it would seem that Paul would have
been less comfortable with making his own move. Luke 16:18 also has no
exceptions, but Luke is using Jesus’ general teaching on divorce as an
example of kingdom ethics. He is not making an effort to be exhaustive
about what Jesus taught, but is focused on the thrust of his teaching. What
Jesus underscores is a person’s commitment before God in marriage.
Divorce often reflects a selfishness that is not sensitive to how it is an act
against the partner as well as a violation of an act that reflects what God has
joined together.
10:13–16 Jesus Rebukes the Disciples as He Permits the Children

to Come to Him and Urges Them to Have Faith as a Child
10:13 Now people were bringing children to him so he might touch them,
but the disciples rebuked them.
10:14 But when Jesus saw this, he was indignant and said to them, “Permit
the children to come to me, do not hinder them, for the kingdom of
God is made up of such as these.
10:15 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like
a child will never enter it.”
10:16 And taking the children in his arms, he blessed them, having set his
hands on them.
In another short pronouncement scene (v 13), Jesus instructs the disciples
yet again. The parallels are Matt 19:13–15 and Luke 18:15–17. The issue here is
Jesus’ access to children and his availability to bless them. People were
seeking to bring children to Jesus. As gatekeepers for Jesus’ time and work,
the disciples not only were trying to prevent this but also were rebuking
people for making the effort. Jesus stopped the disciples indignantly and took
the opportunity to teach the disciples of the importance of all people (v 14),
using children as an example of faith (vv 15–16). Only Mark has the note
about Jesus being indignant, fitting his greater willingness to be critical of
disciples and Mark’s tendency to show Jesus’ emotions. Jesus was not pleased
with this action by his disciples and contended that the kingdom of God is
made up of such people. He is emphatic. He uses a series of imperatives to
say with an aorist “permit”, followed by a present imperative not to hinder
making the point. The present imperative has the force of “stop hindering.”
It is common to turn this text into a discussion about infant baptism, but
that issue is not in view here at all. This is not a discussion of membership

in the community but simply people from the crowds seeking to gain Jesus’
attention and blessing for their children. Baptism as a rite tied to personal
faith operates in a distinct context. Jesus makes a comparison using
children as an example of a type of faith. His acceptance of children
means they are to be appreciated and taken seriously, even welcomed
into community, but there is no direct instruction here on whether infants
should be baptized. What we see in this passage and in the previous one is
teaching Jesus gave to protect women and children.441
It is important to note that in this culture children were not appreciated
as “cute,” as they generally are today. They had no social status until they
could be useful to family and others. In fact, we have texts that instruct
mothers to leave a child, especially if she is a girl, to be exposed to death
(Oxy 4.744, lines 9–10).442 So Jesus is elevating their status and making it
clear that even the seemingly unimportant are of value. Those who enter
the kingdom, he says, have to do it like a child. This is likely a reference to
the dependence that stands at the core of faith. Children know of their need
for parents. Without their parents, they are exposed. What they receive,
they receive as gifts.443 One comes to the heavenly Father with respect and a
sense of deep need of grace. So Jesus accepted the presence of the children
and, taking them in his arms, blessed them. The fact he could hold
them indicates these were young children (so Luke 18:15; Thomas 22).
Jesus is repeating a theme Mark 9:37 had already raised. Some cultural
instincts die hard.
10:17–31 Jesus Instructs about the Danger of Devotion to Riches

and Urges Disciples to Leave All
10:17 And Jesus was proceeding on his way, someone ran up and having
fallen to his knees asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit
eternal life?”
10:18 But Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good
except God alone.
10:19 You know the commandments: ‘do not murder, do not commit
adultery, do not steal, do not give false witness, do not defraud, honor
your father and mother.’ ”
441
Witherington, Mark, 281; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 714–15.
442
The issue of how children were seen culturally is treated in the discussion on Mark 9:36–
37. Justin, Apology 1. 27–29, condemned such exposure of children or the selling of them
into prostitution.
443
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 300.

10:20 The man said to him, “Teacher, these all I have guarded from my
youth.”
10:21 Looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “One thing you
lack. Go, sell whatever you have, give to the poor, and you will have
treasure in heaven. And come follow me.”
10:22 But at this word, becoming sad, the man went out sorrowful, for he
had many possessions.
10:23 And Jesus, looking around, said to his disciples, “How hard it is for
those having wealth to come into the kingdom of God.”
10:24 The disciples were amazed at these words. Jesus again replying
said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom
of God.
10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a
rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
10:26 They were even more astounded and said to themselves, “Then who
can be saved?”
10:27 Jesus, looking at them, said, “With men this is impossible, but not
for God, for all things are possible with God.”
10:28 Peter began to speak to him, “Look, we have left everything to
follow you.”
10:29 Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, no one who has left home or brothers
or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake and for
the sake of the gospel
10:30 who will not receive in this age a hundredfold as much – homes,
brothers, sisters, mothers, children, fields, all with persecutions – and
in the age to come, eternal life.
10:31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.”
This scene is another dialogue pronouncement account. It involves Jesus
and a rich man. It ends in a pronouncement that produces not only a
reaction from the rich man, but also a subsequent dialogue with the
disciples. So Jesus uses the exchange to teach his disciples about faith and
wealth. The parallels are Matt 19:16–30 and Luke 18:18–30.
Jesus continues his journey on the way to Jerusalem (v 17). Another
reference to being on the way (odos) makes the journey to Jerusalem
reference likely. A man comes and falls to his knees before him and
inquires what he must do to inherit eternal life. Matthew tells us he is
young, whereas Luke calls him a ruler, so Mark’s description is the most
general. Mark does not let us know he is rich until later. The question about
eternal life is a request to know what it takes to be saved, about entering the
kingdom, as Mark 10:23 shows (1 Enoch 40:9; Pss Sol 14:9–10; Sib Oracles

3.46–49; m. ’Abot 5:19).444 He calls Jesus “good teacher” in asking the

question and assumes entry into life is something he must do something
to get. Jesus will welcome the premise and yet redirect it.
Jesus responds with hesitation about being called good, noting only God
is good (v 18). Jesus is alluding to Deut 6:4. God is unique. The harsh
response is a bit surprising and has caused no lack of comment.445 The
word sequence is “why me do you call good.” This shows how in Greek the
reference to Jesus is moved forward for emphasis. Was Jesus distancing
himself from God or was he observing that such a greeting brings him in
connection with God? Neither of these explanations is likely, for Mark is
unlikely to present a story that has the former idea, and the latter idea is too
subtle to be likely.446 Jesus is probably challenging the flattery that is
present and simply redirects the emphasis toward what God desires and
God’s honor.447 The man should not think any person or act is ultimately
good when it is rendered apart from God.448 The answer will connect Jesus
and God in that to do God’s will, he will need to become a follower of Jesus.
Mark 10:15 has already noted the one who enters the kingdom must receive
it as a child, in dependence, not as entitlement, so a redirection is
needed.449
Jesus then continues with a list of the commandments (v 19). The reply
is conceptually like Lev 18:5: the one who keeps God’s statutes lives (also
Deut 30:15–16; Ezek 33:15). Interestingly, he cites the part of the Ten
Commandments that deals with relations with others, numbers 5–10: do
not kill, commit adultery, steal, give false witness, or defraud, and honor
your father and mother (Exod 20:12–16; Deut 5:16–20). To the list of
commandments is added one about defrauding in place of coveting,450
and the fifth commandment is placed last, whereas the rest are in order.
This may be relevant given the man is described later as wealthy. There is
an implied warning not to exploit in order to gain wealth (Mal 3:5 LXX).451
444
Collins, Mark, 476.
445
The saying is enigmatic enough that most commentators see it as authentic. It is seen as
unlikely that the church would have created such a remark; Witherington, Mark, 281;
Hooker, Mark, 241.
446
France, Mark, 402.
447
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 96.
448
Hurtado, Mark, 151.
449
Lane, Mark, 365.
450
Some manuscripts, including B*, lack this command, but it is likely original, as it is more
likely to have been omitted by a copyist than to have been added. Manuscripts including
it are ‫א‬, A, B2, C, D, X, and Θ.
451

More importantly, Jesus is highlighting that loving God means loving

others. God seeks that from people. To live that way is truly to live and
have life.
The man claims to have guarded these all from his youth (v 20). This is a
claim to have kept them faithfully. The response that these things have
been kept causes Jesus to extend his answer to the question and to probe
more deeply.
Jesus responds out of his own love for the man with one more require-
ment that tests the man’s love for others and shows whether he has kept all
these commands (v 21). The mention of Jesus’ love here shows that
challenge and love can go together. This is Mark’s only reference to love
outside of the great commandments (Mark 12:30–33). To love someone is
not always only to affirm them. Sometimes challenge is required.
So what else might be required? Jesus says the man lacks one thing to do.
Jesus’ response calls for everything.452 Jesus is testing both obedience to
God’s commands and whether the man truly loves others, as the Ten
Commandments call for doing. The man is to sell what he has, give it to
the poor, thereby acquiring treasure in heaven – good deeds to produce
recognition and reward from God – and then he is to come and follow
Jesus. The focus is on gaining that which pleases heaven. The call to go and
sell is expressed with an aorist imperative. It is a call for a single act that
leads into the ultimate test. The end of Jesus’ answer to the question about
life focuses on following him, having left all, an idea Jesus has consistently
taught (Mark 8:34–37). He is “challenged to exchange the blessings of this
life for those of the life to come” (Matt 6:19–21 Ps Sol. 9:5; 2 Bar 24:1; Sir
29:10–12).453
This is a unique challenge. In Luke 19:1–10, Zacchaeus sells half and is
declared to be a child of Abraham. This is because Zacchaeus’ orientation
toward others and God is right. In contrast, in this specific case with this
rich man, Jesus presses the matter to expose where the man’s heart is. If a
choice is forced between possessions and God, as shown in loving others
and joining Jesus’ program, what is it the man clings to for life? Seen in this
light, the Law points to promise and to loving God in such a way that Jesus
is followed and people are loved. Lane says, “Keeping the individual
452
Hooker, Mark, 242. Witherington, Mark, 282, n. 98, notes the command is not specifi-
cally to sell all, but that might be implied here. On 283, Witherington says, “The ultimate
test of obedience, then, is seen as the willingness to take up the yoke of discipleship to
Jesus.”
453
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 99.

commandments is no substitute for the readiness for self-surrender to the

absolute claim of God imposed through the call of the Gospel. Jesus’
summons in this context means that true obedience to the Law is rendered
ultimately in discipleship. This man will achieve the perfect observance of
the Law when he surrenders himself and follows Jesus.”454 Is the man
willing to go there?
The man reacts with sorrow and departs sad (v 22). The reaction is vivid,
since the verb stugnazō refers to a face that is crestfallen (BDAG, 949). It
contains a mixture of sadness and resentment. He is not affirmed in the
direction of his life and he will not join Jesus, unlike the earlier response of
Peter, Andrew, John, and James (Mark 1:16–20) – a point Peter will raise in
Mark 10:28.455 He has fallen into a trap Jesus had warned about earlier in
Mark (Mark 4:19; 8:36). Wealth had become a barrier to God and loving
others.456 The exchange ends here, but the teaching has just begun.
Jesus notes how hard it is for those with possessions to enter the king-
dom (vv 23–24).457 He addresses his disciples with tenderness, calling them
children, even as he issues his hard observation. He says it twice for
emphasis, but the second time he notes it is simply difficult to enter the
kingdom of God. The remarks surprised the disciples. The text says they
were amazed the first time (ethambounto – BDAG, 442) and astounded or
overwhelmed (exeplēssonto – BDAG, 308) the second. For them, it was
likely they thought the rich were blessed (Job 1:10; 42:10; Ps 128:1–2; Isa 3:10),
possibly even reflecting obedience (Deut 28:1–14).458
If the rich could not enter the kingdom, who could? Jesus drives the
point home with one further hyperbolic remark. It is easier for a camel to
go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
(v 25). Later rabbis spoke of an elephant going through the eye of a needle
to make a point about the impossibility of something (b. Ber 55b; b.
B. Mesia 38b).459 Although efforts have been made to equate the eye of a
454
Lane, Mark, 367.
455
Collins, Mark, 480.
456
457
Some manuscripts (A, C, D) add “those who trust in riches” in verse 24. It supplies what
is lacking but implied from the previous example. The omission is a harder reading and
likely original, especially as it takes a little of the edge off the saying about it being
difficult to enter the kingdom without any qualification. With the inclusion of trusting
riches, what Jesus says is less shocking, leaving one to wonder why the remark got the
reaction of surprise it did. D also repeats the camel reference here.
458
Lane, Mark, 369.
459
Stein, Mark, 472. In b. B. Mesia 38b, a date palm made of gold is also noted to make the
same point.

needle with a gate and to suggest the illustration is merely of something

difficult, the subsequent discussion shows that something impossible is
meant.460 For the disciples ask who then can be saved (v 26), implying that
if the salvation of the rich is not possible, they wonder who is left.
Inheriting eternal life (Mark 10:17, 21, 23) is now a discussion about being
saved, showing the connection of the two ideas. Three terms pointing to
wealth have been used in the passage: katēmata in verse 22 (BDAG, 572);
chrēmata in verse 23 (BDAG, 1089); and plousios in verse 25 (BDAG, 831).
People with possessions and resources are in view and the descriptions
cover all the angles. If the Gospels and prophets are to guide us, what
wealth can do is to numb people of need for God, creating a sense of self-
dependence and a view that others are here to serve them or to be exploited
(Luke 12:13–21; 16:19–31). In the OT, it was the rich oppressing the poor
that was condemned as a potential misuse of wealth (Amos 2:6; 5:11–12; Isa
1:15–17).
Jesus responds with what is impossible for man is possible with God,
for all things are possible with God (v 27; Gen 18:14; Job 10:13, LXX; 42:2; Zech
8:6, LXX). If God reaches the heart, then a rich person can respond properly
and enter the kingdom. In the context, it is debated if one is to repent461 or to
be generous.462 However, one does not get to the second without the first, so
it is the starting point that God enables so that the rest is possible. Entry into
the kingdom and salvation are the topics focused on here.
Interestingly, in Mark what God makes possible touches on three areas:
dealing with demons (Mark 9:23), with possessions (Mark 10:27), and with
denying God’s will (Mark 14:36). These in turn parallel the three threats in
the parable of the soils (Mark 4:14–19).463
The exchange leads Peter to seek assurance (v 28). Is he smug or simply
querying? Opinions differ, but there is no rebuke in Jesus’ response, so a
smug reply is unlikely. Peter observes that the disciples have left everything
to follow Jesus. Have they not done what the rich man just failed to do? The
verb for leaving is aorist, looking at an act of renunciation, whereas the verb
for following is in the perfect tense, looking to the ongoing effects of the
choice of following. As Mark has made clear, they still have a home (Mark
1:29) and a boat (Mark 3:9), but Peter is contending they have a full
460
Cranfield, Mark, 332; France, Mark, 405, notes that there is no evidence of a small gate
within a double city gate in Jerusalem bearing this name; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 731.
461
Hooker, Mark, 243.
462
Edwards, Mark, 315.
463

commitment to Jesus and have followed him (Mark 1:17–18).464 So, have
they done that which God makes possible?
Jesus replies positively (v 29). He promised a new family and home
awaited those who followed him for the sake of Jesus and the Gospel. Peter
and Andrew had left all (Mark 1:17–18). Jesus had struggled to gain recog-
nition from within his own family (Mark 3:31–35). What had been lost
would be replaced. In fact, they are multiplied a hundredfold. What is lost
is more than replaced by what is gained (v 30). The order is chiastic: home
goes with fields, brothers, sisters, mother, father goes male, female, female,
male. Children are added to complete the reference to family. The social
isolation and self-sacrifice of leaving all means fields are lost as well. Riches
are still in view.
Everything and more that may have been lost, because family might
forsake those who come to him, would be regained in the new community.
The point here is not declaring a right to neglect family; it is that if making
a choice to follow Jesus costs you family because they will not accept your
choice, then you will gain new family. This new family will all come with
persecutions (1 Pet 4:14–16). Mark is always quick to remind his readers of
the suffering of rejection that comes with walking with Jesus. The term for
persecution (diōgmos) always refers to religious persecution in the NT
(Acts 8:1; 13:50; 2 Cor 12:10; 2 Thess 1:4; BDAG 253).
Eternal life also would be gained. This returns us to the original question
in Mark 10:17 and forms an inclusion for the passage. To follow Jesus is to
enter into eternal life. The reference to this age and the age to come reflects
the two-stage eschatological perspective of Jewish hope (1 Enoch 48:7 with
71:15; 4 Ezra 7:50), which the NT also alludes to on occasion (Rom 3:26; 8:18;
12:2; 1 Cor 2:6, 8; Gal 1:4).465
Jesus closes with a remark about eschatological reversal (v 31; Matt 20:16;
Luke 13:30; Mark 9:35). Many who are first in the world today will be last,
whereas the last will become first. Those who are rich may appear to have life
by the tail, but the reality is they are missing the relationship that matters most.
10:32–34 Jesus Predicts His Death and Resurrection for a Third Time
10:32 They were on their way going up to Jerusalem. Jesus was going
ahead of them, and they were amazed, but those who followed were
464
Stein, Mark, 473.
465

afraid. And taking the twelve aside again he began to tell them what
was going to happen to him.
10:33 “Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be
given over to the chief priests and scribes. They will condemn him to
death and give him over to the Gentiles.
10:34 They will mock him and spit on him and flog him, and kill him. And
after three days, he will rise again.”
As Jesus continues to head to Jerusalem, he issues one more prediction
of what will take place there to those who follow him. It is unclear whether
this traveling group is the Twelve only or a larger group of followers. It is
likely that a larger group of those following Jesus would be afraid, whereas
the Twelve would be the ones amazed as the journey of fate draws to
completion.466 Jesus takes the Twelve aside to make his prediction. That
note suggests an originally larger group. This is the third such predica-
tion.467 Mark 8:31; 9:31 introduce the other predictions. The parallels are
Matt 20:17–19 and Luke 18:31–34.
On the journey there is a note of fear (v 32). There is a sense of what Jesus
has said about what will take place, plus the mention of persecutions for
following him. This will not be a normal trip to Jerusalem. Jesus’ restate-
ment reinforces the ominous nature of what is ahead. This will not be the
typical pilgrim trip to Jerusalem to celebrate a feast.
There is more detail than what is said here. It prepares one for the
description of the Passion Week in Mark 14–16. For the first time (v 33),
Jerusalem is named explicitly in a prediction. The full exchange first to the
high priests and scribes and then to Gentiles is predicted. Jesus will be
handed over twice. There also will be mocking, spitting, and flogging (v 34;
Isa 50:4–6; Ps 22:6–8). The leadership will condemn him to death, but
Rome will do the deed, including the acts of insult just described. The
resurrection three days in is also noted. An irony is that this will take place
for the Son of Man. The one who is exalted by God is rejected by men. Jesus
is continuing to prepare his disciples for the suffering ahead. They do not
understand this fully yet, but it is a part not only of Jesus’ calling but of
theirs as well.
466
Stein, Mark, 479.
467
Edwards, Mark, 320, defends the authenticity of these predictions, noting their differ-
ences from one another and the sequencing versus what comes later.

10:35–45 A Dispute about Greatness Leads Jesus to Teach about

Servanthood
10:35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him and said,
“Teacher we want you to do for us whatever we ask.”
10:36 He said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?”
10:37 They said to him, “Give us that one may sit on your right and one on
your left in your glory.”
10:38 But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are
you able to drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am
to be baptized with?”
10:39 They said to him, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them, “You will
drink the cup I drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism I will
be baptized with,
10:40 but to sit at my right or my left is not mine to give. It is for those for
whom it has been prepared.”
10:41 And when the ten heard this, they were angry with James and John.
10:42 And calling them, Jesus said to them, “You know that those
recognized as rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in
high positions use their authority over them.
10:43 But it is not so with you. But whoever wishes to be great among you
is your servant
10:44 and whoever wants to be first is a slave of all.
10:45 For also the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and
give his soul as a ransom for many.”
This scene is in two parts: a dialogue with James and John in Mark
10:35–40 that leads to a series of pronouncements and a subsequent
teaching that Jesus follows up with in Mark 10:41–45, once again to
make a point of emphasis to the disciples on something they need to
learn. The parallel is Matt 20:20–28. A partial, conceptual parallel on the
latter part of the passage appears in Luke 22:24–27. Another structural
point is important. For a second time, the prediction of Jesus’ suffering
has been followed by a corrective instruction to disciples whose minds
are elsewhere (Mark 9:30–35).
Despite all the talk of rejection, persecution, and suffering, some of the
disciples are still fixed on power (vv 35–36). So James and John make a
request to share in powerful roles in the kingdom to come by asking to sit at
his right and left when Jesus comes into glory. Jesus has described this glory
in terms of the Son of Man (Mark 8:38; 13:26). James and John have been
key characters in Mark (Mark 1:19, 29; 3:17, 5:37; 9:2; later, 13:3; 14:33). This is

the only time they are mentioned alone.468 Their special inside group role
may have led them to think their request was possible and reasonable.
Whether these are seats of honor at a messianic banquet or requests to
have a major role in ruling (v 37), the request seeks to trump the other
disciples and gain rank over them. It defines Jesus in terms of what he
might give as a political figure, but this is to misappropriate the role Jesus
has given them. It ignores what Jesus has already taught in Mark 9:34. The
likelihood, given the context of kingdom, is that rule is in view, not merely
seats at a celebration. Seating versus reclining in the request suggests the
same conclusion.469 The point is that being a part of Jesus’ inner group is
not primarily about exercising power and privilege, but about serving those
they are to shepherd.
In Matt 19:28, before he relates this event in Matt 20, Jesus has given
them the promise of sitting on twelve thrones and judging the twelve tribes
of Israel. In Matthew’s version of this scene, the request for the primary
seats of the kingdom comes from their mother. The difference seemingly
deflects some blame from the disciples, but it is unlikely that she acted
alone, given Jesus’ response to teach the disciples as a result. Mark holds the
two sons responsible.470 They form the request almost as a demand – give
us whatever we ask. There is irony in this request, as the only other place
such a carte blanche is made is by Herod to Herodias’ daughter, a request
the narrative portrayed as foolish and reckless.471 They may be seeking a
reward for having left everything to follow Jesus.
Jesus turns attention to what is ahead in Jerusalem (v 38). Can the disciples
drink the cup that Jesus faces (Mark 14:36) and experience the baptism that
lies ahead (Luke 12:50)? The reference returns to the suffering and service
Jesus will perform when he is left to face death for being faithful. In one sense,
they cannot do what Jesus is about to do, but in another sense they can. The
cup often refers to experiencing judgment (Ps 23:5; 75:8; 116:13; Isa 51:17–22; Jer
25:15–28; 49:12 – where those innocent drink the cup; 51:7; Lam 4:21 – where
God’s people also suffer; Ezek 23:31–34).472 The waters alluded to in the image
468
Edwards, Mark, 321, who sees Peter as the source and notes the error, is even more elitist
than the remark of John in Mark 9:38.
469
France, Mark, 415.
470
Stein, Mark, 484, speaks of the mother as a possible intermediary in Matthew.
471
Collins, Mark, 495; France, Mark, 415.
472
Taylor, St. Mark, 440–41. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 747, notes a series of texts that use the
expression for martyrdom in later Judaism (T. Ab. 1:3; Tg. Neof. Gen 40:23 and Deut 32:1;
Martyrdom of Polycarp 14:2; Martyrdom of Isaiah 5:13).

of baptism can refer to being overwhelmed with troubles (Ps 42:7; Isa 43:2).
To say that the cup is only about martyrdom is too specific. Losing one’s life
(Mark 8:35) in the sense of discipleship is in view.473 Martyrdom may be
included, but the suffering pointed to in the imagery is broad. Leadership is
not primarily about power for Jesus, but rather service in the context of
pressure and calamity. By exercising this type of leadership, they walk the
same path as Jesus and witness to his unique ransom in suffering for others
(Mark 10:45) and its restorative goals (Col 1:24).474
The disciples reply that they are able to do this (v 39), possibly not entirely
understanding all that Jesus is asking or saying. Yet Jesus says they will drink
that cup and experience that baptism. James was martyred by Herod (Acts
12:2), and John was imprisoned at Patmos for his faith. However, he cannot
grant them their request of being seated on the right and left, for that is not
his to give (v 40). Certain things in the program are in the Father’s hands
alone. That belongs to those for whom God has prepared it, using a divine
passive to make the point. The saying points to authenticity because it puts
certain things in the hands of the Father alone.475 The seeming limitation on
Jesus is not likely to have been made up by the early church after they
preached a glorified Jesus. Here, Jesus does not deny that there is a rule to
come, but the roles in it are the business of the Father, not of the Son of Man.
Needless to say, when word got out about this exchange, the ten were
angry with James and John (v 41). Mark 10:14; 14:4 are the other texts in
which Mark uses this term for anger (ananakteō – BDAG, 5). The reaction
points to one of the effects of an attempt to competitively best another in
the community.
So, in classic Markan style, Jesus now teaches them privately to make the
correction (v 42). He contrasts the power and authority of rulers in the
world at large, often applied in the patron-client context, with the way this
newly formed community is to work. Those recognized as rulers react this
way as a cultural given.476 Rank counts in the world of the patron. Honor
473
Stein, Mark, 485.
474
Collins, Mark, 497.
475
On a defense of the core authenticity of the scene, Peter Stuhlmacher, Versöhnung,
Gesetz und Gerechtigkeit: Aufsätze zur biblischen Theologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1981), 27–42; Peter Stuhlmacher, Reconciliation, Law and Righteousness
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 16–29; Stein, Mark, 486. Other texts that limit Jesus are
Mark 13:32 and Acts 1:7.
476
The reference to being recognized as rulers is sometimes seen as negative, but it is not
negative, as the expression was common. These leaders were seen and experienced as
rulers; Edwards, Mark, 325.

goes to him. The ruler is served and demands it. They exercise their
authority. They “lord it over” others. This term in the LXX can be
neutral (Gen 1:28; Ps 72:8 [=71:8 LXX]), reflecting violent acts (Num
21:24; 32:22) or acts that take advantage (Ps 19:13 [=18:14 LXX]; similar
with a slightly different term is James 2:6).477 Rank rests in hierarchy and
seeks to take advantage of it. Luke 22:25 in a distinct context has a less
radical image by pointing to benefactors and lacking a reference to
lording over others.
Jesus teaches something different than the society around him. In the
new community first place goes to the servant and slave of all (vv 43–44).
It is service that counts for rank. The term diakonos is an everyday term
for a servant, usually describing attendants of one sort or another like
those who serve a king or the master of a house (BDAG, 230: Matt 22:13;
John 2:5). This one serves a social superior. This could be a freedman or
a slave. The term for a slave (doulos) adds to the image, reflecting a
position most in the ancient world would have sought to avoid, as it was
the lowest social status possible. In fact to call a king a slave was to insult
his pandering to the people (Plato, Republic 569b; Cicero, On the
Paradoxes of the Stoics 41; Philo, On Joseph 35).478 Although there are
Greco-Roman texts that point to the king as a servant, they do not stoop
down to slave level.479 It refers to one who serves out of social obligation
(BDAG, 260). Jesus has turned everything upside down. He is reinfor-
cing earlier teaching (Mark 8:35; 9:35; 10:31). One who is great serves the
community he is called to lead.
The example for such total sacrificial service is Jesus himself. Jesus again
uses the term Son of Man to refer to himself in a pronouncement (v 45). He
came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for
many.480 The background to the image appears to be Isa 53:10, 12 with its
477
478
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 748–49. As he says, “Servitude and sovereignty, then, are logical
opposites, whereas our passage claims that the former is the pathway to the latter.”
479
Collins, Mark, 499, cites the example of Antigonus Gonatus who taught his son that a
kingdom is “held to be a noble servitude,” citing Moshe Weinfeld, “The King as the
Servant of the People: The Source of the Idea,” JJS 33 (1982): 189.
480
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 119–25, has a full discussion of issues tied to the unity of this
verse with the unit as a whole, the positive role of Isa 53, and authenticity. He argues for
the authenticity of the verse. Hooker, Mark, 248–49, questions if Isa 53 is in view,
contending that ransom links to an offering that brings deliverance (Exod 13:13–16),

picture of the suffering of the servant for many. The image of ransom for
many looks to some form of payment substitution (Exod 21:30 LXX; Sir
29:15; 1 Macc 2:50; Isa 43:3–4; 1 Tim 2:6; in Judaism, 2 Macc 7:37–38; 4 Macc
1:11; 6:28–29; 17:21–22; 11QtgJob 38:2–3; Life of Adam and Eve 3:1).481 It could
refer to purchasing a slave or war prisoner or some other object (normally
plural, Exod 21:30; 30:10–12; Num 35:31; Lev 25:47–55; Isa 45:13, but Mark has
a singular). Mark 14:24 speaks of the blood of the covenant poured out for
“many” making a similar point. Jesus’ service will be his death that opens
up the way of God to many. It also is an example to those who seek to
reflect him in their own spiritual walk.
10:46–52 Jesus Heals the Blind Bartimaeus

10:46 And they came to Jericho. As Jesus and his disciples and a large
crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, a blind
beggar, was sitting by the road.
10:47 And when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout
and say, “Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.”
10:48 Many scolded him that he should be silent, but he was shouting
even more, “Son of David, have mercy on me.”
10:49 Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” So they called the blind man
and said to him, “Have courage. Get up. He is calling you.”
10:50 He threw off his cloak, jumped up and came to Jesus.
10:51 Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?” The
blind man said to him, “My teacher, let me see again.”
10:52 And Jesus said to him, “Go, your faith has delivered you.”
Immediately he regained his sight and was following him on
the road.
A messianic miracle account is the final event before Jesus reaches
Jerusalem. It is the final healing miracle in Mark. The parallels are Matt
20:29–34 and Luke 18:35–43. The event frames everything about to take
place in Jerusalem as set in messianic hope (Isa 35:5 – the blind will be
not a sin offering as in Isa 53:11. The problem is that Jesus pictures his death as both. At
the Last Supper, Mark 14:24 looks to the inauguration of a new covenant, which assumes
an offering to restore from sin. Evans notes the ransom is for “many” (Isa 53:12), which
also speaks of making intercession for sinners. She sees a martyr’s death for many and
appeals to Dan 7 and 4 Macc 6:29 and 17:21, but Dan 7 is not about the Son of Man’s
death. For a defense of Isa 53 being in the background, France, Mark, 420–21.
481
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 122.

healed in this time). Fulfilment is present. It also contrasts with the pre-
vious failure of the disciples. Here is someone who simply seeks Jesus’
mercy.
Jesus draws near to Jerusalem as he arrives at Jericho, only about 18
miles northeast of Jerusalem (v 46). Mark says that as Jesus left the town,
a blind man, Bartimaeus, son of Timaeus, was seated by the road. Luke
18:35 puts the healing upon entering Jericho, but he has the unique story
of Zacchaeus following, so it may be that he has rearranged the order to
place Zacchaeus as a climactic Jericho event.482 The name of the blind
man and his relationship to Timaeus are details unique to Mark and rare
for him. It may be a mixed Greek and Aramaic name. Mark spells out the
relationship that the name in Aramaic already communicates for those
who do not know the language by calling him the son of Timaeus. It is
mentioned in a way that looks to point to a known figure to Mark’s
audience, a vivid detail.
Upon hearing that Jesus of Nazareth was present and with amazing
insight as to who Jesus is (v 47), the blind man cries out for Jesus as Son of
David to be merciful to him. Until this point, only Peter had made such a
messianic confession of Jesus in Mark (Mark 8:27–30). That Messiah might
perform miracles appears in 4 Ezra 7:26–29 and 13:50. Son of David as a
messianic title appears in Ps Sol 17:21. The crowd scolded him (v 48), trying
to silence him. They thought him unworthy of Jesus’ attention and time.
Their approach is like the restrictive approach of the disciples earlier (Mark
10:13) in considering some unworthy of attention. Jesus is not so restrictive
with people in both cases.
The blind man did not back off but was raising his voice even more and
cried out a second time to the Son of David for mercy (v 48). The
imperfect emphasizes the repetition involved in the call for help. The
man cries out to Jesus to help restore him. As he nears Jerusalem, Jesus
now begins to ignore the public messianic hesitation he had previously
encouraged.
Jesus calls for the blind man (v 49). The crowd now encourages him and
tells him to get up as Jesus is calling. They tell him to take heart (Matt 9:2;
John 16:33; 1 Kings 17:13). Clearly excited (v 50), the man throws off his
cloak, jumps up, and comes to Jesus. The cloak may have been on the
482
Stein, Mark, 493.

ground to take offerings of alms from other compassionate people.483 In

that case, only an undergarment would have remained on him. The
cloak now gets tossed aside. He may not need it anymore. He has left
what he has.
Jesus asks what he wants in exactly the terms he had asked James and
John in Mark 10:36, but one request was worthy, and the other was not
(v 51). The contrast is intentional. The man replies, addressing him
respectfully as “my teacher” (John 20:16), that he wishes Jesus to permit
him to see again. Jesus tells the man to go – that his faith has healed him
(v 52). The address may have the force of “my master” in this persona-
lized form, since there is no request for teaching present and this is the
original force of the word (BDAG, 902).484 The man’s faith had been
present, respectful yet persistent in the face of the crowd’s attempt to
prevent him from addressing Jesus. He believed Jesus was able to change
his future. He had gone from begging with no status to following Jesus in
a new life.
His sight returned by merely a word of report that the man’s faith had
delivered him (Mark 5:34; Luke 7:50; 17:19). Mark 7:24–30 also has a healing
by word alone. Jesus tells the man to go as his faith has saved him. The
dismissal with the command to go is typical of dismissal in Mark (Mark
1:44; 2:11; 5:19; 7:29). So the man follows Jesus on the road. The terms
“follow” and “on the way” repeat Markan themes for discipleship (Mark
1:18; 2:14–15; 6:1; 8:27, 34; 9:33–34, 38; 10: 21, 28, 32). It evokes that direction as
the man’s response.
No other reaction by the crowd is given. The focus is solely on the act.
Jesus has healed a blind man as Son of David as he travels to enter
Jerusalem. The blind man, able to “see” so much better than many,
now is also able to see. He sees truly and clearly enough to follow Jesus
on the way. A sign of the arrival of the eschaton is present as the
curtain goes up on his entry into the city (Isa 35:4–5; 61:1–4; Matt 11:5;
Luke 7:22). As Jesus faces death, his ministry continues to serve and
draw people.
483
Hooker, Mark, 253; Taylor, St. Mark, 449. The choice between a descriptive or symbolic
act is a false one in one sense. The real act can also be symbolic. The literary echoes in
this passage to other parts of Mark point to an intentional symbol here. Even the blind
man has left something behind in response to Jesus.
484
S. J. D. Cohen, “Epigraphical Rabbis,” JQR 72 (1981–82):1–17.

