From: Over 50 Interpreters Explain the Gospel of
Mark Return to
Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2013
All reproduction of
text in paper, electronic, or computer
form both permitted and encouraged so long as
authorial
and compiler credit is given and the text is
not altered.
CHAPTER 8:
8:1 Translations
Weymouth: About that time there was again an immense crowd, and they
found themselves with nothing to eat. So He called His disciples to Him.
WEB: In those
days, when there was a very great multitude, and they had nothing to eat, Jesus
called his disciples to himself, and said to them,
Young’s: In those days the multitude being very great, and not having
what they may eat, Jesus having called near his disciples, saith
to them,
Conte (RC): In those
days, again, when there was a great crowd, and they did not have anything to
eat, calling together his disciples, he said to them:
8:1 In those days. An indefinite expression which may refer to a longer or shorter
period. [45]
the multitude being very great. There
had been such a multitude gathered together once before who were fed in the
same way. See 6:34ff. [23]
and having nothing to eat. No one
having raised the subject with Him, Jesus takes the initiative and raises it
with the apostles. [rw]
Jesus called His disciples unto Him, and saith
unto them. One of their unofficial duties—by virtue of
their extreme closeness to Jesus if nothing else—was surely to keep an eye out
for problems and when they seemed to be developing to either take care of it
themselves or consult with Jesus about it
In this case they had done neither.
[rw]
8:2 Translations
WEB: "I
have compassion on the multitude, because they have stayed with me now three
days, and have nothing to eat.
Young’s: 'I have
compassion upon the multitude, because now three days they do continue with me,
and they have not what they may eat;
Conte (RC): "I have
compassion for the multitude, because, behold, they have persevered with me now
for three days, and they do not have anything to eat.
8:2 I have compassion on the multitude. His compassion led Him on the other occasion
to teach them as well as to feed them; and so doubtless it did now. [23]
because they have now been with Me three days. The three days may be computed, however,
according to Jewish methods, and may cover only one whole day and portions of
two others. [8]
"In the East [even
in the nineteenth century] it is easy for the population, with their simple
wants, and the mildness of the sky, which in the warm months invites sleeping
in the open air by night, to camp out as their think fit." [8] and have nothing to
eat. We may here notice the burning zeal of
the multitude. They were so intent upon
hearing Christ that they forgot to provide themselves with the necessaries of
life.39
Or: If they had brought any provisions with
them, they were now entirely expended and they stood in immediate need of a
supply.21
8:3 Translations
WEB: If I send
them away fasting to their home, they will faint on the way, for some of them
have come a long way."
Young’s: and if I
shall let them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the way, for
certain of them are come from far.'
Conte (RC): And if I
were to send them away fasting to their home, they might faint on the
way." For some of them came from far away.
8:3 If I send them away fasting
[hungry, NKJV]. Not without
carefully taking note of the need of miracles [verses 2-3] did He perform them;
and He would have His disciples know that we wrought miracles with a wise
[intent], and not as a matter of course, whether they were needed or not. [23]
to their own
houses. The
implication being that the sessions with Jesus are now over—at least until He
returns again to their community or nearby region. [rw]
they will faint by [on, NKJV] the way. They
could not possibly reach their respective homes without perishing, unless they
got food. [21]
for divers [some, NKJV] of them came from far. As He passed through the midst of
8:4 Translations
WEB: His
disciples answered him, "From where could one satisfy these people with
bread here in a deserted place?"
Young’s: And his disciples answered him, 'Whence shall any one be
able these here to feed with bread in a wilderness?'
Conte (RC): And his
disciples answered him, "From where would anyone be able to obtain enough
bread for them in the wilderness?"
8:4 And His disciples answered Him. It
is thought by many that the disciples were culpable for not recalling the
miracle of feeding the five thousand and answering accordingly. Before admitting the justness of the charge
against the disciples we should remember that for many months crowds of eager
hearers had followed Jesus and only on one occasion, so far as we know,
had He fed them miraculously; it was not strange therefore that the apostles
waited for some intimation from Him before suggesting a miracle. [45]
From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread. If you had bread, you had enough to survive
on. Not a feast, of
course, but common enough—standing alone—for normal consumption. In actual usage, it also carried the
connotation of having a regular meal, with bread being a/the major
component. [rw]
here in the wilderness? With no place of supply near,
and the store of the disciples had gone as low as that of the multitude in the
course of the three days. [23]
8:5 Translations
WEB: He asked
them, "How many loaves do you have?" They said, "Seven."
Young’s: And he was
questioning them, 'How many loaves have ye?' and they said, 'Seven.'
Conte (RC): And he
questioned them, "How many loaves do you have?" And they said,
"Seven."
8:5 And He asked them, How
many loaves do have ye? In the other case a lad had the provisions;
here the disciples themselves. The
loaves were seven in this case, five in the other. [11]
And they said, Seven. They mention no other food as
available and, in light of the pressing need, they would certainly have
referred to it if it was known by them to exist. [rw]
8:6 Translations
WEB: He
commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground, and he took the seven
loaves. Having given thanks, he broke them, and gave them to his disciples to
serve, and they served the multitude.
Young’s: And he
commanded the multitude to sit down upon the ground, and having taken the seven
loaves, having given thanks, he brake, and was giving to his disciples that
they may set before them; and they did set before the multitude.
