6. Rejection in Nazareth. Ch. 6:1–6a
1And he went out from thence; and he cometh into his own country; and his disciples follow him.
2And when the sabbath was come, he began to teach in the synagogue: and many hearing him were astonished, saying, Whence hath this man these things? and, What is the wisdom that is given unto this man, and what mean such mighty works wrought by his hands?
3Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James, and Joses, and Judas, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended in him.
4And Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.
5And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands on a few sick folk, and healed them.
6aAnd he marvelled because of their unbelief.
1 Jesus left Capernaum and travelled southward into the hill country until he came to the village where he had spent his youth and the early years of his maturity. While Mark does not name Nazareth, he has earlier indicated that this was the village from which Jesus came,1 and it is undoubtedly in view under the phrase “his own country.” Jesus returned to Nazareth as would a rabbi, accompanied by his disciples. The reference to the disciples is important, for during this period Jesus had been concerned with their training in preparation for the mission which Mark reports in Ch. 6:7–13.
2–3 On the sabbath day Jesus attended the synagogue and was given the opportunity to expound the reading from the Torah and the Haftarah, the Law and the prophetic portion.2 The entire congregation3 was astonished at his teaching, which prompted questions concerning the source of his doctrine and wisdom and of the power which had been exhibited elsewhere4 in miracles of healing and exorcism. It is possible that the people entertained the dark suspicions voiced earlier by the Jerusalem scribes (Ch. 3:22). Jesus had not been schooled in rabbinic fashion but had been trained as a manual laborer. His immediate family were well known to the villagers, who judged that there was nothing extraordinary about them that would have led them to expect something unusual from Jesus. What was the source of his wisdom, and who had empowered him to speak and act with such authority? To these questions two answers lie close at hand: the source was God, or it was demonic. Their first impressions of astonishment shaded off to resentment when they recalled Jesus’ earlier vocation and standing in Nazareth. Not knowing the source of his wisdom, they find his office as a teacher offensive. In spite of what they heard and saw they failed to penetrate the veil of ordinariness which characterized this one who had grown up in the village.
The rhetorical question, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary?” deserves careful attention both to the text and its meaning. Significant strands of the Marcan textual tradition agree essentially with the Matthean formulation: “Is this not the son of the carpenter? Is not his mother called Miriam?” (Mt. 13:55).5 Moreover, against the allegation of Celsus that Jesus was only a carpenter Origen answered forthrightly that in none of the Gospels accepted by the Church was Jesus himself designated a carpenter.6 While the textual question is so complex that equally competent interpreters have adopted differing points of view,7 it seems preferable to adopt the text of the uncials in which Jesus is designated “the carpenter, the son of Mary.” The variant reading was apparently conformed to the text of Matthew in the interest of the virgin birth and perhaps to avoid the attribution of a menial trade to Jesus when to do so in the Graeco-Roman world would be to invite scorn.8 The Marcan text as it stands is derogatory. “Is not this the carpenter?” means, Is he not a common worker with his hands even as the rest of us are?9 The additional phrase “the son of Mary” is probably disparaging. It was contrary to Jewish usage to describe a man as the son of his mother, even when she was a widow, except in insulting terms.10 Rumors to the effect that Jesus was illegitimate appear to have circulated in his own lifetime and may lie behind this reference as well.11 The rhetorical question of the people indicates that they know Jesus only in a superficial way. They find no reason to believe that he possesses the anointment of God.
4 Jesus responded with an aphorism to which there are numerous parallels in Jewish and Greek literature.12 The comparison of his experience to that of the prophets who were dishonored among their own people is ironical.13 It anticipates his ultimate rejection by Israel14 and at the same time recalls Ch. 3:20–21, 31–35 when Jesus’ family and kinsmen expressed the opinion that he was insane and attempted to halt his activities forcibly.
5–6a In the presence of gross unbelief Jesus restricted his activity to the healing of a few sick individuals.15 It is not Mark’s intention to stress Jesus’ inability when he states that he could perform no miracles at Nazareth. His purpose is rather to indicate that Jesus was not free to exercise his power in these circumstances.16 The performance of miracles in the absence of faith could have resulted only in the aggravation of human guilt and the hardening of men’s hearts against God. The power of God which Jesus possessed could be materialized in a genuinely salutary fashion only when there was the receptivity of faith. Unbelief excluded the people of Nazareth from the dynamic disclosure of God’s grace that others had experienced.