11:1–16:8 in jerusalem, jesus meets controversy and

rejection, leading to his death and resurrection, as he
also teaches of suffering, judgment, and vindication
11:1–12:24 Jesus’ Coming to Jerusalem as a Messianic Claimant Leads
to Controversy
11:1–11 Jesus Enters Jerusalem to Jubilation as the One Who Comes in the
Lord’s Name and Is Tied to the Kingdom
11:1 And when they drew near to Jerusalem, near Bethphage and Bethany,
at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two of his disciples.
11:2 And said to them, “Go to the village ahead of you. And immediately
upon entering it, you will find a colt tied there that has never been
ridden. Untie it and bring it here.
11:3 If someone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord
needs it and immediately he will send it back here.’”
11:4 So they went out and found a colt tied at a door, outside in the street
and untied it.
11:5 Some people standing there were saying to them “What are you
doing, untying the colt?”
11:6 The disciples replied to them even as Jesus said, and they let them go.
11:7 And they brought the colt to Jesus, threw their cloaks on it, and he sat
on it.
11:8 And many spread their cloaks on the road and others spread
branches they had cut from the fields.
11:9 Both those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,
“Hosanna! Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!
11:10 Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! Hosanna in the
Highest!”
11:11 Then Jesus entered Jerusalem and into the temple. After looking
around at everything, he went out to Bethany with the twelve, as the
hour was already late.
We now enter the last act of the Gospel, the Passion Week. The week is
in three parts in Mark 11–16: Actions and Teaching before the Passion
(Mark 11–13), The Events Leading to Passion (Mark 14–15), and The
Discovery of the Empty Tomb and Resurrection (Mark 16). In Mark, this
is Jesus’ only trip to Jerusalem. Mark presents the events that lead into
Jesus’ death and resurrection. Most of Mark 11–12 contains controversy
accounts until Jesus is seized. Jesus consciously turned up the heat of his
claims. These actions led to his rejection by those in authority. The hope of

return and vindication comes with teaching in Mark 13 about keeping

watch and staying faithful.
The first scene is a simple entrance narrative.485 The parallels are Matt
21:1–11, Luke 19:28–40, and John 12:12–16. Mark’s account is positive, lack-
ing notes of questioning or objection in the parallels. Jesus’ entry is
purposely provocative. It is loaded with messianic imagery. This and the
following temple cleansing give an opportunity and challenge to the
religious leadership to recognize what God is doing. However, the entry
is “atriumphal” in that Jesus does not receive the kind of citywide welcome
a dignitary like Pilate would have received. In that sense, it is an “anti-
entry.” Jesus comes with no entourage like an army to show his power. He
comes with no welcoming committee from the city he enters. Disciples
speak up for him, not the city.486 Some who join in may well reflect
celebration tied to participating in a feast. Unlike Matthew and Luke,
Mark does not note any rejection of the entry. Subsequent events will
show that dimension of reaction to Jesus’ arrival. Still, the act is messianic,
juxtaposed to the cry of Bartimaeus in the previous event, as well as
associated with the Mount of Olives, the riding of an unused animal, and
the cry of the crowd in Mark 11:10.
Jesus now approaches Jerusalem as he enters Bethphage and Bethany at
the Mount of Olives (v 1), given that Jerusalem is on the other side of the
Mount, which rose more than 2,600 feet above sea level and a few hundred
feet over Jerusalem, overlooking the eastern side of the Temple. The order
goes from Jerusalem as the goal back out to where they stayed. Bethany is
simply on the other side of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem, only 2
miles away, whereas Bethphage is a half-mile away, with its outer wall
touching the edge of Jerusalem according to later sources (b. Men. 78b).
The Mount had messianic associations tied to it in Zech 14:1–9.
485
Ancient entries to honor a dignitary are common. We have evidence of twelve such scenes
in ancient literature; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 139 (Alexander-Josephus, Ant. 11.8.325–39;
Apollonius – 2 Macc 4:21–22; Judas Maccabees – 1 Macc 4:19–25; Josephus, Ant. 12.312; 1
Macc 5:45–54; Josephus, Ant. 12.348–49; Jonathan Maccabees – 1 Macc 10:86; Simon
Maccabees – 1 Macc 13:43–48; 1 Macc 13:49–51; Antogonus – Josephus, War 1.73–74; Ant
13.304–6; Marcus Agrippa – 16.12–15; Archelaus – 17.194–239). A full discussion of the
scene, including issues tied to authenticity, comes from Brent Kinman, “Jesus’ Royal Entry
into Jerusalem,” in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 383–427. On entries, D. R. Catchpole, “The
‘Triumphal’ Entry,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 319–35; also Kinman, “Parousia, Jesus’
‘A-Triumphal’ Entry, and the Fate of Jerusalem (Luke 19:28–44),” JBL 118 (1999): 279–94.
486

Jesus sends two of his disciples to a neighboring village to get a colt to

ride (v 2). The instructions are very specific. The account is told without
any sense of whether there had been an arrangement or understanding
ahead of time. There simply is the sense that Jesus is completely aware and
in control of what is taking place. He tells them they will find a previously
unridden colt of a donkey tied up as they enter the city (m. Sanh 2:5 – a
horse for a king is not for anyone else to ride; BDAG, 900, pōlos – of any
colt, but here of a donkey as is common in the region; Gen 32:15; 49:11; Judg
10:4; 12:14; 1 Kings 1:33, 38; Zech 9:9). They are to untie it and bring it back. If
anyone asks what the two disciples are doing, they are to simply explain
that the Lord has need and will return it (v 3). The promise to return it
makes a reference to the owner as the one addressed here unlikely.487 Jesus
is the one calling for the animal’s use.
Things happened exactly as Jesus described (v 4). The colt is there as they
enter the city. When asked, they respond as Jesus communicated. Those
who ask let them take the colt, probably on the principle of angaria,
“pressed transportation,” where a dignitary is loaned the use of something
(vv 5–6).488 Jesus had enough status for this to be done. Thus he is called
“the Lord” here, a sign of social respect. The reference to Lord is neither to
the owner of the colt or to God. It is simply a note that the need of someone
with social rank exists for a time and he will return the colt when done
(possible similar uses of kurios: Mark 7:28; 12:9; 13:35).
When the disciples return with the animal, they prepare it for Jesus and
his entrance into Jerusalem, placing their cloaks over it (v 7). These cloaks
are like the outer garment Bartimaeus had left behind in the last scene.
Jesus sits on the donkey and enters the city, with many spreading their
cloaks before him and others spreading branches (v 8), much as people did
at the Feast of Tabernacles (2 Macc 10:7; m Sukkah 3–4).489 Jesus is entering
the city as a king, something Zech 9:9 had anticipated (rule and a colt are
also linked in Gen 49:10–11). This is a text Mark does not cite, unlike the
parallels in Matt 21:5 and John 12:15.
Disciples were paving a way of honor for Jesus, like the “red carpet”
greeting of a king (1 Kings 1:38–40 – Solomon at his coronation; 2 Kings
487
Stein, Mark, 504, notes that the possibility the owner was originally in view here is
unlikely.
488
J. D. M. Derrett, “Law in the New Testament: The Palm Sunday Colt,” NovT 13 (1971):
241–58.
489
France, Mark, 433. An objection to the event’s historicity that the feast time does not
match is not persuasive. The actions here are spontaneous responses with cultural
conventions at work.

9:13 – when Jehu was anointed king; 1 Macc 13:51 – of Simon Maccabees).490
That honor was bestowed by acknowledging him publicly with cries of
“Hosanna!” They confessed him as coming in the name of the Lord in line
with Ps 122:26, a psalm portraying an affirmation of welcome to the temple
(v 9). It is part of the “liturgy of entry and the gate.”491 They also acknowl-
edged praise for the coming kingdom of our father David (v 10; 2 Sam 7:6–
16; Ps 132).492 So here we see kingdom and the person from David placed
together in a messianic proclamation (Mark 10:47–48).493 God has sent the
one who brings the promised kingdom, so the highest praise is to be
offered. Hosanna also adds the note of expected deliverance (Ps 118:25),
for it reflects a request to “save now” (Ps 117:26 LXX) or “help, I pray”
(BDAG, 1106). It was used as a call to praise, as one calls on God to be
responsive. Jesus is associated with God activity to save.
The act would have blended in with the general celebratory atmosphere
of a feast, so there was no need for Roman soldiers to have reacted. Jesus’
act was modest and symbolic. It also would have been just a part of the
entering the tumult that pilgrims would have been generating, with its
significance easily missed.494
Mark ends the entry here (v 11). Unlike Matt 21:15–16, Luke 19:39–40, and
John 12:19, there is no discussion or hint of the reaction and criticism of
these notes of praise. Mark’s presentation is strictly focused on Jesus,
sharing only the positive. The messiah Jesus enters the city, surrounded
490
Such acts took place on occasion (Plutarch, Cato Minor 7); Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20,
143–44.
491
Collins, Mark, 520, citing Kraus on the Psalm.
492
On messianic hope, Bateman, Bock, and Johnston, Jesus the Messiah.
493
Contra Lane, Mark, 396–97, who sees no explicit messianic emphasis because there is no
affirmation of Jesus’ majesty, and Hooker, Mark, 260. We should distinguish between
Jesus’ intent in permitting the praise and having set up the act and what people may have
been aware of in joining in the praise. John 12:16 recognizes the disciples did not
understand completely the significance of the event and its tie to Scripture at the time.
Curious also is the remark of Edwards, Mark, 337, that the reference to the kingdom of
our father David does not evoke overt messianism, but is eschatological. He is correct to
see the portrayal as subdued, but it is quite present in the combination of symbols
applied, so, correctly, Collins, Mark, 520. To evoke David in an eschatological context is
to point to messianic and salvation hope. As is often the case in the Gospels, what Jesus
does points to who he is. Especially misdirected is to distinguish the kingdom of God
from the coming kingdom of David. The two are part of the same promised and hoped
for rule package.
494
Stein, Mark, 507; Hooker, Mark, 261; Evans, Mark, 140; Edwards, Mark, 338, who says
what does not happen with this act is just as significant, given that Jesus is not welcomed
by the religious leaders who see what is taking place.

by the praise of those who enter with him. For Mark, Jerusalem has her
chance to accept her king and her promise.
In this way, Jesus enters the city and comes to the temple. Nothing
happens.495 He looks around and receives no welcome. Given what hap-
pens in the next event, Jesus clearly saw something he did not like. So this
inspection comes out of the regal context just invoked by his entry.
He returned for the night to Bethany as it was late. Jerusalem swelled to
up to triple its size for feasts, so pilgrims often stayed just outside of town.
So, the opportunity for Jerusalem to accept the offer of her king had come
and gone. Instead, Jesus was headed in another direction, as he is going
more public with his claims, leading to the reaction those acts will generate.
11:12–25 Jesus Juxtaposes the Cursing of the Fig Tree with the Cleansing
of the Temple as He Makes Israel Accountable
11:12 And the next day, as they were coming out of Bethany, he was
hungry.
11:13 And seeing a fig tree from afar with leaves, he came to see if he might
find anything on it, and coming to it, he found nothing except leaves,
for it was not the season for figs.
11:14 And responding, he said to it, “May no one ever eat fruit from you
again.” And his disciples heard it.
11:15 Then they came to Jerusalem. Jesus entered the temple area and
began to drive out the moneychangers and those who were buying in
the temple. He turned over the tables of the moneychangers and the
chairs of those selling doves.
11:16 And he would not permit anyone to carry anything through the
temple courts.
11:17 Then he was teaching and saying to them, “Is it not written, ‘My
house will be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have
turned it into a hideout for bandits.”
11:18 The chief priests and scribes heard it and were considering how they
might destroy him, for they feared him, because the entire crowd was
amazed by his teaching.
11:19 When evening came, Jesus and his disciples went outside the city.
11:20 In the morning as they passed by, they saw the fig tree withered
from the roots.
11:21 And Peter, remembering, said to him, “Rabbi, look the fig tree you
cursed has withered.”
495
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 147, says simply that “Jesus was ignored.”

11:22 Jesus, responding, said to them, “Have faith in God.

11:23 Truly I say to you, if someone says to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up
and thrown into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart but believes
that what he says will take place, it will be done for him.
11:24 Because of this, I say to you, whatever you pray and ask for, believe
that you have received it, and it will be yours.
11:25 And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against
anyone, forgive him, so that your Father in heaven will forgive you
your sins.”
This scene has to qualify as one of the most unusual in all of the Jesus
tradition. It is a nature miracle account that is one of the few places in the
NT where the miracle performed has a negative effect.496 It is a symbolic
judgment miracle, as a fig tree is cursed. The symbolism has OT roots.
Often associated with the vine and having a rich and varied symbolic role
there, this tree and its fruit frequently represent the people of God (Isa 28:4;
Jer 8:13; 24:1–10; 29:17; Hos 9:10, 16–17; Mic 7:1).497 It is included in a
sandwich construction that also is common in Mark. So we get the curse,
then the cleansing of the temple, and only after that event do we see the
effects of the curse. The unit is very intentionally constructed. The fig tree
and temple scene are of one cloth. The temple scene is an act of judgment
that results in a pronouncement. The parallels are Matthew 21:12–22, Luke
19:45–48, and John 2:13–17 (also Thomas 106).498 The following unit on faith
is more closely tied to the curse in Matthew 21:20 as the disciples ask how
the fig tree was able to wither at once. The pall of judgment for Israel and
her need to return to God is a shadow cast on the events leading to Jesus’
death. Some expected such cleansing acts of Messiah, but it was of a purge
of the unrighteous and of Gentiles (Ps Sol 17:22–30). Jesus’ cleansing is
setting up spiritual renewal that extends beyond Israel.
496
Similar kinds of events are the temporary judgment on Zechariah in Luke 1, Paul’s
temporary blindness in Acts 9, and Paul’s judgment on Bar Jesus in Acts 13:8–12. For
Jesus’ acts, it is unique in its negative impact. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 151, notes that Luke
9:51–56 is a contrastive text where a judgment is prevented. Of course, that text was
having the disciples contend for judging people, not a symbolic act.
497
498
John’s placement of the incident early in his Gospel has led to discussion of whether two
such events existed, who moved it, or both. It is unlikely that Jesus could have gotten
away with this kind of disruptive act twice. It also seems likely that the Synoptic
placement is correct and that John moved the event forward because it typifies what
Jesus knew was in man, as an introduction to the rejection his Gospel also will describe.
Hooker, Mark, 262–63, argues the tradition knew of the event but not its chronological
locale, so each chose its placement.

It is the day after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (v 12). The specificity of the
timing is also unlike the way Mark normally introduces events. Jesus was
hungry, and seeing a fig tree from a distance, he went over to it to look for
fruit. But there was nothing. Mark notes it was not yet the season for figs
(v 13).499 It was early to mid-April, and during this time of year figs became
ripe in May or June. The timing between God’s program and God’s people
was off. This led Jesus to curse the tree and say that no one would ever eat
fruit from it again (v 14). Mark notes that the disciples heard him make the
remark. As the next event shows, there is symbolism here. Israel is not
bearing fruit at the time God’s program calls for. It looks to be coming later.
The idea is expressed distinctly in Luke 13:6–9 with its parable of the
fruitless vine.
The scene abruptly shifts to the temple, and Jesus acts immediately upon
his arrival there (v 15). He drove out those who were buying and selling in
the temple courts. He turned over the tables of the moneychangers and
those selling doves for sacrifices. No one was allowed to carry materials
through the area of the temple courts, likely located at the southern
portico. The act is contained in a relatively small space where a bottleneck
could form for worshippers and was itself symbolic of larger concerns
about the activity of the temple, as we shall see.500 It is quite possible
Caiaphas had just moved this activity into the temple courts from a slightly
further locale at the Mount of Olives.501 These services allowed for the use
of the Tyrian shekel as the sanctioned coin for the half-shekel temple tax
(Exod 30:11–16) and for unblemished doves for sacrifices (Lev 12:6; 15:14, 29;
m. Sheqalim 1:1, 1:3).502
Jesus’ objection to the activity is summed up in a scriptural rebuke he
gives (vv 16–17), using two texts, Isa 56:7 and Jer 7:11. The first OT text says
499
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 155, asks whether Jesus was looking for lingering winter figs or
early buds (so also Edwards, Mark, 339–40), but prefers to see the timing explanation as
simply saying it would be a difficult time to find figs so Jesus went to check. However,
because we are in a scene that becomes a carried-out prophetic and symbolic act, the
ultimate point seems to be more about a lack of congruence between what God’s
messenger sought and what was found, as Evans also notes. Lane, Mark, 401, sees Mic
7:1 in the background, with the idea stated negatively in Jer 8:13. Jesus was looking for the
first figs and there were none. They had squandered the gifts God had given, and there
was not even hope of fruit. It may be the odd note about timing from Mark that explains
why the disciples were impacted by Jesus’ act of cursing the tree that leads Peter to make
an observation about it later in verses 20–21.
500
Stein, Mark, 516–17; Edwards, Mark, 342.
501
France, Mark, 444; V. Eppstein, “The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing
of the Temple,” ZNW 55 (1964): 42–58.
502
Lane, Mark, 405.

what the temple should be, whereas the second argues what it has fallen
into becoming. The first measures what should be going on, whereas the
second cries out against what is taking place.
Citing Isa 56:7, Jesus notes in verse 17 that God’s temple was designed to
be “a house of prayer for all nations.” That stands written and that is what
the temple should be. The southern portico led into the Court of Gentiles,
the closest Gentiles could get to the temple proper. So the crowding of this
area with merchants prevented the opportunity for Gentiles who came to
the temple to pray undistracted. The action was symbolic of the wrong
spiritual priorities.
It gets even worse, because those who are doing commerce in the courts
and the leadership sanctioning it have turned that sacred space into a
habitat for bandits. This language is from Jer 7:11.503 The compliant is of
taking advantage of others, leading to a demeaning of the temple from what
it should be. It also appears to speak to the sin of the people who participate
in such a system (Mal 3:3–10). The Jeremiah 7 passage as a whole makes the
point that sin can be judged, and the temple is not an elixir to judgment
when sin exists. What was a sacred place of prayer is now a place where
petty thieves reside.
The entire prophetic act is a current rebuke of the leadership’s operation
of the temple and the people who submit to it, an act they could hardly
ignore.504 It is a prophetic indictment that explains why Jesus must face
death for others. It also explains why the leaders get more active to deal
with Jesus (v 18). His indictment in public at the most sacred spot on earth
for a Jew leaves them no choice. Jesus has tuned up the heat, claiming the
temple back for what he represents and for God.
Yet there is more. Just as the temple was cleansed in the past by Josiah
(2 Kings 23) and after its pollution by Antiochus Epiphanes, and Judas
Maccabees cleansed it (1 Macc 4:39–59), so now Jesus offers to cleanse the
temple and, more importantly, to renew the people.505 This is why he
comes to Jerusalem, though ultimately and ironically that cleansing will
lead to and require his death, and also will mean judgment for some.
There is a significant debate about whether the temple act is a cleansing
or a prediction of destruction, given the fig tree image. It is a complex
503
For details on how Isa 56 and Jer 7 fit into the understanding of this event, Evans, Mark
8:27–16:20, 175–78.
504
Lane, Mark, 407, is correct to stress that Jesus’ act has immediate relevance and is not
just about the future.
505

debate, and a good case can be made on both sides. We have already noted
that the critique has relevance for Jesus’ time that should not be under-
estimated. However, the eschatological nature of Jesus’ actions also looks to
the future.
For a cleansing: Jesus says what the temple is to be, not that the temple is
going away. The problem is not the temple, but the people who occupy and
direct it. For the act pointing to destruction: the reality of the judgment that
followed in CE 70. Other images in the context also can point in this
direction, including Jesus’ predictions of the temple’s destruction (Mark
13:1–2), and the image of the cursed fig tree in the previous scene.
It may be that the debate exists in part because CE 70 is connected in the
Gospels with a judgment of Israel for her unfaithfulness, something other
Gospels texts also teach (Luke 13:33–34; 19:41–44). The more difficult ques-
tion is whether such a judgment on Israel, which did come in CE 70, was
anticipated to be permanent. Here texts like Acts 3:18–22 or Romans 11
speak to a hope for a restoration of the very people now subject to
judgment. So it may be best to see a judgment of an unfaithful people, a
cleansing of a temple where they are to gather, and a picture of Jesus as the
bearer of a new kind of sacredness that brings it all with him in his call for
spiritual renewal and accountability.506
Jesus’ direct prophetic challenge to the leadership in verse 18 does not
gain a receptive response. Jesus’ act required some response: either change
the way things were being done at the temple, or reject what Jesus is doing.
The latter course is chosen by the chief priests and scribes. It is the ruling
priests in Jerusalem who are responding, along with those who helped
506
For a more complete look at this debate, see Klyne Snodgrass, “The Temple Incident,” in
Bock and Webb, Key Events, 430–80. He opts for a “prophetic protest that pointed to
future eschatological hope” (471). He sees both judgment and cleansing, looking to a day
of a future pure temple as fits broader Jewish expectation in this period. He cites an array
of texts supporting this expectation (4Q174, 11Q Temple 29:8–10; 1 Enoch 90:28–29; Tobit
13:16–17; Jubilees 1:15–17; Syb Oracles 3:286–294; 2 Baruch 68:5–6; Benediction 14 of the
Shemoneh Esreh). The point is that calls for eschatological restoration, such as we see in
Acts 3, assume something like this (Isa 2:1–4=Mic 4:1–4), looking to a day when the
temple is restored (Ezek 37:21–28; chaps. 40–48; Isa 56:1–8; Zeph 3:8–20; Zech 6:9–15;
14:4–21, and Mal 3:1–4). Whatever and for all Jesus brings as “new temple” in the NT, it
need not entail the exclusion of this element of the eschatological hope which is so
affirmed across the OT and so became embedded in eschatological expectation. Marcus,
Mark 8–16, 782–83, also contends for a both/and reading. He argues that trading on the
temple precinct was rebuked as sacrilegious (Zech 14:21 – looking to a day without such)
and needing reform, while predicting destruction. Contrast Edwards, Mark, 345–46,
who sees only a prediction of destruction and no cleansing. The harder question is
whether there is foreseen a future for the destroyed temple with all nations present.

them in their work with the Law. The rising attention Jesus is gaining in
Jerusalem required that they stop Jesus, if they were not going to join him.
So they discuss how they might destroy him. It is an indirect way to say how
they might kill him. His teaching was amazing to the whole crowd. He was
making an impression on them that could challenge their authority.507 The
unrest could arouse Rome to respond. They sensed a need to act.
Something had to be done. In many ways, Jesus’ action at the temple was
the last controversy that locked in the course the leaders would take with
Jesus. Meanwhile, Jesus had left the city for Bethany.
The plan is the working out of events Jesus had predicted in Mark 8:31
and 10:33. It solidified a direction already set after the first round of
controversies Mark narrated in Mark 2:1–3:5, culminating in the commit-
ment to destroy Jesus in 3:6. The week is taking on the character it will have
until Jesus is crucified. Chief priests, scribes, and/or elders will be key in
this movement at several points from here on (Mark 11:27; 12:12; 14:1, 43, 53).
It was this Judean leadership that drove the initial response that led to the
cross.
In the morning (vv 19–20), Jesus and the disciples passed by the fig tree
Jesus had visited earlier. It was now withered from the roots. Matthew 21:19
simply said the tree withered at once, using a typical Matthean literary
summary, as he often condenses events. It is not just the leaves that are
dead, but the entire tree from head to toe. Peter noticed this (v 21), recalled
what Jesus had said (Mark 11:14), and pointed out to Jesus that the tree he
had cursed now had withered. The idea of withering from the roots has OT
precedent as an expression or picture of the loss of power (Job 18:16; Ezek
17:9).508 If the fig tree pictures Israel through her leadership, the connection
may apply.
What is interesting here is that it is Jesus’ word of judgment that has
been executed. There was no invoking of God to act. The authority is seen
as his directly, although Jesus’ response will indicate a connection to God.
Jesus responds by calling them to faith in God (v 22), teaching them that
faith can lead to unusual outcomes.509 Faith in God can allow the disciples
507
508
Collins, Mark, 533.
509
There is much discussion on whether Mark 11:22–25 originally was an independent
saying of Jesus, given its topic of faith, prayer, and forgiving and the fact that the saying
appears in other contexts in other Gospels (Matt 17:20; Luke 17:6); Hooker, Mark, 269.
Mark clearly has it connected to the act against the fig tree, so it may have been a
proverbial kind of expression Jesus used for an array of situations; so Lane, Mark, 409. If
Jesus used it as a proverb, it is hard to determine which context is secondary, and all talk

to accomplish much and do amazing things, just as Jesus has done. The
remark is vivid and rhetorical. It also is rare, as the exact expression, “have
faith in God,” appears only here in the Gospels and nowhere else in the NT
where the reference to God is an objective genitive.510 The more common
expression is to believe in God. Trust and God’s work are present in the
healing of Jairus’ daughter and in the response to the possibility of the rich
being saved by God.511
So Jesus speaks about uprooting mountains from the ground to the sea
(Matt 17:20; Luke 17:6 Thomas 48, 106 – both Thomas texts have moving
mountains but do not note faith). He uses the vivid image to call people to
have faith in what God can do in terms of the request (v 23). With faith, it
can happen (v 24). With belief it can be received – it will be yours. It is
significant that he is speaking to the group, so corporate prayer may be in
view here.512 It also is important to recognize that we are in a highly
rhetorical and hyperbolic conversation. The point is to believe and
trust God that he can work as the opening exhortation indicates (John
12:12–14).513 It may be that the call is to trust that God will carry out the
justice and accountability for the nation that Jesus has been dealing with in
his most recent actions.
It may even be that the remark is quite narrow, in that the mountain
contextually may allude to the Temple Mount or to the Mount of Olives
where the fig tree might have been. If so, then the remark may be about
judgment and vindication from God, looking to the completion of what
Jesus has just depicted, pointing to the accountability the leaders have for
rejecting Jesus. Assumed with this is the deliverance of the faithful, for the
return was associated with the Mount of Olives (Zech 9–14).514 One need
not make a choice between the Temple Mount and Olives, since it is the
Temple Mount that is the real subject of Jesus’ recent actions, and Olives is
also tied to ideas of restoration and national responsibility.
of a secondary context may even be misguided. Here Mark may be calling for an act of
faith that trusts God will render justice one day even though circumstances do not
appear to see that as likely.
510
The variant reading, “if you have faith . . .,” is likely owing to assimilation to Luke 17:6.
The expression “truly I say to you” is never part of an “if . . . then” construction, which
the variant requires; Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 92.
511
Collins, Mark, 534.
512
France, Mark, 448.
513
Collins, Mark, 536.
514
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 188–89; Hooker, Mark, 270; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 785.

There is reason to question this more narrow reading. Mark refers to an

“all things whatsoever” (panta hosa) prayer in Mark 11:24. So, even if Mark
11:23 refers to the specific context, which is possible, this verse still broadens
the scope.515 If the remark is more proverbial, a reference that includes the
temple and hope of vindication may still be included, explaining why the
remark is here at all. James 1:6 is similar in thrust, but focuses on not
doubting or being double-minded. Prayer or, more often examples of it, are
frequent in Mark (Mark 9:20–27 – prayer and exorcism; examples: 1:35;
6:46; 14:32, 35, 39).
There is a caveat (v 25). One is to pray having a forgiving heart, if one has
something against another. Our forgiving leads to God forgiving us. So
Jesus concludes the explanation by urging a prayer of faith, but in the
context of being a forgiving person, even as one seeks justice. Similar but
more developed in detail is a parable on forgiveness in Matt 18:21–35. It
shows that our move to forgive is motivated by God having forgiven us.
This is assumed here. The one experiencing grace exercises it toward
others, even if one is also seeking justice. The theme is multiply attested,
as it also appears in the Lord’s Prayer in the request to forgive sin as we
forgive those who sin against us (Matt 6:12 – using debts for sin; Luke 11:4;
also Sir 28:1–5). 1 Pet 3:7 applies the point to prayer and marriage. So Jesus
has cleansed the temple, warning the nation of her spiritual need and of her
fate should she remain stubborn. He also has called on the disciples to have
faith in God’s justice, but to do so with an eye to being forgiving. Given that
Mark is written to a people under pressure, it is an interesting juxtaposition
of themes. Disciples are to seek justice, but graciously.
11:27–33 When Challenged about the Source of His Authority, Jesus

Responds Raising the Example of John the Baptist, Silencing Those
Who Ask Him516
11:27 And they came again to Jerusalem. While Jesus was walking in the
temple, the chief priests, scribes and elders came up to him
11:28 and were saying, “By what authority are you doing these things? Or
who gave you this authority to do these things?”
515
Lane, Mark, 410, takes the broadening approach to the verse.
516
Mark 11:26 is a verse that is unlikely to be original to Mark. It looks to be formed in
imitation of Matt 6:15 and is lacking in early manuscripts from various families (‫א‬, B, L,
W, Δ, Ψ); Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 93. It reads, “But if you do not forgive,
neither will your Father in heaven forgive your sins.”

11:29 Jesus said to them, “I will ask you one question. Answer me and I
will tell you by what authority I do these things:
11:30 John’s baptism – was it from heaven or from men? Answer me.”
11:31 And they were discussing with one another, “If we say, ‘from
heaven,’ he will say, ‘Then why did you not believe him?’
11:32 But if we say, ‘From people –’ ” (they feared the crowd, for all held
John to be truly a prophet).
11:33 So they answered Jesus, “we do not know.” Then Jesus said to them,
“Nor will I say to you by what authority I do these things.”
Most of the sequences that follow from here until the Olivet discourse in
Mark 13 are controversy accounts. The disputes cover a range of topics, but
the goal of them all together is to show Jesus’ competence in comparison to
the leadership and to present a range of themes that touch on God’s
program.
This first controversy hits at a core issue: the source of Jesus’ authority.517
Its parallels are Matt 21:23–27 and Luke 20:1–8. Appropriately enough Jesus
is back in the temple (v 27), as was his custom and will be in this final week
(Mark 11:11; 15–18, 27; 12:35, 41; 13:1–2; 14:49). The chief priests, scribes, and
elders ask where Jesus got the authority to do the kinds of things he is doing
(v 28). These are the religious leaders, their support team who knew the
Law, and lay leaders. The Sanhedrin was made up of these groups. Jesus’
temple action in the preceding passage served as the catalyst for this
question. In part the question suppresses an assumption, which is that
the authorities have not given him this right, so how can he justify it? The
act in the temple was not directed by them, but was a critique of their
leadership. Who gave him that right? The question is about doing these
things, so more than one action is in view.518 The leadership is suggesting
Jesus is usurping an authority that belongs elsewhere. It also is a trap of
sorts. Either Jesus’ conduct is unauthorized or he was claiming to super-
sede the priests, the recognized local authority. The die was being cast for
making a political charge by moving Jesus to incriminate himself.519
517
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 198, defends the authenticity of the scene on the premise that to
make a comparison to John without affirming Jesus’ superiority is not a move a created
scene by the church would make.
518
Collins, Mark, 539, suggests Jesus’ entrance into the city is also in view. In light of earlier
controversies in Mark, the evangelist probably intends more than recent events the
Judean leaders had seen, some of which they were likely to have known. Edwards, Mark,
351, lists forgiving sins (Mark 2:5), calling tax collectors and sinners (2:15), redefining the
Sabbath (2:28), and raising questions about oral tradition (7:1–13).
519
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 200.

Jesus responds with a question of his own, a move common in rabbinic

disputes (vv 29–30). He says if they answer him, he will answer them. Who
gave John the Baptist his authority, God or man? John’s work is made
analogous to that of Jesus. For Mark, John pointed to Jesus, so their
ministries are linked (Mark 1:2–3, 7–8). As Edwards says, “A decision
about John is a decision about Jesus.”520 John also worked without an
official appointment of the Judean leadership. So what does one do with
him? Jesus almost demands an answer.
The leaders sense their dilemma in answering the question (vv 31–32). If
they say from God, referred to by the euphemism of saying from heaven,
then why did they not go out to him and respond? If they had, they also
would sense their need to respond positively to Jesus. If they say from man,
then the populace will react because John was highly regarded as a prophet
(Mark 2:18). The contrast in how the options are formed is interesting. The
heaven option is stated as a third-class condition, a pure hypothetical. The
man option is stated without a conditional particle and is cut off before
being finished, making it appear the more likely choice, but this option is
too hard to confess publically.
So they opt out for appearance’ sake (v 33), saying they do not know,
leading Jesus not to respond to their question. They are shown to be, at
best, religiously incompetent,521 for not having a response, or, at worst,
conniving, for not being honest.522 This is the first indication in Mark that
the leadership did not respond to John, unlike Matt 3:7–10; 11:16–19, and
21:32 or Luke 7:29–30.523 Jesus asks a question they are unwilling to answer
publicly about whether or not it is possible that John was sent from God.
The deliberation puts them in the second category, deliberations that were
reflected in the public handling of John and discussion about him that was
likely well known.524 Jesus’ “silence” in refusing as a result to respond also
is ironic, for his counter question gives a clear signal to the answer. Jesus’
authority comes from God, just as John’s did.
520
Edwards, Mark, 352.
521
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 207, says it is “an embarrassing surrender of the field.”
522
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 207, says this is “an embarrassing public display of cowardice.”
The common notion of fearing the people as a basis of responding gets at this theology
rooted in shallow appearances (Mark 11:18, 32; 12:12)
523
524
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 205, suggests the internal deliberations reflected by an omnis-
cient narrator would have been known on this basis. Another option is that someone
who later came to faith knew what had been discussed, perhaps someone like Joseph of
Arimethea.

12:1–12 Jesus’ Parable of the Wicked Tenants Predicts Both His Death and
Vindication, as Well as Judgment for the Leadership
12:1 Then he began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard
and placed a fence around it, dug a pit for its winepress, and built a
watchtower. Then he leased it to tenants and went on a journey.
12:2 And at harvest time he sent a slave to the tenants to receive from the
fruit of the vine,
12:3 and seizing him, they beat him and sent him away empty.
12:4 And again he sent to them another slave. This one they struck on the
head and dishonored him.
12:5 And he sent another and they killed that one, and many others, some
of whom were beaten and others of whom were killed.
12:6 Still he had one, a beloved son. He sent him last to them, saying,
‘They will respect my son.’
12:7 But those tenants said to one another, ‘This is the heir. Come, let us
kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.’
12:8 And seizing him, they killed him and cast him outside the vineyard.
12:9 Then what will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and
destroy those tenants and give the vineyard to others.
12:10 Have you not read this scripture: ‘The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone.
12:11 This is from the Lord, and it is remarkable in our eyes?’ ”
12:12 Now they were seeking to arrest him, and they feared the crowd,
because they knew that he spoke this parable against them. So they left
him and went away.
The second controversy account in this final public Markan sequence
involves an allegorical parable that reviews the history of Israel’s unfaith-
fulness, The Parable of the Wicked Tenants. The controversy is found in
Jesus’ direct challenge of the leadership. Despite the question about his
implied lack of authority, Jesus is not backing off. The parable’s climax is
the death of the son and the promise of judgment for those responsible.525
525
Hooker, Mark, 274, observes that the lack of mention of resurrection points to the
parable’s origin with Jesus. An early church creation would be unlikely to omit this. She
sees the addition of a scriptural proof text from Ps 118:22–23 as a later addition, but it is
unclear why Jesus could not have connected such a text to his story in anticipation of
some form of divine vindication, especially if his passion predictions go back to him and
he believed he had come in the name of the Lord (Ps 118:26). On the authenticity debate,
see Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 215–31, who notes that Thomas often compresses parables
and contends that Mark’s form of the parable is the oldest. Collins, Mark, 541–44,
surveys the various views on the origin and point of the parable in recent discussion.