Conte (RC): And he
instructed the crowd to sit down to eat on the ground. And taking the seven
loaves, giving thanks, he broke and gave it to his disciples in order to place
before them. And they placed these before the crowd.
8:6 And He commanded the people
to sit down. The Greek word signifies
"reclining," after the usual Eastern custom. [8]
They may have been
disposed in groups, as the five thousand were (
on the ground. [The geographic location of the miracle] is
not distinctly specified. It was on the
eastern side of the lake and in a "desert spot" (Matthew
and gave
thanks, and brake. As the
“host,” so to speak, and as the one they all had come to hear, He was the most
logical person to say the prayer and begin the breaking of bread so that it could
be passed around to others. [rw]
And gave to His
disciples. "Kept giving," the imperfect
tense here being used, marking continuous distribution.43
To set before them; and they did set them before the people. The
intended image seems to be that the loaves were multiplied as He broke them
into pieces and this constantly appearing increase in bread was passed on until
the whole crowd had enough. [rw]
In depth:
Were the multitude fed twice or do both tellings
refer to the same event
[24]? This
narrative is not a repetition of the miracle of the feeding the five thousand
recorded [earlier]. There are important
differences apparent between the two miracles:
The time is decidedly
different. The guests this time remained
three days with Jesus; the first time only one day.
This time the supply of
bread which Jesus and His disciples had, was greater than at the first
time--seven loaves and a few fishes, whilst the first time the number of the
loaves was five.
On the other hand, the
number of the guests is smaller, namely, four thousand besides women and
children; the former time there were a thousand men more.
In the one case the
people, in a frenzy of enthusiasm, would have taken Jesus by force to make Him
a king, in the other case no such excitement is recorded.
And whilst then twelve
baskets were filled with the fragments that were left,
now there were only seven.
The baskets, moreover,
in which the fragments were collected on the other occasion, are called by all
four Evangelists, cophini; those used for that
purpose after this miracle are, in both Matthew and Mark, spurides.
And [32]: The localities are different, for the feeding
of the five thousand was at the head of the lake, near the entrance of the Jordan
into it, and in the district of Bethsaida; while the
miracle now before us was performed on the eastern shore of the lake, in the
region of the Decapolis.
On the former occasion
the multitudes came from the immediate neighborhood, on the latter "divers
of them" had "come from far."
On the former occasion
the multitudes were commanded to sit down upon the green grass; on the latter
they were seated "on the ground."
These considerations are
of themselves sufficient to prove that the miracles were entirely
distinct. But all possible doubt upon
the subject is removed when, in [Mark
Now observe here three
things; first, that these records are found in [both] the gospels of Matthew and Mark, who alone of the four make
mention of and clearly intended to describe two miracles; second, that the
speaker is the Lord Himself, and He as clearly refers to two separate
occasions; and, third, that in the Saviour's
questions addressed to his followers there is the same discrimination between
the [Greek] names of the [two types of] baskets as we find in the separate
narratives of the miracles.
8:7 Translations
WEB: They had
a few small fish. Having blessed them, he said to serve these also.
Young’s: And they
had a few small fishes, and having blessed, he said to set them also before
them;
Conte (RC): And they had
a few small fish. And he blessed them, and he ordered them to be placed before
them.
8:7 And they had a few small
fish. This is not noticed in the parallel place
(Matthew
and He blessed. i.e.,
"blessed God aloud." A
different word from that in verse 6 ("gave thanks"). This implies praise; that in verse 6 thanksgiving. The
language suggests that the loaves and fishes were separately blessed and
distributed. [8]
and commanded
to [said to, NKJV] set them also before them. It
almost sounds like they had been reluctant to do so—because there were so “few”
and so “small”?
8:8 Translations
WEB: They ate,
and were filled. They took up seven baskets of broken pieces that were left
over.
Young’s: and they
did eat and were filled, and they took up that which was over of broken pieces
-- seven baskets;
Conte (RC): And they ate
and were satisfied. And they took up what had been leftover from the fragments:
seven baskets.
8:8 So they did eat, and were
filled. “Filled:” It
didn’t amount to a mere snack in amount—something that might tide them over for
a few hours, but the equivalent of a full meal.
[rw]
and they took up of the broken meat [leftover fragments, NKJV]. They
weren’t left to go to waste. Unlike
modern western societies in which huge amounts of food are usually thrown out
and the concept of routinely retaining “leftovers for later” seems an ancient
concept belonging to the grandparents (or great-grandparents), ancient society
lived far to close to the thin line between “enough” and “inadequacy.” To retain usable food was a routine survival
mechanism for the bulk of society. [rw]
seven baskets [seven large baskets, NKJV]. Indicating the abundance of God's provision, as also in nature. [8]
8:9 Translations
WEB: Those who
had eaten were about four thousand. Then he sent them away.
Young’s: and those
eating were about four thousand. And he let them away,
Conte (RC): And those
who ate were about four thousand. And he dismissed them.
8:9 And
they that had eaten were about four
thousand. Matthew
adds, "besides women and children." [23]
and He sent them away. The dismissial of
the multitude is mentioned only by Mark.
[23]
Probably some of those
who lived in the vicinity met Him on His return to this side of the sea (verse
13); but to those "from afar" this was doubtless their last
[opportunity to see] Jesus. [45]
In depth:
Were the four thousand a partially or predominantly Gentile group that
was fed [33]? Some have ingeniously made the repetition of
this miracle symbolic or prophetic. [The
ancient church fathers] Hilary and Augustine are quoted in favour
of the exposition that Christ showed Himself twice, in acted parable, as the
Bread of Life--to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.