Apparently Jesus had not anticipated the reaction of the people. The statement that he “marvelled” is the sole instance when Mark uses this verb of Jesus. It vividly suggests the degree of resistance he encountered in Nazareth. In Ch. 6:5–6a Mark draws attention not to the limits of Jesus’ power but rather to the privations which result from unbelief.17
In the Marcan outline the rejection at Nazareth is intimately related to the subsequent mission of the Twelve (Ch. 6:7–13). The tension between faith and unbelief permeates both accounts. Moreover in Ch. 6:11 there is a distinct indication that the disciples will also experience rejection. By situating these two incidents at this point in his Gospel the evangelist shows that unbelief is the context in which the Christian mission advances and that rejection is an experience common to the Lord and the Church. This point had immediate relevance for his own hard-pressed community. It is probable that he recognized in the juxtaposition of rejection and mission a pattern confirmed in the rejection of Jesus by the nation, climaxed by crucifixion and resurrection, which created the apostolic mission.
7. The Mission of the Twelve in Galilee. Ch. 6:6b–13
6bAnd he went round about the villages teaching.
7And he calleth unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and he gave them authority over the unclean spirits;
8and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no bread, no wallet,18 no money in their purse;19
9but to go shod with sandals: and, said he, put not on two coats.20
10And he said unto them, Wheresoever ye enter into a house, there abide till ye depart thence.
11And whatsoever place shall not receive21 you, and they hear you not, as ye go forth thence, shake off the dust that is under your feet for a testimony unto them.22
12And they went out, and preached that men should repent.
13And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick, and healed them.
6b It is difficult to be certain whether Mark intended the reference to Jesus’ itinerant ministry to be intimately associated with the rejection at Nazareth or the commissioning of the Twelve. As a succinct summary statement of the activity of Jesus, verse 6b is able to stand upon its own, without close association with either context. A connection with Ch. 6:1–6a would suggest that as a result of the rejection at Nazareth Jesus entered upon an extended tour of the Galilean villages. While the commissioning of the Twelve is the next event reported, that development has no necessary relationship to the village ministry. On the other hand, if verse 6b is tied to Ch. 6:7–13 it indicates that as a result of his tour Jesus determined to extend his ministry yet further through the direct commissioning of the Twelve. The text of Mark is intelligible on either reading, and both have found support.23 This is the third tour of the Galilean villages reported by Mark (cf. Ch. 1:14, 39).
7–9 With the commissioning of the Twelve Mark reaches a point for which he has carefully prepared. The call to be fishers of men (Ch. 1:16–20) points forward to the election of Levi (Ch. 2:14), and then of the Twelve, who are set apart in terms of a specific promise (Ch. 3:13–19). They will be sent forth to preach and will be given authority to expel demons.24 Since their election the disciples had been with Jesus and had shared his experiences. Private instruction (Ch. 4:11, 34) and exposure to his power over demonic possession, sickness and death (Ch. 5) had prepared them for more direct involvement in his ministry.
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 commissioning of the Twelve has a rich background in the juridical practice of Judaism, which recognized the official character of actions performed by authorized individuals. Reduced to its simplest form, the law acknowledged that “the sent one is as the man who commissioned him.”25 This formulation lies behind the mission of the Twelve, who are sent forth as “appointed representatives” of Jesus in the legal sense of the term. Their return to Jesus and the report concerning all that they had taught and done in fulfilment of the commission (Ch. 6:30) is consistent with this legal background.26 The fulfilment of a commission by pairs of messengers is attested elsewhere in Judaism.27 The division of the Twelve into groups of two conforms their mission to the Mosaic provision that the truthfulness of a testimony is to be established “by the mouth of two witnesses.”28 There is in the context no thought of the creation at this time of a permanent office, but rather the fulfilment of a specific commission.29 This is an important consideration; it signifies that the instructions which Jesus gave to the disciples do not have a general and permanent validity. They are relevant to this particular commission. The insistence that the disciples take neither food nor money, but depend wholly on hospitality, is a matter of special authorization within limits which were both local and temporary.30
The specific terms of the commission demanded of the disciples a rigorous commitment to total dependence upon God for food and shelter. While the minimum requirements for the journey—staff and sandals—were permitted,31 they were to take nothing else. Bread, the beggar’s bag, the smallest coin in the belt,32 or a second tunic to keep out the night chill were all excluded.33
10–11 The disciples were instructed to accept the hospitality which was offered. Whenever a home was opened to them they were to stay there until they departed from the village.34 They were not to dishonor the home by accepting more comfortable provisions offered by another host.