The parable foresees care of the vineyard, the promise and people of
God, going to others who will be faithful, an allusion to the Twelve among
others. It is easily the most allegorical of Jesus’ parables. It builds on the
example in first-century real life of absentee landlords, who gain profit
from the produce of their rented-out lands.526 In fact, produce was often
how rent was paid. The agreement was housing and food for working the
land and protecting it with a part of the produce to the owner.527 The
parallels are Matt 21:33–46, Luke 20:9–19, and Thomas 65–66. Hostility and
tension dominates the parable and the controversies surrounding it.
Rejection of Jesus is setting in. So is Jesus’ continuing public challenge of
the leadership (Mark 12:12). A confrontation emerges that has to be
resolved.
Jesus begins to teach the public in parables again, much as he had done
in Mark 4 (v 1). The practice was common among the rabbis as well.528 The
key image involves the keeping and harvesting of a vineyard, a symbol for
Israel (Isa 5:1–7; also Ps 80:8–13; Jer 2:21). Where Isa 5 is about Israel as a
whole, here the focus is on those who tend the vineyard, the leaders who are
to care for it, as Jesus adds the leasing of the land to tenants to the standard
imagery (v 2). That vineyard is built with a watchtower wall and winepress.
It is rented out to tenant farmers. They are to care for and nurture it. The
owner departs. After some time to allow the vineyard’s development
(usually three to five years in real practice), three times the owner sends
servants to collect the fruit of the harvest (vv 3–5). Each time they are not
only rejected but also sent away, beaten, struck on the head, and killed in
turn. Still others are sent, but all are beaten or killed. These scenes picture
the internal persecution and rejection of the prophets, as was common in
the OT (prophets as servants: Jer 7:25; 25:4; Amos 3:7; Zech 1:6; rejection
texts: 2 Sam 10:2–5; 2 Kings 17:7–20; 2 Chron 24:20–22; 36:15–16; Isa 3:14; Jer
12:10; 25:3–7; 26:20–23).529 John the Baptist was the last in the line. The more
526
Hurtado, Mark, 197; France, Mark, 459, suggests that some of the leaders may have even
been such land owners; especially J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Wicked
Vinedressers,” in Law in the New Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970),
286–312. The Zenon papyri detail such practices; M. Hengel, “Das Gleichnis von den
Weingärtnern Mc 12,1–12 im Lichte der Zenonpapyri und der rabbinischen Gleichnisse,”
ZNW 59 (1968): 1–39.
527
Lane, Mark, 417.
528
For the use of parables in the Old Testament, the Second Temple period, in the Greco-
Roman context, and among the rabbis, Klyne Snodgrass, Stories with Intent: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Parables of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 37–59.
529
France, Mark, 460.

messengers God sent, the harder the resistance. The versions in Luke and
Thomas are shorter.530 The point of the parable is to challenge the leaders’
lack of stewardship and care, a consistent problem throughout Israel’s
history. The critique is Deuteronomistic in thrust, mirroring earlier cri-
tiques of Israel’s history running through the Old Testament (like Matt
23:29–35).531
Finally the owner sent his beloved son (v 6; Gen 22:2; Mark 1:11; 9:7),
thinking surely they will respect him. This pictures Jesus and his unique
status in relationship to God. He is more than a mere commissioned
messenger for God, as pictured by the slaves symbolizing the prophets.
The tenants decide that killing the son is best (vv 7–8).532 It is sometimes
suggested that the owner would never have risked a son like this, so the
parable was created by the early church for theological reasons and is not
credible as having come from Jesus. However, the respect for the son might
reflect the view that someone sent with the right social and legal status
would prove his right to the land and get the response of the tenants. After
all, they would want to continue to have a livelihood. On the other hand,
when the son shows up, the tenants might have thought the owner was
dead, so removing the son would allow the land to fall to them, as was
common practice (assuming no one knew how the son had died).533 The
unnaturalness of all this is actually part of the point. There is something
foolish and irrational about what is taking place with God’s messenger. The
sin of rejecting the one the owner sent means acting foolishly and blindly.
So they seized the son, killed him, and tossed his carcass out of the
vineyard. Matt 21:39 and Luke 20:15 change the order, having the murder
come after the casting out from the vineyard, a detail that fits the sequence
of Jesus’ death and a crucifixion outside the city (John 19:20; Heb 13:12). The
530
Witherington, Mark, 321, suggests a de-Judaizing simplification for Gentile audiences by
Luke and Thomas.
531
Stein, Mark, 536, cites a series of OT and NT texts showing prophets “persecuted (1 Kings
19:10–14; 2 Chron. 36:15–16; Matt. 5:12) and killed (1 Kings 18:13; 2 Chron. 24:20–27; 36:15–
16; Neh. 9:26; Jer. 26:20–23; Matt. 23:29–36/Luke 11:47–51; Matt. 23:37/Luke 13:33–34; 1
Thess. 2:15).”
532
Is there OT background here? Marcus, Mark 8–16, 803, sees an allusion to the initial
decision by Joseph’s brothers to kill him (Gen 37:20), who does get thrown in a pit.
Though possible, given Joseph is a beloved son, the fit is not quite exact. Evans, Mark
8:27–16:20, 237, also notes 1 Kings 21 as possible, where Ahab murders Naboth to obtain
his vineyard and suffers divine judgment.
533
Lane, Mark, 418–19, shows that often those who worked the land would get it if no heir
was left; J. D. M. Derrett, “Fresh Light on the Wicked Vinedressers,” in Law in the New
Testament (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1970), 286–312.

son was left dishonored, given no burial, his body left to rot.534 The
rejection of the son represented a total rejection of the owner. The tenants
have acted to claim total ownership of a program that is not theirs.535
So what will the owner do (v 9)?536 The owner is now called the Lord
(kurios) of the vineyard. It is his. He will destroy those tenants and give the
vineyard to others. Such an expectation for unfaithful leaders was seen at
Qumran, who pictured a judgment that left the vineyard unwalled so it
would become a pasture, flattened by those who trample it (4Q162
[4QpIsa]).537 He will find stewards who carry out their responsibilities.
This is a reference to the Twelve (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:30) and others who
affirm their loyalty to God by embracing the one he has sent (Matt 21:43,
looking to include Gentiles).538
Scripture makes the point, as elsewhere in this Gospel (vv 10–11; Mark
2:25; 12:26). Jesus cites Ps 118:22–23. The wording matches the LXX.
Originally the psalm pictured a king under pressure of rejection by the
nations being welcomed to the temple. Some appreciate who the rejected
one is and acknowledge the central place he has before God. This part of
the psalm is one of the most cited texts for Jesus’ vindication by God
(Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:4, 7; Rom 9:32–33). Another part of the Psalm
(vv 25–26) is cited in other texts (Luke 13:34–35; 19:38; Matt 21:9; Mark 11:9).
The stone rejected by the builders is the keystone, the cornerstone that
supports everything. The son will be vindicated in his rejection. God will
use him to carry out the task assigned to him. What God has done is
remarkable (thaumastos – BDAG, 445). Matt 21:42 also has this additional
verse, whereas Luke omits it. Hooker claims the text is out of place and was
added later but relatively early on, since the emphasis is on the punishment
of the tenants. However, the point is that despite the current rejection,
God’s plan will be carried out, a point that completes the story.539 With
confidence of vindication, it is a point Jesus could well make. There is no
need or compelling reason to see the text as out of place or the insertion as
534
Taylor, St Mark, 475.
535
536
Stein, Mark, 536–37, shows that Jesus’ use of rhetorical questions is common in Mark
(3:23, 33; 4:13, 21, 30, 40; 7:18; 8:12, 17–18, 21, 36–37; 9:19, 50; 11:17; 12:24; 13:2; 14:6, 37, 41, 48).
537
Edwards, Mark, 359.
538
It is wrong to choose between these groups in the verse that is open and looks to the
future.
539
Hooker, Mark, 276–77. Collins, Mark, 547–48, notes the idea the citation is integral to the
completion of the parable on rabbinic models and has a word play between son and
stone (bēn/’eben).

late. In the face of rejection, Jesus surely contemplated what God was doing
and how vindication for his ministry might take place.
There is debate about whether a cornerstone or a capstone is intended
(v 10). Those who argue for a cornerstone point to the application of the
image in Eph 2:20–22 and 1 Pet 2:6–7, and the fact that it is linked with Isa
28:16 and the idea that one can stumble over the stone, as Luke 20:18
suggests. Those who point to a capstone cite the image pointing to resur-
rection as a picture of exaltation, the use of the term head (kephalē)
pointing to a prominent stone, and the example of Test Sol 22:7–9.540 The
choice is not clear, but a cornerstone seems more likely, given that the early
church read the image consistently this way.541
The leaders’ reaction shows their commitment to a path they had already
set (Mark 3:6; 11:18). They wanted to arrest him (v.13), but their fear of the
crowd prevented them from acting. The effort is expressed as an imperfect,
so the desire is expressed as ongoing. They would have to find another
time. They knew the parable had been told against them. So they left and
went away. Their time would come under better circumstances. Again,
given the choice to accept or reject God’s sent one, they have opted to
reject. What Jesus pictures, they commit themselves to do. Despite that
rejection, Jesus says God’s program and providence will prevail because
vindication comes as a part of it.
12:13–17 Jesus Avoids a Trap on Whether to Pay Taxes to Caesar by

Saying One Should Render Caesar’s Things to Caesar and God’s
Things to God
12:13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and Herodians that they
might trap him in a word.
12:14 And coming, they said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are
truthful and do not curry favor from anyone, because you show no
favoritism, but truly teach the way of God. Is it right to pay taxes to
Caesar or not? Should we pay or not pay?”
12: 15 But knowing the hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why are you testing
me? Bring me a denarius and let me see it.”
12:16 And they brought one, and he said to them, “Whose image and
whose inscription is it?” They replied, “Caesar’s.”
540
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 238, and Marcus, Mark 8–16, 808–809, who argue this is a
capstone.
541
Collins, Mark, 548.

12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were
amazed at him.
This is another controversy pronouncement account or chreia, preser-
ving a key saying of Jesus.542 Its parallels are Matthew 22:15–22, Luke 20:20–
26, and Thomas 100.543 It is the first of four consecutive pronouncement
accounts. A controversy scene and a parable that also engenders contro-
versy precede these four scenes. Only in the interaction with the scribe in
Mark 12:28–34 is there a lack of controversy in the foru units that follow. In
these scenes we meet Herodians, Pharisees, Sadducees, and a scribe. The
scope of the leadership is covered. So five of six scenes in succession in
Mark show the distance between Jesus and the leadership.
Another attempt to catch Jesus involves questions from some Pharisees
and Herodians about how Jesus deals with Rome and her taxes (v 13–14).
This is the second time they have been paired together in responding to
Jesus (Mark 3:6). They likely supported the tax they ask about, but in
different ways. Herod ruled at Rome’s behest, which Herodians surely
supported. Meanwhile, the Pharisees participated in the oversight of the
people, and may have supported the tax somewhat grudgingly, as they
might have seen the payment as acknowledging too much to Caesar
because of the idea the emperor was related to divine figures (see the
following discussion about the coinage). In fact, when the tax was intro-
duced, a Pharisee, Sadduc, had helped Judas the Galilean lead a revolt
against paying it (Josephus, Ant 18.3–8).544 The fact that Herodians and
Pharisees, despite their differences, have gathered together against Jesus
shows how much they see him as a threat.
They try to trap Jesus in a public statement they can take to Rome. The
Greek term for trap (agreuō) means to snare something, like catching an
animal or a hunt or surprising an unsuspecting person (Job 10:16 LXX; Prov
5:22; 6:25; BDAG, 15). This trap involves asking whether one should pay
taxes to Rome or not. This poll tax (kēnsos) was unpopular because it came
on top of the required temple tax and showed Israel to be subservient to
Rome, being instituted in CE 6 when the prefect was sent to rule in Judea (a
Latin loanword, BDAG, 42). The anticipated reply involves either
542
543
Egerton Papyrus 2 frag 2 also has a version of this scene; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 243.
544
Lane, Mark, 423. Those who totally opposed the tax hoped for a day to revolt against
Rome, an attitude that came to form the Zealots later in views like that of Judas the
Galilean.

supporting taxes and thus incurring the displeasure of those who do not
like Rome and want her out, dampening the messianic hope Jesus
evoked, or denying the payment of taxes, which would be a seditious
offense and make Jesus subject to Roman law. The flattery that Jesus
teaches the truth and shows no favoritism is clearly ironic in light of the
whole of the narrative in which these groups have not been responsive at
all to Jesus.
Jesus’ response signals his awareness that they ask not out of a sincere
desire to learn, but rather to test him (v 15). He still goes on the answer the
question. He asks for a denarius, the coin used to pay the tax, to be
produced. The very fact that they have such a coin shows they participate
in Roman society with its currency (v 16). He asks whose image and
inscription is on it. They note that it is Caesar’s. The inscription on some
Roman coins described Tiberius as “Son of the Divine Augustus,” which
pious Jews regarded as blasphemous. On the back side was the declaration
that Caesar was pontifex maximus, or high priest for the people. Others still
would have had the image of Augustus. The leaders did not object so much
to the existence of an economy that they refused to use the coins to meet
their daily expenses.
Jesus then concludes, render to Caesar the things that belong to him and
render to God the things that belong to him (v 17).545 Jesus’ reply recog-
nized that Caesar had a sphere of responsibility and that God had one as
well. Those coins belonged to Caesar and ran the economy he oversaw, so
they should give him his due. However, they should also be sure that God
was given what was owed to him. Implied is that Caesar is not God and is
not to be followed blindly. Caesar and God each has their role to play in life
and should be honored accordingly. The previous parable (12:1–12) had
already warned that the leaders failed to do exactly that with God.
What the Jewish leaders had set up as a choice between rival options,
Jesus turned into a set of relationships where no absolute choice is
required, merely discerning what belongs to whom. Jesus is no revolu-
tionary, nor is he a servant of Rome. He urges that government be honored
and God obeyed. So Jesus avoids the trap, leaving his listeners amazed. The
text is not so much speaking of two realms, so that one should separate
church and state, as it is affirming that government and God are each a part
of the creation with their own set of relationships, with God having priority
545
Thomas 100 adds “and what is mine give me.” This is clearly a secondary addition;

(Rom 13:7; 1 Tim 2:1–6; Titus 3:1–2; 1 Pet 2:13–14).546 So their roles are
distinct, but not entirely separate, as governments ultimately also are
accountable to the Creator God.
12:18–27 Jesus Defends the Resurrection to Sadducees

12:18 And Sadducees came to him who said there is no resurrection and
asked him saying,
12:19 “Teacher, Moses wrote for us: ‘If a man’s brother dies and leaves a
wife but no children, that man must take the widow as a wife and raise
up offspring for his brother.’
12:20 There were seven brothers. The first one married, and when he died,
he had no children.
12:21 The second married her and died, not having any children, and
likewise the third.
12:22 None of the seven had children. Finally, the woman died too.
12:23 In the resurrection, when they rise again, whose wife will she be? For
all seven had married her.”
12:24 Jesus said to them, “Are you not mistaken for this reason, because
you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?
12:25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given
in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.
12:26 Concerning the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of
Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?
12:27 He is not the God of the dead but the living. You err greatly.”
In another controversy pronouncement account, Jesus affirms the res-
urrection in the face of Sadducean denial. The parallels are Matt 22:23–33
and Luke 20:27–40.
The Sadducees (v 18) were a powerful priestly party of Jews who came
from the upper classes, first mentioned during the reign of John Hyrcanus
(135–104 BCE; Josephus, Ant 13.293–97), yet they are mentioned in a way
that makes their existence appear to be far older (Josephus, Ant 18.11). Their
name either comes from the Hebrew word for “righteous” (ṣaddîq) or
more likely after Zadok, high priest under David and Solomon (2 Sam 8:17;
1 Kings 1:34), who fathered the genuine priestly line (Ezek 40:46).
Sadducees did not hold to resurrection and created a story they thought
546
The Book of Revelation and the prophets of the Old Testament show that government
does not get a blank check to do what it wants and is accountable to God.

showed the ridiculous nature of the idea (Josephus, Ant 18.16; Acts 4:2;
23:6–8). They also preferred the Torah over other parts of the Hebrew
Scripture and especially oral tradition (Josephus, Ant 13.297). They were
the most politically powerful group during Jesus’ time, but were a minority
on this point of doctrine. They had compromised to share power with
Rome (Josephus Ant 18.16–17; War 2.164–166).547 This is Mark’s only
mention of them.
They asked Jesus as a religious teacher about their critique of resurrec-
tion (v 18). The address as “teacher” replicates the earlier query in Mark
12:14. It might seem such a question is out of place,548 but Jesus raising the
idea of divine vindication earlier in his telling of the parable of the wicked
tenants implies his belief in this kind of an idea, as do other elements of
Jesus’ public teaching.549 The goal is to undercut this possibility and thus
seek to discredit a key part of his claim that the kingdom he brings has a
future. Resurrection is seen in three OT texts (Isa 26:19; Ezek 37 – as a
metaphor; Dan 12:2), as well as at Qumran (4Q521 2 ii 12).
The Sadducees raise what they think is a dilemma for resurrection using
a scenario that is exaggerated but raises a seeming problem (v 19). Tobit 3–7
had a story of a woman with seven husbands but did not raise this problem.
The Sadducees press the example. It involves a family with seven brothers
and the command of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5 is cited in a conceptual
summary from the Law in 25:5–10; examples: Gen 38:8; Ruth 4:1–12; Tobit
6:9; 7:11; m. Yevamot; Josephus, Ant 4.254–56, who is clear a marriage is
involved). Lev 18:16 and 20:21 prohibited a brother-in-law and a sister-in-
law from marrying, but this was read as outside of a levirate situation.
Deuteronomy 25:5 refers only to a son, whereas the LXX, Josephus (Ant
4.254), and rabbis limited it to no children of either gender. The Sadducean
example follows the broader reading. Also unclear is whether this law was
actually practiced in Jesus’ time, but the existence of Mishnah on the topic
means it was at least discussed.550 With only two examples from the OT
547
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1121–23, has an appendix on the Sadducees with many of these
points.
548
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 251–52, who sees Mark giving the genuine dispute a new setting.
549
The issue here is affirmation, not of the timing of the resurrection as being near for Jesus,
but simply of its eventual coming on his behalf. Jesus taught resurrection (privately:
Mark 8:31; 9:42–50; publically: Matt 12:41–42=Luke 11:31–32; Luke 14:14; 16:19–31). Jesus’
public remarks about accountability in a judgment to come assumes resurrection;
550
Collins, Mark, 560. She also notes on page 561 how the expectation of Jews about whether
there would be marriage after resurrection expresses uncertainty, as no text says so
explicitly, and passages looking to an earthly kingdom precede a resurrection to the

and Josephus’ remarks, it looks as if it was practiced, at most, rarely. So we

are dealing with a fairly uncommon, mostly hypothetical situation (seven
brothers) at best. Still, such theoretical cases were used to make a theolo-
gical point. When a brother dies without progeny (sperma), then a surviv-
ing brother must take the widow as a wife and produce seed for his
brother’s legacy. The expression “take the widow” (lambanō + gynē) refers
to marriage (BDAG, 583, 3).551 Such a marriage also provided protection for
the widow.
In the example, each of the seven brothers has an opportunity to leave a
child but dies without success (vv 20–22). Finally, the woman dies. The
question is, in the resurrection, whose wife will the woman be (v 23)?552 She
had had seven husbands! All seven had married her. The picture is of a
woman who has too many to care for, too many places to go. There is
supposed to be some humor in the example. It is designed to make
resurrection look silly. One assumption in the example may be that if
descendants are needed through the brother, then there is no resurrection,
no later remedy.553 Another assumption is that monogamy is the ideal for
marriage, and that the lack of a child meant no one could claim her as his
wife. There was no way to adjudicate to whom she was wed.554
Jesus responds by saying they have erred (v 24). That erring is the point
in the verb planaō is seen in the reuse of the verb in Mark 12:27, where the
point is they have erred badly.555 Jesus is pointing out where their mistake
is. The rhetorical question expects a positive answer using the particle ou.
They do not understand either the Scripture or God’s power, so they
misread what resurrection means. They underestimate God’s power to
produce a resurrection and do not understand the teaching on the afterlife
that results from his work. This is a direct challenge, as Scripture is what
eternal kingdom. Life in that earthly kingdom is described in normal terms, but
marriage in the afterlife is not explicitly addressed.
551
As is common in the OT, the term sperma or seed means descendants (Gen 12:7 LXX;
13:15 LXX; 17:7 LXX; 24:7 LXX; also Rom 4:16, 18; Gal 3:16).
552
There is a textual issue here. Does Mark make a double reference to resurrection here
with an additional reference to “when they rise,” using Mark’s common pleonasm?
Many good manuscripts omit the phrase (‫א‬, B, C, L, Δ), but it also is hard to see a copyist
adding it. So Nestle-Aland has the phrase in brackets to express uncertainty about its
inclusion, though its presence in this case is more likely than not; Metzger, Textual
553
Hooker, Mark, 283.
554
Stein, Mark, 553, who notes that if the other brothers also had been married, as might be
expected, the tension in the example was even multiplied.
555
This verb can refer to deception, which is the result of their error. The reference to a lack
of understanding in the context is a reference to error.

they are supposed to know best, and to underestimate God is a major

failing for a theologian and priest.
Jesus makes two affirmations in responding. First, Jesus points to a lack
of continuity in the afterlife with this life (v 25). People neither marry nor
are given in marriage (1 En 15:7). Later, in the Babylonian Talmud, a
statement appears in a context explaining that the world to come is not
like this world. It says that “in the world to come there is neither eating, nor
drinking nor procreating” (b. Ber 17a). In a world with no death, there is no
need to replenish the earth. So people are more like angels, another detail
noted in a Second Temple text (2 Bar 51:5–12; 1 En 51:4; 104:4, 6). Paul has a
more detailed discussion of resurrection in 1 Cor 15, including an emphasis
on it involving a spiritual body that is able to inherit the kingdom (esp. vv
40–58). Jesus’ mention of angels is provocative, because it is possible some
Sadducees also did not believe in angels (Acts 23:8), even though they are
mentioned in the Torah.
Second, he cites the Torah, in Exodus 3:6, where God identifies himself
as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (v 26). He is the God of the living,
not the dead (v 27). So if God says this to Moses, long after the patriarchs
have died, these luminaries must be alive and raised or they will be such, a
view that is in concert with other Second Temple texts (4 Macc 7:19;
16:25).556 He is not the “God of dead heroes.”557 The remark may well also
assume that God keeps his commitments to them, pointing to a connection
between resurrection and faithfulness.558 The argument is made from the
Torah because that is the portion of the Hebrew Scripture the Sadducees
most respect. The failure to recognize these two things means his ques-
tioners err greatly. Mark ends here, while Matt 22:33 and Luke 20:39–40
note the reaction of those who listened. The influence of Jesus’ answer can
be seen in Rom 13:10; Gal 5:14, and James 2:8.559
556
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 256, opts for a future resurrection, while Marcus, Mark 8–16,
828–29, sees the patriarchs as currently alive and therefore raised (4 Macc 16:25; 17:18–19).
Either option is possible, but the point seems to fit better if the patriarchs are seen as
currently alive. The picture Jesus paints in the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19–31)
pictures a functioning Abraham to greet those who have died and gone to Abraham’s
bosom. It does not assume a future resurrection for Abraham. This also favors a current
view of resurrection. Collins, Mark, 564, makes no choice between the options.
557
Hooker, Mark, 285, who notes that the Jewish view of the afterlife was a resurrection, so
this would not be a reference to immortality of the soul. One can add that this is correct,
especially since Jesus is defending resurrection by the remark.
558
Lane, Mark, 430.
559
France, Mark, 478.

12:28–34 Jesus Affirms the Need to Love God and One’s Neighbor as the
Greatest Commandment
12:28 And coming up one of the scribes heard them debating. Seeing that
Jesus answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is
first of all?”
12:29 Jesus answered, “First is ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one.
12:30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with
all your mind, and with all your strength.’
12:31 Second is ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other
commandment greater than these.”
12:32 The scribe said to him, “Good, Teacher, you speak truly that he is
one, and there is no one else besides him.
12:33 And to love him with all your heart, with all your mind, and with all
your strength and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important
than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”
12:34 And Jesus seeing that he answered thoughtfully said to him, “You
are not far from the kingdom of God.” And no one no longer dared to
ask him anything.
Another pronouncement account is less controversial than it is reveal-
ing. A parallel is Matt 22:34–40, along with a conceptual parallel in Luke
10:25–28 in a completely distinct scene and context. As we shall see, the
discussion is so thoroughly Jewish that it has a good claim to authenticity,
lacking elements one might expect a later Christian creation to possess.560
A scribe and Jesus exchange views on the greatest commandment. The
scribe is portrayed more favorably than other Jewish leaders in the chapter,
as it is said he saw that Jesus had answered the resurrection dispute well
(v 28). The scribe, then, may well have been a Pharisee, since they were
believers in resurrection. He asks Jesus what is the first or primary com-
mandment. The question may have been motivated by a discussion of
which commandments were light or heavy among the 613 commanded
(m. ’Abot 2:1; 4 Macc 5:20; b. Mak 23b numbers the commandments and
notes that 248 are positive and 365 are negative).561 The point is not to
disqualify any of the commands but simply to ask which is the most
important.
Jesus cites the Shema (Deut 6:4) with the call to love God completely
(Deut 6:5) and the commandment to love one’s neighbor (Lev 19:18) (v 29).
560
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 261–62; Stein, Mark, 558–59.
561
Stein, Mark, 560.

The Shema was probably the most well-known Jewish text of confession
(also in Deut 11:13–31; Num 15:37–41). The Mishnah notes at its later time
of composition that Jews recited it twice a day (m Ber 1.1–2). This is likely
to be an older practice (Josephus, Ant 4:13). This is a call to only
recognize the one God and to live well with others in his creation. The
mention of heart, soul, mind, and strength is a way to say that one should
love God fully at every level (v 30). Deut 6:5 does not mention strength.
Matthew and Luke lack a reference to Deut 6:4, keeping only the ethical
call to love God fully. Matthew makes no mention of strength, but the
point is the same.
The love for one’s neighbor (v 31) is also a significant Jewish text (Akiba
in Sifra 89a [§ 200 on Lev 19:15–20]; Hillel in b. Shabbat 31a says that “What
is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor” is the whole of the Law; Philo
Decalogue 109–110 and Spec Laws 2.63, although Philo elsewhere sees the
Ten Commandments as having this position; Decalogue 19–20; Aristeas
168).562 Love for God and neighbor is also the summary of the Law in T. Iss
5:2 and T. Dan 5:3, but there is some question of whether Christian
influence had impacted these texts. Other Jewish writers had other
emphases. So Simeon the Just (c. 200 BCE) taught, “The world rests on
three things: the Law, the sacrificial worship, and expressions of love”
(m. Avot 1.2).563 One can see the inner Jewish points of view in the contrast.
The scribe affirms the reply with a “good!” and recognizes several things
while agreeing in his response (v 32a). He affirms that God is one (Deut
6:4b, 35; Isa 45:21 LXX). He repeats the commands to love God and
neighbor (vv 32b–33). And he adds that these are more important than
burnt offerings and sacrifices, leading to Jesus’ commendation. Other Old
Testament texts say that God desires mercy, not sacrifice (1 Sam 15:22; Isa
1:11; Hos 6:6; Jer 6:20; 7:22–23; Mic 6:6–8).564 Texts at Qumran, interestingly
enough, also say this (1QS 9:4; 4Q266 [= 4QDa] 10 i 13). Jesus says that this
understanding leaves him not far from the kingdom (v 34a). He is close to
being in a place of blessing. All that is left is responding to the one God has
sent, as the next passage suggests.
For Jesus, God’s existence as Creator and Lord God carries a corollary:
our love for him must involve the entire person (Rom 13:8–9; Gal 5:14;
562
Hooker, Mark, 288. Of course, the Ten Commandments, in their two tables, cover the
response to God and to one’s neighbor. Jub 36:7–8 juxtaposes love for God and for one’s
brother, by which is meant one’s fellow Jew.
563
Lane, Mark, 434.
564
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 265–66.

James 2:8; for the opposite, 1 John 4:11, 19–20). Everything we do radiates
from this theological core. Faith, life, and theology begin at the same place,
from a love relationship with the living God to whom one submits as to the
one and only Lord. That also impacts our relationships as we interact with
others also made in God’s image. Jesus sees the two commands as a
package that together make up the one great commandment. The scene
closes with a note that no one dared ask him any more questions (v 34b).
Mark 12 has demonstrated the authority of Jesus and his qualification to
represent God.
12:35–37 Jesus’ Query about the Christ as David’s Son and Lord
12:35 And Jesus replying said, as he was teaching in the temple courts,
“How is it the scribes say that the Christ is David’s Son?
12:36 David himself said, by the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my lord, “sit
at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet.” ’
12:37 If David himself calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” And the
large crowd listened gladly.
This scene is a pronouncement account that simply raises a dilemma
about the claims tied to the Messiah. Once again we are in the temple area
as Jesus teaches (Mark 11:15–16, 27, 13:1; 14:49). The parallels are Matt 22:41–
46 and Luke 20:41–44. The theme that emerges is that Messiah is an
authority, since David calls him Lord (vv 35–36). The dilemma is twofold:
(1) why do people call the Messiah David’s son, when David calls him Lord,
and (2) why would an ancestor call a descendant Lord? Jesus’ remarks
assume the Psalm is Davidic and ultimately about Messiah.
At the base of the question is Ps 110:1, which becomes a major
Christological text in the rest of the New Testament (Mark 14:62; Acts
2:34–36; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:20–23; Col 3:1; Heb 1:13; 10:12; 1 Pet 3:21–
22), and Jewish expectation of the time, which in many quarters was tied to
the Davidic dynasty (2 Sam 7:12–16; Isa 9:2–7; 11:1–9; Jer 23:5–6, 33:15; Zech
3:8; 6:12; Amos 9:11; Ps Sol 17–18; 4QFlor 1:11–13; CD 7:16). By noting David
calls him Lord, so how is he son, Jesus simply raises the question to ponder
and leaves it hanging (v 37). He does not indicate where the right hand is,
even as he points to the total power Messiah will have. This simply evokes
the presence of God and his proximity to the one David describes. The
stress is on the priority given to the name Lord. What is clear is that God
and the Messiah share rule, a point that begins to suggest why David may
have addressed the figure with such respect. The question is about

messianic status next to God.565 The crowd is delighted with the dilemma
Jesus poses. With no response, the scene closes simply with the question
posed for reflection.
The rest of Mark’s narrative will supply part of the answer when Jesus
returns to the text at his Jewish examination at the end of Mark 14. The
point appears to be that thinking of Messiah as David’s son is not
enough.566 He is far more than David’s Son, one whom the founder of
the line sees as Lord. The way the ancestor treats the descendant by
addressing him with such respect shows this. What more this text means
beyond this is not made clear here.567 The very indirectness of the point
speaks for authenticity.568 Still the implication of raising the point shows
Jesus making his messianic mission public again as he winds up his public
teaching in Mark. He also is pushing people to see how close the sent one is
to God. In terms of public acts, the entry and this teaching bookend his
self-presentation in Jerusalem for Mark. The New Testament also makes
much of these links to David (Rom 1:2–4; 2 Tim 2:8; Matt 1:20; Luke 1:27, 32,
69; 2:4, 11; Rev 5:5; 22:16).
12:38–40 Jesus Warns about the Scribes

12:38 And in his teaching, he was saying, “Beware of the scribes, those
who like walking around in long robes and receiving greeting in the
marketplaces,
12:39 and the best seats in the synagogue and the places of honor at the
banquets.
12:40 They devour widows’ property, and as a show make long prayers.
These men will receive a more severe judgment.”
565
Edwards, Mark, 377.
566
O. Betz, “Die Frage nach dem messianischen Bewusstsein Jesu,” NovT 6 (1963): 20–48.
567
Mark argues juxtaposing themes throughout his Gospel tied to the titles Lord, Son of
God, and Son of Man. He sees one who is directly in God’s presence, as Mark 14:61–62
especially affirms. Mark 1:1 raised the note about sonship from the start.
568
Taylor, St Mark, 493. The idea the saying denies Davidic sonship is problematic in two
ways: (1) Mark has already signaled that this is an acceptable category (Mark 10:47; 11:9–
10), and (2) the entire NT thrust about Jesus’ Davidic connection is unlikely if he denied
such a point; also Cranfield, Mark, 381. Jesus makes the points far too indirectly for this
to be a church creation. Neither does the scene require the LXX for this argument. An
oral Semitic rendering of the text with respect for the name of God would have the same
result, and the title Lord coming from David for Messiah is not impacted by the
difference. That title is the key point; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 273.