In support of the theory
that this second was a miracle wrought among a less exclusively Jewish, perhaps
even a semi-heathen, population, Mark's previous mention of “the coasts
of Decapolis," the expression of the people's
feelings as given in Matthew, "They glorified the God of Israel," the
more immediate action of the Lord Himself in the second Feeding, have all been
adduced.
If an intention of
symbolizing the future offer of life in Christ to the nations be admitted, some
confirmation could be derived from its juxtaposition in the narrative to the story
of the Syro-Phoenician woman; some use could be made
of the symbolic numbers characteristic of each miracle (5,000, 5, 12 in the
one; 4,000, 7, 7 in the other), and some light would be thrown upon the failure
of the disciples to expect a [miraculous] mode of relief from the perplexity
[of how to feed so many people], similar to that which they had once before
experienced. In this case, their not
expecting Him to do such a work again in a half-heathen district would
foreshadow their subsequent slowness to understand that "God had granted
unto the Gentiles also repentance unto life."
On the other hand, it
has been often noted that Luke's omission of the second feeding would be
difficult to account for, had he shared the opinion that many of the recipients
were Gentiles, still more had he believed it to symbolize the great Pauline
revelation of Christ for the world.
WEB: Immediately
he entered into the boat with his disciples, and came into the region of Dalmanutha.
Young’s: and
immediately having entered into the boat with his disciples, he came to the
parts of Dalmanutha,
Conte (RC): And
promptly climbing into a boat with his disciples, he went into the parts of Dalmanutha.
he entered into a ship. The boat which they were accustomed to use, brought over from the other side, perhaps, by some friend
who knew that they were near. [23]
with His disciples. One
would be hard pressed to think of an example of His traveling by boat that was not
with His disciples. Some were fisherman
and, therefore, knew well how to sail.
Even if there were occasions when they weren’t, they were still
trusted colleagues who would never knowingly be of any danger to Him. [rw]
and came into the parts [region, NKJV] of Dalmanutha. Matthew says, "into the coasts of Magdala”
(Matthew
Weymouth: The Pharisees followed Him and began to dispute with Him,
asking Him for a sign in the sky, to make trial of Him.
WEB: The
Pharisees came out and began to question him, seeking from him a sign from
heaven, and testing him.
Young’s: and the
Pharisees came forth, and began to dispute with him, seeking from him a sign
from the heaven, tempting him;
Conte (RC): And the
Pharisees went out and began to contend with him, seeking from him a sign from
heaven, testing him.
and began to question [dispute, NKJV] with Him. They
came neither to rebut His teaching, nor to learn, but to try to force Him into
doing some “supernatural” act that would be a manifest failure and thereby let
Him be self-discredited. For them, no
miracle could ever be proof enough and conclusive enough to establish His
credentials or they would already be satisfied.
If He did do something spectacular at their demand, surely their next
demand would be: Do something even
greater! [rw]
seeking of Him a sign.
This was done from unbelief
and hypocrisy, which repels from itself the evident miracles and clear proofs already
afforded! [43]
Neither the
attractiveness of Jesus' strong personality, which seems to have drawn to Him
His first constant followers (see
from heaven. Upon
the feeding of the four thousand, they demand of His a sign from heaven. He had wrought for the public no miracle of
this particular kind. And yet Moses had
gone up, in the sight of all Israel, to commune with God in the mount that
burned; Samuel had been answered by thunder and rain in the wheat harvest; and
Elijah had called down fire both upon his sacrifice and also upon two captains and
their bands of fifty. Such a miracle was
now declared to be the regular authentication of a messenger from God, and the
only sign which evil spirits could not counterfeit. [46]
tempting
[testing, NKJV] Him. Is it mere modern whimsy or do we detect in
the language an overtone of “provoking Him” as well? [rw]
Him who had been “tested” and vindicated by repeated supernatural acts,
now had to do more—and of the kind specified by them. Even if actually performed, this would have
been an implicit admission of their authority to order Him to act in the
way they specified, thereby providing them precedent to demand that He retract
those elements of His teaching that annoyed them. [rw]
WEB: He sighed
deeply in his spirit, and said, "Why does this generation seek a sign?
Most certainly I tell you, no sign will be given to this generation."
Young’s: and having
sighed deeply in his spirit, he saith, 'Why doth this
generation seek after a sign? Verily I say to you, no sign shall be given to
this generation.'
Conte (RC): And sighing
deeply in spirit, he said: "Why does this generation seek a sign? Amen, I
say to you, if only a sign will be given to this generation!"
"For the demand for a sign from
heaven was a demand that He should, as the Messiah accredit Himself by a great
over mastering miracle; thus it was fundamentally similar to the temptation in
the wilderness, which He had repelled and overcome."--Lange. [8]
and saith, Why does
this generation seek a sign?
If there was no spiritual recognition of Him, the case was hopeless;
signs would teach them nothing. He
Himself was the true Sign from heaven, the living Witness. If they did not see that He was in the Father
and the Father in Him, their blindness must remain. [23]
verily
[assuredly, NKJV] I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation. No sign such as they demanded; that is
"a sign from heaven." Mark in
his brevity, omits the exception named by Matthew
[16:4]. [38]
Honest inquirers already possessed
all the evidence they needed, and others would not have been changed in heart
at all by such signs as they demanded.