The clear intimation that the disciples would experience rejection injects an ominous note into the charge. There would be villages where no hospitality would be offered and where their word would not be tolerated. In this situation they were to shake the dust from their feet, as a testimony and warning to the villagers,35 and go elsewhere. This instruction is intelligible in the light of Jewish practice. It was the custom of pious Jews who had travelled outside of Israel to remove carefully from their feet and clothing all dust of the alien lands in which they had travelled. By this action they dissociated themselves from the pollution of those lands and their ultimate judgment.36 An analogous action on the part of the disciples would declare that a village was pagan in character. It would provide warning that the disciples had fulfilled their responsibility and that those who had rejected the mission would have to answer to God.37 The removal of dust from the feet belongs to the category of symbolic realism; it is a prophetic act designed to provoke thought on the part of the rejecting villagers. The mission of the disciples has a selective character. Their presence in a town or village determines which of the inhabitants are open to the word of the Kingdom which they bear. Should they wipe the dust from their feet and break communication with a village they consign it to judgment.38 This provision indicates that the coming of the disciples, like that of Jesus himself, had the character of sifting and gathering the true people of God.39
12–13 In obedience to their commission the Twelve proclaimed the gospel through their word and deed. Their message and the exercise of power confirm the representative character of their mission. They preach the message of repentance which Jesus had proclaimed; they cast out demons and heal the sick because these activities had characterized his ministry. Their coming to a village brought healing and salvation in the most comprehensive terms because they were his representatives. Jesus had commissioned them and they came in his name. What Jesus did in his own power as commissioned by God, the disciples did in his power.40
The essential element in the mission is the intrusion of the Kingdom of God “with power.”41 The expulsion of demons is clearly distinguished from the anointing of the sick,42 but both actions were visible functions of the Kingdom. They declared that it was God’s intention to apply salvation to man in his wholeness. The focus upon the words and works of Christ anticipates the character of the more permanent mission the disciples received by the appointment of the risen Christ.43
IV. Withdrawal Beyond Galilee. Ch. 6:14–8:30
The new section introduced by Ch. 6:14 and extending to Ch. 8:30 focuses upon a period during which Jesus was frequently in retirement beyond the borders of Galilee. During the mission of the Twelve, Mark calls attention to the reaction of Herod Antipas, who has heard of the mighty works of Jesus. Herod’s suspicion that Jesus is John returned from the dead (Ch. 6:14–16) introduces the parenthetical account of the imprisonment and execution of the Baptist (Ch. 6:17–29). At the return of the Twelve Jesus withdraws to a solitary place, pursued by a multitude. In compassion he provides bread in the wilderness, and five thousand are fed (Ch. 6:35–44). A second feeding of four thousand is reported in the region of the Decapolis (Ch. 8:1–10), and the striking recurrence of the word “bread” throughout this section provides the pervading motif (Chs. 6:52; 7:2, 28; 8:14 ff.).44 The importance of the two feeding miracles is emphasized when the disciples’ own misunderstandings of Jesus are traced to their failure to understand the significance of the abundant provision of bread. While a single instance of public teaching occurs in Ch. 7:1–23, the accent falls on the instruction of the disciples, whose hardness of heart, unbelief and failure to understand is a prominent element in the record. A point of transition is provided by Ch. 8:22–26 where the restoring of sight to a man who was blind signals the opening of the eyes of the disciples as well. A climax in Mark’s narrative is achieved in Ch. 8:27–29 when Jesus and his company approach Caesarea Philippi where Jesus’ dignity as Messiah is acknowledged for the first time.
1. Popular Estimates of the Identity of Jesus. Ch. 6:14–16
14And king Herod heard thereof; for his name had become known: and he said,45 John the Baptizer is risen from the dead, and therefore do these powers work in him.
15But others said, It is Elijah. And others said, It is a prophet, even as one of the prophets.46
16But Herod, when he heard thereof, said, John, whom I beheaded, he is risen.
14–15 If the connection with Ch. 6:6–13 may be pressed, it was the mission activity of Jesus and the Twelve throughout Galilee which brought to Herod’s attention popular reports concerning Jesus. Herod Antipas, the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea from his father’s death in 4 B.C. to A.D. 39.47 His total disregard for Jewish sensitivity was displayed not only in his marriage to Herodias, but in the selection of an ancient cemetery as the site for his capital, Tiberias. By this choice Herod virtually excluded Jewish settlers, for residence in the city would render them perpetually unclean in terms of the ritual law. The royal title had been denied to Antipas by Augustus. Goaded by the ambitious Herodias, it was Antipas’ request for the title of “king” which officially led to his dismissal and exile in A.D. 39.48 Mark’s use of the royal title may reflect local custom, or it may be a point of irony. Herod had modeled his court after the imperial pattern,49 and it is possible that the irony of designating him by a title he coveted, but failed to secure, would be appreciated in Rome where his sentence had been sealed.