Jesus closes his public discourse with a warning and a contrast in another
brief pronouncement. The parallel is Luke 20:45–47, whereas a far more
extensive conceptual parallel is Matt 23:1–36, a long rebuke to Pharisees and
scribes. It recalls another warning to beware of Pharisees and Herodians in
Mark 8:15.
Jesus warns the crowd away from the way of certain scribes (v 38).569 He
tells people to “beware of them,” using a present tense that calls for a
constant watch (Mark 8:15). They do not love their neighbor by their
actions. They like long ceremonial robes (BDAG, 946), greetings in the
market (Mark 23:7), best seats in the synagogue, and places of honor at
banquets (v 39; Luke 14:7–11; seating by rank: 1QS 6:8–9). They want
attention and honor. They like the attention. The robes may have been
long prayer shawls of wool or linen with tassels on four corners, with a
white mantle-like look; they were known as tallits. This dress was unique to
religious offices. Other robes may simply have been expensive garments
pointing to status. These robes had a reputation tied to them of enhancing
a person’s stature, communicating they were somebody (Josephus, Ant
3.155; Sir 50:11). In addition, these scribes take advantage of widows
(v 40a),570 taking their property (Isa 10:2; Mal 3:5; T. Moses 7:6–10), and
pray for show. It is not entirely clear what is meant here in their exploita-
tion. Was it excessive appropriation of a widow’s inheritance by over-
charging for services that were to be offered without charge (m. ’Abot
1.13), by seizing assets for payment of nonpayment of tithes (Josephus,
Ant 20.206), urging temple gifts and taking the proceeds (Josephus, Ant
18.81–84), or some unspecified means of taking money that was not theirs
to take?571 Regardless of the unspecified detail, the point is exploitation of
the vulnerable, something the Hebrew Scripture addressed with regard to
widows (Deut 14:29; Ps 68:5; 146:9; Isa 1:17; Jer 7:6; 49:11).572
569
On the restrictive and limited scope of the scribes described here, Marcus, Mark 8–16,
852. Jesus is not speaking of all scribes here, but those of this type. He notes the previous
scene has a scribe who is not seen so negatively.
570
Some manuscripts (D, W, and other mostly Western witnesses) add a reference to
orphans here, but it is unlikely they have property to exploit. The addition is likely
scribal to mirror OT expressions (Exod 22:22; Deut 14:29).
571
J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV) (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:1318,
notes six options and also observes that the text does not make clear the exact act in view. It
may well be a variety of abuses are in view; see also J. D. M. Derrett, “‘Eating Up the Houses
of Widows’: Jesus’s Comment on Lawyers?” NovT 14 (1972): 1–9, and H. T. Fleddermann,
“A Warning about the Scribes (Mark 12.37b–40),” CBQ 44 (1982): 52–67.
572
Stein, Mark, 575.

Criticisms like this of the Sadducees are noted by Josephus (Ant 20.180–
81, 205–207).573 So Jesus is not alone in raising such issues. The term
prophasis tied to prayer points to an act done out of a pretext (BDAG,
889, 2).
What lies ahead is a more severe judgment (v 40b). Is this eschatological
or is it indicative of the vineyard being given to others, as the displacement
of many Jewish leaders in 70 CE accomplished, or both? Beyond the dire
result, Jesus does not say. What is clear is that there is accountability to God
who sees and will act. God will judge those who sought first place in
attention, pretense, and self-exaltation, while taking advantage of others
(Matt 23:12; Luke 14:11). What they have done is the exact opposite of the
greatest commandment Jesus has just affirmed and commended. The OT
also expresses such concerns and outcomes (Isa 10:1–4), as did Qumran
(CD 6:16–17).574 God will honor those who love him and do not take
advantage of others while seeking self-interest.
12:41–44 Jesus Commends the Sacrifice of the Poor Widow

12: 41 Then he sat down opposite the offering box, and was observing all
the crowd putting coins into it. Many rich people were throwing in
large amounts.
12: 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, worth
less than a quadrans.
12:43 He called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I say to you, this
poor widow has put more in the offering box than all giving to the
treasury.
12:44 For they all gave out of their wealth. But she, out of her poverty, all
that she had put in her whole life.”
A final pronouncement gives the contrast. The parallel is Luke 21:1–4.
We are again at the temple, near the offering boxes (v 41), located either as
one of thirteen receptacles shaped like trumpets in the Court of Women
(m. Sheqal 6:5) or at the treasury that stored such contributions in the inner
court (Josephus, War 5.200), which is the normal meaning of the term used
(gazophylakion – BDAG, 186, 2). However, the treasury was not in a locale
where a woman could give an offer, so the fact that a widow is involved
favors one of the receptacles as the more likely location. Jesus was
573
574
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 284.

observing people giving offerings, including the rich throwing in a lot of

money, but it was a poor widow who caught his eye (v 42). The way she was
dressed may have pointed to her status (Luke 7:11–19). She put in only two
small copper coins, what were called lepta or quadrans, the lowest currency
possible (BDAG, 592). Quadrans is a Latin term to explain the lepta
(BDAG, 550).575 There even was saying about paying the last quadrans
(Plutarch, Cicero 29.5; Matt 5:26), as we speak of the last penny.576 This
equaled about fifteen minutes of average labor. It was next to nothing, but
here it was genuine piety.
So she gave more than all (vv 43–44). Jesus’ remarks here are privately
made to the disciples. It is a teaching moment for them, dealing with issues
of character. In contrast to others who gave out of excess and wealth, she
offered out of her poverty what she needed for life. Something about her
appearance led to the understanding her sacrifice was great.577 The picture
of self-sacrifice and genuine appreciation for God is where Jesus ends these
public remarks. Even the poor can be rich toward God, and he will notice.
There is discussion about whether Jesus is commending the woman
(most scholars agree) or complaining about what she has done under social
pressure.578 In this latter view, human need has been forced to succumb to
religious practice. However, Jesus’ remark has no real hint of lament in it.
There is no “beware” here, but rather the observation that her sacrifice is
genuine. Jesus may sense that the dilemma the woman was put in was not
right, but what he comments on is the sacrifice of her act. A woman of no
social status serves as a rebuke to the behavior of others who regard social
575
On the debate about whether explaining the lepta by appeal to the Latin quadrans is
evidence for the origin of Mark’s Gospel in Rome or southern Syria, see G. Theissen, The
Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991), 247–49. He opts for southern Syria, even though this is a coin that did not
circulate in the East. Its name was known there, as Matt 5:26 shows. Theissen argues that
it simply meant the “smallest” coin. What this shows is that the naming need not require
a Roman context, but neither does it preclude it, given the coin circulated there and not
in the East. On the other hand, Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985), 28–30, argues for a Roman origin, placing this example as reflecting a
need to explain to Romans what a lepta was using quadrans, alongside another example
in Mark 15:16, with its Latin explanation of the praetorium, which argues against a Syrian
origin in that case, as they would be less likely to need to be told where the palace was.
His larger argument is that the larger number of Latinisms points to this setting over
Syria. Hengel has the more substantial case.
576
577
Were her clothes tattered? Was she wearing black for mourning? Was she gaunt? No
detail is given as to how we know she was a widow.
578
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 282–83, discusses the options and opts for a lament here.

status as important and seek to exploit those of the woman’s status, as the
previous scene has indicated. That is where the contrast lies: her sacrifice
versus the way the rebuked scribes have acted. So, despite much that can be
said for the lament view, and though it might be in the background, the
point is that the woman acted out of a sense of sacrifice, and sacrifice is
what Jesus has spent much time teaching disciples about as they traveled to
Jerusalem.579
13:1–37 Jesus Describes Events Surrounding the Destruction of the

Temple and the Return of the Son of Man That Mean Redemption
and Vindication for His Disciples
13:1 And going out of the temple courts, one of his disciples said to him,
“Teacher, look at these glorious stones and buildings.”
13:2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one
stone will be left on another, which will not be torn down.”
13:3 And while he was seated on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple,
Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately,
13:4 “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when
these things are about to be completed?”
13:5 Jesus began to say to them, “Watch out that no one misleads you.
13:6 Many will come in my name saying, ‘I am he,’ and they will mislead
many.
13:7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be disturbed. It is
necessary for these things to come to pass, but the end is not yet.
13:8 For nation will rise up against nation, and kingdom against
kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and there will
be famines. These things are the beginning of birth pangs.
13: 9 Watch out for yourselves. You will be handed over to councils and
beaten in the synagogues. You will stand before governors and kings
on account of me as a testimony to them.
13:10 First, the gospel must be preached to all nations.
13: 11 And when they arrest you and hand you over to trial, do not worry
about what to say. But whatever is given to you in that hour, speak this.
For it is not you speaking but the Holy Spirit.
13:12 And brother will hand over brother to death, and a father his child.
Children will rise up against parents and have them put to death.
13:13 You will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who
endures to the end will be saved.
579
Collins, Mark, 590.

13:14 But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where he
should not be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee
to the mountains.
13:15 The one on the roof must not come down nor go inside to take
anything from his house.
13:16 The one in the field must not turn back to take his cloak.
13:17 Woe to those who are pregnant or nursing their babies in those days.
13:18 Pray that it may not come in winter.
13:19 For those are days there will be tribulation unlike anything from the
beginning of creation that God created until now, or will ever happen
again.
13:20 And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved.
But because of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut them short.
13:21 And then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ,’ or ‘Look,
there he is,’ do not believe him.
13:22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs
and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
13:23 Watch, for I have told you everything.
13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened
and the moon will not give its light;
13:25 the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in heaven will be
shaken.
13:26 And then they will see the Son of Man arriving among the clouds
with great power and glory.
13:27 Then he will send angels and they will gather his elect from the four
winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
13:28 Learn from the parable of the fig tree: Whenever its branch becomes
tender and puts out leaves, you know summer is near.
13:29 So also you, when you see these things taking place, know that the
end is near, right at the door.
13:30 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these
thing take place.
13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
13:32 But as for that day or hour no one knows it – neither the angels in
heaven, nor the Son – except the Father.
13:33 Keep watch. Stay alert. For you do not know when the time will come.
13:34 It is like a man going on a journey. He left his house and gave his
slaves authority, giving to each his own work and commanded the
doorkeeper to stay alert.
13:35 Therefore, stay alert, because you do not know when the owner of
the house will return – whether during evening, at midnight, when the
rooster crows, or at dawn –

13:36 so that he might not find you asleep when he returns suddenly.
13:37 What I say to you, I say to all, stay alert.”
The Olivet discourse is one of only two major discourses in Mark. The
other was Mark 4:3–32 on the parables. The parallels to this scene are the
more extended version in Matt 24–25 and a similar treatment to Mark in
Luke 21:5–38. It is an apocalyptic-like, eschatological prophetic discourse,
as it looks at judgment on the nation with its prediction of the destruction
of the temple and culminates in the coming of the Son of Man in vindica-
tion of the saints.580 Apocalyptic discourse is an unveiling or disclosure of
realities about the divine program that pulls the veil away to reveal the
resolution of the cosmic conflict God is resolving, often written to assure
God’s people he will vindicate them despite the tough times. However, the
discourse lacks a few key features of normal apocalyptic discourse, such as
visions and otherworldly tours, as well as any feel of this age and the age to
come, though that is implied in the Son of Man’s coming and the vindica-
tion he brings.581 So the discourse is better regarded as eschatological and
prophetic with apocalyptic features.582 The discourse is introduced in Mark
13:1–2 with a short pronouncement about the temple’s destruction that
triggers a question in verses 3–4 and the discourse in verses 5–37.
The discourse is complex in that it juxtaposes the temple’s destruction
and the end tied to Day of the Lord imagery and treats the signs indicating
that each is going to take place. The relationship between those two events
is not entirely clear, although some separation appears likely.583 There is a
tension between specific signs being given and not knowing exactly when
the culmination comes. God has a plan, but it also is part of a mystery not
completely disclosed. One can rest assured these things will happen, but do
580
For other examples of apocalyptic discourse in the Second Temple period or in Jewish
sources, Dan 7–12, 1 Enoch 37–71, and 4 Ezra 13; Hooker, Mark, 297. It is not a farewell
discourse. That description is better tied to the Last Supper.
581
Witherington, Mark, 336, claims it lacks other such features, such as an otherworldly
mediator, but that surely is the Son of Man, coming on the clouds. He adds a lack of
apocalyptic verbiage and date setting. However, the language surrounding the Son of
Man’s return has such cosmic descriptions, and although no dates are set, the time is
declared as known by God, with signs pointing to a divine calendar. All of this means
that we are in a type of apocalyptic discourse.
582
583
Stein, Mark, 584–85, charts four primary options for how the discourse is broken down
in terms of events for commentators. They range from a mix of the lead-up to the
destruction and, distinctly, the parousia, all the way to being just about the destruction.
Particularly debated is whether verses 14–23, 24–27, and 32–37 include the parousia or
not, either exclusively or as a parallel experience to the time of the destruction. The point
of agreement is that verses 5–13 are the lead-up to the temple’s destruction.

not try to put a calendar on them. One can see progress toward that
vindication, but the exact time is God’s business alone. In the meantime,
keep to the task, despite the difficulty of current times. Jesus’ point is to call
for watchfulness and faithfulness until that deliverance comes. It is part of
Mark’s point about discipleship requiring perseverance, suffering, and
watchfulness. The discourse also shows Israel accountable for her rejection
of the one God has sent. An exilic-like experience of judgment, even greater
than the one already present with Rome, awaits the nation.
What triggered the discourse was a disciple’s remark made in the temple
courts about how glorious the temple buildings were (v 1). The mount itself
was under major renovation at the time, as Herod was expanding the
location. The work on the temple took eighteen months and the outer
buildings eight more years, but work was still going on at the time of Jesus
(Josephus, Ant 15.5–6). In fact, it continued until at least 62 CE, having
started in 20 BCE. Josephus compared the temple’s appearance to a snow-
capped mountain rising in the midst of Jerusalem (War 5.184–226, esp.
222–23; also Ant 15.380–425). Large stones of 15 meters by 2.5 meters and
weighing 420 to 600 tons provided the structure.584 It was a massive
structure. Jews felt secure in its presence.
Jesus’ response was surprising (v 2), although such warnings had OT
precedent (Jer 7:14; 26:6; Mic 3:12). He noted that from these great buildings
not one stone would be left on another. The destruction predicted here
took place in 70 CE. Josephus describes it in detail (War 6.271–373; 7.1–20).
What seems not to have taken place is the return of the Son of Man, leading
to all kinds of interpretive discussion. That Jesus could foresee this is not
surprising. The nation was in covenantal unfaithfulness in his view, having
rejected him as the one God had sent. The punishment for such, according
to Deut 28–32, was the danger of exile or being overrun by the nations. If
Rome did this, it would be in typical Roman ruthless style. Even Josephus
notes senses of foreboding in the years before Rome finally crushed the city
(Josephus War 4.128, 388). Destruction would come in its wake.585 The fact
the temple was going to be destroyed also did not bode well for Jerusalem
or the nation.
The prediction of the destruction of such a sacred site piqued the
curiosity some of the disciples as they moved past the temple to the
584
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 299.
585
Hooker, Mark, 304, regards such a prediction as authentic. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 295–
98, notes that the lack of mention of the devastating fire of the destruction and other lack
of detail suggest this is not a prophecy after the fact, but point to authenticity.

Mount of Olives. They sensed that Jesus was speaking about very impor-
tant events, since the temple was such a sacred site. Peter, James, John, and
Andrew were with him at the Mount of Olives and asked him two ques-
tions (vv 3–4): (1) when will these things be, and (2) what will be the sign
they are about to be completed? Stein summarizes these two questions as
asking about the time and the sign.586 The location of the Mount of Olives
was often associated with judgment (Ezek 11:23; 43:2; Zech 14:3–4). The
wording even echoes Zech 14:4 (Mark: Mount of Olives, opposite the
temple; Zechariah: Mount of Olives, to the east of Jerusalem). The mount
lay to the east of the temple mount, providing a stunning look down on the
spectacle. As is common in Mark, it is an inner circle that hears the
teaching, though here Andrew is added to the more common threesome
of Peter, James, and John. They sensed that something this catastrophic
had to have significance, so they wanted to know what would augur its
arrival. In asking about “these things,” there is a hint that there must be
something more to this than the destruction. Jesus’ response confirms that
suspicion. In asking for “the” sign, they request an indicator that will tell
them, “This is it.” Jesus will give many indicators that the time is approach-
ing, but the key indicators are found in a shameful act in the temple and the
catastrophic cosmic signs that come with the Son of Man’s return. All else
is preparatory.
Jesus begins a series of indicators, which point to the event but are not
“the sign.” The list leads up to the remark about abomination in Mark 13:14.
The first indicator is that many will come in the name of Jesus claiming to
be the one (vv 5–6). They are not to be misled by these messianic pre-
tenders, though many will be. So they are to beware not to be misled by
such claims. The idea of taking heed or paying attention runs throughout
the discourse (Mark 13:9, 23, 33, 35, 37). They are not to fall into the trap of
thinking another brings the program of God. The fact that Jesus is facing
death and will be absent leads into this possibility.
The claim “I am he” is a claim to be Messiah or to bring deliverance in
God’s program, perhaps at Jesus’ instruction. However, the one fulfilling
that role has already been announced along with the kingdom program
that comes with it. Jesus and no one else brings this deliverance, even with
586
Stein, Mark, 590. He also notes that Mark spends much time on the destruction, while
Matthew looks more to the end. Luke follows Mark in this emphasis. What is being set
up is a kind of pattern prophecy, or typology, where the time of the destruction and the
time of the end mirror each other in many ways.

his upcoming departure. So they are not to be led astray by such claims.587
They are to ignore them. In an ironic way, Jesus is using apocalyptic
rhetoric to dampen some apocalyptic fervor that events might drum up.
Warnings about such potential deception are common to end-time teach-
ing in Judaism as well as among those who responded to Jesus (CD 5:20;
1QH 4[12]:7, 16, 20; T. Moses 7:4; Acts 20:29–30; 2 Thess 2:9–12; 1 John 2:18,
22; 4:1–4; 2 Pet 2:1; 2 John 7; Rev 13:14; 19:20; Did. 16:4; 2 Apoc. Bar. 70:2).588
The second set of indicators Jesus notes are about national conflicts,
wars and rumors of wars, political chaos (vv 7–8a). Jesus says not to be
alarmed. 2 Thess 2:2 shows the tone of this verb in this kind of a chaotic
context. Such things must happen. Such conflict should not throw them off
or disturb them. Rome was full of conflict, both locally and with some of
their neighbors, like the Parthians with whom they fought in 36–37 CE and
the civil war after Nero died in 68 CE. The term used here for “must be” is
dei, often used of something in God’s plan (also in v 10; Mark 8:31; 9:1; see
Dan 2:28–29 LXX for this use of the verb; especially prevalent in Luke-
Acts). Prophetic Jewish texts on the end times are full of such descriptions
of end-time events (1 En 99:4; 2 Bar 27:5; 4 Ezra 13:31; 15:15; note also Isa 8:21;
13:13; 14:30; 19:2; Jer 23:19; 51:46; Ezek 5:12; Hag 2:6; Zech 14:4).589 These
things are not the end, but chaos will precede the temple’s destruction
and acts against it. That is still to come. So this is another indicator that
moves us toward the end but is not its sign. Nation will rise against nation
and kingdoms against each other. When things got difficult with Rome,
these served as words of encouragement that God was still in control and
had a plan.
Everything about what Jesus is saying argues that the disciples are
already in the eschaton, the last days, and moving toward its completion.
The destruction of the temple and the movement toward it is included in
this preparatory period.
A third indicator involves earthquakes and famines (v 8b). Such events
were common in the first century: Jerusalem in 67 CE (Josephus, War
4.286–87), Philippi had one (Acts 16:26), Pompeii (a minor one in 62 CE
587
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 306, notes several such deliverance or revolutionary figures in
the run-up to the temple’s destruction in 70 CE (Judas the Galilean, Simon of Perea,
Athronges, Menahem, Simon bar-Giora; see Josephus, Ant 17.273–84; War 2.56–65,
2.433–48; 4.503–44). It is figures like these that Jesus may have in mind. They are
messianic-like.
588
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 874–75.
589

that partially destroyed the city before the more famous, permanently
destructive one in 79 CE), Herculaneum in 62 CE, and Laodicia in 61 CE.
There was a famine in the forties under Claudias (Acts 11:28; Josephus, Ant
3.320; 20.101).590 Jesus has given three indicators so far, but none are the
sign; none stop God’s program. Jesus simply says these are the beginning of
birth pangs. The picture is of a process of birth that is just at its start,
another prophetic theme (Isa 13:8; 26:17; Jer 4:31; 6:24; 13:21; 22:23; 49:22;
50:43; Hos 13:13; Mic 4:9–10).
A fourth event is persecution. Now Jesus gets more personal and points
attention to events that will impact the disciples directly (v 9). Disciples will
have to watch out for themselves. The present imperative blepete looks to a
constant watchfulness. They will be given over to councils, beaten in the
synagogues, and stand before governors and kings. Matt 10:17–22 discusses
this persecution and family betrayal in a pre-Jerusalem missionary call
context, whereas Luke 12:11–12 leaves it to itself in yet a third context. Jesus
discussed such suffering regularly. They need to be prepared for it. The
councils are civil boards that could be Jew or Gentile (Acts 4–5; 17:6–9;
19:35–41).591 Synagogues look to Jewish persecution, whereas governors and
kings look to persecution tied to the Romans. The Book of Acts portrays
several such events, especially involving Peter, John, and Paul (Acts chap. 4,
12:1–3; chaps. 22–28). The expectation is this will not be avoidable. They will
be witnesses to them on account of Jesus. They will represent him even as
they face public rejection and questioning. The expression “to them” could
mean “against them,” but the stress on the call of what the disciples face
means that their faithfulness is in view, not vindication. That means the
expression is likely positive. The hope was to draw people to Jesus as the
Gospel must go out into the whole world.
So a fifth element is that the Gospel must go out into all of the world, and
be preached to all nations (v 10). Gentile mission was foreseen in the OT
(Isa 42:6; 49:6, 12; 52:10; 60:6; Ps 96) and Judaism (Ps Sol 8:17, 43; 11:1).592 This
also will precede the destruction and return. The expression here looks to a
breaking out of the Gospel into the world, much like Paul affirms has taken
place in Col. 1:6 and 23 (Rom 1:8; 10:18; 15:19; 16:26).
590
France, Mark, 512.
591
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 309.
592
Lane, Mark, 461–62, notes this in contending for the authenticity of the remark, as some
see this remark as a diversion from the theme of verses 9 and 11. Jesus knew the word of
the kingdom was for the world and that word would get out despite the pressure.

This dissemination of the Gospel will come with pressure, so when those
sharing the message are arrested or handed over to trial, one might be
worried (v 11); but that is not necessary (1 Pet 4:14). Instead the Spirit will
give one what to say (Acts 4:13). That is what should be shared. The Spirit’s
presence means there is no need to be anxious about what to say. John 14–
16 makes a similar point about the provision of the Paraclete. Brothers will
betray brothers to death (v 12).593 Children will act against parents, leading
to their death. Divided families were also discussed by Matt 10:35–36 and
Luke 12:52–53 in an earlier missions context.594 Here the allusion is to Mic
7:6, and another common Jewish theme (1 En 100:1–2; Jub 23:19; 4 Ezra 6:24;
3 Bar 4:17). Opposition will result in martyrdom. Some will see faith as
betrayal and act against believers.
In a hyperbole, Jesus says all will hate disciples because of Jesus’ name
(v 13). It may refer to all levels of society, but clearly it is not every single
human, as some do believe. Tacitus in his Annals 15.44 notes how
Christians in Rome are “a class hated for their abominations” during the
persecutions of Nero. Calling people to be accountable to God, even where
grace is being highlighted, is not popular. The one who endures to the end,
the faithful one, the one who kept watch while being aware of what is
coming: that one will be saved. The end here is not the eschatological end
but the end of one’s journey, whether it involves suffering or death. The
pressure and rejection the church faces for the Gospel is no surprise and
should not be surprising to anyone who comes to faith. The calling is to be
prepared for it and trust God in his program. There is no “exemption from
adversity.”595 Be faithful.
The sign of the temple’s destruction, and even the end, is the abomina-
tion of desolation standing where he ought not be (v 14). A masculine
participle (estēkota) for standing, even though it modifies a neuter noun (to
bdelygma), points to a person as a part of the indicator. This is why the
translation reads, “standing where he ought not be.” This act is a key
indicator that things have really changed. So Jesus is now giving a sign
that tells those present to act versus not being concerned. They also “see”
(v 14) versus merely “hear” (v 7).596 Now is the time to respond.
593
The giving up of one’s life in Mark 8:35–36 fits here, as one must be willing to give up
one’s life and face rejection if one accepts the Gospel. That may include isolation from
family. Other such warnings include Mark 6:11; 8:15, 17; and 10:30.
594
That text has a parallel in Thomas 16.
595
Edwards, Mark, 395.
596
Stein, Mark, 602.

The desolation is an allusion to Dan 9:27 and 12:11 LXX, so that the reader
of the Gospel is called to understand the allusion, see the connection, and
act. This is likely a parenthetical narrative remark from Mark or his source,
not an utterance of Jesus, who is speaking and has no readers.597 The
picture of this pattern is from Antiochus Epiphanes in the holy place
setting up an altar to Zeus in 168 BCE, desecrating the temple (1 Macc
1:54, 59; 2 Macc 6:2; also Dan 8:13; 11:31). Abomination deals with issues that
reflect the presence of idolatry (Deut 29:17; 1 Kings 11:5; 7; 2 Kings 23:13, 24;
Isa 66:3; Jer 4:1; 7:30; Ezek 5:11).598 The desecrator stands where he should
not be. In 70 CE, this kind of act was seen in Titus’ visit to the temple
(Josephus, War 6.260) or the Zealots falsely appointing Phanni High Priest
(War 4.163, 182–83, 377–79, 413), but nothing really fits exactly.599 When
Titus came, people fled into the city for protection, not to the hills.
Moreover, when he entered the temple it was already destroyed. The
satirical act of choosing a clown, Phanni, as high priest is hardly likely.
We may have a patterned activity here, so the final desecration is yet to
come with the antichrist described in Daniel as part of a final rebellion that
itself is like many Temple-desecrating events that have come before it
(2 Thess 2:3–4).600
It will be a terrible and dangerous time. No one should stay in Jerusalem.
Those in Judea are to flee to the mountains. It is important to note that a
siege like we had in 70 CE does not fit because that would be fleeing the city
into the hands of the enemy, and there was plenty of time to flee given the
gradual approach of the Romans.601 Hills were seen as a place of refuge in
the OT (Gen 14:10; Jer 16:16; Ezek 7:14–23; 1 Macc 2:28). The one on the roof
is not to come down and get anything out of the house (v 15). The one in the
field will not have time to get his cloak (v 16). There is no time to gather
597
Edwards, Mark, 396.
598
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 318.
599
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 319. The suggestion of this being about Caligula’s order to put up
a statue of him as a deified figure is not likely, as it was never carried out and so the
abomination never took place; Josephus, War 2.184–203. For a defense that events tied to
70 CE are in view, in contrast to what I am arguing, France, Mark, 522–28. Stein, Mark,
603, notes eight suggestions for what this is, and opts for Phanni. We have highlighted
the more common suggestions, and opt for an ultimate eschatological event also
mirrored in an act like that of Titus and Antiochus, because no event in 70 CE exhausts
the picture.
600
So Edwards, Mark, 398–99.
601
Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark, 16–18, who uses the observation to argue that
Mark is not writing after 70 CE.

anything to escape; it will be like running to high ground in the face of a

tsunami.
It will be hard for those pregnant or those nursing children (v 17). How
judgment endangers children is an OT theme (Deut 32:25; 2 Kings 8:12;
15:16; Jer 44:7 Lam 2:11; 4:4 Hos 13:16; Amos 1:13; Ps 137:9). The remark has a
conceptual parallel (Luke 23:28–29). What is normally a blessing is now a
curse. One is to pray it will not be in winter (v 18), probably because
escaping will be harder in harsher weather and with swollen wadis blocking
the way.
The tribulation (thlipsis) will be unprecedented, unlike anything that has
happened or will happen (v 19). The allusion to Dan 12:1 points to the end of
the age with the general resurrection following in 12:2–3. These allusions to
the unprecedented degree of suffering and to Dan 12 are part of what
suggests that the destruction of the temple is also a pattern event for
something still to come at the end. The risk to all flesh is about more
than people in Jerusalem. The end is being described.602
Only God cutting those days of suffering short will result in people being
spared (v 20). The verbs in this part of the discourse are aorists, expressing
as certain what is still future, like a Semitic prophetic perfect.603 This
picture of great suffering is yet another theme of Jewish apocalyptic
literature (T. Moses 8:1; 1QM 1:11–12; 1 En 80:2, 4; 4 Ezra 4:25–26; 7:27; 3
Bar 9; 4Q385 3:3–5 [=Pseu Ezek]).604 God cuts the days short for the sake of
the elect. He is not literally cutting the days short, but his plan mercifully
does not allow the violence to fully play out. He acts to stop it. Vindication
comes.
During this time, some will claim to have spotted the Christ (v 21), as
earlier in verses 5–7. The detail points to the mirroring of the end with
earlier events.605 Such claims are not to be believed. False messiahs and
prophets are coming (Luke 17:23; Matt 24:26–27; 2 Thess 2:2; Thomas 113).
They will even perform signs and wonders that will deceive, even the elect
if that is possible – an expression that is rhetorical and points to its power
to deceive. (v 22). Warnings about false prophets have OT roots (Deut
13:1–5; 18:18–22). This is why one must watch and stay alert (v 23).
Jesus notes that he has told them what they need to know ahead of time
602
In contrast, France, Mark, 527–29, contends that these descriptions are stock phrases for
terrible suffering and should not be pressed as pointing to the end.
603
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 893–94.
604
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 323, also sees the influence of Isa 60:21–22 in this theme.
605
Collins, Mark, 613.

(Mark 13:21–27). Jesus clearly is discussing the end beyond the destruction
in a new phase of eschatological activity.606
Then comes the return, after that time of tribulation (vv 24–25). It will be
accompanied with catastrophic cosmic signs: a darkened sun, a dimmed
moon, stars falling, and powers in heaven shaken. The return is a creation
shattering, creation altering, event, a cosmic entry into the affairs of
humanity. The lights are going out on the current cosmic order. “God’s
appearance does not destroy the cosmos; it frightens it.”607 The language is
typical of such judgment scenes, but it should not be reduced to only
metaphor. Hooker notes that famines and earthquakes were already
described in verses 6–8, so something more is in view here.608 The return
brings significant change to the creation’s structure and the way God
runs it.
No one will need to look for the return of the Son of Man, because when
it comes it will be obvious. Such language about the sun and moon is also
common in the OT (Isa 13:10; see also Ezek 32:7; Joel 2:10; 2:31; 3:15; Amos
8:9).609 Language from Isa 34:4 also speaks of stars falling (also Judg 5:5; Ps
18:7; 114:7; Amos 9:5; Mic 1:4; Nah 1:5; Hab 3:6; T. Moses 10:1–5; 1 En 57:2; Rev
6:12–13; 8:10).610 Yet again standard OT language is present to describe the
events leading to the end.
What they will see is the Son of Man arriving among the clouds with
great power and glory (v 26). Jesus used Daniel 7:13 to describe the coming
of the Son of Man. In that passage, one “like a son of man” receives the
authority to judge from the Ancient One and rides the clouds, a figure
reserved for God or the gods in the Old Testament (Exod 14:20; 34:5; Num
10:34; Ps 104:3; Isa 19:1). Daniel 7 pictures the Son of Man receiving
authority from God to execute judgment; in this passage, he is coming to
earth to exercise that power. This is not merely a reference to the church’s
authority nor to the destruction in 70 CE.611 It is about setting up the
606
What is harder to be sure of is whether verses 14–20 are only of the destruction or of the
end, or whether they involve a mirroring of both periods pointing to destruction and the
end simultaneously. We suspect a mirroring looking ultimately to the end because some
of the features do not match 70 CE.
607
So Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 329.
608
Hooker, Mark, 318–19, calls it “more than metaphorical, less than literal.” Cosmic
disruption seems to be the point.
609
Lane, Mark, 475.
610
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 328.
611
Contra France, Mark, 530–31, 535–36. Everything about the destruction of the temple in
these verses as expounded by France is simply imported by not paying sufficient
attention to the shifts in the passage and lack of contacts to 70 CE that have been

kingdom’s consummation. Who is the “they” who see? This is not clear. It
is at the least those who are judged, as often in Judaism it is they who see,
when they encounter judgment and justice (1 En 62:2–11; Sib Or 3.556–57,
693; Wis 5:2; 4 Ezra 7:78–86; Apoc Elijah 35:17; Rev 11:12).612 These events
picture “the doom of the dark side.”613 It may also be general. Those who
are present when it happens will see the Son of Man. It will not be able to be
missed (note the contrast to vv 21–22 – there will be no need to point out his
presence). The center of God’s presence will reside in the Son of Man.614 In
other words, when justice finally comes with the Son of Man, no one will
miss it and all will experience it, either for good or ill, depending on how
they have perceived the one God has sent.
With him are the angels who gather the elect from every direction under
heaven and earth (v 27; see Deut 30:3–4; Ps 50:3–5; Isa 11:11; 43:6; 66:8; Jer
32:37; Zech 2:6, 10; Tob 14:10; 1 En 62:13–14; Ps Sol 8:28; 11:1–4; 17:28). God’s
deliverance has come.
Jesus now summarizes with a parable, that is, an extended simile. When
a fig tree starts to show its leaves, one can know that summer is near (v 28).
The fig trees would have been at this point of budding, as it was Passover
season. March and April will move into the full bloom of May and June. A
second parable on faithfulness and accountability appears in verse 34. The
fig tree picture points to the vindicating harvest of believers to come. So
when one sees the start to these things, one can know God’s plan is
unfolding and approaching.615
So when one sees these things happening, one can know he is near, at the
door (v. 29). Standing at the door is a figure for coming to judge and
redeem (Luke 12:35–38; Rev 3:20), so he is near.616 Jesus then declares that
noted. The destruction came earlier in the discourse; see Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 328–29,
and especially Stein, Mark, 613–15, who argues that how the rest of the NT uses this
language dictates this imagery is about the end.
612
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 904. This also fits Jesus’ reply in Mark 14:62, where the Jewish leaders
see the Son of Man. Marcus also suggests that spiritual evil power is in view. This may
help to explain the cosmic imagery.
613
Edwards, Mark, 403.
614
The corollary often tied to this affirmation that the temple is replaced is another idea
read into the passage. The temple is destroyed earlier. The question of whether it is seen
as coming back is open and is not decided in this text. If, in other NT texts, the antichrist
desecrates the temple at the end, it is implicit that it exists at the end.
615
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 334, connects it to the beginning of birth pangs, in verse 8.
616
Stein, Mark, 618, argues for “it” is near, referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, which is
possible given “these things” as a near antecedent. The issue is whether to see the image
or the sentence as pointing to the exact sense.

this generation will not pass away until all these things take place (v 30). It
is less than clear whether “these things” refer to the beginning of the
discourse and the false claimants (the things that are budding) or to the
things that complete it, such as the abomination and especially the cosmic
signs. Probably the latter events are included ultimately, but a stress exists
on the earlier events because the appearing of the Son of Man at the end is
portrayed as obvious, as signaled by cosmic indicators.617 In addition, the
emphasis is on the signs that let one know that the end is near, not on the
timing of the end. So the nearness is related especially to those events
coming before the end. This points to events leading to the temple’s
destruction in verses 5–13.
The expression “this generation” is much discussed and has produced a
host of views. The term itself can refer to (1) a specific generation, which
might extend forty years or so; (2) a given age, speaking of a broader period;
or (3) a given group of people (ethnic or, more commonly, ethical), such as
a nation or a righteous or wicked generation (BDAG 191–192, where the
“wicked” generation is discussed in point 2). If one reads the term as
temporal, then all these events did not occur for that generation, as there
was no return (unless one equates the return with the temple’s destruc-
tion).618 Other views exist that do not see an erroneous prediction here:
(1) The generation referred to is the one that sees the final abomination.
Once that climactic event takes place, everything follows quickly. The
generation is that of the final great tribulation. (2) Taking the term ethi-
cally, it refers to the “righteous” generation and points to vindication. The
problem with this is that this ethical sense is rare (Ps 23:6; 111:2 LXX).
(3) The term could refer to the more common ethical sense of “wicked”
generation, so that the point is that wickedness will remain until judgment
comes. It seemingly states the obvious, but that may be to reassure.619
617
As Hooker, Mark, 320, notes, verse 29 cannot refer to verses 26–27 because they are the
“climax to the period of waiting.” Also Edwards, Mark, 404, makes this point, seeing the
allusion to verses 5–13. In contrast again is France, Mark, 538, who sees verses 14–22 in
view. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 911, contends that “these things” in verse 29 are the events
leading to temple destruction, while “all of these things” in verse 30 are to everything. So
when one sees the early indicators, one can know the end is near, but when the heavens
shake, one can know it has come. It is hard to be sure that there is such a distinction.
618
France, Mark, 501–502, argues for the destruction, while Hooker, Mark, 321, sees verses
5–27 in view and takes the prediction as wrong on this point.
619
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 335, says “perhaps” for this view. Mark 8:38, Matt 12:39–41 and 45
have this force but are clear in using the qualifying adjective evil or adulterous with
generation. The suggestion is that this idea is alluded to by the term generation alone.
The expression “crooked generation” is similar in force (Matt 17:17; Luke 9:41).