Cf. Luke 16:30-31. [35]
generation. He does not say, “No sign shall be given to
the Pharisees” nor “no sign shall be given to the scribes and Pharisees,” but
the far broader language of “no sign shall be given unto this generation.” The implication would rightly be that this
type of foolishness was not unique to them but that it could easily have come
from many other quarters of the current population as well. It is a societal fault, if you will;
not a mere sectarian (Pharisee) one.
[rw]
Weymouth: So He left
them, went on board again, and came away to the other side.
WEB: He left
them, and again entering into the boat, departed to the other side.
Young’s: And having left them, having entered again into the boat, he
went away to the other side;
Conte (RC): And sending
them away, he climbed into the boat again, and he went away across the sea.
and entering
into the ship again departed to the other side. "Again" refers back to His having
left the boat on their landing (verse 10), and suggests a very short stay in
Part of the brevity might be that He simply did not feel like putting
up with the Pharisee foolishness in verse 12 any longer than He had to. He endured such repeatedly, but that did not mean
He had to keep Himself available for it whenever they felt in the mood to
harass. [rw]
WEB: They
forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with
them.
Young’s: and they
forgot to take loaves, and except one loaf they had nothing with them in the
boat,
Conte (RC): And they
forgot to take bread. And they did not have any with them in the boat, except
one loaf.
neither had
they in the ship with them more than one
loaf. It is Mark alone
who mentions the "one loaf;" plainly a touch of definite remembrance
from one who was present. [23]
WEB: He warned
them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the
yeast of Herod."
Young’s: and he was
charging them, saying, 'Take heed, beware of the
leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod,'
Conte (RC): And he
instructed them, saying: "Consider and beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the leaven of Herod."
The problem lay not just in any specific teaching; it also lay in their
“interpretive” ability to “leaven” Biblical teachings and alter it into a form
they preferred. If Biblical teaching was
discomforting, then one “reinterpreted” it by putting a totally unintended
interpretive gloss on the text. [rw]
Take heed, beware of the leaven. By
leaven Jesus undoubtedly means, as Matthew says in
of the Pharisees. Luke
12:1 calls the leaven of the Pharisees "hypocrisy;" but here Jesus
probably has especially in mind the captiousness which they manifested in
demanding a sign when they already possessed evidence enough. This spirit, still unhappily common, blinds
the eyes and hardens the heart. [44]
and of the leaven of Herod. Probably world, and especially political ambition. [35]
They had need to be guarded against this, because the disputes of
political partisans are not only corrupting to those who indulge them, but they
impair the influence of men whose business it is to guide all parties in the
way of holiness. The apostles adhered strictly, throughout their career, to the
rule of action here given.38
Herod. "Herod”
is by some supposed to be used here for the whole party of “the Herodians” as their leader. The word leaven” explained by the word
"doctrine" (Matthew
In the parallel passage
in Matthew we have “of the Sadducees."
From this it is commonly inferred that Herod was a Sadducee. There is no evidence other than the inference
from this passage that Herod was a Sadducee; but it is a plausible conjecture
and gives the most natural harmony of the statements of the two gospels. [45]
Weymouth: they
explained His words to one another by saying, "We have no bread!"
WEB: They
reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread."
Young’s: and they
were reasoning with one another, saying -- 'Because we have no loaves.'
Conte (RC): And they
discussed this with one another, saying, "For we have no bread."
saying, It is because we have no bread. It
will be seen from the very form of their conjecture that He ever left the whole
care for His own temporal wants to the Twelve; that He did this so entirely,
that finding they were reduced to their last loaf they felt as if unworthy of
such a trust and could not think but that the same thought was in their Lord's
mind. [43]
WEB: Jesus,
perceiving it, said to them, "Why do you reason that it's because you have
no bread? Don't you perceive yet, neither understand?
Is your heart still hardened?
Young’s: And Jesus having known, saith to
them, 'Why do ye reason, because ye have no loaves? do
ye not yet perceive, nor understand, yet have ye your heart hardened?
Conte (RC): And Jesus,
knowing this, said to them: "Why do you consider that it is because you
have no bread? Do you not yet know or understand? Do you still have blindness
in your heart?
Why reason ye
because ye have no bread? So far wrong were the apostles that it hurt
His feelings--sharp just in proportion to His love—that such a thought of Him
should have entered their minds. [43]
Perceive ye not yet, neither
understand? Which carries the implicit message: You’ve missed the point entirely. Which raises the question of why that
might be so, which He raises next. [rw]
Have ye your heart yet [still, NKJV] hardened? Not
callous feeling, but dullness, as on the former occasion of the walking on the
sea (Mark
How strong an expression
to use of real disciples! [43]
WEB: Having
eyes, don't you see? Having ears, don't you hear? Don't you remember?
Young’s: Having
eyes, do ye not see? and having ears, do ye not hear? and do ye not remember?
Conte (RC): Having eyes,
do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? Do you not remember,
and having
ears, hear ye not? Neither your eyes or ears are working right! How can you possibly be missing this after
all this time with Me?
[rw]
And do ye not remember? He
traces the disciples' slowness of perception and distrust mainly to
forgetfulness. [50]
They had not indeed
forgotten [the feeding of the multitudes] as facts, as is shown by their
prompt answers below; but they failed to bear them in mind and make application
of them; for this they are here reproved.
