IV. WITHDRAWAL FROM GALILEE (6:6b–8:30)

OVERVIEW

This fourth section of Mark’s gospel finds Jesus withdrawing from the territory of Galilee for the purpose of expanding his ministry and (especially) further instructing his disciples. Though one incident of public teaching occurs in the section 7:1–23, the primary focus of Jesus’ teaching is now on the Twelve. The section begins with the mission of the Twelve, followed by an account of the various views that people held concerning Jesus’ identity (6:14–16), including the view of Herod Antipas and the parenthetic story of the death of John the Baptist (6:17–29). Next are several complexes of incidents including two stories of Jesus’ feeding the multitudes—the five thousand (6:30–44) and then the four thousand (8:1–10). Jesus moves from Galilee into the territory of Tyre and Sidon and then back through Galilee to the Decapolis. The section concludes with Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah (8:27–30). This last episode represents a critical climax and turning point in the narrative. From Peter’s confession onward Jesus begins to teach his disciples about the suffering role of the Messiah (8:31–33; 9:12, 30–32; 10:32–34) and will start his symbolic journey to Jerusalem, where he will suffer and die as a ransom for many (10:45).

A. Sending Out the Twelve (6:6b–13)

OVERVIEW

At the beginning of the previous section (3:7–6:6a), Jesus appointed the Twelve “that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach and to have authority to drive out demons” (3:14–15). They have fulfilled the first half of this commission already by personally watching him and learning from him. Now they will move on to the second part: preaching, healing, and casting out demons (6:7, 12–13). Mark is not departing from his emphasis on Jesus, however, since the disciples function as an extension of his ministry throughout Israel. They are his representatives. Though the message Jesus told them to preach is not explicitly stated, in v.12 we learn that “they went out and preached that people should repent.” This statement (and the whole of Mark’s narrative) confirms that as Jesus’ representatives their message was the same as his: “The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mk 1:15).

Some interpreters treat this episode as the conclusion of the previous section (3:7–6:6a) rather than as the introduction to the next one (6:6b–8:30; see Lane, 205–10). It follows naturally that Jesus, after being rejected in his hometown (6:1–6a), would expand his ministry beyond Galilee through his disciples. As noted in the previous paragraph, this passage also forms a fitting sequel to the appointment of the Twelve (3:13–19), since the preaching and healing ministry appointed to them is here initiated. While the passage is certainly transitional, it seems best to treat it with the following section since it both represents the expansion beyond Galilee, which characterizes this section, and, from a literary perspective, forms part of an intercalation that continues through 6:31. The episode concerning the death of John the Baptist (6:17–29) is “sandwiched” between accounts of the beginning and end of the mission of the Twelve (6:6b–13, 30–31).

As noted in the Introduction (pp. 689–90) and just witnessed in 5:21–43, intercalation is one of Mark’s favorite literary techniques, with the two episodes mutually interpreting one another. The relationship between the mission of the Twelve and the account of John’s death is not as clear as others but may focus on the cost of discipleship. The disciples set out on a mission for which they will have to sacrifice a great deal, perhaps even their own lives. John the Baptist is the model of the disciple who gives up everything for the kingdom.

6bThen Jesus went around teaching from village to village. 7Calling the Twelve to him, he sent them out two by two and gave them authority over evil spirits.

8These were his instructions: “Take nothing for the journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money in your belts. 9Wear sandals but not an extra tunic. 10Whenever you enter a house, stay there until you leave that town. 11And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them.”

12They went out and preached that people should repent. 13They drove out many demons and anointed many sick people with oil and healed them.

COMMENTARY

6b There is some question as to whether the second half of v.6 should go with vv.1–6a or vv.7–13. If with the former, it means that as a result of his rejection at Nazareth, Jesus decided to inaugurate a village ministry. If with the latter, it was as a result of the village ministry that he decided to send out the Twelve, presumably to increase his own ministry through them. Most translations take verse 6b with vv.7–13 (so NIV, NLT, NCV, CEV, NEB, CSB). A few connect it with 1–6 (so NKJV) or treat it as a separate paragraph (so RSV, ESV).

7 Jesus had carefully prepared his disciples for this mission. He had called them with the promise, “I will make you fishers of men” (1:17). He had appointed them to be with him and to preach and drive out demons (3:14–15). They had witnessed his mighty acts and listened to his wise words. He had withdrawn on several occasions to give them special attention (3:7; 4:10). Now it was time for them to be sent out.

The verb translated “sent” is apostellō (GK 690), which carries with it the idea of official representation. Lane, 260, writes, “Jesus authorized the disciples to be his delegates with respect to both word and power. Their message and deeds were to be an extension of his own.” The Twelve were sent two by two, apparently a Jewish custom (cf. 11:1; 14:13; Ac 13:2, 4; 16:40). The purpose of their going in pairs was likely so that the truthfulness of their testimony about Jesus might be established “on the testimony of two or three witnesses” (Dt 17:6; cf. 19:15; Nu 35:30; b. Sanh. 26a, 43a).

Exercising “authority over evil spirits” was part of the commission of the Twelve (cf. 3:15). Mark especially highlights Jesus’ power to exorcise demons—evidence of the spiritual and cosmic significance of his mission. Here that power is given to the Twelve as his representatives.

8–9 Inherent in the commission of the Twelve was absolute trust in God to supply all their needs. Here the physical needs are emphasized. They were to take only what they had on their backs, with the allowance of a staff as the sole exception. No bread (i.e., food of any kind), no bag, and no money could be taken. The bag (pēra) may be a leather knapsack or traveler’s bag; or perhaps the passage has in mind the more specialized meaning of “beggar’s bag” (BDAG, 811). In this case, Jesus may be saying they should not be like itinerant Greek philosophers such as the Cynics, who claimed freedom from possessions but then begged for their food (cf. Hengel, Charismatic Leader and His Followers, 28; Guelich, 322). The word for money is chalkos, a small copper coin, which could be translated “small change” (BDAG, 1076).

The amount of clothing, too, was to be minimal. Sandals were allowed and only one tunic (v.9). An extra tunic would come in handy at night, for it could be used as a covering from the chilly night air. Jesus probably issued this prohibition because he wanted the disciples to trust God for the provision of hospitality for each night.

How universal are these guidelines? Since they were given to the disciples for this particular mission, it would be inappropriate to assume that they are blanket guidelines for all missionary activity. (Notice, e.g., how Jesus’ instructions in Luke 22:35–38 modify earlier guidelines.) Cranfield, 200, correctly comments: “The particular instructions apply literally only to this brief mission during Jesus’ lifetime; but in principle, with the necessary modifications according to climate and other circumstances, they still hold for the continuing ministry of the church. The service of the Word of God is still a matter of extreme urgency, calling for absolute self-dedication.” The impression one receives from Jesus’ instructions is that the mission on which he is about to send the Twelve is both extremely urgent and demands total dependence on God.

10 Jesus gave the instruction here to protect the good reputation of the disciples. Whenever they accepted hospitality in a home, they were to lodge there until they left that town, even if more comfortable or attractive lodgings were offered to them. The human tendency would be gradually to move up the social ladder as friendships were developed with more influential people. Such actions would show unchristian favoritism (Jas 2:1–13), create spiritual disunity, and run contrary to the missionary’s absolute dependence on God.

11 Jesus knew that the mission of the Twelve would not always be accepted. Had not he also been rejected by many? So he instructed them on how to act in such circumstances. The shaking of the dust from their feet may be understood in the light of the Jewish custom of removing carefully the dust from both clothes and feet before reentering Jewish territory (m. Ohalot 2:3; m. Ṭehar. 4:5l; b. Šabb. 15b). For the Jews, heathen dust was defiling. The significance of the act here is to declare the place to be heathen and to make it clear that those who rejected the message must now answer for themselves, as apparently meant by the phrase “as a testimony against them.” The disciples’ message, like that of Jesus, brings judgment as well as salvation.

12–13 Mark now describes the actual mission of the Twelve. It was clearly patterned after Jesus’ own ministry. Three activities are described: (1) preaching repentance (v.12); (2) driving out demons (v.13); and (3) healing the sick (v.13)—all of them associated with Jesus’ ministry. By these activities they were demonstrating that the kingdom of God had come with power, and so were extending the ministry of Jesus.

NOTES

8 The parallel accounts in the other Synoptics present an apparent contradiction, since Luke’s does not allow for a staff (9:3) and Matthew’s does not allow for either sandals or a staff (10:10). Many harmonizing solutions have been suggested, from that of an early scribal error to the proposal that two different staffs were intended: walking sticks were allowed, but not a shepherd’s staff (cf. E. Power, “The Staff of the Apostles: A Problem in Gospel Harmony,” Bib 4 [1923]: 241–66). While these or other solutions are certainly possible, it is perhaps better simply to acknowledge that the answer is uncertain.

B. Death of John the Baptist (6:14–29)

OVERVIEW

The account of the death of John the Baptist is intercalated or “sandwiched” between the beginning and end of the mission of the Twelve (vv.6b–13; v.30). This episode is more than a digression to explain what happened to John after he was imprisoned (cf. 1:14); it highlights the cost of discipleship and foreshadows the ultimate model for discipleship, namely, Jesus himself. Lane, 215, points out that in the scheme of Mark’s gospel there are two “passion narratives”: the passion of John and the passion of Jesus. The passion of the forerunner is a precursor to the passion of the Messiah. It is significant that Mark devotes fourteen verses to the death of John but only three to his ministry. Various commentators have noted numerous parallels between the deaths of Jesus and John. In both there is an arrest (6:27; cf. 14:46; 15:1), a death plot (6:19; cf. 14:1), fear (6:20; cf. 11:18, 32; 12:12; 14:2), an innocent man executed under pressure (6:26; cf. 15:10, 14–15), and burial by followers (6:29; cf. 15:45–46; see Guelich, 328). In both cases, the civil ruler (Herod/Pilate) hesitates to execute the person but then does so under pressure and through the scheming of others (Herodias/the chief priests; cf. Hurtado, 82–83; Witherington, 213, 216).

The account also parallels classic OT encounters between prophet and king, where the humble and ragged prophet of the Lord boldly confronts the powerful, yet morally challenged monarch. Especially relevant are the confrontations between Elijah and Ahab (1Ki 17–22), whose pagan queen Jezebel harbored the same animosity toward Elijah that Herodias bore toward John (1Ki 19:1–2). The parallel is especially telling in the light of John’s identification in Mark’s gospel as an Elijah-like figure (1:2, 6; 9:11–13). Calvin, 2:222, comments: “We behold in John an illustrious example of that moral courage, which all pious teachers ought to possess, not to hesitate to incur the wrath of the great and powerful, as often as it may be found necessary: for he, with whom there is acceptance of persons, does not honestly serve God.”

14King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

15Others said, “He is Elijah.”

And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.”

16But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”

17For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. 18For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” 19So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, 20because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

21Finally the opportune time came. On his birthday Herod gave a banquet for his high officials and military commanders and the leading men of Galilee. 22When the daughter of Herodias came in and danced, she pleased Herod and his dinner guests.

The king said to the girl, “Ask me for anything you want, and I’ll give it to you.” 23And he promised her with an oath, “Whatever you ask I will give you, up to half my kingdom.”

24She went out and said to her mother, “What shall I ask for?”

“The head of John the Baptist,” she answered.

25At once the girl hurried in to the king with the request: “I want you to give me right now the head of John the Baptist on a platter.”

26The king was greatly distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he did not want to refuse her. 27So he immediately sent an executioner with orders to bring John’s head. The man went, beheaded John in the prison, 28and brought back his head on a platter. He presented it to the girl, and she gave it to her mother. 29On hearing of this, John’s disciples came and took his body and laid it in a tomb.

COMMENTARY

14 The flashback account of John’s death is introduced in the context of popular speculation concerning Jesus and Herod’s superstitious concerns that John has risen from the dead. The “King Herod” mentioned here is Antipas, son of Herod the Great and Malthace. When his father died, he became tetrarch (“ruler of the fourth part”) of Galilee and Perea. He was not officially granted the title of “king.” It was, in fact, his ambition to secure that title for himself that led to his downfall in AD 39 under Caligula (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.7.1–2 §§240–56; J.W. 2.9.6 §§181–83). Mark may be using the title of “king” here ironically, or perhaps he is reflecting local custom (cf. Taylor, 308).

If the paragraph that begins with v.14 goes with the one that precedes it, then the “this” refers to the mission of the Twelve. Herod heard about it. Quite possibly the disciples of Jesus traveled as far as Tiberias on the western shore of Lake Galilee, where Herod had built his capital and named it after the ruling Caesar, Tiberias. On the other hand, the “this” of v.14 may be a reference to the mighty works of Jesus. This latter view seems likely, for the entire discussion focuses on the question of Jesus’ identity.

Since the NIV (probably correctly) accepts the reading elegon (“some were saying”) instead of elegen (“he [Herod] was saying”), what follows are popular views of who Jesus was. The speculation that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead must have arisen among those who had not heard of Jesus until after John’s death. Or perhaps (though less likely) the sense is that the spirit of John had now been transferred to Jesus in the same way that the spirit of Elijah was passed on to Elisha (2Ki 2:15; France, 253). John the Baptist did not perform miracles while he was alive, but apparently his resurrection status was thought to give him that power.

15 Another popular view identified Jesus with Elijah. There was much speculation in Judaism concerning the eschatological return of Elijah—speculation arising especially from Malachi 3:1; 4:5 and Elijah’s ascent to heaven without dying (2Ki 2:1–12; cf. Sir 48:10; 4 Ezra 6:26; Justin Martyr, Dial. 8, 49; TDNT 2:928–34). John the Baptist had also spoken of Jesus as “the Coming One,” a title popular speculation may have identified with Elijah (cf. Mal 3:1; 4:6).

A third view was that “he is a prophet, like one of the prophets of long ago.” This meaning could refer to the return of an actual OT prophet such as Elijah, or someone of the same authority and succession as the OT prophets. The latter is more likely, since the word “prophet” does not have the article and since the comparative adverb hōs clarifies that Jesus is “like” one of the OT prophets.

16 Herod’s view—that Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead—arose not so much from what he had heard about Jesus as from the proddings of a guilty conscience, since Herod had been directly responsible for John’s death. As with the popular speculation mentioned in v.14, Herod’s view of Jesus suggests that he had not heard about Jesus prior to the death of John. Herod had gotten rid of one meddlesome prophet only to have another show up—perhaps they were one and the same!

The mention of the death of John causes Mark to interrupt the account of the mission of the Twelve in order to tell the story of John’s murder.

17–18 Several historical questions have been raised about Mark’s account of John’s death, most of them arising from differences with Josephus, who also records the death of John (Ant. 18.5.2 §§116–19). We will discuss these differences below and in the notes.

John the Baptist had been arrested by Herod Antipas (v.17), who put him in prison for denouncing Herod’s adulterous union with Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip (v.18). The Mosaic law prohibited a man from marrying his brother’s wife (cf. Lev 18:16; 20:21), except in the case of Levirate marriage after the brother’s death (Dt 25:5–10). Further, Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, one of the sons of Herod the Great; so she was a niece of Herod Antipas (and, for that matter, of Philip as well). In Jewish eyes, Herod’s divorce and his marriage to Herodias while Philip still lived would have been viewed both as adulterous and incestuous.

Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2 §119) says that John was put in prison at Machaerus, the fortress situated in Perea, on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. Mark does not identify the place of John’s imprisonment, but the reference to the Galilean dinner guests (v.21) has suggested to some that he is thinking of somewhere in Galilee. Either location is possible. Herod may have moved John to Galilee prior to his execution, or Herod may have brought his guests to Machaerus (which Josephus [J.W. 7.6.2 §§172–77] describes as both a formidable fortress and magnificent palace).

Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2 §118) emphasizes the general political motives behind Herod’s actions and claims that Herod feared John’s influence and power among the people. Mark emphasizes the particular issue in John’s preaching that prompted Herod’s concerns and the specific circumstances of the execution. The two accounts are complementary rather than contradictory. In order to marry Herodias, Herod had to rid himself of the daughter of King Aretas IV, whose kingdom lay just to the east of Perea. The situation between Herod and Aretas was already sensitive, and the divorce eventually led to war (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.5.1 §§109–15). John’s preaching against Herod’s divorce and remarriage, therefore, had the potential to cause real political trouble at home.