Accepting the indefinite plural as the original reading,50 it was the people who recognized in Jesus’ ministry the powers of the Age to Come released through resurrection. On this understanding, verses 14–15 refer to three popular estimates of the person of Jesus: he is John the Baptist, or he is Elijah, or he is one of the other prophets. The people view Jesus in the perspective of a prophet; their only question concerns his identity. Herod had been informed concerning the prophet who was exciting the aspirations of the people within his district, and had formed his own opinion.
The three popular estimates of Jesus constitute one of the earliest attempts to explain the enigma of his person and work. The conviction that Jesus is John risen from the dead comes from a group of people who had no direct experience with Jesus or the Baptist, since they did not know that Jesus was a contemporary of John and had been baptized by him. Because Jesus had not begun his ministry in Galilee until after the imprisonment of John (Ch. 1:4), the people had a distinct impression of succession rather than of contemporaneity. They understood the new proclaimer in terms of a more recent and, to them, better known figure, the prophet John. If they had even heard that Jesus was baptized by John they could not possibly have identified him with the Baptist.51 John is not known to have performed any miracles during the course of his ministry (Jn. 10:41, “John did no sign”), and it was the element of power in Jesus’ ministry which led them to believe that John had risen from the dead. The resurrection permitted the powers of the new age to be channeled through him. The opinion that John has returned from the dead in the same body he had possessed before his execution52 sheds light on the popular conception of the resurrection and indicates that the people had no knowledge of Jesus prior to his ministry in Galilee. They think of him as one who appeared suddenly upon the earth a short time after the Baptist’s death. The identification of Jesus with John, through whom the ancient gift of prophecy had been affirmed after so long a silence, appears to interpret Jesus as the promised eschatological Prophet whose word would herald the last days.53
The opinion that Jesus is Elijah identifies Jesus with “the Coming One” announced by John (Ch. 1:7). It probably reflects the conviction of the Baptist’s followers. Although he left the identity of the one mightier than himself unnamed, John had defined his function in terms which pointed unmistakably to “the Messenger of the Covenant,” the prophet Elijah, in the closing paragraphs of Malachi (Chs. 3:1f.; 4:5f.). John must have been responsible for communicating to his followers that Jesus was Elijah, as promised in the prophetic word. The identification of Jesus as the precursor to “the great and terrible day of the Lord” was a response of faith which stands in contrast to the popular opinion that Jesus was John risen from the dead.54
The third estimate is to be distinguished from the second by its reference to Jesus as an ordinary prophet, not one like Elijah whose coming is an ominous portent of the end. He is one more prophet in the succession of prophets who have spoken and acted for God in Israel’s history. If the reading supported by the “Western” text (“he is one of the prophets”) is correct, however, Jesus is identified with one of the ancient prophets who has returned for a new and final phase of ministry. This understanding is only a variant form of the previous two: Jesus is the eschatological prophet. The name of the returning prophet is not provided, since the people thought alternately of Elijah, Moses, Enoch or Jeremiah.55
16 Herod, disturbed by an uneasy conscience disposed to superstition, feared that John had come back to haunt him. This judgment presupposes that Jesus was unknown to the tetrarch until after John’s death. He felt that in Jesus he was confronted with the Baptist once more, but now returned from the grave with the result that magical powers were at work in him.56 The reference to Herod’s execution of John serves to introduce the extended account of the Baptist’s death in Ch. 6:17–29. It also indicates Herod’s sense of his responsibility for John’s death, which was brought home to him in a pointed way by the popular rumors stimulated by the activity of Jesus. In Jewish thinking resurrection is the prelude to judgment, and the terror of judgment may be caught in Herod’s statement, “John, whom I beheaded, is risen.”
2. The Imprisonment and Death of John. Ch. 6:17–29
17For Herod himself had sent forth and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her.
18For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.
19And Herodias set herself against him, and desired to kill him; and she could not;
20for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe. And when he heard him, he was much perplexed;57 and he heard him gladly.
21And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birthday made a supper to his lords,58 and the high captains, and chief men of Galilee;
22and when the daughter of Herodias herself came in and danced, she pleased Herod and them that sat at meat with him; and the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee.