The former questions refer to their not [understanding] what He said
about the leaven, this and those that follow relate to their undue anxiety
about bread and their distrust of His ability to provide for them. [45]
WEB: When I
broke the five loaves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken
pieces did you take up?" They told him, "Twelve."
Young’s: When the
five loaves I did brake to the five thousand, how many hand-baskets full of
broken pieces took ye up?' they say to him, 'Twelve.'
Conte (RC): when I broke
the five loves among the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments you
took up?" They said to him, "Twelve."
WEB: "When
the seven loaves fed the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces
did you take up?" They told him, "Seven."
Young’s: 'And when
the seven to the four thousand, how many hand-baskets full of broken pieces
took ye up?' and they said, 'Seven.'
Conte (RC): "And
when the seven loaves were among the four thousand, how many baskets of
fragments did you take up?" And they said to him, "Seven."
8:19-20 When I
brake the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments
took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve.
And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets
full of fragments took ye up? And they said,
Seven. They
got the facts right; they had remembered them accurately. They simply had not moved beyond facts to
making deductions from them. [rw]
Profuse as were our Lord's
miracles, we see from this that they were not wrought at random, but that He
carefully noted their minutest details, and desired that this should be done by
those who witnessed, as doubtless by all who read the record of them. [43]
Mark here gives in its
exact form, no doubt, a conversation which Matthew puts into a slightly
different form for the sake of abbreviation (cf. Matthew 16:9-10). [38]
WEB: He asked
them, "Don't you understand, yet?"
Young’s: And he
said to them, 'How do ye not understand?'
Conte (RC): And he said
to them, "How is it that you do not yet understand?"
Mark leaves the subject
without saying, as Matthew does, whether the disciples finally understood the
remark or not; but he takes it for granted that his readers would understand
it. [38]
WEB: He came
to
Young’s: And he cometh to Bethsaida, and
they bring to him one blind, and call upon him that he may touch him,
Conte (RC): And they
went to
Presumably
And they bring a
blind man unto Him. The people, not the disciples brought
him. He was brought, (1) either because
he could not find the way alone, or (2) because he had not faith that would
induce him to go and so was brought by the faith of his friends. [49]
and besought [begged, NKJV] Him to
touch him. This
is one of the two miracles recorded by Mark only, the other being that
described in
Weymouth: So He took
the blind man by the arm and brought him out of the village, and spitting into
his eyes He put His hands on him and asked him, "Can you see
anything?"
WEB: He took
hold of the blind man by the hand, and brought him out of the village. When he
had spit on his eyes, and laid his hands on him, he asked him if he saw
anything.
Young’s: and having
taken the hand of the blind man, he led him forth without the village, and
having spit on his eyes, having put his hands on him, he was questioning him if
he doth behold anything:
Conte (RC): And taking
the blind man by the hand, he led him beyond the village. And putting spit on
his eyes, laying his hands on him, he asked him if he could see anything.
and led him out of the town. Here
we see once more the desire of privacy which Jesus had manifested from the time
of His tour to the vicinity of
and when he
had spit on his eyes. The man's eyes were
probably sore, suggesting the application of saliva for its known power to
soften and soothe the part thus affected.
[38]
Or: Because this was the organ affected. [43]
And put His hands upon him. Part of His traditional mode
of healing, to emphasize that the healing was coming from and because of Him. [rw]
He asked him if he saw ought. In part for the benefit of the listeners. To
see him walk away with a smile and thanking Jesus
would have proved it as well. But since
there so often were those seeking to ignore or discredit what Jesus did, He
naturally wished to make the point even more emphatic. [rw]
WEB: He looked
up, and said, "I see men; for I see them like trees walking."
Young’s: and he,
having looked up, said, 'I behold men, as I see trees, walking.'
Conte (RC): And looking
up, he said, "I see men but they are like walking trees."
and said, I see men as trees walking. The
blind man, it appears, had not been born blind, for he knew the names of
surrounding objects. [24]
His vision, at this
stage, was so indistinct that he could distinguish a man from a tree only by
his motion. [45]
WEB: Then
again he laid his hands on his eyes. He looked intently, and was restored, and
saw everyone clearly.
Young’s: Afterwards
again he put his hands on his eyes, and made him look up, and he was restored,
and discerned all things clearly,
Conte (RC): Next he
placed his hands again over his eyes, and he began to see. And he was restored,
so that he could see everything clearly.
and made him
look up. Which
action indicates that the man was either confused by the “walking trees” or looking
downward was so much his natural posture that he had immediately reverted to it yet
again. [rw]
and he was restored. Another term implying that
he was not born blind. [3]
and saw every man clearly. [As] opposed to the dimness of his sight when
only partially recovered. [3]
In depth:
Why was the healing a two-step act rather than strictly instantaneous? We
cannot say what may have induced our Lord to perform this miracle at
twice--certainly not the reason assigned by Dr. Burton: "that a blind man would not, on suddenly
recovering his sight, know one object from another, because he had never seen
them before,” and so would require a double miracle--a second to open the eyes
of his mind also, to comprehend what he saw.
This assumes the man to have been born blind, which he was not (cf.
verse 24); for how should he know how trees appeared? And besides the case of the man born blind in
John 9 required no such double healing.