19–20 Herodias had not taken John’s condemnation of her marriage lightly. In fact, she was infuriated by him and wanted to kill him. Herodias knew that “the only place where her marriage certificate could safely be written was on the back of the death warrant of John” (T. W. Manson, The Servant Messiah [London: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1953], 40). She was thwarted in her design because Herod protected John (v.20). Motivated by fear and recognition of John’s righteous and holy character, Herod refused to allow him to be put to death. Swete, 123, writes, “Herod was awed by the purity of John’s character, feared him as the bad fear the good.” Yet “he liked to listen to him,” though he did not understand and was “greatly puzzled” by what he said. France, 257, notes that these verses set up the contrast “strongly reminiscent of the story of Ahab and Jezebel (whose ‘target’ was, of course, John’s model Elijah), which the rest of the story will work out between a resolutely hostile Herodias and a wavering Antipas, who will eventually be tricked into pronouncing sentence against his better judgment.”

21–23 Herodias finally got the opportunity she was waiting for. Herod celebrated his birthday with a banquet to which he invited the military and political leaders of his tetrarchy. At this festive occasion Herodias’s daughter danced before the guests (v.22). Mark does not name the daughter, though some MSS read “his daughter Herodias,” so suggesting mother and daughter had the same name (see Notes). Josephus (Ant. 18.5.4 §136) identifies the daughter of Herodias as Salome. The dance was probably an erotic one. Objections to the historicity of the account have been raised on the basis of the unlikelihood of such a performance by a princess, but the low morals in Herod’s court would not be inconsistent with it. Herod and his dinner guests were pleased with her performance—so much so that Herod offered her up to half his kingdom (v.23). The words “up to half my kingdom” may have been a kind of proverbial way of expressing openhanded generosity and were not to be taken literally (cf. 1Ki 13:8; Est 5:3, 6; 7:2). For Mark’s readers the offer would be ironic since Herod was not truly a king and since he served only at the whim of Rome. The kingdom was not his to give away. It is also ironic that Herod will eventually be exiled through a failed attempt to gain this kingship.

24–25 The girl left the banquet hall to seek the advice of her mother. Herodias may have intentionally sent the girl into the banquet hall to dance as part of her scheme to get rid of John. Or perhaps she simply took advantage of the opportunity when it presented itself. The latter is slightly more likely, since the girl does not reply to Herod immediately but rather goes to ask her mother. There seems to be no premeditated plan. At the same time, Mark does not mention any surprise on the daughter’s part when her mother made the request, thus suggesting the mother’s disdain for John had been passed on to her daughter. When the girl returns to request John’s head, she actually adds two things: she wants John’s head “right now” and she wants it “on a platter” (v.25).

26–28 Herod was in a quandary. Up to this point he had been able to protect John; but now, “because of his oaths and his dinner guests,” he could hardly refuse the girl. The weak and vacillating ruler caves in under social pressure (cf. the role of Pilate in 15:9–15). Reluctantly (v.26 says he “was greatly distressed”), he ordered an executioner to be sent to the prison to decapitate John (v.27). John’s head was brought to Herod (v.28), who presented it to Salome; and she gave it to her mother.

29 Mark ends the shocking story with the coming of John’s disciples to take the body and give it a proper burial. Herod no doubt thought he was now finished with the righteous prophet he both feared and respected. But he wasn’t. The ministry of Jesus stirred up Herod’s memories of John and his fears returned once more. Josephus (Ant. 18.5.2 §119) says that when Herod’s army was defeated by the Nabataeans in AD 30, the Jews thought it was a “punishment upon Herod and a mark of God’s displeasure against him.”

NOTES

17 For a fuller discussion of the differences between Mark and Josephus, see H. Hoehner, Herod Antipas (SNTSMS 17; Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1972), 110–71; Cranfield, 208–9; Lane, 215–16; Taylor, 310–11.

There is some confusion concerning the first husband of Herodias, since Josephus refers to him as Herod (Ant. 18.5.4 §136), while Mark calls him Philip. Some claim Mark has confused this man with Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra and tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis (Lk 3:1). The problem is easily resolved when we realize that “Herod” is a family name given to all of Herod the Great’s sons and that Philip was almost certainly the first name of the man Josephus simply calls “Herod,” the son of Mariamne II.

20 Some MSS read πολλὰ ἐποίει (polla epoiei, “he did many things”), but the reading adopted by the NIV, πολλὰ ἠπόρει (polla ēporei, “he was greatly puzzled”), has the stronger MS support. It also seems consistent with what we know of Herod’s character.

22 The earliest MSS read θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦΗρῳδιάδος (thugatros autou Hērōdiados, “his daughter Herodias”). The NLT translates, “Then his daughter, also named Herodias, came in . . . .” Most versions follow the reading θυγατρὸς αὐτῆς τῆςΗρῳδιάδος (thugatros autēs tēs Hērōdiados), which probably means “the daughter of Herodias herself” (with αὐτῆς, autēs, used intensively; cf. NASB, “And when daughter of Herodias herself came in”). Since Josephus identifies the girl as Salome, the best solution seems to be to regard αὐτοῦ, autou, as an early scribal error and αὐτῆς, autēs, as the original reading.

26 The depth of the distress experienced by Herod at Salome’s request for the head of John the Baptist is expressed graphically by the Greek word περίλυπος (perilypos, GK 4337, “greatly distressed”). This word is the same one used to describe Jesus’ agony in Gethsemane (Mk 14:34).

C. Feeding of the Five Thousand (6:30–44)

OVERVIEW

The importance of the feeding of the five thousand for the early church is evident from the fact that it is the only miracle that appears in all four gospels. In Mark’s narrative the episode plays an important role. It begins with an elaborate introduction (6:35–38), is looked back to on two different occasions (6:52; 8:17–21), and has a sequel in the feeding of the four thousand (8:1–10). Its position immediately following the account of Herod’s feast is also striking: “In contrast to the drunken debauchery of the Herodian feast, Mark exhibits the glory of God unveiled through the abundant provision of bread in the wilderness where Jesus is Israel’s faithful shepherd” (Lane, 227). The prideful sham-king Herod makes a mockery of justice by executing the noble prophet of God over a foolish oath. In contrast, the true shepherd-king Jesus shows real compassion for the flock of Israel by gently teaching them and providing for their needs.

The account echoes important passages in the OT: (1) Elisha’s feeding of one hundred men with twenty barley loaves and some grain (2Ki 4:42–44); (2) the miraculous feeding of the people of Israel with manna in the desert (Ex 16; Nu 11; cf. Jn 6:14–40); and (3) the “messianic banquet,” God’s eschatological promise to feed and shepherd his people (Isa 25:6–8; 65:13–14). The latter two are particularly significant, since Mark repeatedly refers to the place where the feeding occurs as a “desert” or “wilderness” (erēmos, GK 2245) place (vv.31–32, 35). The implication is that Jesus is a new Moses shepherding God’s people in the wilderness and leading them on a new exodus deliverance (cf. Lane, 225–33; Ulrich Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness [London: SCM, 1963]).

30The apostles gathered around Jesus and reported to him all they had done and taught. 31Then, because so many people were coming and going that they did not even have a chance to eat, he said to them, “Come with me by yourselves to a quiet place and get some rest.”

32So they went away by themselves in a boat to a solitary place. 33But many who saw them leaving recognized them and ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them. 34When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.

35By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. 36Send the people away so they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

37But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

They said to him, “That would take eight months of a man’s wages! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?”

38“How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.”

When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”

39Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to set before the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42They all ate and were satisfied, 43and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

COMMENTARY

30 Mark now concludes the account of the mission of the Twelve after having interrupted it with the flashback to the death of John the Baptist. The disciples returned to Jesus from their mission of preaching, driving out demons, and healing and reported to him “all they had done and taught.” Only here does Mark use the word “apostles” (apostoloi) for the disciples. (Its occurrence in 3:14 is textually doubtful.) Mark is probably not using it as a formal title for the Twelve (“the Apostles”), but rather in the functional sense, “those who were sent,” recalling Jesus’ commission in 6:7 (where the verb apostellō is used).

31–32 The disciples had just returned from what was apparently an intensive mission. Their activities had created much interest. So many people were coming and going that the disciples had no time even to eat (v.31; cf. 3:20). Since the disciples were doubtless tired from their missionary activities and from the demands of the crowds, Jesus decided to seek rest for them. Where specifically they went we are not told. Mark merely says it was a “quiet” and “solitary [erēmos, ‘desert’] place” (v.32). Luke identifies the location as near Bethsaida (9:10), a town on the northeastern side of the lake. But Mark seems to have the northwestern shore in mind, for after the miracle, the traditional site of which is Tabgha—near Capernaum, on the northwestern shore—the disciples will cross the lake toward Bethsaida (6:45; cf. France, 264).

Further, the best way for Jesus and his disciples to have gotten away from the crowds was by boat. If the “solitary place” were on the northeastern side of the lake, the crowd that followed by land would have had to cross the Jordan where it flows into Lake Galilee. According to Dalman (Sacred Sites and Ways, 161), doing so could have been possible: “On October 10, 1921, I saw that it was almost possible to cross over the Jordan dry-shod, just where it enters into the lake. An absolutely dry bar lay before the mouth.” However, in the spring of the year, when this event apparently took place (cf. v.39, “green grass”), the Jordan would have had more water in it.

33–34 Perhaps the little boat faced a strong headwind that slowed it down. At any rate the crowd was able to walk around the lake and arrive at the landing place ahead of the boat.

Jesus had every right to be annoyed with the crowd. They had prevented him and his disciples from getting a much-needed rest. But instead of being irritated, he responded compassionately and lovingly (v.34). He saw the multitude as “sheep without a shepherd.”

The phrase is a common one in the OT, indicating a lack of leadership and care (Nu 27:17; 1Ki 22:17; Isa 13:14; Eze 34:5; Zec 13:7). The context of Numbers 27:17 is the wilderness wanderings and the appointment of Joshua to succeed Moses. In Ezekiel 34:23, 25, God promises to raise up a new David to shepherd his wayward flock (cf. Zec 13:7, which is also messianic). Mark seems to be working with these themes. Jesus, like Moses, leads his people into the wilderness, and, like David, he provides rest for them (cf. Lane, 226; Mauser, Christ in the Wilderness, 135). It is significant that in Isaiah 11:1–11 and elsewhere in the OT the “new exodus” theme is identified with the coming Messiah from David’s line (Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 292–97).

35–36 Jesus’ disciples became concerned for the crowd. It was late in the day, and since they were in a desolate place, there was little possibility of obtaining food. Their suggestion was that the crowd be dismissed so they could get food for themselves in the neighboring towns and villages (v.36). This seemed to be a simple way for them to satisfy their hunger.

37 Jesus did not concur with the suggestion of his disciples that the food needed to feed the crowd was to be supplied from the resources of the neighboring towns and villages. The disciples themselves were to supply it! Jesus uses the emphatic personal pronoun to make the message plain: “You give them something to eat.”

The reply of the disciples indicates how startled they were at Jesus’ command. They could only think of the impossible amount of money it would take to feed a crowd such as this one. Two hundred denarii represented the pay a common laborer earned in a period of about eight months (cf. Mt 20:2–15, where the usual pay for a day’s wage is one denarius). Not even that amount of money would buy enough bread for everyone to eat (cf. Jn 6:7: “for each one to have a bite”).

38 Jesus was not thinking of bread bought in the neighboring villages for two hundred denarii or whatever it might cost to supply the people. Before proceeding with his approach to the problem, he asked his disciples what was the present status of the food supply. When they inquired, they found it to be meager: five loaves and two fish—a mere pittance in view of the number of people to be fed. The loaves, John tells us (6:9), were barley loaves. Unlike our modern loaves of bread, these loaves were flat and round (about eight inches in diameter) and could scarcely feed more than one person.

39–40 At Jesus’ direction (v.39), the disciples arranged the crowd into groups of hundreds and fifties (v.40). The phrases used to describe this arrangement are interesting. In v.39 Jesus says they should sit symposia symposia. A symposion was a group of people gathered for a banquet or drinking party, so the idiom means something like “divided into dinner parties.” Verse 40 says they sat down prasia prasia. A prasia (etymologically, a “bed of leeks”) was a garden plot, so the sense is “organized into rows or plots” (BDAG, 860, 959). Together they convey the orderly arrangement of the crowd to facilitate the distribution of the food. The verbs used in vv.39 and 40 for the people to sit down (anaklinō, anapiptō) reinforce the festive imagery, since they were commonly used in the Greco-Roman world of reclining around a banquet table.

Various commentators have suggested that the arrangement is intended to recall the Mosaic camp in the wilderness, where officials are appointed over “thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens” (Ex 18:21, 25; cf. Nu 31:14; Dt 1:15). The sectarians at Qumran applied this imagery to themselves as the assembly of the eschatological Israel in the wilderness (1QS 2:21–23; 1QSa 1:14–15; 1:28–2:1; 1QM 4:1–17; CD 13:1). If Mark has this imagery in mind, he may again be intentionally presenting Jesus as “the eschatological Savior, the second Moses, who transforms the leaderless flock into the people of God” (Lane, 230).

Mark notes that the grass was green (v.39), perhaps to invoke the image of the Lord as the Shepherd who brings the sheep to feed in green pastures (Ps 32:1–2). Historically, the green grass suggests that the incident took place in the late winter or early spring, when the grass in Galilee turns green after the rains.

41 Jesus did what any pious Jew would have done before eating—he prayed. The Mishnah provides an example of an ancient prayer of thanksgiving before a meal: “Blessed art thou, Lord our God, King of the world, who bringest forth bread from the earth” (m. Ber. 6:1). Jesus may have prayed something similar on this occasion. Lifting one’s eyes toward heaven is a common posture for prayer (Job 22:26–27 LXX; Pss 121:1; 123:1).

This passage has clear verbal parallels with the institution of the Lord’s Supper (Mk 14:22), which itself has strong links to the OT imagery of the messianic banquet (cf. 14:25). In John’s gospel the connection to both the OT wilderness feedings and the Eucharist is even more explicit, as Jesus identifies himself as the “bread of life” and the “bread from heaven” in the discourse that follows the feeding (Jn 6:32–33, 35, 41).

As to how the miracle was performed, Mark does not give us so much as a hint. He simply says that Jesus broke the loaves, divided the fish, and gave them to the disciples to distribute among the people.

42–44 Not only were all the people fed and their hunger satisfied (v.42), but there was more left over at the end than there had been at the beginning—twelve basketfuls (v.43). The reference to leftover provisions is another parallel to the Elisha story in 2 Kings 4:42, where the Lord promises, “They will eat and have some left over.” The number twelve may symbolically point to the twelve tribes of Israel, though it may simply point to the leftovers collected by the twelve disciples.

Mark says that the number of the men who had eaten was about five thousand (v.44)—a number that could easily have been calculated because of the division of the crowd into groups of hundreds and fifties. The number seems to refer to family units, since the word translated “men” is not anthrōpoi, the common word for “human beings,” but rather andres, which normally means adult males. Matthew makes this meaning clear by adding “besides women and children” (14:21). The number is very large when one realizes that the neighboring towns of Capernaum and Bethsaida had only two to three thousand people.

Since Mark usually notes the reaction of people to the miracles of Jesus, it is perhaps significant that here he does not note the reaction of the crowd (contrast John 6:14–15). This omission seems to indicate that the miracle was meant especially for the disciples and is part of Jesus’ self-revelation to them (see v.52; 8:17–21).

NOTES

32 The easiest solution to the apparent discrepancy between the location of the miracle in Mark and Luke is that Mark’s reference to a departure toward Bethsaida after the miracle (6:45) is an early scribal error, and that the miracle actually occurred near Bethsaida on the northeastern side of the lake. This would also fit Mark’s statement that the disciples’ boat trip after the miracle ended up in Gennesaret (v.53; on the northwestern shore). Unfortunately, there is no MS evidence for such an error. Another harmonizing solution proposes that Luke is referring to a different town called Bethsaida, one on the northwestern corner of the lake, close to Chorazin and Capernaum (see Mt 11:21, 23). In this case, Luke, like Mark, would be describing a westward journey from one Bethsaida to another Bethsaida, and then back after the miracle. But there is no historical evidence for such a town (except perhaps John’s opaque reference to Bethsaida as a town “of Galilee”; Jn 12:21; cf. France, 264). Furthermore, although this solution would bring the accounts of Mark and Luke into harmony, it would conflict with John’s reference to a westward departure (toward Capernaum) after the miracle (6:17) and Mark’s statement that the trip ended in Gennesaret (6:53).

38 The phrase “you give them something to eat” may echo 2 Kings 4:42, where Elisha says, “Give it [the barley bread] to the people to eat.”