23And he sware unto her, Whatsoever thou shalt ask of me, I will give it to thee, unto the half of my kingdom.
24And she went out, and said unto her mother, What shall I ask? And she said, The head of John the Baptizer.
25And she came in straightway with haste unto the king, and asked, saying, I will that thou forthwith give me on a platter the head of John the Baptist.
26And the king was exceeding sorry; but for the sake of his oaths, and of them that sat at meat, he would not reject her.59
27And straightway the king sent forth a soldier of his guard, and commanded to bring his head: and he went and beheaded him in the prison,
28and brought his head on a platter, and gave it to the damsel; and the damsel gave it to her mother.
29And when his disciples heard thereof, they came and took up his corpse, and laid it in a tomb.
The Gospel of Mark contains two “passion narratives,” the first of which reports the imprisonment and death of John the Baptist. The detailed narration of the circumstances resulting in the death of John stands in sharp contrast to the brief description of his mission in Ch. 1:4–8. It is probable that the present narrative reflects a special source60 which circulated among the disciples of John. It is included here by Mark both to clarify the statements in Ch. 6:14, 16 and to point forward to the suffering and death of Jesus.61
The historical integrity of this narrative has been seriously challenged.62 Alleged differences between Mark and Josephus, the presence of motifs which recall the conflict of Elijah with Jezebel or the story of Esther, and the improbability of a princess degrading herself by performing a sensuous solo dance at a royal banquet furnish the base for critical objection. On the other hand, between Mark and Josephus there are positive points of agreement. Both writers note the offensive adulterous union of Herod with Herodias, the fact of a daughter born of Herodias’ first marriage who would have been of the age demanded by the Marcan narrative, the influence of Herodias on her weak husband, and the death of John by beheading. The differences which are alleged to exist between Mark and Josephus concern (1) the name of the first husband of Herodias, (2) the reason for John’s execution and (3) the place of his imprisonment and execution.
(1) Josephus states that Herodias’ first husband was Herod, the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, and half-brother to Antipas. Mark identifies this man as Philip.63 There is no necessary discrepancy between the two accounts since nearly every son of Herod the Great bore the name “Herod” as a family designation (e.g. Herod Archelaus, Herod Philip, Herod Antipas, and the grandson Herod Agrippa). Josephus’ failure to provide the personal name of this man should not obscure the fact that he was given a second name. It is common to suppose that “Philip” can only mean Herod Philip, the son of Herod the Great and Cleopatra, who was tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. But the tetrarch and the husband of Herodias were the sons of different mothers and there is no firm reason why they could not have received the same name. The full name of Herodias’ first husband is unknown, but no evidence exists that it was not Herod Philip. Moreover, no detail in Mark’s narrative lends support to the supposition that his reference is to the tetrarch Philip.
(2) Josephus’ report that Herod imprisoned and executed the Baptist because he feared a political uprising to which John might give leadership is thoroughly understandable. The territory of Antipas included the narrow strip designated Perea, which bordered on the Nabatean Kingdom. His marriage to Herodias had required the repudiation of a former wife, the daughter of Aretas IV of Nabatea. It is clear, therefore, that John’s proclamation of the unlawfulness of Herod’s adulterous union could be interpreted as a call to insurrection which threatened the tetrarch from within his province as seriously as did the incensed Nabateans to the east of his province.64 It should be remembered that Josephus was writing some sixty years after the event for a Roman public who would find in Antipas’ desire to suppress a potential public disturbance merely the action of a Roman patriot. Mark, whose interests are very different from those of Josephus, stresses the scheming of Herodias. This emphasis is thoroughly consistent with what Josephus has reported at length concerning the active role played by women and their intrigues in the conduct of Herodian affairs. There is no sufficient reason for doubting the historical accuracy of the Marcan narrative on this account.
(3) Josephus states that Herod sent John to Machaerus, the southern tip of Perea tangent to the northeast corner of the Dead Sea.65 The proximity of this area to the Judean wilderness where John seems to have concentrated his mission lends strong probability to the correctness of this detail. Mark does not say where John was imprisoned. Because “the first men of Galilee” were present at the banquet, and Jesus’ presence in Galilee is the occasion for Herod’s disturbed thoughts, it is natural to think of Tiberias in Galilee, the tetrarch’s capital. There is nothing in Mark; however, which demands Galilee as the scene of John’s imprisonment, and it is proper to read Mark through the eyes of Josephus at this point, placing the scene of the action in Machaerus.