These things were in the Lord's power and He ordered them as He pleased
from the present circumstances or for our instruction. [40]
Of course our Lord could
have healed the man with a word; but He was not confined to one method. The gradual cure would remove the notion of
magical influence. There may have been
something in the man's spiritual condition which called for this method to
develop his faith. [11]
Jesus adopted this
method of cure to give variety to the manifestations of His power by showing
that He could heal in part and by progressive steps as well as by His more
usual method of effecting a perfect cure at one word. This cure was not less miraculous than
others, but rather more so; for it was really the working of two miracles, each
effecting instantaneously all that was intended by it. [38]
WEB: He sent
him away to his house, saying, "Don't enter into the village, nor tell
anyone in the village."
Young’s: and he
sent him away to his house, saying, 'Neither to the village mayest
thou go, nor tell it to any in the village.'
Conte (RC): And he sent
him to his house, saying, "Go into your own house, and if you enter into
the town, tell no one."
From what comes in the verbal explanation,
the main purpose was to avoid drawing further immediate attention to Jesus and
His presence. He was to go straight home
and “not tell” the healing to anyone in the town—at least for the time
being. Later, as he walked about, the widespread
recognition of the healing would inevitably occur, but Jesus wished to postpone
that till another time. There were times
when crowds around Jesus were fine and excellent, but this was not one of them. [rw]
Neither go
into the town, nor tell it to any in the town. Jesus does not wish attention drawn to His
work as a healer; this is not His chief work.
This is one of the two miracles which are recorded by Mark only; the
other is described in
If the man had gone into
the town seeing, or had told persons living in the town what had occurred, the
whole population might have gone out in pursuit of Jesus, and thus the privacy
which He was seeking to maintain would have been broken up. [38]
WEB: Jesus
went out, with his disciples, into the villages of Caesarea Philippi. On the
way he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that I am?"
Young’s: And Jesus went forth, and his disciples, to the villages of
Caesarea Philippi, and in the way he was questioning his disciples, saying to
them, 'Who do men say me to be?'
Conte (RC): And Jesus
departed with his disciples into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. And on the
way, he questioned his disciples, saying to them, "Who do men say that I
am?"
into the towns of Caesarea Philippi. The villages near Caesarea Philippi which were under its rule. The journey led through a country whose
inhabitants were gentiles. Like the
preceding journey, it was for quiet, not for preaching. [35]
It lay on the northeast
of the reedy and marshy plain and at the base of
And by the way He
asked His disciples.
Hitherto He is not recorded to have asked the twelve any question
respecting Himself, and He would seem to have forborne to press His apostles
for an avowal of faith in His divinity.
He now wished to ascertain from them as the special witnesses of His
life and daily words, the results of those labors. [8]
Saying unto them, Whom do men say
that I am? Why did Christ begin by asking about
the popular judgment of His personality?
Apparently in order to bring clearly home to the disciples that, as far
as the masses were concerned, His work and theirs had failed, and had, for net
result, total misconception. [50]
He did not ask because
they had opportunities for knowing that He had not. This was only the preparation for the
question concerning their own belief. [23]
WEB: They told
him, "John the Baptizer, and others say Elijah,
but others: one of the prophets."
Young’s: And they
answered, 'John the Baptist, and others Elijah, but others one of the
prophets.'
Conte (RC): And they
answered him by saying: "John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others
perhaps one of the prophets."
The existence of this
opinion suggests how little Jesus had been known while John was still alive and
at work. [44]
but some say
Elias [Elijah, NKJV]. Some
thought that our Lord was Elijah because it was known that Elijah had not died
and because there was an expectation, founded on Malachi's prophecy (4:5) that
he would return. [39]
and others, One of the prophets.
i.e., one of the line of prophets (cf. Mark
The common people among
the Jews knew that not long after the Babylonish
Captivity the gift of prophecy had ceased amongst their nation. So they thought that Christ was not a new
Prophet, but one of the old. They could
not but see in Him the renewal of the powers of the old prophets, their
miracles and their teaching; but there were very few of them who believed that
he was the Messiah. Perhaps some of the
Jewish multitude thought that the soul of one of the ancient prophets had
entered into Christ, according to the Pythagorean notion of the transmigration
of souls; or perhaps they thought that one of the old prophets had risen again
in the person of Jesus. For though the Sadducees denied a resurrection, the great body of
the Jews believed in it. [39]
WEB: He said
to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answered, "You
are the Christ."
Young’s: And he saith to them, 'And ye -- who do
ye say me to be?' and Peter answering saith to him,
'Thou art the Christ.'
Conte (RC): Then he said
to them, "Yet truly, who do you say that I am?" Peter responded by
saying to him, "You are the Christ."
And Peter answereth and saith unto him, Thou art the Christ. Mark gives Peter's confession in a
lower key, as it were, than Matthew does, omitting the full-toned clause, “The
Son of the living God." This is not
because Mark had a lower conception than his brother
Evangelist, for the first words of this Gospel announce that it is “the
Gospel of Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God." And, so he has identified the two conceptions
at the outset, he must, in all fairness, be supposed to consider that the one
implies the other and to include both here.
But possibly there is truth in the observation that the omission is one
of a number of instances in which this Gospel passes lightly over the exalted
side of Christ's nature, in accordance with its purpose of setting Him forth
rather as the Servant than as the Lord.
It is not meant that that exalted side was absent from Mark's thoughts
but that his design led him rather to emphasize the other. Matthew's is the Gospel of the King; Mark's,
of the Worker. [50]
WEB: He
commanded them that they should tell no one about him.