43 The word for basket (κόφινος, kophinos) refers to a kind of basket especially associated with the Jews, since the satirist Juvenal (Sat. 3.14; 6.542) twice mocks Jewish travelers for always taking along such baskets. Lane, 231 n. 109, refers to them as “small wicker baskets that every Jew carried with him as a part of his daily attire” that “were used to hold such items as a light lunch and general odds and ends.” BDAG, 563, describes the type as “a large, heavy basket, probably of var. sizes, for carrying things.”

44 The gathering of such a large body of men (without women and children?), and the apparently military language of organization (“fifties and hundreds”), has caused some commentators to speculate that, historically, this event might have been an attempt by zealous Galileans to launch an insurrection with Jesus as their leader. John’s account in particular gives this impression since after the feeding Jesus withdraws quickly to the mountain, “knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force” (Jn 6:15). Whatever the historical situation, Mark does not develop this aspect but focuses instead on Jesus’ compassion for the people.

REFLECTIONS

Since the emergence of critical biblical scholarship, attempts have been made to explain away this miracle rationally. Most common is the suggestion that this miracle was not one of multiplication but of sharing. The willingness of one person to share his own meager provisions resulted in a contagious and spontaneous response from the crowd, and soon hidden stores of food were available for all. Such explanations are pure speculation arising solely from antisupernatural presuppositions. There is no doubt but that Mark and the other gospel writers understood the actions of Jesus to have been miraculous, and there is no hint in the narrative that the event was ever understood differently.

D. Walking on the Water (6:45–52)

OVERVIEW

Two main themes appear in this episode: the extraordinary power of Jesus and the spiritual incomprehension of the disciples. The account is the second of Jesus’ miracles on Lake Galilee recorded by Mark. In the first miracle Jesus calmed a storm at sea (4:35–41); now he walks on water, thus demonstrating similar mastery over the forces of nature. Both episodes have a strong theophanic character as Jesus reveals power and authority normally associated with God. In both situations, the disciples appear in danger or difficulty prior to the miracle, and in both they respond with amazement and fear. Both records also give a negative comment about their faith—the first coming from Jesus (4:40), the second from the narrator (6:52). The latter is more severe; it refers to their “hardness of hearts” and initiates a series of episodes in which the spiritual dullness and failings of the disciples will be highlighted (8:17–21, 32; 9:19, 34; 10:13, 37–38).

Both Matthew (14:22–33) and John (6:16–21) record this miracle and, like Mark, connect it with the feeding of the five thousand. Only Matthew includes the additional details about Peter’s getting out of the boat and coming to Jesus (14:28–31). The agreement between the Synoptics and John confirm that the accounts of the feeding miracle and walking on water appeared together in the tradition Mark received. Luke, who has followed Mark quite closely up to this point, here departs from his order and omits the material from Mark 6:45–8:26 (sometimes called Luke’s “Great Omission”).

To try to rationalize this incident—as some have done in the past—by suggesting that what the disciples really saw was Jesus wading through the shallows at the edge of the shore is ridiculous. The text makes it clear that the boat was in the middle of the lake and that Jesus came to it there. The episode defies rationalistic explanations. One must either dismiss the whole event as a fanciful legend or accept it as an eyewitness account of a truly miraculous event.

45Immediately Jesus made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida, while he dismissed the crowd. 46After leaving them, he went up on a mountainside to pray.

47When evening came, the boat was in the middle of the lake, and he was alone on land. 48He saw the disciples straining at the oars, because the wind was against them. About the fourth watch of the night he went out to them, walking on the lake. He was about to pass by them, 49but when they saw him walking on the lake, they thought he was a ghost. They cried out, 50because they all saw him and were terrified.

Immediately he spoke to them and said, “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” 51Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, 52for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.

COMMENTARY

45 While Mark records no reaction of the crowd to the multiplication of the loaves and fish, John speaks of an attempt to make Jesus king (Jn 6:15). Historically, Jesus may have feared a messianic uprising as a result of the miracle and for that reason “immediately” made his disciples get into the boat and go on ahead of him to Bethsaida. Yet no messianic aspirations are explicitly mentioned by Mark, who has presented the miracle as a compassionate banquet provided by Jesus and an act of self-revelation directed toward the disciples.

As noted in the previous section (v.32), Bethsaida’s location on the northeastern side of Lake Galilee suggests that the disciples are sailing eastward across the northern part of the lake (but see Notes, v.32). The city was officially called “Bethsaida Julias,” named after Julias, the daughter of the Roman emperor Augustus, by Herod Philip when he elevated the village to the status of a city (cf. Josephus, Ant. 18.2.1 §28).

After sending his disciples away in the boat, Jesus stayed to dismiss the crowd. Part of his purpose may have been to calm their messianic aspirations.

46 Mark’s mention of Jesus’ praying may be further evidence of the critical nature of the situation. On only three occasions in this gospel does Jesus withdraw to pray, and each time some sort of crisis is involved: (1) after the excitement and activity of a busy Sabbath in Capernaum (1:35), (2) after the multiplication of the loaves and fish (6:46), and (3) in Gethsemane after the Lord’s Supper (14:32–36). Each incident involves the temptation not to carry out God’s mission—a mission that would ultimately bring suffering, rejection, and death. These crises seem to represent an ascending scale and reach their climax in the agony of Gethsemane.

47–48 The time of this incident is “evening” (v.47). Since it was “already very late” in the afternoon (v.35) before the feeding of the five thousand, “evening” here must mean late at night. How Jesus “saw” the disciples straining at the oars (v.48) is not clear, whether through supernatural insight in the darkness (so Garland, 261), by the glow of moonlight (so Cranfield, 225), or in the light of early dawn (so France, 271). What is clear is that Jesus came in response to the struggle they were having. Apparently, the wind was blowing from the north or northeast and had blown the disciples off their course. They were “straining at the oars”—an indication of a stiff headwind. Jesus came to them “walking on the lake” at about the fourth watch (sometime between 3:00 and 6:00 a.m.). According to Roman reckoning (which Mark follows), the night was divided into four watches: 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m. to midnight, midnight to 3:00 a.m., and 3:00 to 6:00 a.m.

Like the calming of the storm and the multiplication of the loaves, walking on water has strong theophanic significance. In the OT God himself “treads on the waves” (Job 9:8) and makes a way through the sea (Ps 77:19; Isa 43:16).

The Greek phrase kai ēthelen parelthein autous could be translated “he wanted to pass them by,” for the verb thelō (GK 2527) normally carries the sense of desire or intention. This reading gives the impression that Jesus’ intended to walk right past the disciples. Various suggested alternative interpretations follow.

(1) The NIV, taking the Greek verb thelō in the sense of mellō (“about to”; cf. Cranfield, 226), renders the phrase “he was about to pass by them.”

(2) The text may represent not the intention of Jesus but the impression of an eyewitness as to what was happening: “it seemed to the disciples as though he intended to pass them by” (cf. France, 272).

(3) The verb “pass by” may carry the sense of “spare from catastrophe” (cf. Am 7:9), so that the idiom means something like “he wanted to save them” (H. Fleddermann, “‘And He Wanted to Pass by Them’ [Mark 6:48c],” CBQ 45 [1983]: 389–95).

(4) The verse may mean that Jesus intended to pass by them to show himself and so reveal his power and protection. The point is that Jesus’ ability to walk on water should dispel all possible fears the disciples might otherwise have (cf. Hurtado, 90–91).

(5) There may be an intentional echo of OT passages in which God reveals himself by “passing by” or “passing before” his people (cf. Lane, 236; Garland, 263–64; Marcus, 426). In Exodus 33:18–23 Moses asks to see God’s glory, and the Lord replies that no one can see his face and live; however, God will “pass by” the cleft of the rock and Moses will see his back: “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence” (Ex 33:19 [TNIV]). Similarly, in 1 Kings 19:11–12—when Elijah despairs that he is the only faithful person left in Israel—the Lord says “Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.” God then reveals himself, not in a mighty wind, an earthquake or a fire, but in a quiet whisper. We have here, then, the language of theophany. Jesus intends to “pass by” in order to reveal his divine glory to the disciples.

Although a decision regarding the meaning of the phrase is difficult, the last option seems the most likely, especially in the light of the strong theophanic significance of walking on water and the exodus imagery here and in the immediately preceding feeding miracle.

49–50 Although the disciples did not recognize Jesus at first—they thought they had seen some sort of ghost (phantasma, v.49)—Jesus calmed their fears with words of assurance: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid” (v.50). It has been suggested—in line with the theophanic nature of the whole episode—that the statement “It is I” identifies Jesus with God’s self-revelation as the “I AM WHO I AM” (Ex 3:14; cf. Jn 8:58). A direct allusion to Exodus 3:14 seems unlikely, however, since in the context the words are intended to assure the disciples that he is not a ghost, not dramatically to reveal his divine nature. Such an explicit self-identification would be highly unusual in Mark’s narrative, where Jesus repeatedly reveals divine attributes through his actions but never explicitly declares his own deity. It is probably better to regard the expression here simply as Jesus’ way of identifying himself (“It is I—Jesus”).

51 Here another miracle is presupposed. When Jesus climbed into the boat, “the wind died down.” Though less explicitly than in 4:35–41, Jesus again reveals sovereign lordship over the wind and waves. The response of the disciples to both miracles is that they “were completely amazed.” As so often in Mark, the power of God at work through Jesus results in shock and amazement (1:22, 27; 2:12; 5:15, 20, 42; 6:2; 7:37; 11:18). Yet here the implications are negative. By this time the disciples should not be shocked at Jesus’ actions but should be comprehending the power of the kingdom of God at work in him.

52 Mark relates his explanation of the disciples’ panic at seeing Jesus walking on the water and their amazement at the calming of the wind to their failure to understand the multiplication of the loaves. Had they understood about the loaves, i.e., that the sovereign Lord of the universe was in action there, they would have been prepared to understand his walking on water and calming waves. Their problem was a christological one. Not unlike Jesus’ opponents—the “outsiders” of 4:10–11 (Isa 6:9–10)—“their hearts were hardened” (v.52). From this point on, Mark will paint the disciples in increasingly dark tones. In 8:14–21 Jesus will directly confront their inability to understand the feeding miracle, again with language reminiscent of Isaiah 6:9–10. Like the persecuted church of Mark’s day, the disciples will need to decide whose side they are really on—and what price they are willing to pay for their allegiance to the kingdom of God.

NOTES

45 Fred Strickert (“The Coins of Philip,” in Bethsaida: A City by the North Shore of the Sea of Galilee, ed. Rami Arav and Richard A. Freund [Kirksville, Mo.: Truman State Univ. Press, 2004], 1:165–89) claims that Bethsaida was not named for Augustus’s biological daughter Julia but for Augustus’s wife Livia, who was adopted as the emperor’s daughter into the Julian family and given the name “Julia” after her husband’s death.

48 Witherington, 221 n. 67, notes that in Sirach 24:5–6 personified Wisdom traverses the sea. This motif is significant since in a number of gospel passages Jesus appears to be presented as the incarnation of divine Wisdom (see Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000]).

E. Healings near Gennesaret (6:53–56)

53When they had crossed over, they landed at Gennesaret and anchored there. 54As soon as they got out of the boat, people recognized Jesus. 55They ran throughout that whole region and carried the sick on mats to wherever they heard he was. 56And wherever he went—into villages, towns or countryside—they placed the sick in the marketplaces. They begged him to let them touch even the edge of his cloak, and all who touched him were healed.

COMMENTARY

53 Jesus stayed with the disciples in the boat and crossed over with them to Gennesaret. The name refers to the plain north of Magdala on the western side of the lake, or perhaps to a city on the plain (see Dalman, Sacred Sites, 128). Depending on the location of the feeding miracle and the direction in which they were rowing (see Notes, v.32), this either means that they completed their journey westward from Bethsaida (Lk 9:10) or that, although headed for Bethsaida (Mk 6:45), they turned around because of the contrary winds and returned to the western side of the lake. In any case, Jesus and the disciples return to the place of their greatest popularity and most significant ministry.

54–56 This passage serves as a summary of Jesus’ work in Galilee before he withdraws to other regions. It resembles the summaries in 1:32–34 and 3:7–12, except that no mention is made either of teaching or exorcising demons; rather, Mark’s emphasis here is on Jesus’ reputation as a healer—the primary reason for his widespread fame (vv.54–55).

Mark notes the desire of the people to touch Jesus’ garments and be healed (v.56; cf. 5:27–29). The NIV’s reference to the “edge” (kraspedon) of Jesus’ cloak may refer to the tassels that pious Jews wore on the fringe of their outer garments (as commanded by God in Nu 5:37–39 and Dt 22:12). The word carries this sense in Matthew 23:5. We must assume on the basis of Mark 5:34 that, whether or not some of the people held superstitious beliefs, it was not the mere touch of Jesus’ garments that produced the healings but rather their faith, to which Jesus responded.

Some commentators have suggested that the summary is meant to be negative and that the people are only interested in Jesus’ miracles, not in the transformation that comes through the kingdom. While the subsequent narrative may hint at the validity of this suggestion, the primary point is Jesus’ immense popularity and the enthusiastic response of the crowds to his presence. It should be noted that in contrast to the tepid response of unbelieving Nazareth (6:4–5), Mark indicates that “all” who touched him here were healed (v.56).

NOTES

53 The great fertility of the soil in the plain of Gennesaret enabled it to support a relatively large population. Josephus (J.W. 3.10.8 §518) says of it, “One may call this place the ambition of nature, where it forces those plants that are naturally enemies to one another to agree together.”

F. Commands of God and Human Traditions (7:1–13)

OVERVIEW

This episode is linked with 7:14–23 by the common theme of purity, or what it means to be holy or undefiled before God. It is similar to the conflict stories found in 2:1–3:6 but is placed here (along with vv.14–23) to function as an introduction to the extension of the ministry of Jesus to the Gentiles in vv.24–30 (the Syrophoenician woman), in vv.31–37 (the deaf and mute man in the Decapolis) and, less obviously, in 8:1–10 (the feeding of the four thousand). There is a cohesive flow to the narrative as Jesus first challenges traditional Jewish notions of purity and defilement and then ventures into “defiled” Gentile territory with the gospel message.

The present episode is divided into two parts: (1) the accusation by the Pharisees in vv.1–5 (including Mark’s parenthetic remark in vv.3–4), and (2) Jesus’ response in vv.6–13. When the Pharisees accuse Jesus’ disciples of not living by the high standards of ritual purity they themselves maintain, Jesus goes on the offensive by countering that it is they who are living impure lives. They honor God with their words yet deny him with their hearts by exalting their human traditions over God’s commandments. Jesus then provides a specific example of their doing so: they devote gifts exclusively to God as an excuse for withholding them from their needy parents.

1The Pharisees and some of the teachers of the law who had come from Jerusalem gathered around Jesus and 2saw some of his disciples eating food with hands that were “unclean,” that is, unwashed. 3(The Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing, holding to the tradition of the elders. 4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

5So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with ‘unclean’ hands?”

6He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips,

but their hearts are far from me.

7They worship me in vain;

their teachings are but rules taught by men.’

8You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.”

9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

COMMENTARY

1 Another delegation of fact-finding religious leaders (Pharisees and teachers of the law) comes down from Jerusalem to investigate the Galilean activities of Jesus. The first such visit provoked the Beelzebul controversy (3:22–30), which, as we have seen, was a key crisis point in Mark’s narrative used to distinguish the “insiders” who were responding to the kingdom message from the “outsiders” who were rejecting it (see comments at 3:20–34; 4:10–12). The reference to Jerusalem again reminds the reader where the center of hostility toward Jesus lies and foreshadows his Jerusalem passion.

2 What the Pharisees and scribes discovered was that Jesus’ disciples did not wash their hands before eating. Their complaint was not, of course, that the disciples were being unhygienic. The question was one of ceremonial purity. The term translated “unclean” in the NIV (koinos, GK 3123, “common”) is used here in the sense of “defiled” (TNIV), in contrast to what is “holy” or set apart to God. Mark explains for his Gentile readers that koinos means “unwashed” (i.e., in the prescribed manner).

As in the question about fasting in 2:18, the issue here does not concern an OT command but a Pharisaic tradition. The OT did not command hand washing before meals but did require ritualistic washings for the priests before offering sacrifices (Ex 30:19–21; 40:12, 30–32). The Pharisees took these priestly commands and applied them to themselves, not only with reference to sacrifices but also to all food. Perhaps their intention in doing so was in recognition that Israel was intended to be a “kingdom of priests” (Ex 19:6). It is uncertain whether the Pharisees expected all Israelites to live by these standards or whether they are here applying them to the disciples because of Jesus’ reputation as a religious leader.