It is possible that Mark incorporated details in the narrative which would call to mind the Elijah-Jezebel conflict, for it is clear that Jesus later identifies John as Elijah.66 The parallels with Esther are those which are normal in the depiction of an oriental court scene. The final objection, that it is wholly improbable that a Herodian princess would debase herself by dancing before the company of men assembled by the tetrarch, loses its force when consideration is given to the moral depravity of Antipas and Herodias. It is clear from the Marcan narrative that there was calculation on Herodias’ part to achieve her will; the dancing of her daughter was a crucial element in her plan, and was probably arranged by Herodias herself. The objections to the historical integrity of the Marcan narrative are not substantial and should be set aside. There was no disciple of John present to report the details of what had taken place, but it was inevitable that what happened would first be whispered about, and then take shape in a popular report. Mark narrates what was being said at that time.
17–18 In supplement to the incidental report of John’s imprisonment in Ch. 1:14, Mark now provides the details clarifying the situation. With a boldness appropriate to his office, John had denounced the unlawful marriage of Antipas to Herodias. Not even the royal house was exempt from the call to radical repentance. When John had ministered on the eastern bank of the Jordan River near Bethany he was in Perea, and it is probable that Antipas had taken him prisoner during a sojourn in this area.67 The fortress-palace of Machaerus, which served as the military headquarters for the region, was not far from this place. Herod’s motives for arresting the Baptist appear to have been mixed. John’s preaching was politically explosive. The powerful Nabatean forces across Herod’s border posed a definite threat to his security, and the tetrarch could not afford to have the provincials also inflamed against him. Nevertheless, he recognized that John was a man of God and sought to keep him in protective custody against the vindictive intentions of his wife. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus (the son of Herod and Mariamne), and the niece of Antipas.68 She was near her fortieth year at the time of her second marriage.69 Her union with Antipas was adulterous and shocking because the Mosaic Law clearly prohibited marriage to a brother’s wife while the brother was yet alive (Lev. 18:16; 20:21).70 This flouting of the Law in high places could not but call forth the stern denunciation of the wilderness prophet.
19–20 It is impossible to know whether John had addressed the royal court directly or not. It seems clear, however, that just as the weak Ahab had blurted out his troubles to Jezebel, Antipas had not concealed from Herodias what John was saying. The prophet’s charge infuriated her. She nurtured a sustained grudge against John and desired to silence his disturbing accusation in a manner that had ample precedent in the Herodian annals—arranged “accident” or execution. Antipas would not permit this, for he had a superstitious fear of John whom he recognized as a righteous and holy man. The imprisonment of John was thus a compromise measure; it silenced his proclamation to the people, but could be rationalized as a protective measure against the whims of his wife. More weak than cruel, Herod listened to John with an undeniable fascination. John’s word left him perplexed, and in anguish. Yet he found a strange pleasure in the authoritative preaching of this holy man, whose stringent life gave added power to his probing word. Too weak to follow John’s counsel, he nevertheless had to listen.
21–23 While Herodias had been restrained from executing her wrath upon John for a period of time, an appropriate occasion presented itself when Herod celebrated his birthday with a banquet for the leading courtiers and men of his province.71 The narrative seems to imply that she was biding her time, but that she deliberately sent her daughter into the feast to dance, in order to induce Herod to grant her desire. This understanding offers the most plausible explanation for Salome’s dance.
The terms describing the guests at the banquet are of special interest: “his great men, his commanders of battalions, and the first persons of Galilee.” The first term, which occurs only here in the Gospels, is appropriate to an oriental environment; Tacitus uses it of the barons of Armenia who resisted the Roman incursions, while in the context of Belshazzar’s feast it designates the petty lords of the monarch.72 In Mark the “great men” are the inner circle of the tetrarch’s government. The second term has distinctly Roman overtones, chiliarch being the usual equivalent to the Latin tribunus militum, designating “commanders of a thousand.”73 The term is appropriate to Herod’s tetrarchy, where his hosts would be only at battalion strength. A second Roman term occurs in verse 27, which in conjunction with the present reference indicates the court and administration of a petty Jewish prince who patterned his establishment after the imperial model. The leading men of Galilee are presumably Herod’s courtiers, men of substance who possessed both the leisure and inclination to accompany him to Machaerus whenever Antipas was resident there.