(4) An ethnic use tied to Israel, like one sees in Luke 16:8, is sometimes put
forward, so the point is that Israel will be preserved. But this is a very rare
use of the term as well. Luke 16:8 may have such a use with the clear
qualifier “their own” to make this sense clear, but it also may be only a
temporal reference to the generation of a given time period, and not of a
particular race. So, even the existence of the category is unclear. (5) The
phrase “all these things” actually describes the indicators pointing to the
end, and not the end itself. So the current temporal generation will see
those signs (the events tied to 70 CE).620 They guarantee the rest of the
events are in view because the end events are in the process of unfolding,
and the end is the goal of all the signs.
Of these views, the first, third, and fifth are all possible. Either the first or
the fifth is more likely. Either the signs of the end, once abomination takes
place, happen within a generation of time, or the signs pointing to the end
leading to the temple’s destruction in 70 CE (and guaranteeing the end)
take place within a generation. Because we are dealing with mirrored
events (the temple destruction in 70 CE and the end), it is hard to know
which side of the pattern Jesus is highlighting and whether or not they
parallel each other.621 Of the two options, the one looking to the temple
destruction that came in 70 CE is slightly more likely, provided one recalls
that this near event is a mirror for the end and a prophetic indicator of what
is to come at the end. For a more temporal reference is that Mark’s use of
“this generation” elsewhere is a reference to contemporaries (Mark 8:12
[twice]; 8:38; 9:19).622
He assures them with the remark that heaven and earth will pass away,
but what he has said will not (v 31, see Isa 40:7–8). Jesus is certain the temple
will be destroyed and the Son of Man will return to gather the elect in what
will be very difficult times. This is said emphatically with ou mē.
In saying the events are close, he goes on to say that no one knows the
day or hour, not the angels, not even the Son, but the Father alone (v 32).
Jesus’ remark on claiming ignorance on this important point was so
unusual that it caused a measure of controversy in the early church.
There is evidence that it was so controversial that a few later copyists of
620
Witherington, Mark, 348; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 337.
621
Interestingly, in the overall telling of the discourse, Matthew 24 highlights events of the
end in his rendering, while Luke 21 gives more attention to the near term fulfilment. This
can be seen even in the way the opening questions by the disciples in the versions read as
Matthew refers directly to the end, while Mark and Luke do not.
622
Lane, Mark, 480.

the parallel in Matthew 24:36 omitted it.623 Acts 1:7 makes a similar point
about the Father knowing. In limiting Jesus’ knowledge, it points to
authenticity, as the early church is unlikely to have created this saying.624
Lane speaks of God not delegating this knowledge to the Son as he lives in
incarnation in dependence on the Father.625
So they must watch out and stay alert (v 33). Just as Jesus began his reply
with a call to be on watch in verses 5 and 9, so he ends it with a double call.
The call to be alert and watch out has run through the entire discourse (also
in vv. 23, 33, 35, 37). One is to be aware of what God’s program is and stay
faithful, keeping an eye on what is taking place, for one does not know
when the time will come.626 One is not to try to figure out when the end is,
as Jesus just said that cannot be known but is the business of the Father; one
is simply to watch and be ready, knowing that chaos will come, but so will
judgment and God’s program with the return of the Son of Man. Other
parts of the NT reflect this expectation (Titus 2:13; 1 Cor 16:22; Matt 6:10; 1
Thess 4:18; 2 Tim 4:8; the book of Revelation, esp. chaps. 19–22).627
Jesus closes with a final call to stay alert, having made the exhortation
three more times in these final verses (vv 34, 35, 37). He compares it to
servants in a household who are given responsibility and a doorkeeper who
is to be alert for when the master of the house returns (v 34). The door-
keeper’s responsibility was to protect the home and allow those who came
at night to enter.628 This is a short version of an image we see also in Luke
12:35–40 and Matt 24:45–51. Just the core image of being ready is used.
Because none of them knows whether the return will be at evening, at
midnight, at the rooster crow (dawn), or at daybreak, all are to stay alert so
623
Only X and some vulgate manuscripts in Mark lack it. In Matthew, ‫א‬1, L, W, f1, vg, and
syr lack it. Luke lacks the remark entirely.
624
The claim that Jesus did not speak openly of himself as the Son, as noted by Hooker,
Mark, 323, ignores that he did speak of God as Father, an unusual emphasis, and fails to
note that Jesus is more overt in his public acts and declarations in this final stage of his
ministry (entry and Mark 12:6 – Beloved Son; 14:61–62 – positive reply to being called
“Son of the Blessed”; also in Matt 11:27=Luke 10:22).
625
Lane, Mark, 482; France, Mark, 544; while Marcus, Mark 8–16, 914, opts for taking on the
limits of human existence.
626
Hooker, Mark, 323, argues that this end section on keeping watch does not fit with the
discourse because it implies that no signs come with the end. There is a difference
between being told to keep watch because an event is approaching and being told one
need not be concerned because there is no way to know exactly when it will take place.
The exhortation prevents indifference by noting that one cannot know exactly when the
end will occur.
627
Stein, Mark, 625.
628
Collins, Mark, 618.

that629 the master does not find disciples asleep when he comes back
(vv 35–36).630 Jesus uses the second-person plural here (v 37). He is speak-
ing to all of them as a group. The call is to keep looking and yet do what
God has called you to do in the meantime. There is to be no “dereliction
of duty.”631
14:1–72 Jesus Prepares His Disciples for His Death as Judas Betrays
Him and the Jewish Leadership Examines Him, Finding His Claim of
Divine Support and Rule Blasphemous
14:1–2 The Leadership Seeks to Arrest Jesus Secretly but Fear the People
14:1 It was two days before the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened
Bread, the chief priests and scribes were trying to find a way to arrest
Jesus secretly so they might kill him.
14:2 For they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be a riot among the
people.”
This opening unit is actually three scenes that reflect Mark’s sandwich
style. We have a summary scene on the leaders’ desire to arrest and kill
Jesus in Mark 14:1–2, the anointing of Jesus for his death in Mark 14:3–9,
and the betrayal of Judas, returning to the theme of the movement to Jesus’
death in Mark 14:10–11. The parallels to Mark 14:1–2 are Matt 26:1–5, Luke
22:1–2, and John 11:47–53. The parallels to the anointing are Matt 26:6–13
and John 12:1–8. The parallels for Judas’ betrayal are Matt 26:14–16 and
Luke 22:3–6. The juxtaposition contrasts the act of the woman with that of
the leaders and Judas.
The leaders are reacting to Jesus’ presence and want to stop him (Mark
3:6; 11:18; 12:12). It is two days before the combined feast of Passover (Exod
12:6–14) and Unleavened Bread (Exod 12:15–20), a feast known by either
name, since the opening Day of Passover was followed by a week of
celebration of Unleavened Bread (v 1; see 2 Chron 35:17; Jospehus Ant
17.203 notes how either term can be used for the whole).632 It is likely a
629
The use of mē in verse 36 is unusual. It introduces a purpose clause that is also negated
(BDAG, 646, 2.b–so that . . . not).
630
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 341, notes how the disciples will fail at being alert at Gethsemane
(Mark 14:32–42). These are the four Roman night watch points. Three of the watches are
alluded to in Mark 14:17, 72 and 15:1.
631
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 341.
632
Other texts on the Passover include Exod 12:21–51; Lev 23:4–5; Num 9:1–14; 28:16; Deut 16:1–
7; on Unleavened Bread, Exod 13:6–10; 34:18; Lev 23:6–8; Num 28:16–25; Deut 16:3–4, 8.

Wednesday, given that Mark portrays the meal as a Passover meal that is
on Thursday night, which for Jews counted as part of Friday, with the day
starting at sunset when counted inclusively.633
The leadership has decided that Jesus must be removed. Jesus had
predicted their opposition (Mark 8:31; 10:33). The only question they had
was how to arrest him without causing a public riot (v 2). The prospect of
riots meant that the Romans and other rulers took careful watch during
this period (Josephus, Ant 17.213–15 notes the example of Archelaus in
4 BCE; also Acts 21:34 shows how easily a crowd could be stirred up
about those following Jesus). The arrest has to be in secret or by cunning
(so en dolō; BDAG, 256). Ironically, it is a stirred-up crowd that eventually
convinces Pilate to give over Jesus later in Mark 15:11–13, but the leadership
was not confident of such support at this earlier point. So the leadership
thought an arrest would not be possible during the feast, when Jerusalem
swelled to triple or more of its population, hosting pilgrims for the feast.634
They may have feared the influx of outsiders from Galilee who would have
been present.
14:3–9 Jesus Praises a Woman for Anointing Him for His Death
14: 3 Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper,
reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster jar of costly
pure nard perfume. After breaking open the jar, she poured it on his
head.
14:4 But some who were present, becoming indignant, said to themselves,
“Why this waste of expensive perfume?
14:5 For this perfume is able to be sold for more than three hundred silver
coins and given to the poor.” And they were rebuking her.
14:6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why are you bothering her? She has
worked a good work for me.
14:7 For you will always have the poor with you and when you wish you
are able to do good for them. But you will not always have me.
633
Technically, we may be somewhere between Tuesday sunset and Wednesday sunset if
we are counting inclusively, as was done with the three days after Jesus’ death to get to
resurrection.
634
Estimates vary as to how large Jerusalem got in these feast periods. A reasonable figure is
somewhere in the 75,000–180,000 range, though 50,000–200,000 is sometimes noted;
France, Mark, 548, notes Jeremias’ estimate of 180,000; Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of
Jesus (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), 77–84.

14:8 She did what she could. She anointed my body beforehand for burial.
14:9 Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole
world, also what she has done will be told in memory of her.”
This scene becomes another proclamation account. It also shows Jesus
affirming a leper and a woman. The parallels are Matt 26:6–13 and John
12:1–8. Luke 7:36–50 is a distinct scene in a pre-Jerusalem setting involving a
sinner, not Mary. Pharisees are present at that meal, but would be unlikely
to be at a home associated with leprosy. John 12 places the event six days
before Passover, so Mark may well have moved the event here for the
contrast of what is taking place during this last week, enabling him to
juxtapose this act with Judas’ betrayal. John has it before the entry, which is
likely to be correct.635 With some events, the fact that they happened and
their relationship to other events trumps giving a precise timeline.
Jesus is taking a meal at Bethany at the home of Simon the leper (v 3;
Mark 11:11. 20 – Bethany was Jesus’ home in Jerusalem). Given that we are
at a meal, the leper is likely cured now and is better seen as a former leper.
The detail is consistent with Jesus interacting with people on the edge of
society. A woman takes a very expensive jar of nard perfume and anoints
Jesus on the head (v. 4). John 12:1–3 names her as Lazarus’ sister, Mary.
Nard came from India.636 Expensive perfume was held in expensive alaba-
ster jars that lacked handles (Pliny the Elder, Nat. 13.3.19).637 Such an
anointing was left to kings and other prominent figures (2 Kings 9:6 – of
Jehu; Exod 29:7; 1 Sam 10:1; Ps 133:2). As a sign of respect, it may have been a
response to the opposition Jesus had been facing. “I acknowledge who you
are,” she is saying in her act. The use of nard over more normal oil for an
anointing may be an indication of respect for the unique role Jesus has.638 It
is an anointing plus. The breaking of the jar is intentional and points to a
full anointing. She offered it all, not just a few drops.639 The perfume is
dedicated to Jesus.
Those present are shocked, even angry about what they regard as a waste
of money (v 4). Mark says it was some of the people, whereas Matthew 26:8
635
636
Hurtado, Mark, 216.
637
Lane, Mark, 492. It was probably a family heirloom.
638
It is often objected against a messianic anointing that that requires oil, not nard, based
on the OT examples; so Edwards objects, Mark, 416. The choice of a verb for pouring out
(katacheein) versus anoint (chriein) also looks to this abundance.
639
Edwards, Mark, 415, observes how contrastive this act is to the widow who gave just two
lepta in Mark 12:44. Both are honored by Jesus, because the heart in both acts is the same,
and that is the point.

says it was the disciples and John 12:4 singles out Judas. They would have
preferred to sell the perfume and use the three hundred silver coins gained
to care for the poor (v 5). This would have been around a year’s wage, as we
are discussing denarii (denariōn). The poor were often remembered at
feasts like Passover (John 13:27–29; m. Pesaḥ9:11; 10:1).640 On the surface,
this is a fair critique; but the circumstances are not normal and change
everything. This is a unique moment in which to honor someone sent by
God; there will be time to care for the poor in the future.
So Jesus responds that they should stop bothering the woman (v 6). She
has done a good work. The “good work” (kalon ergon) is a technical
expression for an act of charity or kindness.641 She is described like the
virtuous woman of Prov 31:20 and 31.642
Jesus goes on to say that there will be other times to serve the poor (v 7),
but that he will not be with them much longer. Jesus’ remark about the
poor comes from Deut 15:11. It goes on to say because the poor in Israel are
present, one should have an open hand for their brothers.643 Here, Jesus is
not dismissive of the poor at all; he merely says the current situation is a
unique circumstance.
Jesus’ key observation is that she has anointed him for his death ahead of
time (v 8). It probably was an act done in celebration of the feast and
recognition that Jesus is the anointed one, but Jesus’ messianism will drive
him to die, and to die for others. So, in this office, she anoints him and Jesus
ties it to his calling. The verb murizō is used only here in the NT and speaks
of anointing a corpse (m. Shab 23:5 – anointing a body for burial as they
wash it; BDAG, 661).644 It is associated with the word myrrh and points to
the perfume by referring to the gummy substance – not what we call
myrrh – that gave off the smell, as the noun was used in verse 3 to describe
the perfume.645 She has honored him. What she has done will be remem-
bered wherever the Gospel is preached (v 9).646 This clearly implies that
Jesus sees a life for himself after his death. The scene keeps the approaching
640
J. Jeremias, “Die Salbungsgeschichte Mc 14,3–9,” ZNW 35 (1936): 77–82.
641
D. Daube, “The Anointing at Bethany and Jesus’ Burial,” ATR 32 (1950): 186–99.
642
643
Hurtado, Mark, 232.
644
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 936, objects to a messianic anointing because this verb is used
instead of chrisai, but murizō is used because of the connection to burial Jesus makes. It
is the honoring that is the point. She is accepting him in the way he has come to
Jerusalem.
645
646
France, Mark, 555.

cloud of Jesus’ coming suffering and death in front of us, but also of its
being overcome. It pictures a woman sensitive to what is taking place in
contrast to the others around Jesus. The approach of Jesus’ death sets a tone
for these events. Jesus’ remark and reaction to the anointing underscores
that point. The disciples should be appreciating what is taking place, but it
is passing them by, as is often the case in Mark.
14:10–11 Judas Agrees to Betray Jesus

14:10 And Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests that
he might betray him.
14:11 When they heard this, they rejoiced and promised to give him
money. And he sought an appropriate time to hand him over.
This scene is a simple summary report on Judas’ decision to betray Jesus.
It links back to Mark 14:1–2 and completes the sandwich. It also contrasts to
the woman’s response to Jesus. The parallels are Matt 26:14–16 and Luke
22:3–6.647
The leadership had decided there was nothing that could be done about
Jesus during the feast. That was before Judas, one of the Twelve, came to
them (v 10). He went to the chief priests to express his willingness to betray
Jesus. An agreement was made with a promise of payment for the act (v 11).
Matt 26:15 notes that the payment was thirty pieces of silver. So Judas
looked for a time when Jesus could be handed over. The verb for “hand
over” or “betray” (paradidōmi) runs through the chapter (Mark 14:11, 18, 21,
41–42, 44) and was in the earlier predictions (Mark 9:31; 10:33). Judas’ act of
betrayal is simply to find a good time to hand Jesus over. There is no
indication of whether he shared what Jesus had taught with the leaders.
Jesus had done enough public teaching to have raised concerns at that level
for the leaders who had had opportunity to hear him. Still, it seems likely
that the leaders would have asked Judas why he was doing this and that a
discussion about Jesus’ teaching would have followed.648
647
Hooker, Mark, 331, calls the historicity of Judas’ betrayal as “unquestioned.” It would be
too embarrassing to have invented this detail.
648
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 365, contends that Judas did share teaching, namely, the temple
remark and Jesus’ messianism, but both of those were public events (temple declaration
of John 2 and/or synoptic parallels; triumphal entry of Mark 11), so they do not indicate
inside information. Still, some discussion is likely, as the leaders probably had to
determine if Judas’ offer was genuine.

Jesus’ death, then, is triggered by one of his own. Why Judas did it is not
noted,649 but the leaders could claim that one of his own turned him in.
Jesus is a “righteous sufferer,” and events are part of God’s plan (Ps 41:9 –
“my close friend has turned against me”).650 What happens to Jesus is the
focus, not why his betrayer did it. With Mark now noting the betrayer in a
narrative summary and death drawing even nearer, Jesus continues to
prepare the disciples for what lies ahead.
14:12–31 Jesus Predicts His Death at a Meal, Announces the Betrayal,

Commemorates His Coming Death for Many, and Predicts Peter’s
Denials
14:12 And on the first day of Unleavened Bread, when the Passover lamb
is sacrificed, Jesus’ disciples said to him, “Where do you want us to
prepare so we can eat the Passover?”
14:13 He sent two of his disciples and told them, “Go into the city, and a
man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him.
14:14 Wherever he enters, tell the owner of the house, ‘The Teacher says,
“Where is my guest room where I may eat the Passover with my
disciples?” ’
14:15 He will show you a large upstairs room, furnished and ready. Make
preparations for us there.”
14:16 And the disciples went out and went into the city and found it just as
he said to them, and they prepared the Passover.
14:17 And when it was evening, he came to the house with the Twelve
14:18 and reclining with them and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you,
one of you eating with me will betray me.”
14:19 They began to be grieved, and one by one said, “Surely not I?”
14:20 He said to them, “One of the twelve, one who dips his hand with me
into the bowl.
14:21 For the Son of Man will go as it is written about him, but woe to that
man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would have been better if
he had never been born.”
14:22 And while they were eating, he took bread, and after giving thanks
he broke it, gave it to them, and said, “Take it. This is my body.”
649
Disillusionment (Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 366) or greed (Matt 26:15; John 12:4–6) is often
suggested; Stein, Mark, 636, notes options and says no clear indication exists. Both
suggestions make sense and are possible. Neither is preferred. Luke 22:3 simply blames
Satan entering Judas (also John 13:2, 27), again pointing to larger cosmic concerns
behind these events.
650
Lane, Mark, 495.

14:23 And taking the cup and giving thanks, he gave it to them and they all
drank from it.
14:24 And he said to them, “This is my blood, the blood of the covenant,
that is poured out for many.
14:25 Truly I say to you, I will no longer drink the fruit of the vine until
that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
14:26 After singing a hymn, they went out to the Mount of Olives.
14:27 Then Jesus said to them, “You will all fall away, for it is written, ‘I
will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.’
14:28 But after I am raised, I will go ahead of you in Galilee.”
14:29 Peter said, “Even if they all fall away, I will not.”
14:30 Jesus said to him, “Truly I say to you, today – this very night –
before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times.”
14:31 But Peter even more said, “Even if I must die, I will never deny you.”
And all of them said the same thing.
This scene is the presentation of Jesus’ last meal with his disciples, what
is called the Last Supper. It involves the arrangement of the meal (vv 12–16),
the announcement of Jesus’ awareness that he is being betrayed (vv 17–21),
the commemoration of his coming death for others (vv 22–26), and the
prediction of Peter’s denials (vv 27–31). It represents a series of pronounce-
ments. The parallels are Matt 26:17–35 and Luke 22:7–23, 31–34, 39. It is clear
that Luke has unique detail by looking at the verse list for parallels, just as
John’s Upper Room discourse has much independent material in an event
that spanned the evening.
Mark notes that this conversation took place on the first day of the
Festival of Unleavened Bread (v 12), reflecting the fact that Passover and
Unleavened Bread were treated as one holiday season (Josephus, War 5.99).
So, for Mark, the day is Passover night-day, when the Passover lamb was
sacrificed.651 By this time, the sheer thousands of lambs needing to be
651
There is major discussion about whether in fact this was a Passover meal, as John 18:28
and 19:14, 31, 42 appear to have Jesus crucified as the Passover lambs are being slain (i.e., a
day later). Either Mark has moved up the day and connected it to the season or John has
tied the celebration of the eight-day feast to the sacrifice and celebration that opens it; so
Lane, Mark, 498. The latter is more likely, thinking of events much like the way the
Christmas season works for us. Hooker, Mark, 332–34, has an overview of the views and
opts for John’s timing. Her main reason is all the activity on a feast day, if Mark is
followed. However, this underestimates the special circumstances Jesus’ arrest created as
well as getting access to Pilate for a quick action. France, Mark, 560, Evans, Mark 8:27–
16:20, 370–72, and Witherington, Mark, 371, opt for Jesus moving up the meal a day
intentionally. Though a moved-up Passover meal is quite possible, Lane’s view is to be
preferred. The shadow of the holiday season and meaning lingers across the week and

slaughtered meant the activity started on Passover eve (Philo, Special Laws
2.149; m. Pes 5:1; Jub. 49:10; Josephus, War 6.423; Philo, Questions and
Answers on Exodus 1:11). For the details of a Passover meal, see m. Pes
10:1–7; other elements of procuring the sacrifice are in m. Pes 1:1–3. The fact
that the meal is purposefully observed in Jerusalem points to a Passover
meal, which had to be celebrated there (Deut 16:5–8).
The need to celebrate the meal causes the disciples to ask where they
should prepare for the Passover meal. Jesus tells them to look for a man
carrying a jar of water once they enter the city, who is going to meet them
(v 13). He will seek them out. Since women normally did this, a man,
though not completely exceptional, could stand out.652 They are to follow
him when he finds them. When they get to the house, they are to ask the
owner for him, as “the Teacher,” where his guest room is where he can have
a Passover meal with his disciples (v 14). Elements of how this is done are
like what we saw in Mark 11:1–6.653 They will be shown a large room,
furnished and ready, which is where they are to prepare for the meal
(v 15). It is interesting that Jesus calls it “my” room. So, they went into
the city and everything took place as he told them (v 16). They prepared the
Passover, picking up the sacrifice at the temple, and then heading to the
room. The holiday or sacrifice is mentioned four times in these verses on
preparing the meal.
Jesus is completely aware of events. It is not said whether this was all
predetermined or whether Jesus’ word is all that was needed to secure the
locale. To Mark, that is irrelevant. The key is that Jesus is aware and very
much in control of the events that surround his disclosure about what is
ahead. Nevertheless, it is likely there was some arrangement, given the
detail on how to get to the house by a man known to be carrying a jar and
Jesus’ claim that the room was his.654
The meal comes next as, at evening on the 15th Nisan, they gather at the
home for this feast meal, reclining as was common in this time for a meal
(vv 17–18). Passover meals took place in Jerusalem at night (Exod 12:8; m
Pes 10:1), whereas normal meals were earlier. Normally it was a family meal,
allows for the move either way. All of these issues are considered in detail by I. Howard
Marshall, “The Last Supper,” in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 541–60.
652
Edwards, Mark, 421; See John 4. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 945, questions whether this is so
unusual, noting that men did do this on occasion (Deut 29:10–11; Josh 9:21–27).
653
Taylor, Mark, 536. The story should not be seen as a doublet. It is simply a stylized
summary of two meeting arrangements; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 370.
654
Lane, Mark, 499; Witherington, Mark, 370–71, speaks of the possibility of a clandestine
arrangement out of concerns for safety, also Hurtado, Mark, 220–21.

with parents sharing the story of redemption with children. It opened with
a child asking, “Why is this night different from other nights (m Pes 10:4)?”
Then the story is retold. It is likely such a meal had four courses and lasted
until near midnight (m Pes 10:1–6, 9).655 The four cups occur (1) with the
preliminary course to bless the Passover day; (2) after an explanation
of Passover and the singing of some of the Hallel psalms (Pss 113–118);
(3) following the meal of lamb, unleavened bread, and bitter herbs; and
(4) following the concluding portion of the Hallel. It is not clear where in
the meal this exchange is, although bread is a part of the third course.
Jesus uses the occasion to discuss his death. First, he announces the
betrayal (v 18). It will come from one of those at the table with him. The
disciples react with grief and emotional distress (v 19). Each one says,
“Surely not I.” The interrogative (mēti) expects a negative reply. It shows
disciples more concerned with where they fit and confident they would
never betray Jesus than with what is taking place with him.656 Matt 26:25
has Judas ask as well, with Jesus saying, “You have said so.” In John 13:25–
26, Jesus hands the morsel to Judas.
Jesus responds that it is one of the Twelve and one who dips his hand in
the bowl with him (v 20). Mark leaves the culprit vague in this scene, but he
has already made clear to his readers that it is Judas, so one should not
make too much of this. Food was dipped twice at the Passover meal
(m Pesaḥ10:4). The picture of one eating with me recalls the righteous
sufferer of Ps 41:9 (John 13:18; a popular text, 1QH 5:23–24 [=13:23–25]).657
Being handed over (paradidōmi) appears not only in this Psalm but also in
Isa 53:6 and 12. The table shared one bowl of bitter herbs with this meal.658
There is a disruption in what should be a moment of solemn fellowship.
What happens to the Son of Man also is written about him (v 21; Mark 8:31;
9:12). Mark noted the betrayal when he introduced Judas (Mark 3:19; also
14:10–11). There is a divine program, but Jesus offers a woe against the one
who commits this act of betrayal against the Son of Man (v 22). For that
person, it would have been better if he had not been born. One can only
wonder what Judas thought. Divine design and human accountability are
side by side in Jesus’ remarks.
Second, Jesus takes the bread as they are eating, gives thanks, and gives it
to them (v 23). The thanks may well have blessed “the Lord our God,
655
656
657
658

Sovereign of the world, who has caused bread to come forth from the earth
(m Ber 6:1).” He tells them to take the bread, as it is his body. Jesus is
turning the meal into a fresh symbol for his just announced death by
betrayal. Bread pictured redemption at the meal (m Pes 10:5) and affliction
(Deut 16:3), but now it points to a new redemption in death. His sacrifice is
food for life. Mark’s version, like Matthew’s, is short. Luke 22:19 adds
“given for you,” whereas Paul has “which is for you” (1 Cor 11:24).
Aramaic would not have had the verb “is,” but we are dealing with a
summary of what was said and represented by the elements. On analogy
with the Passover is the picture of death and the offer of the body the
broken bread reflects.
The blessing over the cup would have been (v 23), “Blessed are You, O
Lord, our God, King of the Universe, who creates the fruit of the vine (m
Ber 6:1).” At the Passover, the third cup praised God for salvation brought
to his people.659 It was a communal cup, picturing shared participation.
This may be where we are in the meal. For Jesus, the cup pictures the
blood, namely, the blood of the covenant, poured out for many (v 24).
These are shocking words for a Jew, as to drink blood was a forbidden act
(prohibitions on drinking blood – Lev 3:17; 7:26–27; 17:14; John 6:52; 1 En
98:11), but this is what, in part, points to symbolism here (1 Cor 10:16).660
The allusion here is to Isa 53:11–12 (Mark 10:45). Luke 22:20 and Paul in 1
Cor 11:25 add that it is the new covenant (Jer 31:31) that is alluded to here,
which is the point of a sacrifice pointing to the eschaton. Matt 26:28
speaks of “many for the forgiveness of sins.” The language also recalls
Exod 24:8, where the old covenant was established with the sprinkling of
blood. One redemption compares to another. Representational sacrifice
is in view (Lev 17:11). Such thinking is rich in Second Temple Judaism
(4 Macc 1:11b; 6:28–29; 17:21b–22; 18:3–4; 2 Macc 7:33, 37–38; T. Moses
9:6b–10:1).661 The claim the exact expression “blood of the covenant” is
not possible in Aramaic overplays the text, in that we may well have a
summary of a much more involved expression now liturgically simplified;
some, however, do argue that even the exact expression is possible.662
659
Lane, Mark, 506.
660
Witherington, Mark, 375; Stein, Mark, 651.
661
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 390–91.
662
France, Mark, 570; M. Casey, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998), 241, and “The Original Aramaic Form of Jesus’ Interpretation of
the Cup,” JTS 41 (1990): 1–12.

Edwards details a few reasons why transubstantiation is not in

view here.663
There is nerve and authority in what Jesus is doing here. Who has the
right to completely change the imagery of a prescribed sacred rite by
adding to it? To equate what he is doing with the core salvation act of
Israel’s history also says a great deal about the unique work of Jesus, as well
as his right to speak forth a new core event.
Jesus’ remarks end with the note that Jesus will not drink of the fruit of
the vine until the day he drinks it new in the kingdom (v 25). He is refusing
the fourth and last cup of the meal at this point. The work is not yet done.
There will be more to come and then full celebration will be appropriate.
This drinking to come is not an allusion to anything in the era of the
church, but at the return and the consummation of the kingdom. Jesus
foresees a full vindication (Heb 12:2). This may allude to the messianic
banquet (Isa 25:6; 2 Bar 29:5–8; 4 Ezra 6:52; Matt 8:11; Luke 14:15; Rev 19:9;
also at Qumran, 1QSa 2; 1QS 6). The group then closed with the Hallel
Psalms (Ps 113–18, which in part 2 had pilgrims sing either from Ps 114 or 115
to the end; m Pes 5:7; 10:6–7 – notes a difference between Shammai [start
with 114] and Hillel [start with 115] here) and headed for the Mount of
Olives (v 26).
The final part of the meal scene has Jesus predict that the disciples will
fail him and scatter (v 27). He cites Zech 13:7 and a picture of the shepherd
being stuck and the sheep scattering to make the point. Jesus would go to
the cross alone. That Zechariah passage depicts Israel’s apostasy and
pictures a strong condemnation, but also looks to the forming of a new
people out of the reaction.664 It foresees a period of testing out of which
something better emerges.665 The imperative of Zechariah is now put in the
first-person singular (I will strike), as God is portrayed as acting against the
shepherd.666 God’s plan includes this suffering. It is a part of Jesus’ call. So
663
Edwards, Mark, 426. The words “this is” come after the wine was taken and the
demonstrative “this” (touto) is neuter, while if it referred to bread or wine it would
have been masculine. The blood is what is said to be poured out. Hooker, Mark, 342,
adds that the lack of protest from the disciples shows that they did not sense they were
drinking Jesus’ blood in violation of the Law.
664
Hurtado, Mark, 232; see Zech 13:7–9. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 969, wonders if Isa 53:4, 6, and
10 are also in view (1 Pet 2:25) as he surveys the influence of Zech 9–14 on the early
church, especially Matt 27. One recalls that Jesus’ entry evokes Zech 9:9.
665
666
Hooker, Mark, 344. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 400, defends its use by Jesus, noting that the
church is unlikely to have created a remark where God acts directly against Jesus with
the picture of a sword without him going there first. He also notes a parallel use at

the remark is a prediction observing that God is at work and a rebuke to the
disciples’ response. The disciples stumbled by taking offense over him. The
verb is skandalizō (BDAG, 926). It was used of those who took offense or
fell away (Mark 4:17; 6:3; 9:42, 43, 45, 47; 14:29).
But this abandonment is not permanent, as he says they will meet him in
Galilee after he is raised (v 28). Interestingly, Mark does not narrate the
realization of this other than to repeat the idea in Mark 16:7, but Matthew
28 does. Mark, however, has affirmed the reality of resurrection in the
predictions. He lets the event speak for itself when it comes. One needs
only to decide how one will respond to it. This verse is missing in the
Fayyum papyrus Gospel fragment of Egypt, a third-century CE text, but
surely is original.667 Like Israel’s exile, the scattering is temporary (Num
27:17; 1 Kings 22:17; 2 Chr 18:16; Ezek 34:8, 12, 15; Zech 10:2; Bar 4:26; Pss. Sol.
17:4, 21, 26–28). Regathering will follow.
Peter then denies that he will fall away (v 29). Jesus predicts that this very
day, before the cock crows twice in the early morning, Peter will deny him
three times (v 30).668 In other words, the denial is coming by the time
morning comes. Peter was insistent. He would not succumb to a denial, an
anti-confession (v 31). The verb here (aparneomai) means to disown or
refuse to acknowledge someone (BDAG, 97). He would die first before
denying Jesus. For a third time in the Gospel, Peter misspeaks (Mark 8:31–
33; 9:5–7). All the disciples echoed Peter’s remarks. Jesus knows the dis-
ciples better than they know themselves. Jesus will go to his death on his
own. Mark again shows Jesus to be very aware of the events and the storm
gathering around him. In Mark, Jesus faces what is ahead with a clear sense
of what is being done, why it is happening, and what is at stake.
14:32–42 As the Disciples Fail to Keep Watch, Jesus Submits to God’s Will
after Asking If the Cup Might Pass
14:32 And they came to a place called Gethsemane and he said to his
disciples, “Sit here while I pray.”
Qumran (CD 19:7–13). Edwards, Mark, 428, sees Peter as a key source for these Petrine
exchanges.
667
It is quite possible that the verse was omitted because of the tension a Galilean
appearance placed on the call in Luke 24:49 to remain in Jerusalem and the picture of
Acts that the church moved out in mission from the capital city.
668
France, Mark, 579, contends on Petrine memory that Mark is the most detailed account
here by noting a double cock crow. He sees the other Gospels as simplifying that detail.