3–4 Verses 3–4 are parenthetical (so NIV and TNIV). Mark felt it necessary to explain to his Gentile readers the Jewish custom of ceremonial hand washing. Mark’s application of the custom not only to the Pharisees but also “all the Jews” (v.3) may be a generalization for his Gentile audience to identifying this custom as specifically Jewish. Gundry, 358–60, however, sees evidence for the widespread practice of hand washing among the Jews of Jesus’ day.

The “tradition of the elders” (vv.3, 5) consisted in a great mass of oral tradition that had arisen about the OT law. About AD 200 it was written down in the Mishnah, but in Jesus’ day it was still in oral form. The purpose of this oral tradition was to provide guidelines for all areas of life. If the OT law was silent or too general about a particular subject, the tradition would seek to provide specific applications for diverse situations. The goal was to “build a fence” around the law to protect against its violation. An entire division of the Mishnah is devoted to the question of ceremonial purity (Ṭeharot, “cleannesses”). The rabbis came to view these oral traditions as fully authoritative and even claimed they had been given to Moses by God on Mount Sinai and passed down from one generation to the next (m. ʾAbot 1:1–2).

In v.4, Mark gives an example of the custom. The Greek phrase ap’ agoras (“from the marketplace”) is cryptic and may mean “things bought from the marketplace” or “when they come from the marketplace.” If the former meaning is adopted, the verse would be translated, “They do not eat things bought from the marketplace unless they wash them.” But the NIV and most versions are probably correct, for the verb baptisōntai is in the middle voice and so could mean “wash themselves.” After being in the marketplace and coming into contact with Gentiles or even nonobservant Jews, the Pharisees would wash themselves to ensure their ritual cleanness. By way of further explanation, Mark adds that the Pharisees “observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and [copper] kettles.”

5–8 To the question as to why Jesus’ disciples acted as they did, Jesus answered by quoting a passage from Isaiah, preceded by his own comment: “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites” (v.6). The word “hypocrite” (hypokritēs, GK 5695) originally meant “play actor” and refers here to people whose worship is merely outward and not from the heart. Though the term is common in Matthew (thirteen occurrences), Mark uses it only here. In saying that Isaiah had prophesied about them, Jesus did not mean that Isaiah had in mind the Pharisees and the teachers of the law when he originally wrote these words but that his denunciation of the religious leaders of his day fit those of Jesus’ day. The quotation (Isa 29:13) is from the LXX, which differs slightly from the MT in the last sentence. The MT says “their fear [or reverence] of me consists of commandments taught by men.” The LXX says “vainly they worship me, teaching human commandments and teachings.” Both make essentially the same point—that their traditions and regulations pay mere lip service but show no true heart for God. Their outward appearance of piety is a lie, because it is not accompanied by a “total life commitment to the one who is the true object of religious devotion” (Anderson, 185).

In v.8, Jesus contrasts the “commands of God” with the “traditions of men.” It is clear that this great body of Jewish tradition had failed to get to the heart of God’s commands. It was supposed to fence in the law so that the people would not infringe on it. In practice, however, the Pharisees were abandoning God’s law while holding fast to human traditions.

9 In v.9, Jesus repeats and expands the claim of v.8 by emphasizing that the Pharisaic traditions were even being used to overrule or invalidate God’s commands. The statement is sarcastic and ironic: “You are very good at setting aside God’s command to hold fast to your tradition!” The Pharisees, Jesus says, had turned doing so into an art form.

10–12 Jesus cites here a specific example. The first quotation is from the LXX of Exodus 20:12 (cf. Dt 5:16) and is a statement of the fifth commandment. The second quotation is from the LXX of Exodus 21:16[17]. In the latter the seriousness of the failure to keep the fifth commandment is underscored—death is the penalty for anyone who curses his father or mother (v.10). But by means of the tradition, the responsibility of children to their parents could be easily circumvented (v.11). A son need only declare that what he had intended to give to his father and mother be considered “Corban,” i.e., a gift devoted to God; then it could no longer be designated for his parents. By devoting the gift to God, a son did not necessarily promise it to the temple, nor did he prevent its use for himself. What he did do was legally to exclude his parents from benefiting from it (v.12). So the very purpose for which the fifth commandment was given was set aside by the tradition. This loopholing is what is meant by “nullifying” (akyrountes, GK 218) the word of God (v.13).

13 The phrase “and you do many things like that” parallels Mark’s “and they observe many other traditions” (v.4) and carries the same derogatory tone. It emphasizes that this example is merely one of the many ways in which the true spirit of God’s law is being ignored or arbitrarily dismissed by the Pharisees.

NOTES

2 The word κοινός (koinos, “unclean”) occurs again in v.5—and the verbal form κοινόω (koinoō, GK 3124) in vv.15, 18, 20, 23. It appears to be the theme word for the entire section (vv.1–23). In classical Greek, κοινός, koinos, means “common,” in contrast to ἴδιος (idios, “private”). It sometimes has the classical meaning in the LXX, but in 1 Maccabees 1:47, 62 it has the sense of “ritually unclean,” which is its meaning here in Mark (cf. Ac 10:14, 28; 11:8; Rev 21:27).

There is a lively debate concerning whether or not the Pharisees considered themselves bound by the priestly obligations set out in the law. For different views, see J. Neusner, From Politics to Piety: The Emergence of Pharisaic Judaism (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973) and E. P. Sanders, Judaism.

3 The NIV translates the Greek phrase ἐὰν μὴ πυγμῇ νίψωνται τὰς χεῖρας (ean mē pygmē nipsōntai tas cheiras) as “unless they give their hands a ceremonial washing.” The word πυγμῇ, pygmē, is literally “with a [the] fist,” but the sense is uncertain. It could mean (1) with the clenched fist of one hand rubbing the palm of the other, (2) up to the wrist or elbow, (3) with a handful of water (cupped hand), or something else. The difficulty prompted some copyists to omit it (Δ syrs copsa Diatessaronp) and others to substitute another word that to them made better sense, such as πυκνά (pykna, “often” or “thoroughly”; W itb,1 vg al) or momento (“in a moment,” ita) or primo (“first,” itd; cf. Metzger, 80).

4 Some MSS add “and reclining couches [or ‘beds’]” to the list of things washed. Metzger, 80–81, points out that this phrase may have been added under the influence of the legislation in Leviticus 15 (which discusses uncleanness of a bed caused by semen or menstrual blood) or else omitted accidentally through homoeoteleuton (having the same genitive plural ending as the previous words), or deliberately because the idea of washing beds seemed incongruous.

6 Regarding ὑποκρίτης (hypokritēs, GK 5695, “hypocrite”), “The thought here is probably not so much that the people concerned were consciously acting a part as that there was a radical inconsistency in their lives. . . . If they were themselves deceived as well as deceiving others, their situation was more, not less serious” (Cranfield, 235).

In the rabbinic literature the Hebrew term qorbān (GK 7933) is often used in a formula to set aside something to God, thus rendering it unavailable for human use (m. Ned.; cf. Josephus, Ant. 4.4.4 §§72–73). The term appears to have been used primarily to protect one’s property against use by another. J. A. Fitzmyer (“The Aramaic Qorbān Inscription from Jebel Hallet Et-turi and Mk 7:11/Mt 15:5,” JBL 78 [1959]: 60–65) cites an ossuary inscription of the early first century AD that reads, “All that a man may find to his profit in this ossuary is qorbān to God from him who is within it.” Since the OT forbade the breaking of oaths (Nu 30:2; Dt 23:21–23), the rabbis debated whether a qorbān oath could be broken if it conflicted with other commandments or produced hardship for others. In the case of the fifth commandment, the Mishnah seems to favor the release of the vow for the sake of the parents (m. Ned. 8:1–9:1). Jesus clearly knew of cases in which rabbis took a harder line and gave precedence to the oath.

G. True Defilement (7:14–23)

OVERVIEW

That these verses are closely related to vv.1–13 and represent a continuation of that episode is evident from Jesus’ statement in v.15, which answers the question about ceremonial purity raised by the Pharisees and teachers in v.5. Jesus teaches that defilement does not come from external objects or food but from a person’s attitude of heart.

This passage also has important parallels to Jesus’ teaching in Mark 4. Jesus here “calls the crowd to him” (v.14), just as in ch. 4 “a large crowd” gathered to him (4:1–2). Just as Jesus taught in parables in ch. 4, so here Jesus’ statement about the cause of uncleanness (v.15) is identified as a “parable” (v.17). Jesus also prefaces his statement with a prophetic call to hear (“Listen to me, everyone, and understand this,” v.14), echoing the twin calls to hear that frame the parables in ch. 4 (“If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear,” 4:9, 23). As in 4:10, Jesus here interprets the “parable” privately to his disciples (v.17). Yet strikingly, the spiritual dullness that in 4:11–12 characterizes the “outsiders,” who were blind and deaf to the parables, is here attributed to the disciples (v.18). As noted above, this theme of the disciples’ spiritual insensitivity builds throughout this section of the gospel (6:7–8:26) and will climax in 8:14–21, where the disciples are in grave danger of going the way of the scribes and Pharisees (see Overview, 8:14–21; comments at 8:15).

As France, 277, points out, there is something of an internal tension between this passage and the previous one. There Jesus challenged the human traditions that were being used to manipulate and distort the OT law of God. Here he apparently challenges the OT law itself by openly declaring that food mandated as unclean in the OT (Lev 11; 17) does not in fact defile a person. How can this tension be resolved?

The answer, as always, must be found in the context of Jesus’ proclamation of the kingdom of God and the new age of salvation that is arriving through his words and deeds. Jesus is making two distinct but equally important points: (1) The religious leaders are characterized by hypocrisy and hard-heartedness. While holding fast to their human traditions, they are ignoring the true spirit of God’s commands. They need to repent and turn to God. (2) But there is more going on here than a call to reform Israel’s religious leadership. Jesus is not just patching up old wineskins; he is inaugurating the new age, with new wine and new wineskins (see 2:21–22). This dawning is God’s eschatological salvation. The OT covenant given to Israel is being fulfilled through Jesus’ words and deeds and will be superseded by a new covenant established through his death on the cross (14:24). In this new age, salvation is not the exclusive privilege of Israel but will go forth to all nations and peoples. The dietary laws given to Israel under the old covenant will no longer be mandated for the new-covenant people of God.

Furthermore, as the following episodes will make clear, Mark is doing more in this passage than defending the Christian claim that the OT dietary laws are not binding on believers. He is announcing that Gentiles are no longer to be considered “unclean.” God’s salvation is for all people everywhere.

14Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’”

17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)

20He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”

COMMENTARY

14–15 (16) Jesus has been speaking directly to the Pharisees and the teachers of the law. Now he calls the crowd around him because he wants to make public the crux of his teaching about what is clean.

Jesus states clearly what does and does not make a person unclean (v.15). What is external cannot defile a person. Food, for example, cannot do so—not even if it is eaten with unwashed hands or labeled unclean by kosher food laws. This statement would have startled Jesus’ hearers, since the Jews viewed the OT dietary laws as sacrosanct. Though startling, however, the statement is not out of line with Jesus’ actions elsewhere. He freely eats with tax collectors and sinners in contexts where the food was unlikely to be kosher (cf. 2:16), and he has no qualms about touching a leper (1:41), the corpse of Jairus’s daughter (5:41), or a hemorrhaging woman (5:27–29)—all actions that in Judaism would have rendered him ceremonially unclean (cf. Guelich, 376). Jesus is adamant that such external things do not make a person unclean, but rather those things that come from within, out of the heart and the will—ungodly thoughts, words, desires, and motives.

Verse 16 does not appear in the NIV because, though it is present in the majority of the MSS, it does not occur in the important Alexandrian witnesses. Metzger, 81, writes, “It appears to be a scribal gloss (derived perhaps from 4:9 or 4:23), introduced as an appropriate sequel to ver. 14.”

17–18 After leaving the crowd Jesus enters a house, where the disciples ask him about the meaning of this “parable.” The term here means an aphorism or proverb. (For this broad sense of parable, see Overview, 4:1–34.) Some interpreters have suggested that the house is Peter’s at Capernaum. While it is a possibility—since the noun is without the definite article—no specific house is likely intended.

There is irony in the fact that, although the disciples have spent considerable time with Jesus and belong to the inner circle of his concern, they are slow to grasp the meaning of his teaching. Jesus expressed surprise at this slowness. The Greek conjunction kai could be translated as comparing the disciples to the crowds: “Are you also so dull?” This meaning would be similar to the sense in ch. 4, where Jesus first rebukes the disciples, “Don’t you understand this parable?” but then gives its explanation. Or kai could be translated “Are you indeed so dull,” with the implication, “After all the time I’ve spent with you, do you still not comprehend spiritual truth?”

19 After rebuking the disciples, Jesus continues with his explanation. The reason why nothing entering a person from the outside defiles him is because it enters into the stomach, not the heart, and then is eliminated from the body. And it is in the heart that the true issues of life lie. In Semitic expression the heart is the center of human personality and determines a person’s actions and inaction (cf. Isa 29:13: “These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me”).

In v.19b, Mark explains for his readers with a parenthetic statement the significance of Jesus’ teaching about ceremonial purity. As R. P. Martin (Mark, 220) points out, this statement has its eye on a situation such as those in the Pauline mission churches in which questions of clean and unclean foods (cf. Ac 10:9–16; 11:5–10; see Ro 14:13ff.) and idol meats became live issues (cf. 1Co 8:10). According to Martin, this section in Mark 7 may be the most obvious declaration of Mark’s purpose as a Christian living in the Greco-Roman world who wishes to publicize the charter of Gentile freedom by recording Jesus’ detachment from Jewish ceremonialism and to spell out the application to his readers.

If Peter stands behind Mark’s gospel, these words are particularly apropos in the light of Acts 10:15, where God directly reveals to Peter that he should call nothing impure that God has pronounced clean. It is also significant that just as the unclean animals in Peter’s vision symbolize the Gentiles, so Mark is developing this theme in relation to the subsequent stories of Jesus’ encounters with Gentiles.

20–23 The introduction to v.20 (elegen de hoti) could be understood as either direct discourse (“and he was saying . . .”) or indirect discourse (“and he was saying that . . .”). Some commentators opt for the latter and suggest that what follows is Mark’s further interpretation (cf. v.19b) or explanation of Jesus’ teaching in vv.15–19a. The catechistical structure of vv.19b–23 may perhaps lend support to this possibility, but it is far from certain or necessary. Even if it is Mark’s interpretation, it is not inconsistent with Jesus’ teaching in vv.15–19a.

The main force of the passage is the same as in v.15b, which, in fact, is repeated in v.20. The source of uncleanness in anyone is the heart (v.21), for it is there that the true issues of life lie. The list of vices that follows is unique among the sayings of Jesus (Taylor, 345) but has many parallels elsewhere in the NT (Ro 1:29–31; 1Co 5:10–11; 2Co 2:20–21; Gal 5:19–21; Col 3:5–8; 1Ti 1:9–12; 2Ti 3:2–5; cf. 1Pe 4:3, 15). There are also many parallels in Judaism (1QS 4.9–11) and in Greco-Roman philosophical traditions (see Marcus, 459). The list is difficult to classify; it seems to move from overt sins to sinful attitudes or dispositions. “Evil thoughts” stand first, which suggests that what follows arises from them. Porneia (GK 4518, “sexual immorality”) is a broader term than moicheia (GK 3657, “adultery”), for porneia describes illegitimate sexual relations generally, while adultery is limited to (always illicit) sex outside one’s marriage. Aselgeia (GK 816, “lewdness”) suggests open and shameless immorality. Pleonexiai (GK 4432, “greed,” v.22) may have sexual overtones, since it is frequently associated (as here) with words indicating sexual sins (e.g., Eph 4:19; 5:3; Col 3:5; 2Pe 2:3). Ophthalmos ponēros (GK 4505, “envy”) is literally “evil eye,” a Semitic term for “stinginess” (cf. Dt 15:9; Sir 14:10; 31:13) or, perhaps better, “envious jealousy.” Blasphēmia (GK 1060, “slander”) includes speaking evil of either God or human beings. Aphrosynē (GK 932) means “foolish” in the sense found in OT Wisdom literature, where the fool is not someone who is intellectually deficient but rather one with low moral and ethical standards who ignores God’s authority.

NOTES

15 This saying appears both in Matthew’s parallel and also in the Gospel of Thomas (14).

Rawlinson, 96, tones down this statement of Jesus by arguing that since the Hebrew and Aramaic know no comparative degree, what Jesus is saying is that “pollutions from within are more serious than pollutions from without.” But this interpretation fails to see the revolutionary nature of Jesus’ teaching concerning the law.