Josephus identifies the name of Herodias’ daughter as Salome. She was later married to the tetrarch Herod Philip, who was considerably older than she was, and after his death in 34 A.D. to another Herodian named Aristobulus.74 She was, apparently, in her middle teens at the time of her infamous performance.75 That she was not yet married seems clear from the fact that she was still under the influence of her mother; certainly no prince would have permitted his wife to perform artistically before the company of assembled men. The dance was unquestionably lascivious, designed to captivate and further the ends of the dancer. It appears to have had its origins not in a Semitic context but in a distinctly Hellenistic one.76 The performance pleased both Herod and his guests, perhaps precisely because it was the princess who danced. They had undoubtedly seen professional dancers in the past, but Mark seems to stress that it was actually the daughter of Herodias who performed. In a boisterous manner appropriate to the feast and the presence of his chief men, Herod invited the girl to specify what her reward should be, sealing his words with an oath. The invitation, together with the formulation, “unto the half of my kingdom,” recalls especially the words of Ahasuerus to Esther (Esth. 5:3, 6). It is clear, however, from parallel references that Herod is employing a proverbial reference for generosity77 which Salome understood was not to be taken prosaically. Generosity suited the occasion, and would undoubtedly win the assent of his guests.
24–25 If the supposition that Salome danced at the instigation of her mother is correct, Herodias had not fully revealed her intention. She had merely instructed her daughter to perform in such a manner as to win Herod’s approval. When Salome asked what she should claim for herself, Herodias responded with a bluntness and promptness which betrays calculation—the head of John the Baptist. She had waited for this moment. Now that it had come she found it satisfying. Her request in no way shocked Salome, who hastened back at once to Herod to demand the head of John. The grim detail “on a platter” seems to be her own, an expression of black humor inspired by the banquet yet in progress.
26–28 The request of Salome, expressed with arrogance and malice, immediately sobered Antipas. Only moments before he had revelled in boisterous conviviality; now he experienced the deepest grief.78 Herod was filled with conflicting feelings. He was reluctant to grant the request but finally decided that he had no other choice since he had sealed his invitation with an oath in the presence of his great men. As had to happen,79 Herod gave the order that the girl’s demand was to be honored.
The designation for the guardsman charged with the execution transliterates the Latin form speculator. The speculatores were a well-known division of the imperial guard at Rome. These soldiers served as a police force, and in the pages of Tacitus tend to figure in moments of military intrigue.80 The use of the Latin term for the guardsman ordered to execute John is appropriate to the context, and offers further illustration of Herod’s attempt to pattern his court after the imperial administration. John was beheaded in the dungeon of the fortress, and in due course the head was presented on a platter, first to Salome, and then to her mother.
29 It is difficult to know how long after John had been slain that word of his death reached his disciples. It is probable that they were not far from the fortress in order to serve him in any way they could. Their final act of ministry was to take up his corpse and place it in a tomb, presumably in the vicinity of Machaerus. The death of John, however, did not bring the Baptist movement to an end,81 nor was this the final time Herod would be forced to remember John. The ministry of Jesus stirred his sober reflection on John whom he had beheaded. Then in A.D. 36 the Nabatean hordes swept down upon him to avenge the humiliation suffered by the daughter of Aretas. They administered a stinging defeat to Antipas which the people interpreted as an act of God avenging the murder of John the Baptist.82
The focus of Ch. 6:17–29 is on the suffering of John. Yet the remarkable fact is that the Baptist only provides the occasion for the record; John himself is always in the background. The single emphasis of the account is what they do to him. What Mark understands by this enigmatic suffering scene is clarified in Ch. 9:9–13.83
3. The Provision of Rest in the Wilderness. Ch. 6:30–34
30And the apostles gathered themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught.
31And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat.
32And they went away in the boat to a desert place apart.
33And the people saw them going, and many knew them, and they ran together there on foot from all the cities and out-went them.
34And he came forth and saw a great multitude, and he had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd: and he began to teach them many things.
The decision to divide Ch. 6:30–44 at verse 34 is one of convenience, which permits a consideration of the return of the disciples and the withdrawal to a wilderness-place before attention is concentrated upon the feeding of the multitude. The degree of variation displayed in modern treatments of this question indicates the relative difficulty of discerning the evangelist’s intention.84 The division adopted presupposes that Mark has prefaced the feeding miracle by two small introductory passages which are thematically united.85 The first describes the return of the disciples and their rest in a wilderness-place (Ch. 6:30–32), while the second tells of the gathering of the multitudes to the wilderness and Jesus’ compassion upon them (Ch. 6:33–34).