14:33 He took Peter, James, and John with him, and became very troubled
and distressed.
14:34 He said to them, “My soul is grieved, even to the point of death.
Remain here and keep watch.”
14:35 Going a little further, he fell to the earth and was praying that if
possible the hour would pass from him.
14:36 He said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Take this cup
away from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
14:37 Then he came and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “Simon
are you sleeping? Could you not stay awake for one hour?
14:38 Keep watch and pray that you may not fall into temptation. The
spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
14:39 He went away again and prayed the same thing.
14:40 And again coming, he found them sleeping, for their eyes were
weighed down. And they did not know what to tell him.
14:41 He came a third time and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and
resting? Enough. The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is betrayed
into the hands of sinners.
14:42 Get up, let us go. Look. The one who is betraying me is near.”
This is another summary scene, where Jesus faces up one more time to
what is ahead as he submits to God through prayer. The parallels are Matt
26:36–46, Luke 22:40–46, and John 18:1. Jesus goes to an area on the Mount
of Olives known as Gethsemane (v 32), an orchard area in the Kidron
Valley just to the east of Jerusalem’s eastern wall. The name means “oil
press” and points to an olive garden, as John 18:1 calls it. He goes there to
pray and asks the disciples to sit and wait while he does so. The picture of
Jesus struggling with what lies ahead is unlikely to be a created event, given
how the church regarded Jesus and the fact that it is multiply attested
(Heb 5:7).669 At a place tied to victory (Zech 14:4), Jesus faces up to the
difficult road of what is ahead.
Jesus takes Peter, James, and John with him (v 33). The inner circle is
with him again for a key event (Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3). All three had made
pledges of loyalty about his suffering (Mark 10:35–40; 14:29–31). Mark says
candidly that Jesus is troubled and distressed, a hendiadys. The dual
reference to distress makes it emphatic (ekthambeō – intense perplexity,
BDAG, 303; adēmoneō – distress, BDAG, 19). Only Mark uses the first term
669
Hooker, Mark, 346, speaks to its core authenticity and notes that it is in tension with
Mark’s normal presentation that these events are a part of God’s plan. In less likely
views, the scene is a creation of Mark or the church, Collins, Mark, 673–75.

(Mark 9:15; 16:5–6), and the second term is rare in the NT (Matt 26:37; Phil
2:26). He confesses to them that his soul is deeply grieved, even to the point
of death (v 34; Sir 37:2 – sadness unto death; 1QH 8:32; Heb 5:7).670 This is
yet a third term for distress (perilypos – BDAG, 802; Matt 26:38; Mark 6:26;
Luke 18:23). The responses are very human, so he turns to God (Ps 42:5–6, 9;
55:4–5). He asks them to remain here and keep watch as he goes to pray. It is
the third major prayer scene in Mark (Mark 1:35; 6:46).671
Going a little farther, he threw himself down to the ground and asked
with an indirect summary that if it were possible, the hour would pass
from him (v 35).672 Still, the core request Mark cites directly (v 36). He
opens with a double address as Father, first in Aramaic (abba) and then in
Greek (ho patēr).673 This is the only place Jesus notes this very personal
reference to God. He notes that all things are possible with God and asks
if the cup of this hour can be taken from him. The cup is one of judgment
and wrath (Mark 10:38–39; Isa 51:17, 22; Ezek 23:32–34; Lam 4:21; Ps 11:6
[10:6 LXX]). The pain of experiencing God’s judgment is terrifying,
especially as a righteous sufferer. In these psalms, the petitioner is seeking
vindication and expresses trust.674 God’s sovereignty and power are
where Jesus starts. The pain later will lead him to cry out about why
God has forsaken him (Ps 22:1 in Mark 15:34). The program he knows is
ahead is what he brings up for discussion. But more importantly, he
desires the Father’s will be done, not what he himself desires. In saying
this, Jesus submits to God’s plan.675
When he returns, he finds the disciples with him asleep (v 37). It is late at
night after a long, emotional day. Jesus asks Peter why he is sleeping. Could
670
Stein, Mark, 660.
671
672
To fall on the ground also points to intensity (Gen. 17:1–3; Lev. 9:24; Num. 14:5; 16:4, 22,
45; 20:6; Matt. 17:6; Luke 5:12; 17:16; 24:5; 1 Cor. 14:25); Stein, Mark, 661.
673
The Aramaic also appears in Rom 8:15 and Gal 4:6. It is a term of relational closeness, but
does not always mean “Daddy” as is sometimes said; J. Barr, “Abba Isn’t Daddy,” JTS n.s.
39 (1988): 28–47. It also is not correct that Jews never used this term for God (4Q460 5:5 [9
1:6]; 4Q372 1:16); Marcus, Mark 8–16, 978. Three elements echo the disciples’ prayer of
the Sermon on the Mount: Father, God’s will be done, and not falling into temptation;
674
675
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 975–76, raises the question of how they heard the prayer if they were
asleep, but nothing is said about at what point they slept, and the response of Jesus
speaks of an hour having passed. The distance of a stone’s throw in Luke 22:41 is several
yards, but still could have been close enough to have been heard. A prayer in agony is
unlikely to have been a whisper.

he not stay awake for an hour? They are not up to the moment yet again.
Then he urges them to stay alert and pray not to fall into temptation (v 38).
They need the strength that turning to God can provide, as he observes that
the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. It will take doing more than relying
on their own strength to get through what is ahead well. Crisis demands
vigilance.676 Drawing near to God takes conscious effort. Jesus is still
standing up to what he faces alone and is alone in approaching God
faithfully.
A cycle ensues that is repeated twice more. Jesus goes to pray and he
returns to find the disciples sleeping (vv 39–40). The stress is not on the
content of the praying, as the second time it is simply noted that he prayed
the same thing, and the third time he comes back with no mention of the
prayer (v 41). It is the disciples’ failure that is the point. They fail three
times, an act anticipating Peter’s three failures to come. The warning is that
it is easy to neglect being dependent on God and not be prepared. The
failure takes place because their eyes were “weighed down” (katabarynō),
emphasizing that the flesh is weak (BDAG, 514). They could not answer
why they were sleeping. It was embarrassing. They had not turned to God,
as they had been urged to do.
Finally, Jesus ends the sequence with another question about sleep and
resting, along with a simple declaration, either “enough,” “finished,” or
“distant.” The word used in the declaration (apechō) normally refers to the
closing of an account or to be far from something. It is probably idiomatic
here, meaning that time has run out or that the matter is now settled
(BDAG, 103).677 He notes that the hour has come (v 42). The Son of Man is
betrayed into the hands of sinners, just as he had predicted in Mark 8:31,
9:31, and especially 10:33, where being handed over (paradidōmi) is speci-
fically noted. He tells them to get up as his betrayer approaches. After time
with God, Jesus is ready to face what is ahead, but the disciples are still
catching up to what is taking place.
676
Lane, Mark, 516.
677
The word’s meaning is difficult. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 981, and Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20,
416–18, prefer an allusion to distance, as the word in its common meaning can refer to
being distant. Is it far away? And the implied answer is, “No, it is here.” This is
contextually harder and requires a touch of irony. The options the lexicon prefers
(enough or finished), and we adopt, are contextually simpler, as they make sense in
extending the word’s meaning, but this use is much less attested. Stein, Mark, 664–65,
opts for an allusion to Judas having been paid, but this is an abrupt shift in ideas, as the
betrayer is seemingly introduced in a few sentences and not here.

14:43–52 Jesus Is Arrested as He Is Betrayed by Judas

14:43 And immediately, while Jesus was speaking, Judas, one of the
Twelve arrived and with him a crowd armed with swords and clubs
from the high priests and scribes and elders.
14:44 The betrayer had given them a signal, saying, “Whomever I kiss is
he. Arrest him and lead him away securely.”
14:45 When Judas arrived, he went up immediately to him and said
“Rabbi” and kissed him.
14:46 They laid hands on him and seized him.
14:47 One of those standing by drew his sword and struck the high priest’s
slave, cutting off his ear.
14:48 And Jesus, replying, said to them, “Have you come with swords and
clubs to arrest me like you would an outlaw?
14:49 Each day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, yet you did
not seize me. But this is so that the scriptures would be fulfilled.”
14:50 Then all the disciples left him and fled.
14:51 A young man was following him, wearing only a linen cloth. They
tried to arrest him,
14:52 but he ran off naked, leaving his linen cloth behind.
The arrest scene is told in a simple and direct manner. The parallels are
Matt 26:47–56, Luke 22:47–53, and John 18:2–11. As Jesus was speaking,
Judas, again identified as one of the Twelve, arrived (v 43). The connection
between Judas and Jesus is stressed because the betrayal is both shocking
and painful. With Judas was a crowd of people ready for a fight. They came
with swords and clubs, having been sent by the chief priests, scribes, and
elders. Mark 8:31 had predicted the leaders’ involvement. Luke 22:47, 52 has
some accompany the group. John 18:3, 12 speaks of a cohort, which was
normally about 600 men. The threefold description of the leadership
reflects the makeup of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council. The crowd was
made up of temple guards, likely Levites and others in their employ.678 It is
unlikely that the Romans were involved yet in an extensive way, although
John 18:12 notes a tribune’s presence, perhaps to make clear that this was
not a revolt, but an internal Jewish matter. The posse was not sure what to
expect and was prepared. They are described more like a mob than an
official arrest party (also v 48).
678
Lane, Mark, 524; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:8, 423; Josephus, Ant 20.181, 206–207 describes
their use in another setting. Josephus’ description also gives the impression of hired
thugs.

Judas came and gave them a signal so all could focus on the right
person (v 44). It is sometimes suggested that this means that Jesus was not
well known, but the issues were that he may not have been well known to
the guards, it was dark, and the way into the arrest needed to look like
nothing unusual was taking place, as they did not know what the reaction
would be. Judas’s signal was that he would kiss Jesus, and call him
“Rabbi,” a normal greeting of respect (v 45). The appearance was to be
that perhaps the group had simply run into Jesus. They would do nothing
early on to cause initial alarm or reaction. The one Judas kissed was the
one to arrest and take away under secure guard. The group was not
interested in anyone else.
So Judas kissed Jesus, and those with the betrayer seized Jesus (v 46), just
as Jesus had just predicted (Mark 14:41). Witherington calls it “the kiss of
death.”679 Prov 27:6 says, “Excessive are the kisses of an enemy.” 2 Sam
20:9–10 also describes a kiss of betrayal as Joab kisses and then stabs Amasa.
This is the only time a kiss is exchanged between a disciple and Jesus.
One of the disciples tries to fight and strikes the high priest’s slave on the
ear, cutting it off (v 47). John 18:10 says that this is Peter and the victim’s
name is Malchus, whose name is Nabatean and who could be Arab or
Syrian.680 The remark is likely to be authentic, for it is unlikely that, if
someone else did this or nothing happened, the church would invent such
an act by a disciple, much less Peter.681 Luke 22:51 says Jesus healed the
man. The fact that no arrest of this attacker took place, even as he fled, may
mean the situation was rectified.
Jesus simply replies versus fighting (v 48). This reply alone stands in
contrast to the other Gospels where Jesus rebukes the one who fights (Matt
26:52–53; Luke 22:51). In Mark, the response itself stops the fighting. Jesus
observes that the leaders had many opportunities to seize him in the temple
when he taught there daily (v 49), but they have shown up to arrest him
with swords and clubs as though he is a dangerous revolutionary (lēstēs –
BDAG, 594).682 The remark about being in the temple day after day may
assume that Jesus had been to Jerusalem more than the one time Mark
narrates, since at this point Jesus has been present for only a few days on
679
680
Lane, Mark, 526.
681
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 424.
682
Stein, Mark, 672–73, makes the case for revolutionary as the meaning here with Jesus
being convicted as “king of the Jews” as a basis for the rendering (Mark 15:1–5).

this trip.683 The remark also suggests that Jesus is no revolutionary; he has
simply taught faithfully in the temple.
There is irony here in light of Mark 11:17. The robbers in the temple
arrested the deliverer as though he were a robber.684 They have accom-
plished their arrest by stealth (Mark 14:1–2). The theme of Jesus as a
righteous sufferer, unjustly evaluated, is the point of this remark.
Scripture is being fulfilled in all of this. No specific text is noted, just the
themes it raised about rejection of the one sent such as we see in Isa 53:12,
Zech 13:7, and Ps 118:22.
The pressure becomes too much for the disciples, who flee (v 50). This
is just as Jesus had predicted. The sheep are scattered (Mark 14:27). They
are not prepared to face the rejection. Jesus is alone. Even a young boy,
who had been following them, flees naked when they try to seize him
(vv 51–52). The identity of this figure has been repeatedly discussed,
especially given the vividness of the detail and its seeming unrelatedness
to the main line of the story. Was this one showing courage in trying
not to flee initially or was he coming to warn Jesus? Is he an ironic
picture of “leaving everything” to be spared sharing Jesus’ fate, a kind of
failure of discipleship?685 This last option is possible, given what Mark
14:27 says about all the sheep being scattered with the shepherd
being struck, and the point that fleeing meant abandoning Jesus in
Mark 14:50. Tradition has suggested that this might be Mark, a witness
to the events described, but the young man is not identified. Taylor
speaks only of an eyewitness known to Mark.686 It is clear, nonetheless,
that the event made an impression on Mark, as it is hard to explain its
presence otherwise.687 So the detail closes the scene on an additional
note that things are not right. Jesus is alone as he is taken into custody.
As Jesus goes to die to provide for others; no one is there to help or
support him.
683
684
Hooker, Mark, 352.
685
So Kuruvilla, Mark, 317–18; also his “The Naked Runaway and the Embedded Reporter
of Mark 14 and 16. What Is the Author Doing with What He Is Saying? JETS 54 (2011):
527–45.
686
687
Though an allusion to Amos 2:16 is sometimes noted, that text does not really parallel
this scene, for there it is the fleeing of the day of judgment. For the myriad of suggestions
about why this detail is here, see Collins, Mark, 688–93, who does see the unexplained
detail as historical.

14:53–72 Jesus Is Found Guilty of Blasphemy by the Leaders as He

Proclaims God’s Coming Vindication of Him and His Sharing
in God’s Rule
14:53 And they led Jesus to the high priest, and all the chief priests and
elders and scribes came together.
14:54 And Peter followed him from a distance, up to the high priest’s
courtyard. He was sitting with the guards and warming himself by the
fire.
14:55 The chief priests and whole council were looking for evidence
against Jesus so they could put him to death but they did not find
anything.
14:56 Many gave false testimony against him, but their testimony did not
agree.
14:57 Some stood up and gave this false testimony against him:
14:58 “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple with hands and in
three days build another not made with hands.’ “
14:59 And still their testimony was not consistent.
14:60 And standing up in the midst, the high priest asked Jesus, saying,
“Have you nothing to answer? What is this they are testifying against
you?”
14:61 But he was silent and did not answer. Again the high priest asked
and said to him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
14:62 Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man sitting on the
right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
14:63 Then the high priest, ripping his cloths, said, “Why do we need
witnesses?
14:64 You have heard his blasphemy. What is your verdict?” They all
condemned him as worthy of death.
14:65 Then some began to spit on him and blindfold him and to strike
him with their fists, saying, “Prophesy.” The guards also took him and
beat him.
14:66 And Peter was below in the courtyard, one of the priest’s slave girls
came by.
14:67 And seeing Peter warming himself, she looked directly at him and
said, “You also were with that Nazarene, Jesus.”
14:68 But he denied it saying, “I do not even understand what you are
saying.” Then he went out to the gateway, and a cock crowed.
14:69 When the slave girl saw him, she began again to say to the
bystanders, “This man is one of them.”
14:70 But he denied it again. A short time later, the bystanders again said
to Peter, “You must be one of them, because you are Galilean.”

14:71 Then he began to curse and utter an oath, “I do not know this man
you are talking about.”
14:72 And immediately a rooster crowed a second time. And Peter
remembered what Jesus had said to him, “Before a rooster crows
twice, you will deny me three times.” And he broke down and wept.
The trial scene is presented in summary form and is juxtaposed to
Peter’s denial in common Markan sandwich style.688 A contrast between
faithfulness and unfaithfulness emerges that is unlikely to be a church
invention. We are told the examination took much of the evening, but it
is reduced to a few verses here. The parallels are Matt 26:57–68, Luke 22:54–
55, 63–71, and John 18:12–16, 18–23.
Jesus is taken to the high priest at his home (v 53; Luke 22:54).689 Caiaphas is
not named by Mark, but John 18:24 identifies him. He was son-in-law to the
powerful Annas I and high priest from 18–36 CE (Josephus, Ant 18.35; 18.95).
The traditional site of the home is where St. Peter in Gallicantu sits today.
The leaders gather in the three groups Mark has regularly named: chief
priests, elders, and scribes. It is discussed whether this is the Sanhedrin
with its seventy-one members, since the evidence for its existence is from
later sources. At the least it was the major council that existed at the time. A
quorum for such a meeting would be twenty-three. Apparently most of the
full council was present, given that all of them are said to be there, a remark
that could be hyperbolic but still would point to a majority attendance. The
dominant sect at the time was the Sadducees. They gathered at night
because they wanted to move Jesus on to Roman authority as quickly as
possible, and with Pilate in Jerusalem for the feast, this was feasible. They
needed a reason for getting Pilate to hear the case. They were acting with
urgency under time pressure, while Pilate would still be present.690
Peter had not totally abandoned Jesus yet (v 54). He was trying carefully
to keep his vow.691 He followed from a distance up to the chief priest’s
688
Edwards, Mark, 441.
689
For details about this scene, its background in terms of Jewish practice, and the nature of
the decision made as a result, D. L. Bock, Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism and the
Jewish Examination of Jesus: A Philological-Historical Study of the Key Jewish Themes
Impacting Mark 14:61–64 (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1998).
690
Much of the study by August Stroebel, Die Stunde der Wahrheit (Tübingen: Mohr/
Siebeck, 1980), makes the case for this being the setting. Tosepfta, Sanh 11:7 allows for
executions tied to feast days for serious crimes such as those discussed in Deut 17:13;
691
One should prefer a positive view of this effort versus any negative one. The negatives do
not appear until we get the denials; with Stein, Mark, 680, against Edwards, Mark, 442.

courtyard and ended up warming himself by a fire, seated with the guards.
John 18:15–16 has the beloved disciple helping him get access as one who
knew people there. Peter’s presence in the courtyard may have given him
the opportunity to hear some of what was taking place.
They were having trouble finding any cause worthy of death (v 55). They
had to get this right, because a failure to convince Rome of Jesus’ guilt
would be a very bad outcome from the leadership’s perspective.
Inside, the council was seeking evidence against Jesus to put him to
death. They did not have this power (John 18:31); only Rome did.692 So they
were engaged in a judicial examination more than a formal trial. This
would have been similar to our grand jury stage, examining whether a
charge would be made and, if so, what the charge would be. For this reason,
all the Mishnaic rules (m Sanh 4:1), often applied to this event and said to be
violated in the process on the assumption that this is a formal trial, do not
apply.693 If the configuration had been similar to a trial, the leaders would
have been in a semi-circle, with minutes taken by two clerks on each end.
The accused and any witnesses would have stood in the midst of the circle
(m Sanh 4:3–4).694 They were having trouble putting together a case that
692
Hooker, Mark, 354, notes later Jewish testimony to this fact (j. Sanh 1.18a, 34; 7.24b, 41).
The appeal to Stephen’s death in Acts 6–7 does not contradict this, as this was the
response of a popular mob, not a formal judicial act. The execution of James the Just is
similar to Josephus, Ant 20.200–203, the exception that proves the rule, for Annas II lost
his position for executing him and usurping Roman authority.
693
Bock, Blasphemy, 189–95, covers this and the debate over whether Jews had the right to
put someone to death.
694
Lane, Mark, 532. Hooker, Mark, 354–57, raises a host of issues about the historicity of the
scene, claiming that differences between Mark and Luke and John are an issue, as well as
where witnesses came from as a source and the portrait of Pilate as vacillating. Collins,
Mark, 699–700, simply says the examination scene is “not based on any historically
reliable tradition,” but accepts Peter’s denials as tied to a tradition. The source question I
have treated in more detail elsewhere, Bock, Blasphemy, 195–97; also Stein, Mark, 678–
79. Several potential sources exist. The Jewish position about Jesus would have been a
matter of public debate in Jerusalem. People like Joseph of Arimathea (Mark 15:43) and
Nicodemus would have known what took place. Paul, as a chief prosecutor of the new
movement, also could have been familiar with the official position. The fact that the
family of Annas and that of Jesus contended for Jews in Jerusalem over a thirty-year
period also makes it likely the positions and roles were known. The differences raised are
matters of editorial selection by different writers about a long event. They are not so
great as to undercut the thrust of what the accounts share as the core issue, Jesus’ claim
to sit at God’s right hand as he proclaims he will be vindicated. As for Pilate, he was
under pressure for his previous treatment of Jews and possibly recognized how poten-
tially volatile this particular controversy was. So he was moving carefully. In the end, he
acted after having consulted with the Jewish leaders and Herod, and having checked all
the cultural boxes. The claim that the Romans are treated with some exoneration is
exaggerated. They are pictured as executing a man they regarded as innocent, hardly a

reached the capital punishment level. They could not go to Pilate with a
mere religious dispute; something involving risk to the state or seriously
disturbing the peace was required. Mark says that false testimony was being
collected, but it was testimony that did not agree (v 56).
Mark supplies one example involving the temple that is not noted in the
other parallels (v 57). The claim is that Jesus said he would destroy the
physical temple and that this temple was inadequate, as the expression “not
made with hands” is derogatory (v 58). That expression alludes to activity
that made idols or false gods (Lev 26:1, 30; Isa 2:18; 10:11; 19:1; 21:9; 31:7; Dan
2:45 of earthly kingdoms; esp. Jdt 8:18; 4QFlor 1 1:2–3; 4 Ezra 10:54) or to an
earthly temple in contrast to a greater temple to come.695 The idea of a new
temple in the era to come was not foreign to Second Temple Judaism (Zech
6:12; 4QFlor 1:6–7; 11QTemple 29:7–10; 2 Bar 4:3).696 Other NT texts speak
of God not living in a place made by human hands or speak of other rites
with the phrase “not made with hands” (Acts 7:48; Heb 9:11, 24; other than a
temple context: 2 Cor 5:1; Eph 2:11; Co 2:11).697 The use of naos probably
refers to the holy place, adding an emotive element to the claim. The act
would have been considered blasphemous and seditious because of the
level of public chaos it would have engendered.
This temple saying sounds close to what we see in John 2:19 (“Destroy
this temple and in three days I will raise it up again”), especially in the note
about three days. Yet there are important differences. First, Jesus does not
say he will destroy the temple. Second, he is referring to his body, and not
the physical temple. Even Jesus’ private teaching about the destruction of
the temple in Mark 13:2 does not have him destroy it. Mark notes that their
testimony did not agree on this example (v 59). Two witnesses would have
been required for this by Jewish law (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6). It appears,
then, that this route for making the case was abandoned.
So the high priest takes over the examination (v 60). He is curious why
Jesus offers no response to the charges. Does he not have anything to say in
reply, in his own defense? Jesus is silent. The allusion is to Isa 53:7.
Caiaphas queries Jesus if he is the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One
(v 61). The question is a logical one, since in some views Messiah would
flattering picture of Roman justice. Cranfield, Mark, 439, says the scene is not as
“doctrinally coloured” as one might expect of a church creation.
695
696
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 445–46.
697
Hurtado, Mark, 253.

bring a renewed temple.698 A messianic confession also would be signifi-

cant, since that would mean Jesus is a regal figure whom Rome did not
appoint, leading to a potential charge of sedition. Respect for God is shown
in the circumlocution the “Blessed One” (m Ber 7.3; 1 Enoch 77:2).699
Caiaphas is asking about the office of Messiah. As a Jew, he is not thinking
of God having a son in any other sense, and the term can have this force
(4Q174 1.11; 4Q246 2.1; 1Qsa 2.11–12).700 In Matt 26:63c, an oath comes with
the question to show that a reply was required (Prov 29:24; m Shev 4.13).701
Jesus’ reply yields one of the most significant statements about Jesus in
Mark (v 62). Jesus replies affirmatively to the question. He says simply, “I
am.” This differs slightly from the qualified responses in Matt 26:64 (“You
have said it yourself”) and Luke 22:70 (“You say that I am”). Those answers
reflect a qualified yes. The force of those replies is ironically “I am (at least
in part) as you say.” This explains the start to the charge that Jesus was
“king of the Jews.” After this, Jesus gives them more than they ask for by
elaborating on the reply.
The core of the response is in what follows. First, Jesus speaks of them
seeing the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power. Jesus responds
with his own circumlocution (the Power), an expression tied to God’s
saving activity in the midrashim, to show his respect for God.702 Jesus
will share in God’s rule and activity. The allusion is to Ps 110:1. Jesus is
predicting what happens after his death – his resurrection followed by
exaltation into God’s very presence. The language must look at a session
next to God, especially given what follows.
Second, he will come on the clouds of heaven. This is an allusion to Dan
7:13–14 and the judging authority that figure receives from the Ancient of
Days. It looks to his return to judge (Mark 13:26).703 Though the Son of
698
For a defense of the coherence of the summary in Mark here against its historical
backdrop, O. Betz, “Probleme des Prozesses Jesu,” in ANRW II.25.1 (Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1982), 613–44. For a response to objections by W. Reinbold, Der älteste Bericht
über den Tod Jesu: Literarische Analyse und historische Kritik der Passionsdarstellungen
der Evangelisten (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), esp. 256; see Bock, Blasphemy, 210–13.
699
Bock, Blasphemy, 215–17. Hooker’s claim, Mark, 360, that these questions look like
Christian formulation, although they might reflect something like what was said, ignores
the unlikely use of circumlocutions by the early church, both in the question and Jesus’
reply. She does not comment on Power at all.
700
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 448–49.
701
Stein, Mark, 684.
702
Bock, Blasphemy, 217–20; 1 En 62:7; esp. Sifre Numbers §12 [on 15:31]; b Eru 54b; b Yev 105b.
703
The denial by France, Mark, 611–12, that this is not about a return to judge is not
persuasive. It ignores not only the likely context of Mark 13 but also the early hope of the

Man is a human figure, his riding the clouds points to a transcendent

act, as only such figures ride the clouds in the OT (Exod 14:20; 34:5; Num
10:34; Ps 104:3; Isa 19:1). Jesus is predicting a vindication from God. They
may judge him now, but God will bring him to a place where he shares
rule and judgment. One day they will be on trial before him. The claim
to share authority with God is what causes the high priest to react. Who
sits with God in heaven? Although some texts contemplate this for
certain exalted figures (Exag of Ezek 68–89; 1 En 45:3; 46:1–3; 51;3; 61:8;
62:2–8; 70:2; 71:1–17), Sadducees would never have been comfortable
with such claims, especially from a teacher from Galilee.704 It would
have been seen as a violation of Deut 6:4. Here is Jesus’ answer to his
earlier query about how David could call his descendent Messiah his
Lord (Mark 12:41–44). It is because God will exalt this figure to share in
God’s rule.705
The juxtaposition of these two OT texts is not an early Christian pesher
as Perrin claims.706 It is stated too indirectly; it uses expression, such as
“Power” and “Son of Man,” uniquely attested to Jesus; and it uses expres-
sions of those in the council seeing events that would no longer be correct
of a later formed saying in terms of the return.707
The high priest tears his cloths, a sign that blasphemy has taken place,
and asks why do they need any more witnesses (v 63). Tearing cloths is
what took place when someone heard news they wish they had not heard
(Gen 37:34; Jos 7:6; 2 Sam 1:11; 2 Kings 18:37; 19:1). He announces that what
Jesus has said is blasphemy (v 64). This is not blasphemy in the formal
sense of the Mishnah (m Sanh 6:4; 7:5), where one needs to say the divine
name in an inappropriate way. This is seen as an affront to God’s unique
church that grew out of Jesus’ teaching. France’s appeal to the vindication starting with
resurrection is correct. That is the point of Ps 110:1.
704
Rejection of such views is seen in 11Q17 7:4; 3 En 16:2–3, b Sanh 38b, and b Hag 15a;
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1008–1009.
705
Collins, Mark, 705. She goes on to note on page 706 that the blasphemy was “a human
being claiming a greater degree of authority and power than he has a right to do and
directly or indirectly, claiming divine status for himself.” As a theologian, the high priest
sees the issue clearly. Either Jesus is who he claims to be or this is blasphemy. For Mark,
the resurrection is the answer vindicating what Jesus claims here. See A. Y. Collins, “The
Charge of Blasphemy in Mark 14.64,” JSNT 26 (2004): 379–401. This article interacts with
and updates my own work.
706
N. Perrin, “Mark xiv.62: The End Product of a Christian Pesher Tradition?” NTS 12
(1965–66): 150–55. Pesher was a form of Jewish interpretation of pulling passages
together to argue for some type of eschatological fulfilment.
707
Bock, Blasphemy, 220–30; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 450–51.

honor by claiming to share directly in his rule and authority, as well as

insulting God’s rulers (Exod 22:27; 11QTemple 64:7–9).708
When he asks for a verdict, they all condemn him as worthy of death.
They will take the charge to Pilate so Rome can render a judgment. They
will ask for death. In effect, Jesus provides the testimony that sends him to
the cross.
Some present communicate their displeasure by spitting on Jesus and
mocking him (v 65). Blindfolded, Jesus is struck and told to prophesy.
The guards who take him also beat him. These acts may allude to Isa
50:6. The point is simply to shame Jesus (Job 30:10; Num 12:14;
Deut 25:9).
Mark returns to Peter’s denials (v 66). The parallels to this scene are Matt
26:69–75, Luke 22:56–62, and John 18:17, 25–27. The Gospel writers made
different choices in terms of when to tell this story. Luke tells it before the
examination, whereas Mark and Matthew relate it after the questioning.
Luke 22:66 has the final exchange as morning is dawning as he presents
what looks to be a summary of the entire examination. Peter’s denials likely
came in the midst of all of this, so each author makes his choices.709 Peter
stands in contrast to Jesus when the pressure comes.
Peter is in the courtyard below where Jesus is being examined. Jesus
apparently met the council on a second floor. The area of the traditional
site is hilly, so that may also be a factor in this description, if the courtyard
is outside the home. Most large homes in this period had an open court-
yard in the central area of the house.
A high priest’s slave girl sees Peter at the fire and recognizes him as a
follower of Jesus (v 67). John 18:16 says she was the doorkeeper. She
declares that Peter was with the Nazarene, Jesus. Other Markan passages
refer to Jesus as a Nazarene (Mark 1:24; 10:47; 16:6). It may be a derogatory
reference to someone from the north (John 1:46; 7:41, 52).710 Peter simply
says he does not know or understand the topic she is raising (v 68). It is a
common way to deny something (m Sheb 8:3, 6; T. Joseph 13:1–2).711 He does
not even want to broach the question. He hopes that she will move on and
leave the matter alone. Peter moves to the vestibule (proaulion) leading
708
The main point of Bock, Blasphemy is to show this by a full study of blasphemy in Jewish
sources. The summary is on pages 234–35.
709
Stein, Mark, 690.
710
Donahue and Harrington, Mark, 425.
711
Lane, Mark, 542.

into the courtyard, which would be called the aulē, the word used in Mark
14:66. A rooster crows for the first time.712
The slave girl reappears, insisting that Peter was with Jesus and declaring
that this man is one of them (v 69). Peter makes a second denial (v 70). The
imperfect verb here presents it with a feel of duration. Now he directly is
declaring no connection to Jesus or the disciples. Matt 26:72 has Peter deny
this with an oath, saying he does not know the man. Luke 22:58 has him
questioned by a man and replying, “Man, I am not.” Peter was likely
responding to many people who now were joining in and considering
connecting him to Jesus.
After a little time, others draw their own conclusion that the girl is right,
for they recognize that Peter is Galilean, and so he must be one of them
(v 71). Why else would he be present in the courtyard area? The event draws
in several participants, something John 18:25 also indicates. Perhaps his
accent (Matt 26:73) or the way he spoke gave him away (Acts 2:7).713 John
18:26 has someone recognize him as having been in the garden at the arrest.
Peter becomes livid. He curses and swears an oath that he does not know
the man they are describing. It probably had a “May God do to me” flavor
about it.714 When the verb for cursing lacks an object, it usually means
someone or something has been cursed versus cursing oneself. Mark leaves
this blank, but it may have included a renunciation of Jesus. It is as
emphatic a denial as one can make. Each time Peter’s denying has become
more intense.
The rooster crows a second time (v 72), causing Peter to recall the Lord’s
words (Mark 14:30), since with this final remark he most emphatically
712
There is a textual issue here regarding whether the mention of the rooster crowing is
original. A copyist’s insertion could be present to bring the text into conformity with
Jesus’ prediction in Mark 14:30. On the other hand, its omission by a copyist also is
explicable as bringing Mark into conformity with the other Gospels that mention only a
single crowing (Matt 26:74; Luke 22:60; John 18:27). The external evidence is also split,
with key Alexandrian witnesses, among others, omitting the text (‫א‬, B, L, W) and the rest
of the families favoring inclusion. Interestingly, B includes a reference to a second
crowing in verse 72, perhaps suggesting a split in the Alexandrian witnesses and favoring
original inclusion. The pressure to make the texts like the other Gospels is likely to be
greater, especially since Matthew and John are the more popular texts. So inclusion is
slightly favored; Metzger, Textual Commentary (1994), 97. A parallel issue comes up in
the mention of a second crowing in verse 72. Omissions there are slightly more wide-
spread, but this one also looks like an attempt to harmonize with the other Gospels.
713
Later Jewish sources make a point about the Galilean dialect (b ‘Erub 53b; b Meg 24b);
Lane, Mark, 542. The pronunciation of gutturals was an issue for them; Evans, Mrk 8:27–
16:20, 466.
714
France, Mark, 622.

denied Jesus. The cock crow was known as the third watch, covering from
midnight to 3:00 AM, because they often did crow at this time of night.
However, roosters crowed at all hours, so we are simply before dawn here.
The fact that Jesus said he would deny him three times before the rooster
crowed twice leads Peter to weep.715 He has failed to be faithful, by suffering
from a loss of nerve. His heart is broken. He had fallen into temptation
(Mark 14:38) and sought to save his own life (Mark 8:35). The rest of Peter’s
life would be very different, as he would speak boldly of Jesus. Those who
knew the full story would know that as low as Peter felt here, he learned
from the experience, even though persecution can be hard to overcome.
That failure can be reversed is probably the point of sharing this event, an
experience unlikely to have been a church creation given its initial poor
reflection on Peter.716
15:1–47 Jesus Is Sent to the Cross by Pilate for Sedition and Dies amid
a Series of Cosmic Signs
15:1–15 Amid Some Pressure, Jesus Meets with Pilate and Is Sentenced to
Be Crucified
15:1 As soon as it was early in the morning, after forming a plan, the chief
priests with the elders and scribes and the whole council tied Jesus up
and gave him over to Pilate.
15:2 SoPilate asked him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He replied, “You
say so.”
15:3 And the chief priests began to accuse him many times.
15:4 So Pilate asked him again, “Do you reply with nothing? See how
many things they charge you.”
15:5 But Jesus made no further reply, so that Pilate was amazed.
15:6 During the feast it was customary to release one prisoner to the
people, whomever they requested.
15:7 A man named Barabbas was imprisoned with rebels who had
committed murder during an insurrection.
715
Knowing how to render epibalōn is a matter for discussion, as it can mean to begin or to
throw down or out (BDAG, 367, 2b). So either Peter took his cloths to hide his face, cast
himself from the location, cast himself to the ground, or began to weep. Taking the
cloths to hide his face is the least likely of these options, as a reference to cloths likely
would have supplied an object. Any of the last three options is possible here, and there is
no way to decide among them; however, the action, whatever it is, is quite dramatic,
reflecting the intensity of the moment.
716
So, correctly, Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 465.