17 Here, as in 9:28, 33 and 10:10, the place where Jesus reveals the true meaning of his teaching is in a “house.”

19 The Greek here is a very earthy expression that points out that food enters the stomach and then goes “into the latrine” (εἰς τὸν ἀφεδρῶνα, eis ton aphedrōna).

H. The Faith of the Syrophoenician Woman (7:24–30)

OVERVIEW

Why does Mark place this incident here? As noted above, it follows naturally the preceding incidents in which Jesus breaks with the Jewish oral law and particularly the law of ceremonial cleanness. Jews normally had no relationship with Gentiles because associations with them made Jews ritually unclean. Jesus now shows by example that those oral laws are invalid and deliberately associates himself with a Gentile woman.

A related purpose is to emphasize the mission to the Gentiles. The gospel of the kingdom is not limited to Israel, even though historically it came to her first (cf. v.27). Mark regards this story of the Syrophoenician woman as a natural consequence of Jesus’ attitude toward the ceremonial law (vv.1–23); and by including it here, Mark wants to assure his Gentile readers that the “good news” is for them, as it was for the Syrophoenician woman.

The relationship established here between unclean foods (vv.1–23) and God’s acceptance of a Gentile (vv.24–30) parallels Acts 10–11, where Peter’s vision of unclean animals prepares him for the conversion of the Gentile centurion Cornelius.

24Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre. He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. 25In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an evil spirit came and fell at his feet. 26The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

27“First let the children eat all they want,” he told her, “for it is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.”

28“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs.”

29Then he told her, “For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.”

30She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone.

COMMENTARY

24 “Left that place” translates ekeithen (“from there”) and may refer to the house (v.17) or to Gennesaret (6:53). As in the account of the Gerasene demoniac (5:1–20), Jesus leaves Jewish territory and enters a Gentile region. Phoenicia (now Lebanon), in which the city of Tyre was located, bordered Galilee to the northwest. Why Jesus went there or how far he penetrated into this territory we are not told. Mark usually leaves such details up to the imagination of the reader. Apparently, Jesus did not go there for public ministry. He went into a house “and did not want anyone to know it.” This comment suggests that he went there to get out of the public eye, perhaps to rest and to prepare himself spiritually for what he knew lay ahead of him. But his hope for a time of quiet retirement was thwarted. His fame had apparently spread beyond the borders of Galilee into the territory of Phoenicia, and “he could not keep his presence secret.” The insistent pursuit by the needy crowds despite Jesus’ attempt at retreat has become a common theme in Mark (1:32–38, 45; 2:1–2; 3:7–13; 6:31–34). Mark uses this theme to display Jesus’ extraordinary popularity and also to highlight the priorities of his ministry—proclaiming the kingdom and training his disciples.

25–26 One of the persons who sought out Jesus was a Gentile woman. No doubt she had heard about his healing powers and came to him because her daughter was possessed by a demon (v.25). Mark says that the woman was “a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia” (v.26). By nationality the woman was a Syrophoenician, thus not an ethnic Greek. “Greek” may instead be equivalent here to “Gentile” (as distinct from Jew). Paul often uses the term in this sense (Ro 1:16; 2:9–10; 3:9; 10:12; 1Co 12:13; Gal 3:28). Or the term may mean Greek as opposed to Aramaic speaking. In those days Phoenicia belonged administratively to Syria. So Mark probably used Syrophoenician to distinguish this woman from the Libyo-Phoenicians of North Africa.

Mark’s description of the daughter’s possession by an “unclean spirit” (pneuma akatharton; cf. 1:23, 26; 3:30; 5:2, 8; 7:25; 9:25) reiterates the theme of impurity found in the previous episode. From external appearances, the woman has everything going against her. She is a Gentile, a woman, and her daughter is possessed by a defiling spirit—all of which factors would render her off-limits for close contact with a Jewish rabbi such as Jesus. Again, Mark shows Jesus as breaking down the traditional Jewish boundaries of impurity and exclusivity.

27–28 Jesus’ conversation with this woman was likely in Greek, not Aramaic. There is no reason why Jesus, raised in Galilee, would not have known Greek. In the villages and towns of Palestine, he would ordinarily have used Aramaic. But in the coastal cities of the Gentiles, he would have spoken Greek.

At first sight Jesus’ reply appears offensive and ethnocentric. He draws a sharp contrast between the “children” of the household—representing Israel—and the “dogs”—representing the Gentiles. The identification of Israel as God’s children was a common metaphor in the OT and Judaism (Ex 4:22–23; Dt 14:1; Isa 1:2; 44:2; Jer 3:19; Hos 11:1; m. ʾAbot 3:15; Ro 9:4). Jews did not view dogs as loving pets but as detestable scavengers (1Ki 14:11; 21:19–24; Isa 56:10–11; Ps 22:16; m. Kil. 8:6), and the term came to be used in a derogatory sense for Gentiles (1 En. 89:42–49; cf. Php 3:2; Rev 22:15).

Two factors may help to mute the severity of Jesus’ statement. First, he does not deny that the dogs (= Gentiles) will get some food but only that the children (= Israel) must be fed first. The parallel in Matthew is much stronger. It drops the reference to “first” and emphasizes that Jesus was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Mt 15:24, 26). Second, the term for dog here is not the usual Greek kyōn but the diminutive kynarion. Some commentators claim Jesus is referring to “puppies” or household pets rather than to scavengers (Lane, 262; cf. D. Rhoads, Reading Mark [Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004], 78). There may be some truth to this idea, since in the woman’s reply these dogs are pictured under the table rather than in the street (v.28). But in Koine Greek the force of the diminutive had considerably weakened, and Mark commonly uses such forms with little diminutive sense. While Jesus probably has in mind small domesticated dogs rather than wild scavenger dogs, the statement can hardly be viewed as a compliment. These animals are not cuddly puppies being pampered like family members; rather, they are scrap eaters hanging around the garbage. The most that can be said is that Jesus softens what could have been an even more derogatory insult.

It is better to resolve the tension in the passage by recognizing that Jesus is being intentionally provocative in order to elicit the correct response from the woman. He is testing her to see whether she will claim what is rightfully hers, namely, the opportunity to receive God’s blessings in the new age of salvation. As France, 296, points out, misunderstandings of the passage arise from not reading it through to the end, where the encounter builds to a wholly positive conclusion (vv.29–30). Jesus “appears like the wise teacher who allows, and indeed incites, his pupil to mount a victorious argument against the foil of his own reluctance.”

The term “first” (prōton) in the phrase “First let the children eat” carries eschatological and salvation-historical significance similar to Paul’s conclusion in Romans 1:16: “first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles” (cf. Marcus, 463). The Jews have both temporal and theological priority in God’s plan of salvation, since “theirs is the adoption; theirs the divine glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises” (Ro 9:4). Yet the day was coming when Gentiles, too, would participate fully in the blessings of salvation. R. P. Martin (Mark, 222) correctly identifies prōton as indicating “the passing of the exclusive privilege of Israel. The period immediately following the birth of the Jerusalem church saw the time of Israel’s opportunity when the children ‘first’ would be fed.” Later, provision would be made for Gentiles. So far as this woman was concerned, the “later” time had already come, because Jesus responded compassionately to her needs.

28 The woman’s reply is remarkable. It is humble and respectful, yet assertive and insightful. She addresses Jesus as “Lord” (kyrie, GK 3261)—the only time Jesus is so addressed in Mark. Though in the context the term is simply one of respect for Jesus’ position (“sir”), for Mark’s readers it would echo their worship of Jesus as sovereign Lord. The woman acknowledges that Jesus has spoken the truth concerning the priority of salvation for the Jews (“Yes, Lord”), and even humbly accepts the designation “dogs.” Yet she refuses to accept that her position means total exclusion from God’s banquet table. Even the dogs get fed in time. Without denying Jesus’ assertion, she contends that God’s salvation-historical purpose must also include the Gentiles.

29 Jesus was pleased with the woman’s reply. It revealed her humility, persistent faith, and spiritual insight. He responds that “for such a reply” her daughter had been healed and the demon had departed. This phrase could mean “with this answer you have changed my mind,” but more likely it means “with this answer you have passed the test.” The point of the story is not that Jesus is suddenly persuaded that Gentiles should receive God’s salvation blessings; rather (as in the previous episode), he is indirectly teaching something about the nature of the kingdom of God. When Jesus expresses the common view of his countrymen (“we Jews are the recipients of God’s blessings; you Gentiles are mere dogs”), he is verbally challenged and outmaneuvered by a Gentile woman! Marcus, 470, notes that this occasion is the only one in the Gospels on which Jesus loses an argument to someone. The point, of course, is that Jesus wins by losing. By accepting the woman’s superior argument, he allows this “outsider” to express a fundamental truth of the gospel: In the kingdom age, salvation will be for all who respond in faith, regardless of ethnic identity.

30 The woman returned home and discovered the truth of what Jesus had said. Here is the only instance of healing at a distance found in Mark’s gospel. She found her daughter lying on the bed (perhaps as the result of the final convulsion of the demon as it came out of her; cf. 9:26), and the demon gone.

NOTES

26 On Jesus’ ability to speak Greek, see S. E. Porter, “Jesus and the Use of Greek in Palestine,” in Studying the Historical Jesus, ed. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994), 123–54.

27 The term “daughter” appears in both diminutive (θυγάτριον, thygatrion, v.25) and nondiminutive (θυγατρός, thygatros, v.26) forms in the passage, and two different terms for children, one diminutive (παιδίον, paidion, vv.28, 30) and one nondiminutive (τέκνα, tekna, v.27) are also used (cf. the diminutive ψιχία, psichia, v.28), thus raising doubt as to whether κυναρίον (kynarion) carries any special diminutive force.

I. Healing a Deaf and Mute Man (7:31–37)

OVERVIEW

None of the other evangelists record this story. Mark includes it here because it gives an account of another healing in Gentile territory, thus connecting it with the episodes that precede and follow. As in the accounts of the Gerasene demoniac (5:1–20) and the Syrophoenician woman (7:24–30), Jesus enters a Gentile region, where he performs a healing in confirmation that God’s eschatological salvation is for Gentiles as well as Jews. There are also significant parallels to the healing of the blind man at Bethsaida, the account of which follows in 8:22–26. In both episodes Jesus is approached by the man’s friends, takes him off alone to be healed, touches the organ to be healed (ears and tongue in one case; eyes in the other), heals using spittle, and seeks to keep the miracle quiet afterward. Though Mark does not explicitly say so, both miracles seem intended to confirm that Jesus is accomplishing the eschatological signs of messianic salvation predicted by Isaiah the prophet: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped” (Isa 35:5; see comments at v.32 below).

31Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis. 32There some people brought to him a man who was deaf and could hardly talk, and they begged him to place his hand on the man.

33After he took him aside, away from the crowd, Jesus put his fingers into the man’s ears. Then he spit and touched the man’s tongue. 34He looked up to heaven and with a deep sigh said to him, “Ephphatha!” (which means, “Be opened!”). 35At this, the man’s ears were opened, his tongue was loosened and he began to speak plainly.

36Jesus commanded them not to tell anyone. But the more he did so, the more they kept talking about it. 37People were overwhelmed with amazement. “He has done everything well,” they said. “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak.”

COMMENTARY

31 The geographic references introducing the passage are difficult, and some commentators have accused Mark of a deficient knowledge of Palestinian geography. Jesus journeys northward from Tyre through Sidon, then apparently in a southeasterly direction through the territory of Herod Philip, to the eastern side of the Sea of Galilee and into the territory of the Decapolis. The textual tradition indicates that the copyists had problems with this circuitous journey (see Notes). From a historical perspective, the journey is certainly not geographically impossible, especially since Mark is not giving a day-by-day itinerary but simply a general summary of places Jesus visited. From a narrative and theological perspective, Mark presents Jesus as expanding his ministry to the Gentile regions surrounding Galilee. The Decapolis (the territory of the ten Greek cities; see comments at 5:20) was largely Gentile, but there were also a significant number of Jews living there.

32 Mark says that the man brought to Jesus was “deaf and could hardly talk” (NLT, “a deaf man with a speech impediment”). The term translated “deaf” (kōphos) can mean deaf, mute, or both (cf. BDAG, 580). Mark clarifies with the adjective mogilalos (GK 3652), a rare word that means either “unable to speak” or “could speak only with difficulty.” The latter is probably meant, since after the cure he is able to speak “plainly” (orthōs). The description appears to be the common situation in which deafness results in poor or unintelligible speech.

The word mogilalos appears only here in the NT and only once in the Greek OT (LXX), in a context of great importance to the meaning of this story. Mark almost certainly has in mind Isaiah 35:6, a poetic description of the messianic age: “Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb [mogilalos] shout for joy.” Later rabbis understood this text as fulfilled in the age of the Messiah (Gen. Rab. 95; Midrash Tehillim 146.8). By using this rare word, Mark echoes this OT passage and places the miracle in an eschatological context. Jesus’ healings are the Isaianic signs of messianic salvation, evidence of the coming of the kingdom of God.

The people brought the deaf and mute man to Jesus and begged him to lay his hands on the man. Although the text does not explicitly say so, they obviously wanted Jesus to heal him. “They begged” (parakaleō, GK 4151) shows their concern for him, and Jesus responds. The mute man could make no intelligible request for himself.

33 Jesus “took him aside, away from the crowd.” The primary purpose for this seems to have been to keep the miracle a secret, since Jesus commands silence in v.36. It may also have been to deal more personally with the man. Mark often emphasizes Jesus’ personal contact with the people he heals.

Mark describes Jesus’ healing technique in greater detail than usual. While Jesus often heals in Mark with touch (1:31, 41; 5:23; 6:5; 8:25), only here and in 8:23, 25 does he touch the organs affected. Hull (Hellenistic Magic, 83) suggests that Jesus puts his fingers into the man’s ears to create a passage out for an evil spirit causing the deafness, but the account contains no reference to demon-possession. More likely, Jesus is symbolically unblocking the ears. Mark does not say where Jesus spat, but it was probably into his hand before touching the man’s tongue with a moistened finger. The use of saliva for healing is unusual in the Gospels (only here, in 8:23, and in Jn 9:6) but was common and highly regarded in the ancient world among both Jews and Gentiles (see Gundry, 389; Hull, 76–78). Especially prized was the spittle of powerful and famous people. The Roman historian Tacitus (Hist. 4:81) tells the story of a blind man who was healed by the saliva of the emperor Vespasian (cf. Suetonius, Vesp. 7). Evidently saliva was viewed as containing the life force of the person and so conveying their power to others.

Modern Christians often struggle with Jesus’ technique here. If magical, it seems out of touch with Jesus’ other miracles, where he heals not with rituals and incantations but in the power of the Spirit and from his own authority as Messiah and agent of the kingdom of God. If medicinal, it seems equally inappropriate as primitive and unscientific. Yet we must not force twenty-first-century expectations onto a first-century event. Whether Jesus viewed his technique as merely symbolic or truly efficacious cannot be determined from the text. What is clear is that Jesus’ actions were intended to provoke faith in a tangible and meaningful way. Calvin, 2:271–72, comments:

The laying on of hands would of itself have been sufficiently efficacious, and even, without moving a finger, he might have accomplished it by a single act of his will, but it is evident that he made abundant use of outward signs, when they were found to be advantageous. Thus, by touching the tongue with spittle, he intended to point out that the faculty of speech was communicated by himself alone; and by putting his fingers into the ears, he showed that it belonged to his office to pierce the ears of the deaf.

34 Jesus’ looking up to heaven is best understood as an attitude of prayer (cf. Jn 11:41; 17:1), and perhaps it was also a way of showing the man that God was the source of his power. The “deep sigh” could be (1) part of the healing technique (so Marcus, 474; Gundry, 383–84); (2) an indication of Jesus’ deep emotional involvement (so France, 234); (3) Jesus’ heartache over the ravages of disease (so Witherington, 234); or (4) a sign of heartfelt prayer. This last suggestion is the most likely, since the phrase is closely linked with looking up into heaven. Van der Loos (Miracles of Jesus, 327) writes that it was “the ‘sighing’ of the prayer, the sighing that accompanied the concealed communion of Jesus with the Father. If this looking up and sighing had been permanent technical aspects of the modus operandi of Jesus, we should definitely find references to them in early Christianity, but what we find there is that it is repeatedly stated that healing was simply performed only ‘in the name of Jesus’!”