Young’s: And he strictly charged them that they may tell no one about
it,
Conte (RC): And he
admonished them, not to tell anyone about him.
There were many reasons
for this reticence. The state of parties
in
The charge of silence
contrasts singularly with the former employment of the apostles as heralds of
Jesus. The silence was partly punitive
and partly prudential. It was punitive
inasmuch as the people had already had abundantly the proclamation of His
gospel and had cast it away. The silence
enjoined was also prudential, in order to avoid hastening on the inevitable
collision; not because Christ desired escape, but because He would first
fulfill His day. [50]
WEB: He began
to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by
the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three
days rise again.
Young’s: and began
to teach them, that it behoveth the Son of Man to
suffer many things, and to be rejected by the elders, and chief priests, and
scribes, and to be killed, and after three days to rise again;
Conte (RC): And he
began to teach them that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be
rejected by the elders, and by the high priests, and the scribes, and be
killed, and after three days rise again.
that the Son
of Man must suffer many things and be rejected. The
rejection part they had already seen with their own eyes. The “suffering” part introduced an ominous
note, especially when joined with the warning of His death. [rw]
of [by, NKJV] the elders, the chief priests, and
scribes. i.e., by the leaders of the Jewish nation. [35]
“Chief priests” as either the top echelon of
the Jewish leadership or the prominent and prestigious ones in general—or, more
likely, both. [rw]
and be killed. All this--the suffering, rejection, death--is
as far as possible from what it was generally supposed the Messiah would
experience. Now the time has come when
the disciples must begin to learn this lesson, to them so hard to learn. He had intimated it before (
This
was a very important prediction because it showed that His death did not come
upon Him unawares, that He clearly foresaw it, that He was not surprised into
and after three days rise again. The death that Jesus foresaw did not mean
defeat of His life-purpose. Death will
only bring a short interruption of it. [35]
In reporting the
predicted time of the resurrection, Matthew has it, “the third day” (
In depth:
The colloquial meaning of “after three days” to those living in the
first century [24]. It is ten times expressly said that our Lord rose, or was to rise
again, the "third day" (Matthew 16:12; 17:23; 20:19; Mark 9:31;
10:34; Luke 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46; Acts 10:40); and so the expression, which is
most used, both in our Lord's predictions before His death, and in His and His
Apostles' language after His resurrection, being this; these other forms of
speech, are but once or twice found in Scripture, must be interpreted to accord
with it.
According to the
language both of the Hebrew and the Greek, that is said to be done after so
many days, months, or years, which is done in the last of them
(Deuteronomy 14:28; 15:1; 26:12; 31:10; 2 Chronicles 10:5, 12). "After three days they found Him in the
temple" (Luke
The Jews understood
"after three days" to signify no more than on the third day,
for having told Pilate that Christ had said "after three days I will rise
again," they desire only that a watch might be kept "till the third
day" (Matthew 27:63-64).
WEB: He spoke
to them openly. Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
Young’s: and openly
he was speaking the word. And Peter having taken him aside, began to rebuke
him,
Conte (RC): And he spoke
the word openly. And Peter, taking him aside, began to correct him.
And Peter took Him. The
word indicates that he “took hold of Him” to lead Him apart, as thought to have the
opportunity to warning Him with the greater familiarity and secrecy. So says St. Chrysostom
and others. Peter would not have his own
confession of Christ thus evacuated, as it were; nor does he think it possible
that the Son of God could be slain. So
he takes Him apart, lest he should seem to reprove Him in the presence of the
other disciples. [39]
and began to rebuke Him. That Peter should venture to reprove Jesus is
surprising, but it is not strange that he found it hard to accept Jesus'
statement of His death. Not only was all
this contrary to the common idea of the
Messiah which Peter still held in large part, but his strong affection for
Jesus would make it still harder for him to accept the thought of His
death. Cf. John 12:34; Luke 24:20, 21, 26. [35]
The Jews of Jesus' day believed, not in a
suffering, but in a triumphant Messiah, and least of all in one whom His own
nation should reject. To Peter--sharing
still the ideas of his people--so far from rejection and death being involved
in messiahship, messiahship
excluded them. [44]
WEB: But he,
turning around, and seeing his disciples, rebuked Peter, and said, "Get
behind me, Satan! For you have in mind not the things of God, but the things of
men."
Young’s: and he,
having turned, and having looked on his disciples, rebuked Peter, saying, 'Get
behind me, Adversary, because thou dost not mind the things of God, but the
things of men.'
Conte (RC): And turning
away and looking at his disciples, he admonished Peter, saying, "Get
behind me, Satan, for you do not prefer the things that are of God, but the
things that are of men."
saying, Get behind Me, Satan! There
was a Satanic influence at work in Peter, though he
was not conscious of it. [11]
for thou savorest not [are not mindful of, NKJV] the things that
be of God, but the things that be of men. Peter was judging by human standards and
planning for a Messianic career that would satisfy the ideas of men which
coincided with his own. It was the
intent of Jesus, after the great confession [verse 29], to unfold and enforce
this Divine idea of salvation through self-sacrifice and death on the Messiah's
part. This was the first lesson, and
this, sadly enough, the first response. [23]
WEB: He called
the multitude to himself with his disciples, and said to them, "Whoever
wants to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow
me.