15:8 And rising up the crowd began to ask Pilate to release a prisoner for
them, even as he was doing for them.
15:9 So Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to release the king of the Jews
for you?”
15:10 (for he knew that the chief priests had handed him over because of
envy.)
15:11 But the chief priests stirred up the crowd to have him release
Barabbas to them instead.
15:12 So Pilate again replied, saying to them, “Then what do you want me
to do with the one you call king of the Jews?”
15:13 They shouted back, “Crucify him.”
15:14 Pilate said to them, “Why? What has he done wrong?” But they
shouted even more, “Crucify him.”
15:15 Because he wanted to grant the crowd a favor, he released Barabbas
to them and gave over Jesus, having had him flogged, that he might be
crucified.
This scene is not so much a trial as an examination out of the ordinary
(cognition extra ordinem),717 which was a prefect’s right as a Roman
representative. The parallels are in Matt 27:1–2, 11, 26; Luke 23:1–5, 18–25;
and John 18:28–40; 19:1, 4, and 12–16. Some scholars question whether there
is any tradition to work with here and challenge the amnesty scene that
leads to Barabbas’ release, stressing how much blame is placed on the
Jews.718 This reading is too one-sided. Rome is portrayed as unjust in
releasing someone the ruler senses is innocent of a capital crime. It is
said Pilate was too ruthless to show this much respect to the Jews (Philo,
Embassy to Gaius 38.299–305, esp. 301, 303, 305; Josephus, Ant 18.60–62;
War 2.169–74 – taking money from the sacred treasury), but by this point
in his rule he had faltered in his relationships with Jews, as Philo (see the
previous discussion) and Josephus (Ant 18. 55–59) noted in the famous
shields incident(s),719 and likely had been told by Tiberius to be more
careful with them. Releasing Jesus could have been a subtle swipe at these
leaders (Mark 15:10 and sarcasm of 15:12), but in the end he accepted their
717
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963), 12–23. That Pilate had a role in Jesus’ death is attested to
by Tacitus, Annals 15.44, and with the collaboration of Jewish leaders according to
Josephus, Ant 18.63–64.
718
Hooker, Mark, 366–67, raises the objections noted in this paragraph.
719
It is discussed whether these are two distinct events or two versions of the same incident;
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 477.

advice and avoided trouble with those who helped him with the Jewish
population.720
After taking consultation to wrap up their own investigation of Jesus
early that morning,721 the leadership takes Jesus to Pilate with a plan to
ask for his death (v 1). They hand him over to the prefect, using the verb
so common in Mark (paradidōmi; Mark 9:31; 10:33, 14:10, 11, 18, 21, 41–44).
They had translated the religious charge into a political one, Jesus was
claiming to be a king Rome had not appointed; in short, sedition.
Pilate, who was prefect of Judea from 26–36 CE, had three key respon-
sibilities there: to keep the peace, collect taxes, and look after Caesar’s
interests there, enforcing his presence with power.722 Whatever the
leaders said to him led him to ask Jesus if he was the king of the Jews
(v 2). This topic dominates the chapter (Mark 15:9, 12, 18, 26, 32). Jesus’
response is, “You say.”723 The force is likely both ironic and with the idea
“but not quite in the sense you have asked it.” Ironically, Jesus had
worked hard not to be seen as a political Messiah in the sense that his
disciples had originally hoped and some in the public at times had
expected.724 Now he is on trial for being that figure. He realizes the
promise, but not in the way of power that Pilate’s question suggests.
John 18:36–37 points to the difference.
The leaders press their case against Jesus (v 3). Mark gives no details.
Luke 23:2 has three charges against Jesus: subverting the nation, forbidding
the payment of taxes to Caesar, and claiming that he is a king. Mark seems
to be aware of this last claim. Matthew runs parallel to Mark. John 18:33 also
has Pilate ask about being king of the Jews.
Pilate is surprised that Jesus gives no real reply, especially given how
many charges they have leveled against him. Pilate asks the question, fully
720
721
For this understanding to prepare for the common morning Roman proceedings,
Witherington, Mark, 388–89, and Lane, Mark, 545. Witherington points out the public
impact of having Rome act as the most public and shameful way to remove Jesus. The
locale of this examination is either the Antonia Fortress where Romans troops stayed or
Herod’s palace where visiting Roman rulers resided on visits (Josephus, War 2.301;
Philo, Embassy to Gaius 38.299–301).
722
For a detailed look at Pilate, see Helen Bond, Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), and for a full survey of issues tied to the
trial and crucifixion, Robert Webb, “The Roman Examination and Crucifixion of Jesus,”
in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 669–773.
723
On the grammar, BDF §441; Matt 26:25, 64; 27:11; Luke 22:70; 23:3; John 18:37; Lane,
Mark, 551.
724

expecting Jesus to give a reply as the interrogative ouk indicates (v 4). Pilate
is thinking like a Roman, as Jesus’ silence and a failure to reply could lead to
a presumption of guilt, by suggesting there is no answer.725 This remark
about how much he was being charged suggests more than Jesus’ claimed
kingship was raised against him. Jesus still offers no rebuttal, leaving Pilate
amazed (v 5). Mark again evokes Isa 53:7 about being silent like a lamb, as in
Mark 14:60.
Now the custom of releasing a prisoner at feast time is noted (v 6). It has
been called the privilegium paschale. We have no outside record of this
practice in Judea, since outside of Josephus and Philo we have next to
nothing on Pilate outside the Gospels. Though some doubt it for lack of
corroboration elsewhere, there would be no value in noting a custom,
seemingly deeply rooted in the telling of the trial scene story, that people
knew did not exist. This is especially the case if this were a custom done
especially for Jews and Mark writes to a largely Gentile audience. Why note
it at all? In fact, it would be counterproductive to create a scene that
those familiar with the event knew never took place. Its mention exists in
two tradition streams (Mark and John), pointing to multiple attestation. A
similar act of amnesty is attested from a governor in Egypt from 85 CE.726
All of this makes it more likely than not.
The crowd seeks out Pilate to exercise his custom (v 8). He starts with
Jesus, identified as king of the Jews (v 9). In verse 12, he notes that some of
them call him the king of the Jews. So we are dealing with a claim in Pilate’s
view. The text says he said this about Jesus because he knew Jesus was
handed over because of envy (v 10). Pilate is using his custom as a time to
play a little with the leaders. Pilate seems to take the claim as less than
serious at one level, since Jesus has no power or army. Pilate’s willingness
725
A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1963), 25–26. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 479, argues Jesus was
acting in a manner the Greco-Roman ethical tradition would have respected (Plutarch,
Moralia 498D–E).
726
Lane, Mark, 552–53. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1028, argues for the plausibility of an occasional
Roman response to a Jewish request for amnesty at this feast that celebrated release from
prison. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 680, notes that m Pesah 8:6 may point to the custom, as it
allows a Passover lamb to be slaughtered for one out of prison. Collins, Mark, 714–15,
argues that Mark added the story, challenging the evidence others raise. She never
explains how, in an account that purports to be historical and apologetic, an invented
story would have helped the cause when people knew what the history was. This is not
about literature written long after the fact. See E. Bammel, “The Trial before Pilate,” in
Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984), 427–28.

to use this title reflects the fact that he sees little threatening about Jesus,
even given his popularity with some people.727
Now the chief priests had stirred up the crowd to call for the release of
Barabbas (v 22). There is some question about whether Pilate would release
such a prisoner and accept such a specific request.728 The situation, with the
active involvement of the leadership versus a popular teacher, is not a
normal one. This could have caused Pilate to be more careful. The verb
anaseiō means to shake up, but in this context it is to stir up a crowd (Luke
23:5; BDAG, 71).729 Marcus sees this crowd as being made up of locals who
had rejected Jesus.730
Mark had already described Barabbas as one imprisoned for murder
during an insurrection (v 7; stasis; BDAG, 940; Jdt 7:15; 2 Macc 4:30; 14:6).
Ironically, his name means “son of the father,” but Mark makes nothing of
that. Barabbas is in jail for sedition, the very charge Jesus is facing. He is
described as having been arrested with a group that committed murder.
We do not know about the specific incident being referenced here. Did it
involve one of the earlier shield incidents? Perhaps it was an otherwise
unattested public disturbance in what was known to be a turbulent region.
Mark is not clear about whether Barabbas was a murderer himself or was
simply an accomplice with a reputation (Matt 27:16). Regardless, he was a
man associated with violence.
Pilate asks, “What is to be done with the one ‘you call’ [yet another
tweak] king of the Jews?” (v 12). Again, questions have been raised
727
This detail also explains why Collins’s challenge, Mark, 720, to the historicity of the
scene by rejecting Pilate’s use of the title for Jesus is not decisive. She argues that Pilate’s
authority would be threatened if the people recognized Jesus as their king. The point is
true if the prospect of widespread popularity was real, but Pilate feels no real threat. The
Jewish leaders are against Jesus, and the teacher shows no real means in Pilate’s view to
challenge mighty Rome.
728
Hooker, Mark, 368–69. Despite her objections, she goes on to argue that the event is
probably grounded in some historical incident, the details of which are beyond us.
Others prefer to see a better connection between the incident and its reporting. Part of
the objection is whether Pilate would release a murderer; however, the text does not
explicitly say Barabbas murdered, but rather that he was in a group that did (hoitines n v
7 is plural); Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 481; contra Edwards, Mark, 460, who calls Barabbas
a murderer. She also calls the connection between Barabbas’ release and Jesus’ fate
implausible, but that is not so if Pilate was trying to push the crowd to make a choice to
release Jesus because Pilate sensed his innocence. The move is potentially politically
astute. He only did the people’s will in this difficult case. The fact that it failed caused
Pilate simply to follow the counsel of those leaders he worked with in this area. Such
twists are not unusual in politics.
729
730

regarding whether Pilate would have actually done this.731 However, Pilate
is gaining a sense of the crowd and the populace’s wishes here while dealing
with a figure he sees as insignificant, aside from the current public stir. If
he gives Jesus over to death or any punishment with the leaders and the
crowd’s support, he has the protection of public affirmation from the very
people he has sometimes gotten into trouble with for what he has done in
the past. The act is a reflection of a shrewd politician.732 Of course, for
Mark, what emerges as a result of the crowd’s cries for Barabbas is a
substitution of one worthy of the crime being set free with Jesus dying in
his place, a picture of what the cross means (Rom 5:8; 1 Pet 3:18).733
The crowd responds to Pilate’s query about what to do with Jesus with
cries that he be crucified (v 13). Pilate, seemingly surprised, asks why and
wants to know what he has done wrong (v 14). He is seeking assurance of
public support and that sentencing Jesus will not result in public chaos. The
crowd does not answer the question but continues to call for Jesus’ death.
Pilate’s ambivalence is answered by the crowd’s insistence.
Pilate decides to satisfy the crowd’s request (v 15). This does soften the
Roman involvement in the death and makes it clear that the movement
Jesus started was not really seen as criminal, but it does not let Rome
completely off the hook. To execute someone you sense is innocent is not a
flattering portrait of justice.
Pilate releases Barabbas and, flogging Jesus, has him sent to the soldiers
to be crucified. Flogging (flagellum) was a particular painful exercise
involving whips loaded with either wooden, metal, bone chips, or even
hooks (Josephus, War 3.306, 308; 5:449; Philo, Flaccus 72; Dio Chrysostom,
Discourses 4.67). Such whippings were predominately given to those of
slave status.734 The purpose was to cause bleeding that was designed to
speed up death on the cross as well as to inflict pain. Pilate was doing his job
of keeping the peace in his view (Luke 23:2; John 19:12). Crucifixion was
seen as the cruelest form of execution that a Roman citizen could not be
subject to experiencing (Valerius Maximus 2.7.12; Tacitus Histories 2.72;
731
Collins, Mark, 720. To see, as she does, the crowd as a metaphor for choices about the
Jewish War in 66–70 CE is simply farfetched. Lane, Mark, 556, calls this a tactical
blunder, but it is more like testing the populace to see how emotional any decision
will be. It is shrewd versus incompetent.
732
Edwards, Mark, 463, raises the possibility that the departure of the more anti-Semitic
Sejanus in Rome led to a shift in Roman policy toward Jews, with more sensitivity to
them; also D. Flusser, Jesus (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2001), 160–62.
733
Edwards, Mark, 461.
734
Collins, Mark, 721, n. 102.

4.11; Juvenal, Satires 14.77–78).735 Domitian was horrified by it (Suetonius,

Domitian 11). Quintilian (Declamationes 274) noted that it was located in
the most public locales so that most people could see it.
With Barabbas free and Jesus headed to the cross, the substitution is
complete. Rome has issued a death decree and a verdict of guilty. Jesus dies
as a claimed “king of the Jews” (Mark 15:26). It is a regal and messianic
association that leads to his death.
15:16–41 Jesus Is Crucified amid Cosmic Signs That Lead

to a Centurion’s Confession
15:16 The soldiers led him into the palace court, which is the praetorium,
and called together the whole cohort.
15:17 They dressed him in a purple cloak and weaving a crown of thorns,
they placed it on him.
15:18 They began to salute him: “Hail. King of the Jews.”
15:19 And they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him and
kneeling down they paid homage to him.
15:20 When they had finished mocking him, they stripped him of the
purple cloak and dressed him with his own clothes. And they led him
away that they might crucify him.
15:21 And they impressed a passerby to carry his cross, Simon of Cyrene,
who was coming in from the country, the father of Alexander and
Rufus.
15:22 They brought Jesus to a place called Golgotha, which is translated
“place of the skull.”
15:23 They gave him wine mixed with myrrh, but he did not take it.
15:24 Then they crucified him and divided his clothes casting lots for them,
to decide what each would take.
15:25 It was nine o’clock in the morning when they crucified him.
15:26 The inscription of the charge against him being written, “the king of
the Jews.”
15:27 And they crucified two outlaws with him, one on his right and one
on his left.
15:29 Those who passed by defamed him, shaking their heads and saying,
“Aha, you can destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days,
15:30 save yourself and come down from the cross.”
735
M. Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient Word and the Folly of the Message of the Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).

15:31 Likewise also the chief priests with the scribes were mocking to one
another and saying, “He saved others, but he cannot save himself.
15:32 Let the Christ, the king of Israel, come down from the cross now,
that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him
mocked him.
15:33 Now when it was noon, darkness came over the whole earth until
three in the afternoon.
15:34 Around three o’clock Jesus cried out, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?”
which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
15:35 And some of the bystanders hearing it said, “Look, he calls for
Elijah.”
15:36 Someone, running, filled a sponge with sour wine and gave it to him
to drink, saying, “Let us see if Elijah will come to take him down.”
15:37 But Jesus cried out with a loud voice and breathed his last.
15:38 And the temple curtain was torn in two, from top to bottom.
15:39 Now when the centurion, who stood in front of him saw how he
died, he said, “Truly this man was God’s son.”
15:40 There were also women, watching from a distance, among them
were Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James the younger and
of Joses, and Salome.
15:41 When he was in Galilee, they had followed him and given him
support. Many other women who had come with him to Jerusalem
were there too.
The crucifixion scene includes mocking and then a description of Jesus’
death. As he entrusts himself to God, the creation reacts and a centurion is
moved to recognize Jesus. The parallels are Matthew 27:27–56, Luke 23:11,
26, 32–39, 44–49; and John 19:2–3, 17–24, 28–30.736 This mocking is located
in different spots in the Gospels, coming before a sentence and after the
flogging in John 19:1–3 and associated with Herod’s soldiers in the midst of
a series of examinations Luke gives in 23:11.
When Jesus is placed in the hands of the soldiers at the palace court, he is
mocked (vv 16–17). We are likely at Herod’s palace and a large courtyard
area where a large number of soldiers could gather. The location is often
associated with the Jaffa Gate area of today and the Citadel. A cohort
(speira) could refer to 600 men or to a maniple of 200, although Josephus
could speak of cohorts of 1,000 (BDAG, 936; War 3.67).737 These were
mostly non-Jewish soldiers from Syro-Palestine.738
736
The gaps in the verses of the parallels reflect scenes unique to those Gospels.
737
738

They dressed him in a purple cloak to mock his kingship (Jdg 8:26; Esth
8:15; 1 Macc 8:14; 10:20; 11:58; Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 14.2; Cicero,
Scaurus 45; Suetonius, Tiberius 17.2; Josephus, Ant 17.197). They made a
crown of thorns, to mirror an emperor’s laurel wreath, and placed it on his
head. They cried out in mock honor, “Hail, king of the Jews,” in imitation
of greetings to Caesar (v 18; Suetonius, Claudias 21.6 with its famous
refrain, “Hail, Emperor, we who are about to die salute you”; also
Josephus, Ant 10:211). They beat him on the head with some type of reed
or staff that pictures a scepter and spit on him (v 19). Finally, they bowed
down in mock worship. These soldiers also saw no threat in Jesus and made
sport of what was taking place. Such things were not unusual for this kind
of a setting where shame was the point for the one sentenced to die.739
Completing their fun and efforts to shame Jesus, they get him ready for
crucifixion (v 20). The word for mock here can appear in contexts where
someone is being treated cruelly (empaizō; 2 Macc 7:7, 10). They remove the
purple cloak and dress him in his own clothes. Then they depart to the
crucifixion site. John 19:17 had Jesus carry the cross, at least for a time.740
Mark lacks any such detail. Jesus is apparently too weak to carry the cross
so they impress into service a man coming in from the countryside to carry
the cross (v 21). His name is Simon of Cyrene. His family apparently was
known to the audience, as Mark describes him as the father of Alexander
and Rufus. It may be that Rufus is the same figure who became a leader in
Rome (Rom 16:13), but there is really no way to know. He would have been
carrying the cross beam. The main pole would have already been at the site.
The shape was with a T, †, or an X. There was a place left to display the
charge, which favors a † shape.
Jesus arrives at Golgotha, a location whose name means “place of the
skull” (v 22). This site has traditionally been associated with the present
location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, some 300 meters from
Herod’s palace.741 It meets the requirement of execution outside the city
walls of the time (Lev 24:14; Num 15:35–36; 1 Kings 21:13).742 The Romans
built a pagan shrine on this site in the second century, pointing to its sacred
739
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 488, notes incidents in Philo, Flaccus 6.36–39 – involving a street
person, Carabas, mocked as king, Dio Cassius 64.20–21, and Eleazar in 4 Macc 6:1–30.
740
John generally avoids any indications of weakness for Jesus.
741
France, Mark, 642. Collins, Mark, 740, shows the likelihood the church was outside
the wall.
742

character and implicitly claiming Roman victory over the God represented
by the sacred locale.
Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, but he refuses to take it (v 23).
Such an offer is not unusual (Prov 31:6; Pliny, Natural History 14.15, 92–93),
and is often seen as an act of mercy. This is not certain. It is soldiers who
offer the wine, making mercy an unlikely motive. It may continue the
mocking.743 They place him on the cross (v 24). If a find made in 1968 at
Giv’at ha-Mivtar is any guide, his feet were nailed together at the heels.744
This made breathing difficult. Death would eventually come either from a
loss of blood or from being unable to breathe. John 20:27 also suggests
nailing, but another option would have been to use ropes.
As he hangs on the cross, the soldiers divide his clothes and cast die for
who gets what. It is unclear whether Jesus was crucified in the nude or left
with an undergarment out of sensitivity to Jewish concerns (Jub. 3:30–31; m
Sanh 6:3). The language of dividing clothes reflects Ps 22:18. Jesus is
portrayed as a righteous sufferer. Those executed like this had no property
rights (Tacitus, Annals 6.29).
It was the third hour, or 9:00 AM, when he was crucified (v 25). John
19:14 mentions that it was about the sixth hour when Jesus was presented to
the crowd. Does Mark start with the whipping and mocking in giving the
time and see the entire suffering as part of the event?745 He does divide
the day into three-hour segments (Mark 15:33–34 – sixth and ninth hours).
The inscription, known as the titulus, listed the charge: “the king of the
Jews” (v 26).746 The titulus is not only descriptive, but also ironic, because
those who crucified Jesus for this reason rejected the claim. John 19:20 has
the charge noted in three languages. The parallels all have slight variation,
but all mention king of the Jews (Matt 27:37 – “this is Jesus, king of the
Jews”; Luke 23:38 – “this is the king of the Jews”; John 19:19 – “Jesus the
Nazarene the king of the Jews”). This shows the kind of variation and gist
743
So Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 501, who speaks of “fine” wine offered to the alleged king.
744
This is one of the more famous archeological finds dealing with the background to Jesus’
death. On this find, Joe Zias and James Charlesworth, “CRUCIFIXION: Archaeology,
Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed.
James Charlesworth (New York: Doubleday, 1993), 279–80.
745
Lane, Mark, 567, claims this verse is a later gloss, but there is no solid evidence for this. It
is better to see Mark as referring to all of these Roman events as when the crucifixion
started. Stein, Mark, 712–13, suggests that if the real hour were between the third and
sixth hours, estimates of time could go in either direction, given that the three-hour
increments for time were most common.
746
E. Bammel, “The Titulus,” in Jesus and the Politics of His Day, ed. E. Bammel and
C. F. D. Moule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 353–64.

common in passing on tradition. The description “king of the Jews” is of

Roman origin and not a Christian creation. It is the way Herod was
described by Josephus (Ant 14.280; 15.409; War 1.282–85). Christians pre-
ferred Messiah or Son of God, possibly because “king” said too little.747
Matt 27:37 has it placed above Jesus’ head. Jesus is executed for sedition,
claiming to be a king Rome did not appoint. This has messianic implica-
tions. It shows that the attachment of messianism to Jesus was not a post-
Easter phenomenon as some claim.748 Jesus was not executed merely for
being a prophetic figure, but for claiming to be the answer to a promise
from God beyond the empire.
Jesus is crucified with two outlaws or, more likely, insurrectionists, one
on his right and the other to his left (v 27).749 They probably were much like
Barabbas (lēstas – Mark 14:48; 15:7; John 18:40).
Mark describes in succession three sets of taunters. First, Jesus was
mocked by observers, who wagged their heads and slandered him as he
died (v 29). The text speaks of blasphemy, which is slander (blasphēmeō –
BDAG, 178; Mark 2:7; 3:28–29). Jesus had been charged with blasphemy by
the leadership in Mark 14:64, so the use of the verb is ironic. The real
blasphemy for Mark is in slandering Jesus. By wagging their heads, Ps 22:7
is invoked (on wagging heads as a sign of derision – Ps 109:25; Lam 2:15; Jer
18:16). The allusion points to Jesus as a righteous sufferer. Some recall the
false claim to destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days (Mark 14:58).
They see the alleged claim as an empty one. They call on him to save
himself and come down from the cross (v 30). Implicit is the idea that one
who claims to be king and deliver people on God’s behalf cannot suffer
crucifixion. Ironically, for Mark, saving is exactly what Jesus was doing, just
not himself but others (Mark 10:45 – a ransom for many). As for disqua-
lification, that depends on whether God vindicates him or not.
Second, the chief priests and scribes mocked him (v 31).750 A second
term (empaizō) is used here (BDAG, 323). It means to ridicule or make fun
747
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 503–504, has the discussion defending the historicity of this
detail. He notes that having the charge accompany the victim is described by Suetonius,
Caligula 32.2, and Domitian 10:1 ad Dio Cassius 54.3.6–7 and 73.16.5.
748
Correctly, Witherington, Mark, 396.
749
Lane, Mark, 568. Mark 15:28 is not likely to have been original in Mark. It reads, “And the
Scripture was fulfilled that said, ‘He was counted among those who were rebels.’” It is
basically a Byzantine reading, with Alexandrian and Western texts (‫א‬, A, B, C, D) lacking
it. It likely is a harmonization with Luke 22:37 that cites Isa 53:12.
750
Collins, Mark, 749–51, is skeptical about much of this taunting, especially by the chief
priests, claiming that they would have avoided such a sordid scene. However, if they
pushed for this result, their attendance to see the result of their efforts, and to make a

of someone. They also claimed that he saved others, alluding to his mir-
aculous work, but cannot save himself. So come down, King of Israel, so
they may see and believe was their taunt (v 32). The attitude is like Wis 2:18,
where God will help the righteous one who is God’s son by providing rescue
from one’s opponents. Wis 2:17 asks for visual proof that God is at work.751
The allusion to seeing may recall Jesus’ remark about their seeing the Son of
Man seated at God’s right hand and riding the clouds (Mark 14:62). Jesus
was predicting a vindication with this remark, even if they sentenced him.
The lack of response when Jesus is vindicated shows this current taunt was
nothing more than sarcasm. The vindication by resurrection is God’s
answer in support of a claim like that made in the Wis 2 text.
Third, even those crucified with him abused him as he was dying. Yet a
third term appears here (oneidizō – BDAG, 710, revile). The array of verbs
means that all disrespected him in every way. Mark does not have any
indication of one of the thieves coming to faith as in Luke 23:40–43.
Matthew and John say nothing about any abuse from those crucified
with Jesus. In Mark, Jesus suffers with everyone around him mocking
him. Edwards calls it a “chorus of scorn.”752 For Mark, they are all missing
what God is doing.
Mark has run through a fairly summarized version of the events that
took place from the morning to the afternoon. The presence of cosmic
signs and the end causes him to slow down. At noon darkness fell over the
area for three hours (v 33). Creation reflects an apocalyptic darkness
pointing to judgment (Exod 10:21–22; Deut 28:29; Isa 13:10; Joel 2:10;
Amos 8:9–10).753 Philo (Providence 2.50) spoke of such darkness as
point that this is what happens to people who make such claims and to those who
critique how the leaders run things, would not have been at all unexpected. The
skepticism about such taunting and the amount of Markan creation she sees is excessive.
751
752
Edwards, Mark, 473.
753
One should not press the language too much. It points to a reaction in the heavens
that was atypical of this time of day. The Gospel of Peter 5:15 speaks of darkness on all
of Judea. Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1054, observes that this is not a description of some
natural phenomenon like a solar eclipse, which was not possible at a full moon, or a
wind storm of some type. Against this is the suggestion of Colin Humphreys and
W. G. Waddington, “The Jewish Calendar, A Lunar Eclipse and the Date of Christ’s
Crucifixion,” Tyndale Bulletin 43 (1992): 331–51, that a lunar eclipse is the point, while
arguing for a date of April 3, 33, as the date for this event. Humphreys and
Waddington have to explain Luke 23:45 and its seeming mention of a solar eclipse
to make their claim. The debate may press the language too much. Luke’s reference
may not be to an eclipse but simply to a very dark day.

indicating the death of a king or the destruction of a city.754 Ancients paid

attention to such signs.
At 3:00, Jesus cried out to God, invoking Ps 22:1 in its Aramaic form,
asking why God had forsaken him, which Mark interprets into Greek for
his audience (v 34). It is the only saying Mark has from the cross. The
shepherd is struck (Zech 13:7 in Mark 14:27). Mark cites the words of Ps 22
and translates them to point to this scene’s importance, but the earlier
allusion to Zechariah in Mark 14:27 points to its significance. In the
abandonment, Jesus senses the pain of what he is enduring. Collins points
out that this is not the noble quiet death of a Socrates, Eleazar of 2 Macc
6:30 and chapter 7, or the later portrayal of Polycarp in the account of his
martyrdom (chaps. 4, 15–16).755 Mark does invoke a psalm that ends with a
note of trust in God (Ps 22:22–31) and expects vindication, but what he
highlights in the citation is the sense of distance Jesus is experiencing. This
explains why Jesus was so concerned at Gethsemane. The moment was
terrifying. Cranfield says it this way: “the cry [is] to be understood in the
light of 14:36, 2 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13. The burden of the world’s sin, his
complete self-identification with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a
real, abandonment by his Father. It is in the cry of dereliction that the full
horror of man’s sin stands revealed.”756 The depth of the disruption shows
the reality of the experience.
Those hearing Jesus’ cry thought that Jesus had called for Elijah to
deliver him (v 35). This makes the listeners with this response likely to
have been Jews, given that Jesus had spoken a Semitic language and Elijah
was a Jewish hope.757 Elijah was held to be a protector of the innocent tied
to the eschaton (Sir 48:10). The reaction of the heavens may have led to
attention being drawn to Elijah along with Jesus’ utterance.
Someone offers him sour wine on a stick (v 36). We are not told whether
it was a solider or bystander. This was wine vinegar, a favorite beverage of
the lower ranks of society (BDAG, 715; Plutarch, Cato Major 1.7 – what one
drank for a raging thirst). Ps 69:21, another righteous sufferer psalm, is
evoked. The offer comes with an additional prospect – might Elijah come
754
Lane, Mark, 571. Other examples are in Diogenes Laertius 4.64 – moon darkens at death
of Carneades; Plutarch, Caesar 69.3–5; Virgil, Georgics 1.463–68 – sun hid its face at
Caesar’s death; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 506. Collins, Mark, 752, adds Romance of
Alexander 3.33.5 for similar phenomena.
755
Collins, Mark, 754.
756
757

to rescue him?758 John 19:30 seems to have him take this offer. Was it an
effort to refresh him and prolong his life? It is hard to know whether the act
was sympathetic or another example of mockery. The latter is especially
possible given how negative most of the crowd has been in Mark.759 Then
Jesus cries out a final time and takes his final breath (v 37).
The temple curtain is ripped in two from top to bottom as Jesus dies
(v 38). Mark describes yet another response from creation, alongside the
darkness. Matthew 27:51–53 adds a reference to an earthquake. This curtain
could be the one tied to the Holy Place (Exod 26:37) or the one leading into
the Holy of Holies (Exod 26:31). The term used (to katapetasma) is used in
the LXX of the veil before the Holy of Holies (Exod 26:31–37), yet the outer
veil would be a more public event, being the more visible veil.760 So it is not
clear which is meant. These curtains were at least 55 cubits high, or 81 feet
tall.761 The symbolic meaning of the act is debated. Was it to signal the
temple’s destruction?762 Or was it a sign that access to God had been
opened up as the heavens split (Mark 1:10), since the curtain prevented
entrance to some?763 Or might it be both?764 It is unlikely the sign was
strictly negative. Jesus’ act has both positive and negative results, so a sign
going both ways is more likely. The temple is opened so that this holy place
is judged and left empty, but the Spirit is now free to traverse the earth. The
event is uncorroborated, but there is a curious later tradition in Judaism
that during the last forty years before the Temple’s demise, the sanctuary
doors would open by themselves (b. Yoma 39b).
The frantic sequence of events marks the final moments of Jesus’ death.
Mockers have spoken, and now creation speaks. One is supposed to hear
the groaning that represents. The passage asks what kind of deliverer
758
On the syntax with the verb aphete, BDAG, 157, 5b. It renders into “Let us leave it and
see,” so “Let us see.”
759
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1056; Collins, Mark, 755–56, adds that Elijah is already tied to John
the Baptist by Mark. One can add that for Mark, Jesus’ vindication is God’s business. So
an appeal to Elijah is seen as misguided at best and sarcastic at the worst.
760
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 509. Hooker, Mark, 377, notes Josephus uses the same word to
compare both veils (Ant 8.75).
761
France, Mark, 656.
762
As France, Mark, 657, Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 509, and some of the Fathers (Tertullian
Against Marcion 4.42) argue; see Lane, Mark, 575.
763
John Nolland, Luke, 1157–58, discussing the parallel.
764
See my own discussion in Luke 9:51–24:53, 1861; Hooker, Mark, 377–78, cites Heb 9:11–12,
24–28, and 10:19–20 as evidence of a positive image and notes a story of the temple doors
opening on their own as a comparison (Josephus, War, 6.293; also War 5.212 and 219 use
it of both). She notes that the next verse in Mark 15:39 points to doors opened to Gentiles
(Eph 2:14).

would be hanging and dying on a cross. The answer is one whose actions
cause creation to shudder, one through whom God is working out his plan.
Lane remarks, “The meaning of his death becomes clear only from the
perspective of the triumph of resurrection which marked his vindication
and demonstrated that death had no claim on him.”765 Jesus does not come
down from the cross to escape sin and death. He is taken up from it to
continue in the sacrificial task he had undertaken.
A centurion, seeing the cosmic sign of darkness and having heard the
cries of pain, reads the signs he sees (v 39).766 Seeing how Jesus died, he
declares, “Truly this man was God’s Son.” He senses that Jesus has died as
an innocent. It is the first such confession by a person in Mark. Luke 23:43
has the confession that Jesus was innocent/righteous, making the same
point.767 This is the climactic confession of the crucifixion and of the book.
It matches the titles in 1:1 (and 1:11). This soldier, neutral or even initially
hostile in his view of Jesus, saw all that transpired and recognized Jesus’
unique relationship to God. Jesus was not merely king of the Jews; he had
some special connection to God. If Jesus is innocent, that has implications
for his claims.
The soldier was probably the centurion in charge of the execution. Mark
uses a Latin loan word to describe the solider (kēnturiōn, meaning “cen-
turion”; BDAG, 540). In contrast to all the mockery by the Jewish leaders
and others, this Gentile saw what was going on. Apparently the final words,
the darkness, and Jesus’ shout were what convinced him that they had
killed one who was what he claimed to be. For Jesus to be strong enough to
shout at the end of a crucifixion was unusual. How much the centurion
actually understood of what he confessed is debated, as he likely would not
have had the background to know much more than that Jesus was a
divinely enabled, commissioned King.768 Still, his confession was more
than a contradiction to the death sentence Jesus had received. Jesus was
innocent and a king. The fuller meaning of the title “Son of God” was clear
to Mark’s readers (1:1, 11; 3:11; 5:7; 9:7; 12:6; 13:32; 14:61–62). At the end of
765
Lane, Mark, 574.
766
Hooker, Mark, 378, reads the text as claiming the centurion is only responding to how
Jesus died and as excluding the signs, making a contrast to Matt 27:54. However, how
Jesus died includes all that came with the death; Collins, Mark, 765, “ a response to one or
more omens.” He would not have seen a torn curtain from where he was in Jerusalem.
The combination of Jesus on the cross and darkness is what is in view, so, correctly,
France, Mark, 658.
767
Edwards, Mark, 479.
768
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 510.

everything, a Gentile is the person who is most spiritually sensitive to what

is taking place. Mark wants his readers to appreciate what the centurion
sees. The one executed was seen by one of his executioners as executing the
will of God.
Among those watching from a distance were three female disciples:
Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2), Mary the mother of James the younger and
Joses, and Salome (v 40). Salome may be the mother of the sons of Zebedee
(Matt 27:56). We know nothing else about the other Mary tied to James and
Joses, but she apparently was known to Mark’s audience and could have
been the wife of Clopas (John 19:25) or James, the son of Alphaeus (Mark
3:18). A problem in identifying the person is how common the name Mary
was. She is not Mary, the mother of Jesus, because if it were her, she likely
would not be described this way.
The note about the women is made with a sense that they were among
the witnesses to some of what took place. These women had followed Jesus
in Galilee and had supported him in the ministry (v 41). They were faithful
witnesses. In a culture where women were undervalued, this note is
significant.769 The remark here is like Luke 8:1–3 that also discusses support
for Jesus by women, but Mark has delayed mention of women who are
praised until this last week (the woman who anoints Jesus in Mark 14:3–9,
these women, and those who go to the tomb).770 The remark also notes that
these women were not alone. Other unspecified women who had come
with him to Jerusalem were among them. So, Jesus is crucified, suffering
abandonment, garnering a reaction from creation, and a confession from a
solider, with the events witnessed from a distance by female disciples.
15:42–47 Jesus Is Buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a Tomb Two

Women Observed
15:42 Now it was already evening, since it was the day of preparation,
which is the day before the Sabbath.
15:43 Joseph of Arimathea, a highly regarded member of the council, who
also himself was looking forward to the kingdom of God, went to Pilate
and asked for the body of Jesus.
15:44 Pilate was surprised that he already was dead and he called the
centurion and asked him if he had been dead for some time.
769
In fact, women were rarely taken to be legal witnesses (Josephus, Ant. 4.219; m Roš HaŠ.
1:8; m Šebu. 4:1), so this detail is quite historical. It would not have been invented.
770

15:45 When Pilate was informed by the centurion, he gave the body to
Joseph.
15:46 After Joseph bought a linen cloth and took down the body, he
wrapped it in the linen and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. And
he rolled a stone across the entrance of the tomb.
15:47 Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where it was
buried.
This scene summarizes Jesus’ burial. It is noted in all four Gospels. The
parallels are Matt 27:57–61, Luke 23:50–56, and John 19:38–42.
It was the day before the Sabbath when Jesus died, a Friday (v 42).
Evening had come on what is called the day of preparation. Since nothing
gets done on the Sabbath, and burials usually took place on the day of the
death; any burial had to take place quickly. This was true even of the
burial of criminals (Deut 21:23). Joseph of Arimathea had acted on Jesus’
behalf (v 43). He is named in all four Gospels (Matt 27:57; Luke 23:51; John
19:38). Arimathea is probably Ramathaim, some 20 miles northwest from
Jerusalem (Josephus, Ant 13.127). He was a highly regarded man of the
council. He was one who looked forward to the kingdom of God,
indicating he was open to Jesus if not a follower. Matt 27:57 and John
19:38 call him a disciple. Luke 23:51 said he did not agree with the
council’s decision.
He went to Pilate to ask for Jesus’ body. It is part of Jewish tradition
that a criminal not be buried in a family tomb (m Sanh 6:5). Mark says
that he was bold or had courage (tolmēsas) in making the request (BDAG,
1010). To speak up for the executed man was a risk. In addition, in Roman
law someone executed had no rights. The magistrate controlled the burial
(Tacitus, Annals 6.29). Normally bodies were left to rot or tossed aside to
be eaten by predatory birds (Horace, Epistles 1, 16, 48; Petronias, Satura
111).771 Sometimes family members did get the body (Plutarch, Antonius
2; Cicero, Philippian Orations II.vii.17; Philo, Flaccus 10.83). Joseph hoped
to bury Jesus. Jewish piety held that bodies should be treated with respect
and viewed burial as an act of respect (2 Sam. 21:12–14; Tob 1:17–19; 2:3–7;
12:12–13; Sir 7:33; 38:16; Josephus, War 3.377 – Jews even bury our ene-
mies).772 Joseph shows common Jewish pious respect for Jesus, but his
motive appears to have been more than just that.
771
Lane, Mark, 578.
772
Lane, Mark, 578.