The healing itself comes not through any technique but through the authoritative command of Jesus: “Ephphatha!” According to his custom, Mark explains the meaning of this Aramaic word to his readers: “Be opened!” Jesus’ use of Aramaic is not surprising here, since the Gentiles of Decapolis spoke a dialect of Aramaic (as well as Greek). It is also possible that the man was a Jew. But why does Mark record the Aramaic word in this particular case? There is no indication from the text that the utterance is a magical formula of any kind; rather, as in 5:41, the profound nature of the healing no doubt left an impression on those present, and the actual word that Jesus uttered was remembered and passed down as the climax to the story.

35 The effect of the command was instantaneous. The man’s ears were opened, his tongue loosed, and he spoke “plainly” (orthōs). As noted above, his doing so implies he had not been completely mute but instead had a speech impediment that resulted from the deafness (v.32).

36 Jesus again ordered the crowd not to divulge the miracle, but this command produced no effect at all. The more he insisted on their not talking about it, the more they blazed the miracle abroad. Both themes have become commonplace in Mark: Jesus’ command for silence (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:37, 43) and the failure of people to obey it (1:45; 2:1–2; 3:7–12; 6:33). What is unusual here is that earlier in this same region of the Decapolis Jesus had encouraged the Gerasene demoniac to proclaim to others what had happened to him (5:19–20). Why the change? Mark does not say, although 7:24 may give us a clue, since there we learn that Jesus’ fame had spread even to the Gentile regions around Tyre. The same was likely true of the Decapolis. While in an earlier period Jesus could safely tell the healed man to proclaim far and wide what happened to him, safety in doing so was no longer possible—even in a Gentile region. As elsewhere in the gospel, Jesus’ reasons for enjoining silence are probably twofold. First, Jesus wants to define his messiahship on his own terms rather than through the expectations of others. Second, Jesus recognizes that exuberant messianic expectations among the crowds could touch off a messianic insurrection and so hinder the essential purpose of his ministry: to proclaim the kingdom of God and accomplish his God-appointed mission.

37 Another result of the healing was that the people were “overwhelmed” (hyperperissōs, a true hapax legomenon [a word occurring only once in Greek literature] that means “beyond measure,” “in the extreme”). The statement “he has done everything well” reminds us of Genesis 1:31: “God saw all that he made, and it was very good.” The reminder is not unsuitable, for in a profound sense Jesus’ work is indeed “a new creation.” The last sentence, “He even makes the deaf hear and the mute speak,” again recalls the messianic significance of this miracle with words that reflect Isaiah 35:5–6 (already anticipated by the use of mogilalos in v.32):

Then will the eyes of the blind be opened

and the ears of the deaf unstopped.

Then will the lame leap like a deer,

and the mute tongue shout for joy.

There can be no doubt that for Mark the significance of this miracle was the proclamation of the gospel in the territory of the Gentiles, a sign of the messianic activity of Jesus.

NOTES

31 The best representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western texts, in addition to important Caesarean witnesses, support the reading ἦλθεν διὰ Σιδῶνος (ēlthen dia Sidōnos, “he went through Sidon”). This reading indicates that Jesus took a circuitous route by traveling from Tyre north through Sidon, then southeast across the Leontes, south past Caesarea Philippi to the east of the Jordan River, into the territory of the Decapolis to the east of Lake Galilee. The alternative reading καὶ Σιδῶνος ἦλθεν (kai Sidōnos ēlthen, “and he went to Sidon”) arose because copyists either had difficulty with Mark’s geography and deliberately changed the text, or they, being influenced by the well-known expression “Tyre and Sidon,” introduced it accidentally (cf. Metzger, 82).

J. Feeding the Four Thousand (8:1–10)

OVERVIEW

The theme of Jesus’ ministry in Gentile territory continues with the account of the feeding of four thousand people. Though there is no explicit identification of the crowd here as Gentile, the location of the miracle in Decapolis, the episodes concerning Gentiles that precede it, or the parallel with the feeding of five thousand (Jews) in ch. 6, all these features suggest a Gentile milieu for this miracle. Further, Jesus has already confirmed to the Syrophoenician woman that the Gentile “dogs” would receive their share of the “bread” after the Jewish “children” have received theirs (6:27–29). Some commentators suggest that the numbers involved also point in this direction. The numbers five and twelve associated with the first feeding could be seen as “Jewish numbers,” representing the five books of Moses and the twelve tribes of Israel. The number seven (loaves/baskets) in the second feeding could perhaps relate to the seventy Gentile nations in Genesis 10 or to the seven commandments in the Noahic covenant (Ge 9:4–6; cf. Witherington, 236). Though this last analogy is tenuous at best, the cumulative evidence comprises a credible case that Mark is intentionally developing the theme of the expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles.

Lane, 269, points to another literary pattern that seems to be at work in Mark’s narrative, namely, a structural parallel between the sections 6:31–7:37 and 8:1–30:

6:31–44

Feeding the Multitude

8:1–9

6:45–56

Crossing the Sea and Landing

8:10

7:1–23

Conflict with the Pharisees

8:11–13

7:24–30

Conversation about Bread

8:13–21

7:31–36

Healing

8:22–26

7:37

Confession of Faith

8:27–30

The motif behind this structure seems to be spiritual understanding—or lack of it. Jesus sounds a call to spiritual understanding in 7:14–18, but after each feeding miracle the disciples fail to understand (6:52; 8:14–21). The miracles of healing—the opening of the ears of the deaf man (7:31–36) and the eyes of the blind man (8:22–26)—are symbolic of and prepare the way for the opening of the spiritual understanding of the disciples.

The striking similarity between this feeding miracle and the one in 6:34–44 raises the question of whether, historically, one or two feedings took place. The majority of scholars believe that only one happened, and they take 8:1–9 as a “doublet” of 6:34–44. Doublets are two versions of the same event that, in the history of transmission, came to be treated as two separate events. Matthew in particular has a number of stories commonly treated as doublets (Mt 9:27–31 = 20:29–34; 9:32–34 = 12:22–24; 12:38–39 = 16:1–4). In Mark, by contrast, this episode is the only one that may fit this category. The strongest argument for a doublet here is the disciples’ apparent failure to remember the first feeding (see comments at v.4 below).

If the passage is indeed a doublet, there are two options as to its origin: either (1) a single story developed into two in the pre-Markan tradition, or (2) Mark himself duplicated the story in order to provide a Gentile feeding to balance his earlier Jewish one. Neither of these possibilities seems likely. Against the first is the fact that the differences in the two stories run counter to the normal pattern of oral transmission. As stories are passed down by word of mouth, central features tend to stay the same, while details of the story line vary. In the feeding miracles we see exactly the opposite. The central features that are emphasized—the number fed, the meager portions utilized, and the baskets left over—are all different, while the general story line remains the same (cf. France, 306).

The second option remains: Mark has intentionally rewritten the feeding of the five thousand and changed the numbers. But his having done so also seems unlikely. The episode contains a number of non-Markan words and grammatical forms, so suggesting he has taken it from the tradition rather than written it himself (cf. Guelich, 402). As noted above, nowhere else do we find evidence of doublets in Mark. While Mark’s redactional hand is certainly evident in the way he edits traditional material to suit his narrative purpose, there is no evidence for his wholesale creation of events. Furthermore, Mark intentionally highlights the fact of two separate events, first by narrating both feedings and then by having Jesus explicitly refer to two distinct miracles (8:18–21).

The accounts certainly are similar. Yet their differences suggest that on two different occasions Jesus fed a multitude. For a more detailed discussion and defense of two separate feedings, see Gundry, 398–401.

1During those days another large crowd gathered. Since they had nothing to eat, Jesus called his disciples to him and said, 2“I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. 3If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way, because some of them have come a long distance.”

4His disciples answered, “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?”

5“How many loaves do you have?” Jesus asked. “Seven,” they replied.

6He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. When he had taken the seven loaves and given thanks, he broke them and gave them to his disciples to set before the people, and they did so. 7They had a few small fish as well; he gave thanks for them also and told the disciples to distribute them. 8The people ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. 9About four thousand men were present. And having sent them away, 10he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the region of Dalmanutha.

COMMENTARY

1 “During those days” probably connects this incident with the preceding one (7:31–37). The point seems to be that Jesus remained in the Decapolis, on the eastern side of Lake Galilee, and hence in Gentile territory. The presence of a large crowd is implied. They had been with Jesus for three days, while probably receiving instruction from him. Taylor, 358, points out that “the reference to ‘three days’ is peculiar to the narrative, distinguishing it from 6:35–44, in which the crossing, the meal, and the recrossing all take place on the same day.”

2–3 Jesus, not the disciples (as in 6:35–36), recognized the physical needs of the crowds. He was moved with compassion for them because they had had nothing to eat for three days. Another difference in this account is that Jesus immediately dismisses the idea that the crowd should be sent away for food (“If I send them home hungry, they will collapse on the way” [v.3]), whereas in 6:36 the disciples definitely ask him to send them away.

The comment that some of the people had come from “afar” (makrothen; NIV, “a long distance”) may be another indication of a Gentile theme, since this term is used in the LXX of Gentile lands (Jos 9:6; Isa 60:4; Jer 46:27). Similar terminology appears in the NT (cf. makran in Ac 2:39; 22:21; Eph 2:11–12; see F. Danker, “Mark 8:7,” JBL 83 [1963]: 215; Guelich, 404; Hurtado, 109–10).

4 The disciples’ reply seems to indicate that they had completely forgotten the feeding of the five thousand, which is perhaps the strongest argument against the view that there were two separate feedings. But the argument is not as strong as it appears. Several things may be said in rebuttal to it (cf. Cranfield, 205): (1) A considerable period of time may have elapsed between the two events. (2) Even mature believers (which the disciples were not!), having experienced God’s power and provision, have subsequently acted in unbelief. (3) The reluctance of Jesus to perform miracles must have so impressed itself on the disciples that they did not expect to meet every crisis in that fashion. (4) Some allowance must be made for the assimilation of the language of the two accounts because of their repeated use in teaching and worship. (5) The disciples’ answer here is put in terms of the difficulty of finding enough food for such a huge crowd rather than sending them away to get their own, as in 6:36.

5–7 Only seven loaves were available to feed the crowd. Again the details differ from the account in ch. 6. There is no ordering of the people into groups of hundreds and fifties. They are simply asked to sit on the ground where they are (v.6). The narrative appears to downplay the fish (not mentioned until v.7), perhaps to highlight the eucharistic-sounding language of v.6 (cf. Lk 22:19; 1Co 11:24). They are merely “a few small fish” and are served as a second course in v.7. Jesus gives thanks separately for the bread and the fish, and after each prayer the disciples distribute the food to the people. The NIV does not distinguish between eucharisteō (“give thanks,” v.6) and eulogeō (“bless,” v.7); it translates both as “give thanks.” The difficulty copyists had with the idea of Jesus’ “blessing” the fish is reflected by the variant eucharistēsas (“having given thanks”) in v.7 and by the omission of auta (“them,” referring to the fish) in the same verse. Normally in Jewish tradition the blessing accompanied the breaking of the bread, not the main course, and it was God, not the food, who was blessed (Guelich, 406–7). Mark, treating eucharisteō and eulogeō as essentially synonymous, probably alternated between them for purely stylistic reasons and assumed his predominantly Gentile readers would not be concerned with a departure from traditional Jewish blessing formulas.

8 As always, Jesus’ provision was sufficient—“the people ate and were satisfied.” But it was also more than sufficient. Seven basketfuls of leftovers (of which there were twelve in ch. 6) were collected by the disciples. The number seven could indicate “completeness” or may simply reflect the original seven loaves. The use of spyris for “basket” here instead of kophinos (6:43) may also suggest two different occasions. A spyris is a large basket—Paul was lowered from the wall of Damascus in one (Ac 9:25)—whereas a kophinos is a wicker basket in which Jews ordinarily carried their food or possessions when journeying. This again may be part of a Jew/Gentile distinction in the two feedings miracles, since a spyris is a more general term, while the kophinos was associated especially with the Jews (see comments at 6:43).

9–10 Again the details are different. The crowd numbered “about four thousand.” In the previous feeding, Mark specifically refers to five thousand “men” (andres). Here no gender is specified (the parallel in Mt 15:38 refers to “ . . . men, besides women and children”). Jesus got into the boat with his disciples (v.10). In the previous feeding he had the disciples get into the boat and go to Bethsaida, while he stayed back to dismiss the crowd.

The identity of Dalmanutha is unknown, and this reference to it is unique in ancient literature. Matthew (15:39) says Jesus went to the “vicinity of Magadan,” which is also unknown, but the name may be a variant form of “Magdala,” a town on the northwestern shore of Lake Galilee. (Some MSS of Matthew read Magdala.) Dalmanutha and Magadan may have been names for the same place, or two places located near each other, both on the western shore of the lake.

K. Requesting a Sign from Heaven (8:11–13)

OVERVIEW

This paragraph at first sight seems puzzling and abrupt. “Jesus crosses the sea, exchanges three sentences with the Pharisees, then immediately crosses back” (Marcus, 502). Yet Mark has an important reason for placing it here. Structurally, the passage forms a parallel in this section (8:1–30) with 7:1–23 in the previous section (6:31–7:37; see Overview, 8:1–10). Both incidents relate to conflict with the Pharisees. Mark’s purpose seems to be twofold. First, the passage represents a reiteration and climax of Jesus’ conflicts with the Pharisees in the first half of his gospel (2:16, 18, 24; 3:6; 7:1, 5). Throughout these chapters the Pharisees have repeatedly appeared as Jesus’ intractable opponents by challenging his authority and questioning his adherence to the law. In presenting Jesus as refusing to give them a sign (v.12) and then decisively “leaving” them (v.13), Mark brings to narrative climax Jesus’ Galilean engagement with the Pharisees. Until his entrance in Jerusalem and the controversies that follow, he will concentrate almost exclusively on his disciples (except in 10:2). In this regard the passage reminds the reader of 3:22–30, where Jesus accuses the Pharisees of blaspheming the Holy Spirit and then treats them as “outsiders” through his teaching in parables (4:11). With a new pronouncement of judgment (“no sign will be given,” v.12), Jesus decisively turns away from the Pharisees.

Mark’s second purpose is to draw a comparison and contrast with the disciples. This passage sets the stage for the next, where Jesus will warn the disciples of the spiritual blindness and deafness that come with the “yeast of the Pharisees” (vv.14–21). In the episodes that follow, the disciples will demonstrate pride and spiritual dullness and teeter on the brink of failure. The reappearance of the Pharisees here reminds the reader that there are two paths the disciples may take: the obedient and suffering way of the kingdom pursued by Jesus, or the way of rejection and spiritual blindness taken by the Pharisees.

11The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign? I tell you the truth, no sign will be given to it.” 13Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.

COMMENTARY

11 When Jesus lands in Dalmanutha (v.10) the Pharisees come out “to question” him (v.11). The verb syzēteō (GK 5184) can mean “ask,” in a neutral sense (1:27; 9:10), but is more often used in Mark in the negative sense of disputing (cf. 11:18; 12:12; 14:1)—clearly the sense here. The request for a sign was not sincere but was posed to “test” him (peirazō, GK 4279). The same word will be used in 10:2 and 12:15 of attempts to discredit Jesus with difficult questions.

The test here was for Jesus to produce a “sign [sēmeion, GK 4956] from heaven.” This sign is unlikely to be simply a miracle (as commonly in John’s gospel), since signs in Mark generally differ from “wonders” or “miracles” (dynameis; cf. Guelich, 413). Furthermore, considering Jesus’ reputation as a miracle worker—repeatedly stressed throughout Mark—the Pharisees are unlikely to have denied that he had performed miracles. In 3:22 they acknowledge his exorcisms but attribute them to Satan. More likely the Pharisees are asking for “outward compelling proof of divine authority” (Cranfield, 257), confirmation that his authority and actions were from God—the more common OT and Jewish understanding of “sign” (Dt 13:1–2; 1Sa 2:30–33; 10:1–8; Isa 7:10–14; b. Sanh. 98a). The qualification “from heaven” could mean some kind of apocalyptic display in the sky, such as that of Mark 13:24–25 (cf. 4 Ezra 5:4; 7:39), but more likely is a periphrasis for “from God.” The demand, therefore, is that Jesus would provide confirmatory proof that his authority is from God.