Young’s: And having called near the multitude, with his disciples, he
said to them, 'Whoever doth will to come after me -- let him disown himself,
and take up his cross, and follow me;
Conte (RC): And calling
together the crowd with his disciples, he said to them, "If anyone chooses
to follow me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
He said unto them, Whosoever. The
law for every disciple is self-denial and taking up his cross. [50]
Will come after me, let
him deny himself. The word ["deny"] conveys
the idea of rejecting or renouncing self, disregarding personal interests and
pleasures. [45]
This is an expression of
far deeper significance than our ordinary use of "self-denial” would
suggest. To deny one's self is to cease
to make one's own interest and pleasure the end of life, and one's own will the
law of life, and in place of these to follow Jesus in making God's will the law
of action and the well-being of men the end of life. [44]
and take up his cross. It
is not Christ's cross that we have to take up. His sufferings stand alone, incapable
of repetition and needing none; but each follower has his own. Taking up my cross does not merely mean
meekly accepting God-sent or men-inflicted sorrows, but persistently carrying
on the special form of self-denial which my special type of character
requires. It will include these other
meanings but it goes deeper than they. [50]
and follow Me. i.e., through self-denial
and self-crucifixion. For Christ
lived not for Himself, but renounced and crucified selfish and worldly aims to
do the will of the Father. He that will
not do likewise cannot be His disciple (Luke
Weymouth: For whoever is bent on securing his life will lose it, but
he who loses his life for my sake, and for the sake of the Good News, will
secure it.
WEB: For
whoever wants to save his life will lose it; and whoever will lose his life for
my sake and the sake of the Good News will save it.
Young’s: for
whoever may will to save his life shall lose it; and whoever may lose his life
for my sake and for the good news' sake, he shall save it;
Conte (RC): For whoever
will have chosen to save his life, will lose it. But whoever will have lost his
life, for my sake and for the Gospel, shall save it.
This solemn saying of
our Lord is found to have [been] uttered on no less than four occasions: (1) here, which corresponds with Matthew
16:25; Luke
but whosoever loses his life. Whosoever
shall unreservedly pour out his life's energies, if need be, to the extent of
death. [44]
for My sake and the gospel's. In
devotion to Me, for the motion of the ends for which I
gave My life and for the advancement of the gospel, that is, for the salvation
of men. This is a most important
qualification: it makes all possible
difference for what ends one pours out his life; not all losing
of life is saving it. [44]
the same shall save it. Lose it in a lower sense to save it in the
highest sense conceivable. [3]
WEB: For what
does it profit a man, to gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
Young’s: for what
shall it profit a man, if he may gain the whole world, and forfeit his life?
Conte (RC): For how does
it benefit a man, if he gains the whole world, and yet causes harm to his soul?
if he shall gain the whole world. All that this world can give, by its riches,
power, honors, and every other source of enjoyment and advantage, is placed on
the one hand--a supposition beyond all possibility--and presenting the
strongest conceivable case; and then the question is asked, what profit has he
who gains it all, if for it he loses his soul.
The preceding verse teaches that he who chooses
the things of the world, must lose his soul: now the searching question is asked, What
shall it profit him? [45]
and lose his
own soul? This is the same word in Greek (psuche) as "life" in the last verse. "Soul" without any qualifying term
is the exact equivalent of psuche when used
of the life to come; as it is also when psuche
means the heart or affections, as in "My soul doth magnify the
Lord" (Luke 1:46). [45]
WEB: For what
will a man give in exchange for his life?
Young’s: Or what
shall a man give as an exchange for his life?
Conte (RC): Or, what
will a man give in exchange for his soul?
Weymouth: Every one,
however, who has been ashamed of me and of my teachings in this faithless and
sinful age, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when He comes in His
Father's glory with the holy angels."
WEB: For
whoever will be ashamed of me and of 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."
Young’s: for
whoever may be ashamed of me, and of my words, in this adulterous and sinful
generation, the Son of Man also shall be ashamed of him, when he may come in
the glory of his Father, with the holy messengers.'
Conte (RC): For whoever
has been ashamed of me and of my words, among this adulterous and sinful
generation, the Son of man also will be ashamed of him, when he will arrive in
the glory of his Father, with the holy Angels."
therefore. This word connects this verse with the
general train of thought of the preceding passage, giving a reason for the
danger of losing the soul. [45]
shall be ashamed of Me. This implies that some, from
being ashamed of a suffering and dying Saviour, would
not be willing to deny themselves and take up the
cross to follow Him. [45]
and of My words. All Christ's
teachings but especially such gospel doctrines as He had just set forth. [45]
in this adulterous and sinful generation. These
words, peculiar to Mark in this connection, suggest that being ashamed of
Christ is the result of paying attention to the verdict of such a generation. [11]
It adds to the disgrace
of being ashamed of Christ that the shame is manifested in the presence of the
base and the worthless; and therefore our Lord exhibits the contrast between
the contemptible people in the presence of whom men are ashamed of Him here,
and the magnificent assemblage ["holy angels"] in whose presence He
will be ashamed of them hereafter. [39]
adulterous . . . generation. The
term “adulterous” was commonly used by the prophets to denote the crime of
of him also
the Son of man be ashamed when He cometh
in the glory of His Father with the holy angels. The present
humiliation of the Son of Man was not always to continue; by and by the glory
of God and heaven would be upon Him. [23]