Pilate expressed surprise that Jesus was already dead (v 44). Such
execution could take several hours or even more than a day.773 So he
asked the centurion if Jesus had been dead for some time.774 Did the
centurion accompany Joseph when he made his request? Had Joseph
started with him? Is this the same centurion who had just confessed Jesus
in verse 39? It looks as though that is possible in Mark’s understanding.
The centurion told Pilate Jesus was dead, and so the prefect gave Jesus’
body to Joseph (v 45). Literally the text says that Pilate gifted or bestowed
(dōreomai) the body to Joseph (BDAG, 266). It was in his care to do with
what he wished.
So Joseph bought a long linen (sindoni) cloth (BDAG, 924), wrapped the
body in it, and placed it in a tomb hewn from rock that had a large stone
covering the entrance, a family tomb usually of fairly wealthy vintage
(v 46).775 Matt 27:60 says that it was his own new tomb. It is debated
whether someone from Arimathea would have had a tomb in Jerusalem,
but it cannot be known whether this council member now lived in
Jerusalem, explaining why his tomb was new, or whether he, like other
pious Jews, had wished to be buried in Jerusalem.776 If later Mishnaic
practice is a guide, the tomb had to be 50 cubits, or about 75 feet, from
the city wall (m B. Bat 2:9).777 Normal financial exchange did not take place
on a feast day, so this would have been arranged to be paid later (m Shab
23:1).778 This kind of arrangement may also have applied to the women
buying spices in Mark 16:1. Sometimes special circumstances allowed for
exceptions. Everything was done quickly to complete the task before the
Sabbath arrived.779
773
Hengel, Crucifixion, 29–31.
774
There is a textual problem here with the alternative reading (B, D, W) asking if Jesus was
already dead, a simpler reading. The harder reading is more likely here – Jesus had been
dead for a time (so ‫א‬, A, C, L).
775
If one goes just by the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, one can see an example of such a
tomb from Herod’s family. After a year, the bones would have been moved to an ossuary
(a bone box) and could have been shifted to a family tomb. This practice ceased after the
first century.
776
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 520, notes the debate; France, Mark, 669.
777
778
Hooker, Mark, 381.
779
There is some discussion of whether the burial is done in a way that pictures dishonor,
whether it reflects haste, or whether Mark has simply summarized and not mentioned all
the details. Collins, Mark, 779, opts for haste. Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 520, argues for a
dishonorable burial. I prefer the third option. Things were done quickly and Jesus’ burial
in a non-family tomb is a matter of shame, but it also is likely Mark has summarized and
not noted every possible detail; France, Mark, 668, cites m Shab 23:5 as evidence that the

Common loculus tombs were 2 by 2 by 6 feet, or they could be a vault of 6

by 9 feet (m B. Bat 6:8).780 The covering stone for such a tomb could be 5 or
6 feet in diameter, be rectangular or circular, and weigh 500 to 3,000
pounds.781 It was set in a groove but still was difficult to move without
multiple people present to help. Joseph put the body in the tomb and rolled
the stone to cover the entrance. The reality of the move suggests that Joseph
did not do all of this alone, but had servants, at least, to help him.782 John
19:39–40 has Joseph and Nicodemus anoint the body with spices, but Mark
makes no mention of this. No mention is made of the other criminals, as
they are of no concern to Mark.783
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where the body was
placed (v 47). Two witnesses verified that Jesus was quite dead and very
buried. Scripture notes the use of women as witnesses, a status they often
lacked in the custom of the culture.
16:1–8 The Angelic Announcement of a Raised Jesus Leaves Three

Women Speechless and Fearing as They Are Told to Tell the
Disciples to Meet Jesus in Galilee
16:1 And when the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James, and Salome bought aromatic spices so they might go and
anoint him.
16:2 And very early on the first day of the week, after sunrise, they came to
the tomb.
16:3 And they were asking each other, “Who will roll away the stone for us
from the entrance to the tomb?”
16:4 And looking up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had
been rolled away.
16:5 And coming into the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white
robe sitting on the right side and they were alarmed.
washing of a body by a pious Jew, if not an anointing, was likely to have taken place.
Later accounts serve to supplement those features. The idea that Jesus was left to rot is
less than persuasive, not just because of Jewish sensibilities to the uncleanness of dying
bodies left overnight, but also because if such an end were well known, the kerygma
about an empty tomb never could have gotten off the ground in Jerusalem to gain
credibility for the message that was preached early on.
780
Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1071–72; Edwards, Mark, 490.
781
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 535; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1072.
782
Lane, Mark, 580.
783
Speculation based on their absence simply ignores that Mark is summarizing here, not
giving an exhaustive account.

16:6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You are looking for Jesus
the Nazarene, who was crucified. He is raised. He is not here. Look,
there is the place where they laid him.
16:7 But go and tell his disciples and Peter that he is going ahead of you
into Galilee. You will see him there, just as he told you.”
16:8 And going out, they ran from the tomb, for trembling and
amazement had seized them. And they said nothing to anyone, for
they were afraid.
The account of the empty tomb leads to the declaration of resurrection
and the reaction to it. The parallels to this part of the Markan account are
Matt 28:1–8, Luke 24:1–11, and John 20:1, 11–12. Resurrection for a Jew
involves a physical dimension, whether expressed in body terms or in a
glorified form like the angels (Dan 12:2 – awake from the dust of the earth;
2 Macc 7:10–11 – prospective martyr expects to get his physical body back;
1 En 39:4–7; 104:2–6 – like angels; 1 Cor 15:1–58 – on analogy with Jesus,
physical and glorified).784 The issue of historicity in a resurrection is a
major worldview challenge for many. How this scene is evaluated is
directly related to that worldview question. Those for whom resurrection
is impossible or unlikely will by default relegate these accounts into a
non-real category when evaluating them as genuine events. Those open
to divine activity in the world will take a different tack and remain open
to the historical possibilities.785
It is important to note that how a Jewish movement came to teach and
preach an executed messianic claimant is a dilemma that a non-
resurrection approach to the passage has trouble answering. There was
no teaching or expectation of a dead Messiah, much less one who would
784
Collins, Mark, 781–94, has a full excursus on Jewish and Greco-Roman views of
resurrection. She places Mark 16 in line with Jewish expectations of a raised physical
but transformed body. She claims this is a distinct view from Paul, but this seems
exaggerated. If the Transfiguration is any guide in Mark 9:1–8, then Mark’s view
echoes that of Paul, as Jesus appears with a glorified body in a preview of what is
to come.
785
There is a complex question of how to treat resurrection claims and historicity as well. Is
history even capable of rendering such an evaluation? Robert Webb, “The Historical
Enterprise and Historical Jesus Research,” in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 9–93, esp. 39–
54, takes a close look at the philosophical and historiographical issues tied up in this
discussion. He discusses three models: Ontological Naturalistic History, which views
resurrection as impossible; Methodological Naturalistic History, which says history can
make no judgment for such a claim, even though such an event could be real; and
Critical Theistic History, which is open to saying that such events are historical. Webb
opts for the second camp. I prefer the third.

rise from the dead.786 So the creation of this category is an anomaly. The
resort to some type of a shared psychological experience of a living Jesus
has much to overcome in terms of getting to such a community consensus.
It is more likely that an original defining event triggered the new categories
of teaching, preaching, and hope. This is the one event all four Gospels
cover in their resurrection accounts.
Interestingly, and counterculturally, it is rooted in the testimony of
women. The church never would have created such a scenario to carry
their core resurrection claims. Selling a difficult idea (resurrection)
through the testimony of people (women) who do not count culturally as
witnesses was not a plan designed in some budding church leaders’ con-
ference room to turn around a discouraged community.787 The women are
in the account because they were in the event.
When the Sabbath day had passed, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother
of James, and Salome, the women of Mark 15:40, buy aromatic spices to
anoint the body and pay honor to the dead Jesus (v 1; 2 Chron 16:14; m Shab
23:5). This would have been Saturday evening. Whether they are doing
something they thought had not been done or are simply acting to honor
786
M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark 1995), 12–14, points
vividly to a twofold problem if Jesus did not place himself in a messianic category:
(1) there was no analogy for a resurrected Messiah, so (2) exaltation does not generate
messiahship. It had to be there beforehand and was not invented to make Jesus into
something he had not raised himself. In fact, Hengel (14) goes on to say that such a
scenario is not believable: “if the eleven disciples with Peter at their head, on the basis of
appearances so difficult for us to comprehend, and completely unprompted, reached the
view that Jesus was Son of Man exalted to God, knowing in reality he had been merely a
simple proclaimer of the imminent kingdom of God, a rabbi and a prophet knowing
nothing at all of eschatological offices, dignities and titles, did they not completely falsify
the pure (and so unmythologically modern sounding) intention of their master?” In
other words, the resurrection does not establish a messiahship where no impetus for its
existence previously existed. Nor can messiahship explain why we discuss resurrection.
As Witherington, Mark, 411, says “nothing less than an appearance of Jesus could serve
to reform the scattered and frightened disciples, either the women or the men. This is to
say, nothing less than an eschatological act of God, a miracle, founded or refounded the
community of Jesus.” For a full study of resurrection in the Greco-Roman and Jewish
context, N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003),
esp. 210–11, 372–74, 685–718. He emphasizes how a resurrected figure functioning within
history and dividing it before a general resurrection at the end of time is a doctrinal
innovation/mutation and that the empty tomb and meetings together form the only
sufficient cause of the community’s teaching on resurrection. For discussion of resur-
rection, empty tomb, and historicity issues, G. Osborne, “Jesus’ Empty Tomb and His
Appearance in Jerusalem,” in Bock and Webb, Key Events, 775–823.
787
On women not being witnesses, see m Sheb 1:8 – “an oath of testimony applies to men
not women” and m Rosh Hash 1:8 – “any evidence a woman is not eligible to bring.”

Jesus in their own way in light of an act like Mark 14:3–9 is not said. They
clearly expect him to be dead and there, as they go to lay “another wreath”
on the tomb.788 This kind of activity for the dead was allowed on days like
the Sabbath and likely for feast days (m Shab 23:5). The spices dealt with the
stench of a dead corpse. For Mark, Jesus’ body had already been anointed
(Mark 14:3–9), but the women simply go to the tomb to honor Jesus in their
own way.
Early in the morning, after the sun rose on Sunday, they went to the
tomb (v 2). The double temporal reference fits Mark’s habit of repeating
himself (Mark 1:32–34; 14:12). Jesus is raised on the third day, counting
inclusively (Mark 8:31–32). Their one concern was how they would get the
stone rolled away (v 3). Everything changes when they arrive at the tomb
and find their concern about the stone has already been addressed.789
On their arrival, they saw the very large stone rolled back (v 4). Most
stones on ancient tombs were rectangular in shape, but those of the wealthy
could be rounded.790 Mark does not reveal a shape here, but the idea of
rolling more likely points to a rounded stone. Mark gives no detail as to
how this took place, giving yet more evidence of how summarizing an
account he is giving. Matt 28:2 speaks of an angel doing the work with an
accompanying earthquake.
On entering the tomb to investigate, they saw a young man dressed in
a white robe sitting on the right side (v 5).791 They were astounded and
alarmed to see him. They had no expectation of what they were seeing.
The robe suggests an angel, given the parallel tradition of the other
Synoptics. In Judaism, angels were described as young men (2 Macc
3:26, 33; 10:29–31; 11: 8–12; Josephus, Ant 5.277), and so also in the OT
(Gen 18:2, 16, 22; 19:1; Jdg 13:6).792 The picture of white also echoes the
glorified bodies of Mark 9:3 and Rev 7:9, 13 and 10:1 of angels (OT and
Judaism: Dan 7:9; 1 En 62:15–16; 87:2). This is not likely to be a human
who beat the women to the tomb, as there is no such figure in the listing
of male witnesses to resurrection in 1 Cor 15:3–8. In other witness scenes
788
So Witherington, Mark, 413.
789
Three details in Matthew’s account in 27:62–66 and 28:2–4 have no role in Mark. He
makes no mention of an earthquake in the rolling way of the stone or of an angel’s role in
that event. Nor does Mark mention the prospect of guards being present at the tomb.
790
A. Kloner, “Did a Rolling Stone Close Jesus’ Tomb?” BAR 25.5 (1999): 22–29, 76.
791
The idea that this is a rehabilitation of the naked young man of Mark 14 is unlikely, if one
sees an angel here as opposed to a human. If the parallels to the empty tomb point to the
same figure, then an angel is meant.
792
France, Mark, 679; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1080, who notes Acts 1:9–11 in the NT.

in the Gospel, those participants are named. This is a figure who knows
what has taken place and announces it to show heaven’s perspective on
the events.
The surprise visitor addresses them, telling them not to be alarmed (v 6).
He knows they are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified, but
he is raised. The passive verb looks to God doing the raising. So Jesus is not
to be found. There is no body to anoint. If they look at the place in the tomb
where his body was left, it is empty. The same Jesus who was buried now is
raised. There is continuity between the historical earthly Jesus and the
raised, vindicated Jesus.793 In all the Gospels, the women are the first
witnesses of the proclamation of the new movement delivered from hea-
ven. This is not a vision, but a concrete event.
So they are to go and tell the disciples, including Peter, who had denied
him, that Jesus has gone ahead of them into Galilee (v 7). There they will see
him, just as he told them in Mark 14:28. Matt 28:16–20 has an appearance
there, as does John 21. The plan and the program are at work. The
vindication Jesus had predicted before the Jewish leaders had taken place.
Even though the disciples had fled and abandoned Jesus, and even denied
him, they have their calling renewed by Jesus in yet another act of
forgiveness.
There is a tension between these Galilean appearances and the com-
mand in Luke 24:49 to remain in Jerusalem. Some see these as contra-
dictory; however, it is important to recall that these disciples had come to
Jerusalem as pilgrims to observe a feast for a week, not intending to stay. A
call to launch a mission from Jerusalem would have required a trip back
home to regather in Jerusalem. So Luke’s “remain” in Jerusalem should not
be overpressed to say more than it means. The mission will go out from
Jerusalem. It will be the headquarters of the initial movement. Instruction
also came in Galilee as well. Each author made choices in terms of which
setting to highlight. John 20–21 had appearances in both locations.
The women ran from the tomb (v 8). They were shaking and astonished,
as is common in such an encounter with a transcendent being or with
abnormal power (Mark 1:21–22). Mark notes that they said nothing to
anyone, for they were afraid.794 But this is understatement. It portrays
the declaration as initially shocking as a revelation from beyond, leaving
793
794
The Gospel ends oddly with a gar. On how rare this is, though possible, Collins, Mark,
797–99; K. Iverson, “A Further Word on Final Γάρ (Mark 16:8),” CBQ (2006): 79–94.

one speechless, even seemingly disobedient, but that cannot be the end of
the story. The only way anyone knows the account of what took place is if
they talked. So they eventually had to have overcome their fear. It is here
our current copies of Mark end, leaving readers a choice. Do they fear or
move on to faith, as the women clearly did by telling their story? If the
Gospel ended here, then Mark leaves the end of the story open with a note
of the wonder about the event.795 It fits other scenes where fear leads people
either to walk away from God or to take a step of faith (Mark 4:40–41; 5:15–
20, 34–36).796 The question becomes what you, the reader, will do with the
empty tomb and what it shows about Jesus.
A Note on Other Endings and the Conclusion of Mark

The nature of Mark’s ending is a matter for discussion. It seems so abrupt
to have ended here. Two famous longer endings exist: a single verse ending,
and a much more extensive ending that is familiar because it was present in
most older English translations as well as many manuscripts.
In fact, five endings to Mark have been preserved:
(1) The Gospel could end at 16:8, per the evidence of ‫א‬, B, 304, syrs, copsa,
(one MS) arm, geo (two MSS), Hesychius, Eusebius, and MSS accord-
ing to Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus.
(2) The “shorter ending” of Mark 16:9 per the evidence of itk. It reads,
“They reported briefly to those around Peter all they had been com-
manded. After these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from
the east to the west, the holy and imperishable preaching of eternal
salvation. Amen.”
(3) The “longer ending” of Mark 16:9–20, per the evidence of A, C, D, 037,
038, f33, the Byzantine tradition, Irenaeus, Augustine, and MSS accord-
ing to Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus.797
The longer text of 16:9–20 looks mostly like a summary of the ends of the
other Gospels. It has an appearance to Mary Magdalene, who, when she
795
Collins, Mark, 801.
796
797
Collins, Mark, 804–806, discusses how these manuscripts display this ending in some
detail. J. A. Kelhoffer, Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their
Message in the Longer Ending of Mark (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 2000), 48–156, as a full
analysis of this longer ending. Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus are aware of the issue
because of the difference in the manuscripts.

tells the story, is not believed (vv 9–11). This echoes John 20:11–18 and
Luke 24:11.
Jesus appears to two as they travel to the country, and when they return,
they are not believed (vv 12–13). This looks like an allusion to the Emmaus
road (Luke 24:13–35), but with a different end.
Appearing to the eleven, he rebukes them for their lack of faith and gives
them a commission to go into the world and preach the Gospel to every
creature. He notes that signs will accompany their message (vv 14–18). This
echoes Luke 24:38–41 and/or John 20:19, 26. The commission is a variation
on Matthew’s commission in Matt 28:19–20. The remarks on salvation are
like John 3:18 and 36. The mention of tongues points to Acts 2:4, 10:46,
whereas serpents and poison look like Acts 28:3–5. The laying on of hands
for the sick parallels Acts 9:17 and 28:8.
Then Jesus is taken up into heaven to sit at God’s right hand (v 19). This
is an allusion to Acts 1:9–11 and the Peter’s speech context at Acts 2:32–36.
The disciples go out and proclaim the gospel everywhere while the Lord
works through them and confirms the word through signs (v 20). How this
ending is to be evaluated is discussed later.798
(4) There is an alternate longer ending with an addition after 16:14 (“And
they excused themselves, saying, ‘This age of lawlessness and unbelief
is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to
prevail over the unclean things of the spirits. Therefore reveal your
righteousness now’ – thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to
them, ‘The term of years of Satan’s power has been fulfilled, but other
terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was handed
over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, that
they may inherit the spiritual and imperishable glory of righteousness
that is in heaven’ ”; see the NRSVmg and the NLTmg), per the evidence
of W and MSS according to Jerome.
(5) Including both the shorter ending and the traditional longer ending is
also possible, per the evidence of L, 044, 083, 099, 274mg, 579, syrh (mg),
cop (MSS), and copbo (MSS).
There are basically three options: (1) one of the longer endings is original,
(2) the current end is original, or (3) we have lost Mark’s original ending
798
Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 546–47, shows how influential Luke-Acts is on this ending, esp.
Luke 24.

and it was lost very early on in the circulation of the Gospel, with none of
the other extant alternate readings being that ending.
The manuscript evidence suggests that 16:8 is the original ending of
Mark, given that the two earliest extant MSS (‫ א‬and B) end there.799
However, there are even more indications of this being the end of the
Gospel, at least at the point of the Gospel’s early circulation. Certain church
fathers, such as Clement and Origen, did not know of the longer ending,
whereas Eusebius, Jerome, and Severus noted its absence in most of the Gr.
MSS they knew. It is also lacking in the Eusebian canons on the Gospels
from the third century. Victor of Antioch in circa 500 CE noted that most
copies of Mark in his time lacked the longer ending.800 This is important
evidence for its non-originality, for if it existed, there is no good explana-
tion for their not using it.801 Finally, Edwards observes how many new
words we have in these short final additions: in the one-verse shorter
ending, we have none, and in the longer ending, we have eighteen.802 He
also notes that some of the syntax is unlike the rest of the Gospel. So the
hard, external evidence we have is for the ending at Mark 16:8. The ending
can make sense in light of themes in Mark, as the exposition noted, and in
light of the gospel tradition as a whole. It is not required that a gospel have
an appearance at the end.
However, many find the ending at 16:8 so abrupt that they suggest that
the original ending of Mark has been lost or that this ending was not
Mark’s original intention.803 Even if 16:8 did not originally conclude this
Gospel, there still is no clear support for a longer ending other than these
factors: (1) the stylistic oddity of gar (for) ending the book,804 and (2) the
post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Matthew and Luke, suggesting an
799
800
801
802
Edwards, Mark, 498–99. On syntax and words, the form of parēngelmena, hieron as an
adjective, and the following syntactical constructions: meta tauta, Kyrios Iēsous, meta to
lalēsai, tois met’ autou genomenois. This ending is old, however: Epistula Apostolorum 9–
10 (c. 145), perhaps Justin Martyr (Apol 1.45; c. 155), Tatian’s Diatessaron (c. 170), and
Irenaeus (Adv Haer 3.9–12; c. 180); Hengel Studies in Mark, 71, 167–69. This makes it
likely that it existed by the early second century and gives it some value as to what some
second-century believers claimed about the resurrection. Hengel ties it to the Papias and
Ignatius period.
803
France, Mark, 684; Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 538–39.
804
There are examples of books ending with gar, but it is rare; P. W. van der Horst, “Can a
Book End with a ΓΑΡ? A Note on Mark XVI.8,” JTS 23 (1972): 121–24; S. L. Cox, A History
and Critique of Scholarship concerning the Markan Endings (Lewiston, NY: Mellen,
1993), 223–27. Cox says he has more than a thousand examples.

appearance in the original Mark. The former is not a decisive objection,

and the latter is a subjective judgment.
Several arguments for another, now lost, longer ending exist. These
arguments are presented in more detail with assessment because many
scholars do hold that the original ending has been lost.805
First, there is the claim that the fulfilment of the resurrection is not well
accounted for by the Mark 16:8 ending. But the statement “he is risen” is in
the account (Mark 16:6), so it is hard to make much of this argument.
Second, Matt 28:8 and 10, Luke 24:9–11, and John 20:1, 11–18 all report the
women telling the disciples about the empty tomb, indicating a tradition
that reported the women speaking about what took place. This observation
is correct; the question is only whether Mark, being likely the first evange-
list to write, took this path. We have examples of Gospel writers telling us
things with unique detail that one sees that the other Gospels cover at least
in general. However, in a world full of editorial choices, it is hard to know
what to make of a “he must have had this event” argument. Sometimes a
writer goes a different direction. The other factor at play in this final scene
is that a belief in resurrection and awareness of this larger tradition is likely
in the communities to which Mark wrote. So how much does he have to say
once he reports on the fact of the empty tomb, the resurrection, and its
announcement? Do any of the additional scenes really add to what is
affirmed here, namely, that he is raised? Finally, Mark has previewed
what is to come in the Transfiguration appearance of Mark 9:1–8. There
we see Jesus in a glorified state, so his Gospel is not without an indication of
what resurrection meant for Jesus.
Third, the existence of the shorter and longer endings point to copyist
dissatisfaction with Mark’s ending at 16:8. This is correct, but could well be
influenced by the rest of the Gospel tradition that did have appearances,
making this argument a variation of the last one. So the claim tied to this
argument – that we are seeing ancients react to Mark’s abrupt and finding it
inadequate – is also probably influenced by the comparison to other Gospel
endings, thus coloring the judgment about how short Mark’s ending is.
805
Stein, Mark, 733–37, and France, Mark, 670–74, 683–84, who notes Mark may never have
finished it, which raises the question of why it was sent out then. France is certainly
correct that the decision here is a matter of a decision rooted in “literary and theological
taste” and that “how else Mark might have intended to finish the book, and of why the
text as we have it has no such ending, is speculative” (673). Also holding to this view are
Edwards, Mark, 501–504, Evans, Mark 8:27–16:20, 538–39, Witherington, Mark, 416–18,
and esp. Gundry, Mark, 1009–12.

Fourth, the appearances were an integral part of early church preaching

(1 Cor. 15:5–8; Acts 1:3–11, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 10:41; 13:31). It makes it hard to think
Mark would omit them. This is argument two repeated, only now with
considerations from Acts and the epistles added. What this shows is that
the shorter reading is the harder text. Is it too hard? That is the real
question. The judgment call tied with this question is why opinion is so
divided on it.
Fifth, some claim the explanations given for why Mark 16:8 ends as it
does would not have been convincing to first-century readers and reflect a
more modern kind of reading.806 It is hard to know whether we know the
ancient mind this well. The fact that some manuscripts survived without an
addition show that, for some, this was seen and accepted as the ending. The
existence of several longer versions strongly suggests that they are later
additions to the abrupt ending of 16:8 or to an earlier version that had a lost,
but likely shorter version of a longer ending. That the traditional longer
version (16:9–20) contains mostly a combination of the other Gospels’
endings also suggests its secondary character, as does its distinct vocabu-
lary. There are numerous points of contact with the other Gospels – three
with Luke, two with Matthew, two with John, and five with Acts. A
response does not stop there. In fact, there has been study of open endings
at a literary level in ancient materials. Jodi Lee Magness’s Marking the End:
Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark has surveyed ancient literature to
show that open endings are not a merely modern phenomenon.807 To note
but two biblical examples, we have how Acts ends with reference to the
future of Israel (Acts 28:30-31) and the end of the Prodigal Son (what did
the older brother do? Luke 15:25–32). Magness speaks of fear and silence in
Mark, and I have dealt with the themes of fear, faith, and choice in Mark
5:15 (the town chose fear by asking Jesus to leave), 4:41 (fear leading the
disciples to ponder who Jesus is), 5:36 (Jairus is told not to fear but to
believe), and 6:19–20 (Herod hesitates to act against John out of fear).808 So
these themes are present in the reading of the Gospel.
806
807
J. Lee Magness, Marking the End: Sense and Absence in the Gospel of Mark (Eugene, OR:
Wipf and Stock, 2002).
808
D. L. Bock, “The Ending of Mark: A Response to the Essays,” in Perspective on the
Ending of Mark: 4 Views, ed. David A. Black (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2008),
124–41. I am responding to four views where Dan Wallace defends a Mark 16:8 ending,
Maurice Robinson opts for the long ending, J. K. Elliott opts for a lost ending, and David
Black argues for a Markan supplement. The essay has much to say about method in
approaching this issue.

Sixth, a Gospel with a bold start in Mark 1:1 would not end with negative
responses of fear and fright.809 The result is intolerable, with no need to be
so stealthy about resurrection. This is actually a variation of the previous
argument about such an ending being unsatisfying. A part of this argument
says that Mark ends with the focus on the disciples, not Jesus, but that is
less than a sensitive literary reading of this final scene.810 Jesus’ absence
drives the unit, and Jesus’ prediction in Mark 14:62 about what his vindica-
tion means allows the message of the resurrection to come through.
Seventh, there is debate on a book’s ending with gar. Two examples seem
present: Plotinus, Ennead 5.5 and Plato, Protagoras 328c. The debate is
about whether these works count as books. It is clear to everyone in the
debate that such an ending is rare. This point is well taken.
Eighth, the theme of a Galilean meeting in Mark 14:28 and 16:7 looks for
fulfilment. This is actually a finer form of arguments 2 through 4. The claim
is that this event is the only one not fulfilled in Mark. That is not correct.
The prophecies about the end are not fulfilled. The case could be modified
to say that, of the events that have taken place, this one alone stands
unfulfilled. That claim depends in part on whether Mark was written
before or after 70 CE. In addition, the existence of tradition in the church
about the appearances, which surely Mark’s audience had access to, means
they may well have been aware of such appearance accounts, making telling
that story unnecessary.
Ninth, there are points about fear that do not fit a conclusion on that
point. Most Markan pericopes start rather than end on fear (Mark 5:33, 36;
6:20, 50; 9:6; 10:32; 11:32). Only 10 percent of Markan pericopes end with a
gar (six out of sixty-six uses).811 These observations are correct and do point
to some evidence that something followed, but the question is whether this
argument is persuasive enough.
So, we either have a Gospel that ended with an open ending for reader
reflection at Mark 16:8,812 or we have lost an original ending that we have
not recovered. Either option is possible, but the short ending as the original
is slightly preferred. On this conclusion, one should not be at all dogmatic.
If a longer ending did exist, it likely would have noted an appearance in
809
For Edwards, Mark, 501, this is the key argument.
810
This is a response to Stein’s claim, Mark, 737, that a short ending is too focused on the
disciples.
811
Gundry, Mark, 1009–12, makes these points as part of his more complete argument.
812
With Lane, Mark, 591–92; Collins, Mark, 799; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1091–96; Hooker,
Mark, 391–94.

Galilee, and its loss must have taken place extremely early for it to have
been so totally lost. That Mark did not finish his Gospel is less than likely.
Had that been the case, it is more likely an ending would have been
supplied as it was sent out for circulation.813 That an original longer ending
was lost also is less than likely for a work that probably would have
circulated in various early copies as a key Gospel. Also to be noted is that
Matthew and Luke follow Mark’s passion and resurrection narrative clo-
sely and then diverge from each other afterward, pointing to an absence of
anything in Mark holding them together.814 All of this suggests that Mark
16:8 is the likely ending of the Gospel, with readers left to ponder that the
tomb is empty and that the resurrection stands declared by an angel. Mark
closes with the question: will one believe the cosmic act of heaven in
vindicating Jesus?
813
Marcus, Mark, 1091. He also discusses (pp. 1091–92) and rejects the theory that the end of
the manuscript was quickly lost or mutilated.
814
Lane, Mark, 601; Marcus, Mark 8–16, 1089.

Commentary On Mark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commentary On Mark

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Commentary On Mark

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the cultural allusion of the term 'Gospel'?

What is the cultural allusion of the term 'Gospel'?

What are the two views on whether Mark finished his gospel or not?

What are the two views on whether Mark finished his gospel or not?

III.

1:1–15 introduction to the gospel: john the baptist

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

There is an important cultural allusion in the term Gospel. “Good news”

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

15:39 possesses a climactic confession involving the Son of God, making an

1:2–8 John the Baptist Fulﬁlls Scripture in Preparing the People

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:9–15 Jesus Is Baptized, Tempted, and Preaches the Kingdom

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

remaining fulﬁlled. The eschatological calendar has decisively turned a

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:16–3:6 jesus in galilee: ministry and controversy

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:21–39 Jesus’ Time in Capernaum

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

With a question preceding, a question here is more likely. He tries to put

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:29–31 Healing Simon’s Mother-in-Law

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

An ancient site in Capernaum was discovered in 1968 that has a claim to be

1:32–34 Healings in the Evening

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

The summary concludes by noting Jesus performing healings and exor-

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:35–39 Prayer and a Decision to Move On

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

1:40–45 Into Galilee: The Healing of a Leper

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ﬁnely balanced. For reading compassion as original is the overwhelming

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

negative, meaning “against them” (Mark 6:11; 13:9; TDNT 4:502–503).70 It

2:1–3:6 Five Controversies: What Got Jesus into Trouble

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

also describes such an event (In M. Antonium oratio Philippica II.18.45).

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139525299.004 Published online by Cambridge University Press