12 Jesus responded to their request by “sighing deeply.” The word anastenazō, found only here in the NT, likely describes Jesus’ grief and disappointment when faced with the unbelief of those who, because of their spiritual privileges, ought to have been more responsive to him (cf. Taylor, 362; Lane, 277). There is a note of impatience in Jesus’ question, “Why does this generation ask for a miraculous sign?” The designation “this generation” (hē genea hautē) likely carries a pejorative sense (cf. 8:38; 9:19), recalling the sinful generation of the flood and the wilderness (Ge 7:1; Ps 95:10–11; Dt 1:35; 32:5, 20; cf. E. Lövestam, Jesus and “This Generation” [ConBNT 25; Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1995], 24–26; Marcus, 501; Moloney, 158). The wilderness recollection is more important here, especially in the light of the Mosaic and wilderness associations of the feeding miracles. Marcus, 504, writes, “Like the evil generation, which perished in the wilderness and never attained the promised land, the Pharisees and their followers will not receive what they request.”

The second sentence of this verse is a particularly strong statement by Jesus. It is introduced by the solemn asseveration “I tell you the truth” (amēn legō hymin), which has occurred only once earlier in Mark (3:28). The pronouncement itself—translated by the NIV as “no sign will be given to it”—reads literally, “if a sign will be given to this generation.” The phrase represents in Greek an abbreviated version of the Hebrew idiom of self-imprecation: “If such a thing should occur . . . may I die!” or “ . . . may I be cursed!”; cf. Taylor, 136; Guelich, 415). The apodosis of the conditional clause (“ . . . may I die!”) is missing. Thus Jesus, with deep feeling and with an oath, flatly refuses to give any sign.

As to the reason for Jesus’ refusal, R. P. Martin (Mark, 174) cogently observes: “For Mark and Paul the answer to this wrongful insistence is the same. There is no legitimating sign—save the ambiguity of the humiliated and crucified Lord; and to see in his cross the power and wisdom of God is to be shut up to the exercise of faith, which by definition can never rest in proofs or signs, or else its character would be lost.” This teaching of Jesus was doubtless what the persecuted church of Mark’s day needed to hear.

13 Having so emphatically made his point, Jesus left the Pharisees, got into the boat, and, with his disciples (cf. v.14), crossed over to the eastern side of the lake.

NOTES

11 On the significance of “signs” in the OT and Judaism, see TDNT 7:234–36; O. Linton, “The Demand for a Sign from Heaven (Mk 8:11–12 and parallels),” ST 19 [1965]: 112–29; J. B. Gibson, “Jesus’ Refusal to Produce a ‘Sign’ (Mark 8:11–13),” JSNT 38 (1990): 38–40.

12 R. Pesch (Das Markusevangelium [HTKNT; Freiburg: Herder, 1976], 1:408) asserts that the sigh indicates that what follows is a prophetic utterance. Marcus, 501, suggests that Jesus’ sighing indicates, as in 7:34, a struggle with a demonic obstacle.

The “Q” parallels in Matthew 16:4; 12:39; and Luke 11:29 state that no sign shall be given “except the sign of Jonah.” For Matthew, this phrase is a reference to the resurrection (12:40). For Luke, it is more ambiguous but appears to be linked to Jonah’s preaching and call for repentance (see Lk 11:32).

For OT examples of the oath formula, see Genesis 14:23; Numbers 32:11; Deuteronomy 1:35; 1 Kings 3:14; Psalm 94:11 LXX (cf. Guelich, 415). The fact that the verb δοθήσεται (dothēsetai) is in the passive voice, indicating a circumlocution for the name of God, strengthens the statement even more. The meaning is, “Surely God will not give a sign to this generation.”

L. The Yeast of the Pharisees and Herod (8:14–21)

OVERVIEW

Jesus’ confrontation with the Pharisees (vv.11–13) now leads to a parallel confrontation with his disciples. Jesus uses a spiritual metaphor—leaven in bread—to warn them against the contagious nature of the Pharisees’ intransigent unbelief. In turn, the disciples reveal their own spiritual dullness by failing to comprehend the significance of the metaphor. In language ominously reminiscent of ch. 4, Jesus wonders whether they, too, have eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear (vv.17–18; cf. 4:10–11).

This episode is the third one involving a boat in Mark. The first two instances, the calming of the sea (4:35–41) and walking on water (6:47–52), revealed Jesus’ amazing power and highlighted the disciples’ failure to recognize that authority. In the first episode he rebukes them for their fear and lack of faith in the face of the storm (4:40). In the second, the narrator concludes that “they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened” (6:52). This third event echoes the same theme: the disciples have failed to discern the meaning of the loaves (or better, they had failed to comprehend the identity of Jesus and the nature of the kingdom as revealed through the two feeding miracles). The episode sets the stage for Jesus’ interaction with the disciples in chs. 8–10, where they will repeatedly fail to comprehend the suffering role of the Christ and the self-sacrificial nature of true discipleship.

14The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. 15“Be careful,” Jesus warned them. “Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.”

16They discussed this with one another and said, “It is because we have no bread.”

17Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? 18Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear? And don’t you remember? 19When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”

“Twelve,” they replied.

20“And when I broke the seven loaves for the four thousand, how many basketfuls of pieces did you pick up?”

They answered, “Seven.”

21He said to them, “Do you still not understand?”

COMMENTARY

14 Mark introduces the episode by noting that the disciples had forgotten to bring bread for the trip across the lake, except for a single loaf already present in the boat. Bread has been a consistent theme throughout this section, with both feeding miracles (6:30–44; 8:1–10), the controversy on eating with unwashed hands (7:1–23), and the reference to Gentile “dogs” eating the children’s (= Israel’s) bread (7:24–30). While this opening statement highlights the failure of the disciples to supply adequate provisions, Jesus will criticize them not for this error but for obsessing over such a trivial physical issue while failing to perceive true spiritual realities.

Some commentators see the “one loaf” as a symbolic reference to Jesus. The disciples failed to see that the one loaf they had with them was none other than Jesus, who himself was sufficient (so Garland, 310; J. Manek, “Mark viii. 14–21,” NovT 7 [1964]: 10–14; Q. Quesnell, The Mind of Mark [AnBib 38; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1969], 231–32). While the symbolism is possible, without clearer contextual factors such a nuanced allusion is unlikely to have been intended by Mark or picked up by his readers.

15 With the reference to only one loaf—inadequate to feed twelve disciples—the reader might expect another feeding miracle; but the episode is headed in a different direction. Jesus warns his disciples about the “yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod.” The rendering of zumē as “yeast” (NIV, NLT, TEV, etc.) instead of “leaven” is functionally correct as a symbol of permeating power but is not historically precise. Most bread in the ancient world was baked not with yeast but leaven (zumē), with a small amount of the previous week’s dough reserved for this purpose (cf. BDAG 429; Marcus, 506). Here, as commonly in the OT and Judaism, leaven is a symbol of sin or evil. As only a very small amount of it is necessary to leaven a loaf of bread, so does evil have a permeating power (TDNT 2:905–6; cf. 1Co 5:6; Gal 5:9). The background is the command to the Jews associated with the exodus and the Feast of Unleavened Bread to remove all leaven from their homes and to eat unleavened bread for seven days (Ex 12:14–20).

What, then, is the leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod? In the synoptic parallels, Luke speaks only of the leaven of the Pharisees and identifies it as hypocrisy (12:1). Matthew replaces Herod with the Sadducees and identifies the leaven as the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (16:12). Contextually, for Mark the leaven of the Pharisees refers most naturally to the preceding episode and their demand for a sign (8:11). But what about Herod? While in Luke 23:8 Herod will also seek a sign, Mark does not record this tradition. The leaven, therefore, probably refers generally to persistent unbelief and opposition to Jesus and his mission. Mark has already recorded Herod’s concerns about Jesus in 6:14–16, and back in 3:6 the Pharisees and the Herodians—strange bedfellows—had conspired against him. While sharing little in common politically or religiously, the Pharisees and Herod (together with his Herodian supporters) both viewed Jesus as a threat to their authority and influence. Jesus warns the disciples not to let pride and selfish ambition blind them to the purpose of God being accomplished through him. These pitfalls will be precisely their areas of weakness in the chapters that follow.

16 The disciples demonstrate that they are clueless regarding Jesus’ warning. The imperfect dielogizonto could be taken as durative, “they continued discussing,” or could be inceptive, “they began to discuss” (Guelich, 424). In the former case, the disciples are already arguing about the bread when Jesus tries to interject a spiritual metaphor. They simply ignore him and keep arguing (cf. France, 317). In the latter case, Jesus begins with a metaphorical warning, which is misunderstood as a rebuke about not bringing enough bread, thus initiating the argument (so Lane, 281). The first view seems more likely in light of Mark’s introductory verse about the lack of bread (v.14). In either case, the disciples show themselves to be preoccupied with temporal concerns and inattentive to Jesus’ teaching.

17–21 Jesus responds with a series of five rhetorical questions (vv.17–18), two real questions the disciples must answer (vv.19–20), and a final (exclamatory) rhetorical question: “Do you still not understand?” (v.21). The result is a strong and pressing rebuke.

17–18 After chiding them about their obsession with bread (v.17a), the next two questions in 17b (“Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened?”) echo Jesus’ statement about “outsiders” in 4:11–12 and Mark’s narrative comment about the disciples in 6:52, following the second boat incident. Hard-heartedness indicates persistent resistance to God’s purposes (cf. Pharaoh in Ex 10:1, 20, 27; 11:10; 14:8 and Israel in Eze 3:7; 11:19; see Donahue and Harrington, 252). The language of v.18a (“Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?”) is very close to Jeremiah 5:21 and Ezekiel 12:2 (cf. Eze 3:7; Ps 115:5–6) but is, like Jesus’ quotation in 4:12, conceptually parallel to Isaiah 6:9–10. Jesus ominously warns that the disciples are in danger of becoming like “outsiders,” who have eyes but do not see and ears but do not hear. Are they succumbing to the leaven of the Pharisees?

19–20 The bread the disciples should be focusing on was not their present provisions (or lack thereof) but the two miracles of multiplication they had witnessed; so Jesus rehearses with them the meager provisions, the numbers fed, and the basketfuls left over. The disciples’ ability to recall the precise number of leftovers confirms that they remembered well how abundantly Jesus had provided for them on both occasions. Jesus’ questions are meant, on the one hand, to remind the disciples that it is senseless to quarrel about a lack of bread when the Great Provider is with them in the boat. But of course, there was more to the feeding miracles than the satisfying of hunger. They revealed something extraordinary about the identity of Jesus: his unique authority and his role in God’s plan of salvation. It is these characteristics, especially, which the disciples have failed to comprehend (cf. 6:52).

21 Almost pleadingly Jesus asks, “Do you still not understand?” This final question repeats almost verbatim the first question of v.17b and so frames Jesus’ rebuke around this point. The necessity of the disciples to understand the purpose of God in Jesus will become the controlling theme of the following two chapters.

NOTES

15 The imperfect διεστέλλετο (diestelleto, from διαστέλλω, diastellō, GK 1403, “warn”) suggests that this statement did not stand alone but was part of an extended teaching discourse.

Strictly speaking, yeast refers either to (1) the fungus (Saccharomyces) present in the leaven, which caused the bread to rise, or more commonly (2) a commercial product made with this fungus that is used for baking, brewing, and as a source of vitamins and protein. In the rabbinical writings leaven is often a symbol for “the evil influence” (yēṣer haraʿ), or wicked ways and human dispositions (cf. Gen. Rab. 34:10).

16 The majority of Greek MSS read ἔχομεν (echomen, “we have”), but a significant minority read ἔχουσιν (echousin, “they have”). The former makes the statement one of direct discourse, rendered either as “They were discussing with one another, ‘We have no bread’” (cf. RSV), or with the ὅτι (hoti) functioning causally: “They were discussing with one another, ‘It is because we have no bread’” (cf. NIV, NRSV, TEV). The latter (ἔχουσιν, echousin) could take ὅτι, hoti, as indicating indirect discourse, “They were discussing with one another that they had no bread” (cf. NASB, ESV); as causal, “ . . . because they had no bread” (cf. NLT); or as an indirect interrogative, “ . . . why they had no bread.” See Taylor, 366, for support of this last interpretation.

19 As already noted in 8:8, two different words are used for basket in the two stories of the feeding of the multitudes. Κόφινος (kophinos, “lunch basket”) is used in all six references to the feeding of the five thousand (Mt 14:20; 16:9; Mk 6:43; 8:19; Lk 9:17; Jn 6:13), while σπυρίς (spyris, “hamper”) is used in all four references to the feeding of the four thousand (Mt 15:37; 16:10; Mk 8:8, 20). This consistency argues powerfully in favor of two separate incidents.

M. Healing a Blind Man at Bethsaida (8:22–26)

OVERVIEW

The presence of a story about a blind man immediately after Jesus warns the disciples of spiritual blindness (vv.17–18) is probably not coincidental. Many commentators have suggested that the two-stage restoration of the man’s sight is seen by Mark as a metaphor for the partial blindness and gradual enlightenment of the disciples concerning the identity of Jesus and the suffering role of the Messiah. Unlike the Pharisees, who are spiritually blind, the disciples are “insiders” whom Jesus has chosen to share in the secret of God’s kingdom (4:11). Yet they see only dimly, like the blind man after Jesus’ first touch (v.24). Although Peter will confess in the next passage that Jesus is the Messiah (v.29), he will fail to comprehend his suffering role (v.32). The disciples, though partially enlightened, will not come to full comprehension until after the resurrection.

The passage is a transitional one, a bridge between what precedes and what follows. It has conceptual links to the healing of blind Bartimaeus in 10:46–52. The two stories about blindness frame the next section of Mark’s gospel, where—after Peter’s confession—Jesus will predict his death three times (8:31; 9:31; 10:33–34) and the disciples will repeatedly fail to comprehend the significance of his suffering role. The present passage thus prepares for 8:31–10:45, where the focus will be on the failure of the disciples to comprehend Jesus’ own suffering path and his repeated call to follow him in cross-bearing discipleship.

The passage also has structural links to what precedes. As noted earlier (see Overview, 8:1–10), this episode is the fifth in a series of six episodes in 8:1–30 that mirror the six episodes of 6:31–7:37. Both series are comprised of a feeding miracle, a sea crossing, a conflict with the Pharisees, a discussion about bread, a healing, and a confession of faith. The counterpart to this episode—the healing of the deaf and mute man in 7:31–37—has a number of significant parallels. In both (1) the man is brought to Jesus by others; (2) they beg Jesus to heal him by laying hands on him; (3) Jesus takes the man off privately for the healing; (4) Jesus touches the organs affected and uses spittle for the healing; and (5) there is a command to silence (only implied in 8:26). Matthew and Luke omit both miracles, perhaps because of the unusual use of spittle and, in the present episode, the gradual nature of the healing. Both episodes are surely intended by Mark to show that Jesus is fulfilling the signs of eschatological salvation predicted in Isaiah 35:5 (a passage alluded to already in 7:37): “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf unstopped.”

22They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. 23He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”

24He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around.”

25Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. 26Jesus sent him home, saying, “Don’t go into the village.’”

COMMENTARY

22 The incident takes place at Bethsaida (“house of the fisher”), located on the eastern bank of the Jordan River where it flows into the Sea of Galilee. Once before, Mark mentioned Bethsaida as the intended destination of the boat trip following the feeding of the five thousand (6:45)—though the boat lands in Gennesaret instead (6:53; see comments at 6:45; Notes, 6:32, for the geographical difficulties.) At Bethsaida “some people” (Mark does not identify them) brought a blind man to Jesus for healing. As in the case of the paralytic (2:3) and the deaf and mute man (7:32), the blind man is brought by friends, who beg Jesus to touch him. Jesus frequently heals by touch in Mark (1:31, 41; 5:23; 6:5; 7:33) and is often approached by those wishing to touch him for healing (cf. 3:10; 5:28; 6:56).

23–24 Why did Jesus lead the blind man out of the town? Was it to avoid the clamor and excitement of the people, or perhaps to make personal contact with the man apart from the distraction of the crowd? Some see Jesus’ departure from the town and his command not to return after the healing (v.26) as part of a judgment motif, parallel to Jesus’ oracle against Chorazin and Bethsaida in Matthew 11:21–22. This perspective seems unlikely, however, since Mark does not record the judgment oracle and makes no mention of the town’s unbelief. As in 7:33, 36, the motivation here is probably both to give the man personal attention and to avoid the public excitement that the miracle could provoke. The conclusion of the story, in which Jesus tells the man not to return to the town (v.26), suggests that the latter is the primary reason and that this feature is part of the secrecy motif so common throughout Mark (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43, 7:36; 8:30). Jesus wants to define his messiahship on his own terms and to avoid provoking messianic zeal among the townspeople that would compromise his God-ordained mission.

Jesus performs a double action: he spits on the man’s eyes and lays his hands on him. The only parallel to such a double treatment is in John 9, where the blind man has his eyes anointed with clay and then washed in the Pool of Siloam. As noted above (v.22), the laying on of hands is common in Jesus’ healings. The use of saliva occurs only here, in 7:33, and in John 9:6. Jesus asks the man, “Do you see anything?”—the only time in the Gospels when Jesus inquires concerning the efficacy of a healing. Its narrative purpose is to prepare the reader for the partial nature of the cure. Mark’s noting that the man “looked up” is probably a play on words, since anablepō can mean either “look up” or “regain sight.” The man’s response is essentially, “Yes, I can see, but not clearly” (v.24). He sees people, but they look like trees—mere objects moving about. It is likely that the man had not been born blind since he is able to identify trees as trees, and since anablepō normally carries the sense, “see again” (cf. E. S. Johnson, “Mark viii.22–26: The Blind Man from Bethsaida,” NTS 25 [1978–1979]: 376–77).

25 The second laying on of hands is unique in the healing ministry of Jesus. The result was a complete cure. Mark’s account of it graphically records that fact with three parallel clauses: “his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly.” The word translated “clearly” (tēlaugōs) means “clearly at a distance” and indicates the completeness of the restoration of the man’s sight.

The healing method has raised questions, both because of the use of spittle for the healing and because of the gradual nature of the healing. Jesus’ first treatment appears to be only partially successful, so that he has to touch the man again. We have discussed the use of saliva at 7:33. Concerning the two-part healing, it is unlikely that Mark views this as a particularly difficult healing for Jesus, since elsewhere he portrays him as performing even more spectacular deeds with a single word or a touch—deeds such as raising the dead (5:41–42) and calming the sea (4:35–41). In 10:52 Jesus will heal Bartimaeus, another blind man, with a single command. Perhaps Jesus moved here only as quickly as the man’s faith would allow, since throughout Mark’s gospel faith is emphasized as requisite for healing (2:5; 4:40; 5:34, 36; 6:5; 9:23–24; 10:52; 11:22–24). One thing is certain: The episode is surely authentic, since the early church would hardly have created a story in which Jesus appears to be only partially successful on his first attempt.

26 Jesus orders the man to go home directly without first going into the town of Bethsaida. If this command is part of Mark secrecy motif, it is a bit unusual, since the man’s friends would inevitably learn about the healing. Perhaps Jesus gives the directive so that he and his disciples can move on to other places before word spreads about the healing and thus escape unwanted messianic publicity (see v.30).

NOTES

22 Mark refers to Bethsaida as a “village” or “town” (κώμη, kōmē) in v.23, but Josephus (Ant. 18.2.1 §28) says that when Philip renamed Bethsaida “Julia” (see comments at 6:45; Notes, 6:45), he enlarged the village (κώμη, kōmē) to a city (πόλις, polis) by adding to its residents and increasing it size. Matthew (11:20) and John (1:44) also refer to Bethsaida as a “city” (πόλις, polis). Too much should not be made of this difference in terminology. These terms are often used rather loosely and interchangeably (note that little Bethlehem is called a “city” [πόλις, polis] in Lk 2:4, 11). Guelich, 432, citing A. H. M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces [2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1971], 282), further notes that despite its size and new name, Bethsaida remained organizationally a “village” under Herod Philip. Perhaps we should think of Bethsaida as an intermediary “town” somewhere between a village and a city in size.

23 Lane, 284, downplays the secrecy motif here by noting that most of the miracles in Mark were done in public. Only on three occasions did Jesus withdraw from the people to heal: the raising of Jairus’s daughter (5:35–43), the healing of the deaf and mute man (7:31–37), and here. While Lane is certainly correct that Jesus commonly performed his miracles in public, this factor does not negate the undeniable presence of a secrecy motif in Mark (1:34, 44; 3:12; 5:43, 7:36; 8:30), and so it seems unnecessary to reject such a motivation here.

26 The variant reading “Don’t go and tell anybody in the city” is an attempt to clarify the reason why Jesus ordered the man not to go into the town. Doubtless the reading was influenced by other passages in Mark in which Jesus explicitly enjoins silence.

REFLECTIONS

The importance of this story for Mark is that it anticipates the gradual opening of the disciples’ eyes of understanding. It is also the second incident in a pair of stories that only Mark records (cf. 7:24–37) and that fulfill the OT messianic expectations of Isaiah 35:5–6. Mark uses both incidents to lead up to the revelation of the messianic dignity of Jesus to the disciples (8:27–30) and to prepare for Jesus’ teaching concerning the suffering role of the Messiah and the high cost of cross-bearing discipleship.

N. Recognizing Jesus as Messiah (8:27–30)

OVERVIEW

The first major section of Mark’s gospel (1:1–8:30) mounts to a climax with the story of the disciples’ recognition of Jesus’ messiahship. Peter’s confession (8:27–30) and Jesus’ teaching that follows (vv.28–33) represent the hinge on which the whole of Mark’s narrative turns. While Jesus’ messiahship has been introduced by the narrator (1:1), affirmed by the Father (1:11), and acknowledged by demons (1:24; 3:11), here for the first time a human being publicly confesses that Jesus is the Messiah. While the people still puzzle over Jesus’ identity (v.28), his mighty miracles and acts of power have confirmed for the disciples—represented here by Peter—that Jesus is indeed God’s agent of redemption, the Messiah. Yet like the blind man in the previous episode (v.24), Peter sees only partially. From this point forward Jesus will begin to teach that the Son of Man must go to Jerusalem to suffer and die. Peter’s confession is followed by the first of three passion predictions and Jesus’ teaching concerning the true significance of servant leadership.

Structurally, the episode is sometimes connected to the first section of the gospel (1:1–8:30) and sometimes to the second (8:31–10:52). The former option is the better one, since Peter’s confession represents the conclusion reached by the disciples after witnessing Jesus’ teaching and miracles up to this point in the narrative. Yet the passage is also closely linked to what follows (vv.31–38), and the two passages together form a transition. As Peter’s confession looks backward to the result of Jesus’ ministry so far, so the passion prediction looks forward, introducing “the way” of the cross on which Jesus is about to embark.

Many commentators have noted parallels between this episode and the previous one, in which the blind man is healed in two stages (8:22–26). Yet the parallel may be understood in two different ways: (1) The partial restoration of the blind man’s sight may be seen to represent the incomplete understanding of the people (see Lane, 286–87 n. 54). The people say Jesus is John the Baptist, or Elijah, or one of prophets. Peter, on the other hand, recognizes his true identity as the Messiah. This parallel may be set out as follows:

Blind Man Healed Peter’s Confession

8:22

Circumstances

8:27

Circumstances

8:23–24

Partial sight restored

8:28

Partial understanding of the people

8:25

Full sight restored

8:29

True understanding by Peter

8:26

Injunction to silence

8:30

Injunction to silence

(2) While these structural parallels are significant, Peter and the other disciples still have an inadequate understanding of Jesus’ messiahship, which Jesus begins to correct in the following passage (vv.31–33). Under this second option, the blind man’s partial healing parallels not the inadequate views of the people but Peter’s incomplete understanding of Jesus’ messiahship (vv.29, 32), which Jesus will clarify in vv.31–33 and in the passion predictions (9:30–32; 10:32–34). This parallel may be set out as follows:

Blind Man Healed Peter’s Confession

8:23–24

Partial sight restored

8:29, 32

Partial understanding by Peter

8:25

Full sight restored

8:31–33

Full understanding revealed by Jesus

While the former structure has close parallels, the latter better fits Mark’s narrative. In the passages that follow, the disciples will repeatedly fail to comprehend the suffering role of the Messiah (8:32; 9:32; 10:35–45).

27Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

28They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

29“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Peter answered, “You are the Christ.’”

30Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

COMMENTARY

27 Caesarea Philippi was located twenty-five miles north of Bethsaida at the foot of Mount Hermon, on a shelf of land 1,150 feet above sea level and overlooking the northern end of the Jordan River valley. Originally the city was called Paneas (surviving today as Banias) in honor of the Roman god Pan, a shrine to whom was located there. Herod Philip had rebuilt the ancient city and named it in honor of Tiberias Caesar and himself. Thus it was known as Caesarea Philippi and was distinguished from Caesarea, the Roman city on the Mediterranean coast. Mark does not say that Jesus and the disciples went to the city of Caesarea Philippi but rather to the villages (komai) nearby. (Jesus seldom enters cities in Mark’s gospel.) The trip is presented as a time of retreat, away from the bustling crowds. It was somewhere “on the way” that Jesus put to his disciples the crucial question, “Who do people say that I am?”

The historicity of Jesus’ question has sometimes been challenged since, according to Jewish custom, it was the disciple, not the rabbi, who asked the questions, and since Jesus surely would have already known what the people were saying about him. Yet Jesus was no ordinary rabbi, and he did not ask the question simply to get information. He used it as preliminary to his second question in v.29 (cf. Cranfield, 268). Jesus’ purpose was to provoke a confession of faith from the disciples.

28 The answers given are the same popular opinions expressed in 6:14–15 (see comments there). All three reveal the high regard in which the people held Jesus; they identified him as an authentic prophet and spokesperson for God. Yet all the answers also reflect an inadequate view of his true identity. John the Baptist, though a great prophet, played a preparatory role. He looked for another messenger greater than himself (1:7–8). A common Jewish concept of the day was that of “Elijah redivivus” (Elijah returned or revived), based on Malachi 3:1; 4:5 (see comments at Mk 6:15). But he too was only a forerunner of the Messiah. “One of the prophets” probably signifies the return of an OT prophet (contrast 6:15, where it is “a prophet, like one of the prophets”). There could be an allusion here to Jewish expectations for “the prophet,” often linked to the prophet like Moses of Deuteronomy 18:15.

It is surprising that the disciples do not report that anyone said Jesus was the Messiah, especially since the demons recognized who he was and said so publicly (1:24; 3:11; 5:7). But his messiahship was veiled from the crowd. From a narrative perspective, the absence of messianic acclamations heightens the dramatic and the climactic nature of Peter’s confession that follows.

29 Jesus now directs the question at the disciples. His use of hymeis (“you”), the emphatic pronoun, is particularly important. The NIV catches this nuance by repeating the “you”: “But what about you? . . . Who do you say I am?” In other words Jesus is asking, “Who do you, my most intimate and trusted friends—in contrast to the other people who neither know me nor understand me—think I am?”

Mark’s narrative has been building to this point. Throughout the gospel the people have consistently expressed amazement and awe at Jesus’ teaching and miracles (1:22, 27; 2:12; 5:20, 42; 7:37). The disciples themselves demonstrate astonishment as Jesus walks on water (6:51), and they ask in amazement, “Who is this?” when he calms the stormy sea (4:41). Now their own rhetorical question is about to be answered.

Peter, true to form, is the one to speak: “You are the Messiah” (TNIV). Peter speaks not only for himself but also as spokesperson for the Twelve, and in his confession is stated one of the central themes of this gospel—“the good news about Jesus the Messiah” (1:1 TNIV). Peter’s confession carries climactic significance. Although the Father has implicitly identified Jesus as the Messiah at his baptism (“my Son,” 1:11), as have demons (“the Holy One of God,” 1:24; “the Son of God,” 3:11), here we find the first identification of Jesus as “the Messiah” since the first line of the gospel (1:1).

The Greek word christos (“Christ”) translates the Hebrew māšîah. (“Messiah”) and means the “Anointed One” of God. In the OT the word is used of anyone who was anointed with the holy oil, as, for example, the priests and kings of Israel (cf. Ex 29:7, 21; 1Sa 10:1, 6; 16:13; 2Sa 1:14, 16). The word carries with it the idea of chosenness by God, consecration to his service, and endowment with his power to accomplish the task assigned.

Though the word “Messiah” never appears as a title in the OT (with the possible exception of Da 9:25–26), the messianic idea has its origin in the OT prophecies concerning an ideal king from the line of David, Israel’s greatest king and the man after God’s own heart. In the Davidic covenant, God promised to establish David’s “house” (= dynasty) and kingdom forever (2Sa 7:14–16). Israel’s prophets took up this promise and repeatedly predicted that God would one day restore the Davidic line, with David’s enthroned son and heir reigning forever in justice and righteousness (Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–16; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–26; Eze 34:22–24; 37:24–28; Mic 5:1–5; Zec 9:9–13). During the intertestamental period, the designation “Anointed One” or “Messiah” began to be used with reference to this coming ideal king who would be empowered by God to deliver his people and establish his righteous kingdom. Particularly important in the development of the concept was the pseudepigraphic Psalms of Solomon (chs. 17–18), in which the coming ruler is spoken of as restoring David’s kingdom to its former prosperity and greatness:

See, Lord and raise up for them their king,

the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel

in the time known to you, O God.

Undergird him with the strength to destroy the unrighteous rulers,

to purge Jerusalem from gentiles

who trample her to destruction;

in wisdom and in righteousness to drive out

the sinners from the inheritance;

to smash the arrogance of sinners

like a potter’s jar;

To shatter all their substance with an iron rod;

to destroy the unlawful nations with the word of his mouth;

At his warning the nations will flee from his presence;

and he will condemn sinners by the thoughts of their hearts.

He will gather a holy people

whom he will lead in righteousness;

and he will judge the tribes of the people

that have been made holy by the Lord their God.

He will not tolerate unrighteousness (even) to pause among them,

and any person who knows wickedness shall not live with them.

For he shall know them

that they are all children of their God. . . .

There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,

for all shall be holy, and their king shall be the Lord Messiah.

Pss. Sol. 17:21–27, 32, in James Charlesworth, The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985), 2:667.

While the literature of first-century Judaism reveals a variety of messianic figures and expectations, the hope for an ideal king from David’s line was the most prominent, appearing not only in the Psalms of Solomon but also in the Dead Sea Scrolls and other first-century Jewish writings. The ideas that clustered around this “son of David” or “Messiah” tended to be political and national in nature. It is probably for that reason that Jesus seldom used the term. Of its seven occurrences in Mark, only three of them are in sayings of Jesus (9:41; 12:35; 13:21); in none of these does he use the title of himself.

Jesus’ reluctance to speak of himself as the Messiah does not mean that he did not believe himself to be the Messiah. Here in this verse (v.29) and in 14:6–62, he accepted the title when others applied it to him (cf. Jn 4:25–26). Cranfield, 270–71, comments,

This is hardly surprising; for the title, in spite of all the false and narrow hopes that had become attached to it, was peculiarly fitted to express his true relation both to the OT and to the people of God. . . . The title, applied to Jesus, designates him as the true meaning and fulfillment of the long succession of Israel’s anointed kings and priests, the King and Priest . . . ; the Prophet anointed with the spirit of God, who fulfills the long line of Israel’s prophets; and the One in whom the life of the whole nation of Israel finds its fulfillment and meaning, in whom and for whose sake the people of Israel were, and the new Israel now is, the anointed people of God.

Peter’s confession revealed real insight into the nature of Jesus’ person and mission, but his concept of Jesus’ messiahship was far from perfect. Peter still had much to learn of Messiah’s suffering, rejection, and death, as the immediately following incident reveals.

30 Jesus’ strong injunction of silence arose out of his knowledge of the disciples’ defective view of his messiahship. They still needed instruction about it before they would be given permission to proclaim it without restraint. Jesus, in warning not only Peter but also the other disciples not to make this revelation known, indicates that Peter’s confession is meant to represent the opinion of all of them. The word “warned” (epitimaō, GK 2203) is a strong one—the same term used of Jesus’ “rebuke” of demons (1:25; 3:12), and one that will be used in the following verses of Peter’s rebuke of Jesus (v.32) and Jesus’ counterrebuke (v.33). The impression given is of intense emotion provoked by the extreme gravity of the present situation.

NOTES

27 Mark will use the expression ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ (en tē hodō, “on the way”) four more times to describe Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem (9:33–34; 10:32, 52).

29 For expectations related to the Davidic Messiah, see Strauss, Davidic Messiah, 35–57. On the diversity of messianic expectation in first-century Judaism, see J. W. Neusner, W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987). The Qumran sectarians expected two messiahs, one from the line of David and one from the line of Aaron. For royal-Davidic expectations at Qumran, see 1QS 9:11; 1QSa 2:11–21; 1QSb 5:20–29; 4QFlor 1:10–13 (=4Q174); 4QPBless 1–5 (=4Q252); 4QpIsaa frg. D 1–5 (=4Q161); 4Q504; 4Q285.