30 At the conclusion of their mission to the Galilean villages the disciples returned to Jesus. He had commissioned them to be his emissaries (Ch. 6:7–13), and it is appropriate to this circumstance that they should report to him how they had fulfilled their commission. The designation of the Twelve as “the apostles,” which occurs only here in Mark’s Gospel, has specific reference to the mission they have just undertaken. In this context the term is descriptive of the disciples’ function rather than an official title, and could be rendered “missionaries.” It was in consequence of their mission of preaching and exorcism in Galilee that the Twelve were designated “apostles,” i.e. those who had been sent forth and empowered by Jesus.86
31–32 The mission activity of the Twelve had caught the attention of large numbers of people, who pursued after the disciples even as earlier they had sought the benefactions of Jesus. Mark conveys the impression of one group following another as he reports that “many were coming and going,” with the result that the Twelve had no leisure to eat.87 Jesus’ directive to withdraw to a wilderness-place signifies more than a deserved rest after strenuous labor. What is in view is the concept of rest within the wilderness. Mark indicates this by repeating the expressions “a wilderness-place apart” in verses 31 and 32.88 The site toward which the disciples set sail cannot be identified with any degree of certainty; but this was not important to the evangelist. What was significant was the character of the place to which Jesus and his disciples withdrew, and this is sufficiently indicated by the descriptive phrase “wilderness-place.” That God provides rest for his people within the wilderness is a recurring theme in the Scripture.89 It was the literal rest of the wilderness generation led by Moses and Joshua which became the type of the final rest promised to the people of God in a second exodus in the preaching of Isaiah and Jeremiah.90 The ancient hope of rest within the wilderness is to be fulfilled as Jesus gathers his disciples to a wilderness-place that they may be by themselves. The disciples and the multitudes who pursue them prove to be the people of the new exodus. The presence of Jesus and the provision of God will give to this time of withdrawal the character of rest within the wilderness.
33–34 The second introductory unit is thematically united to the first by wilderness motifs. Its purpose is to indicate that the withdrawal of the multitude from the several Galilean villages to the wilderness where they experienced Jesus’ compassion was the direct result of the mission activity of the Twelve. By accenting the relationship of the multitude to the disciples (“they saw them, and they recognized them and they ran on foot from all the towns and got there ahead of them”) Mark shows that the provision of rest in the wilderness was the ultimate intention behind the disciples’ commission by Jesus.
The comparison of the people to “sheep not having a shepherd” is an allusion to Num. 27:17 and Ezek. 34:5.91 In the context of both of these passages, Mark’s statement belongs to the wilderness theme. In Num. 27:17 Moses prays that the Lord will appoint a leader to take his place prior to his death in the wilderness lest the people “be as sheep which have no shepherd.” It is significant that God appointed as shepherd Joshua, whose name in the Septuagint is “Jesus.” In Ezek. 34 the shepherd image is also associated with the wilderness. There is no shepherd for the sheep, but God promises the coming of a faithful shepherd, “my servant David” (Ch. 34:23), who will establish a covenant of peace, causing the people to “dwell securely in the wilderness” (Ch. 34:25). In verse 34 Mark proclaims Jesus on the background provided by these passages: he is the one appointed by God to be the leader of the people in their exodus into the wilderness; he is God’s servant David who provides rest for the people in the wilderness.92 These theological notes are not extraneous to Mark’s presentation. They provide the indispensable background for understanding the feeding narrative which follows. The multitude who pursue Jesus and the disciples are representative of Israel once more in the wilderness. There they experience the compassion of the Messiah, who teaches them “at length” concerning the Kingdom of God.93 In the carefully constructed twofold introduction to the feeding narrative it is the wilderness motif which exhibits the deeper significance that Mark found in the events he records. The time of rest in the wilderness has come when the Son of God establishes meal-fellowship with his people.
4. The Provision of Bread in the Wilderness. Ch. 6:35–44
35And when the day was now far spent, his disciples came unto him, and said, The place is desert, and the day is now far spent;
36send them away, that they may go into the country and villages round about, and buy themselves somewhat to eat.
37But he answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred shillings’ worth of bread, and give them to eat?
38And he saith unto them, How many loaves have ye? go and see. And when they knew, they say, Five, and two fishes.
39And he commanded them that all should sit down by companies upon the green grass.
40And they sat down in ranks, by hundreds, and by fifties.
41And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up to heaven, he blessed, and brake the loaves; and he gave to the disciples94 to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all.
42And they all ate, and were filled.
43And they took up broken pieces, twelve basketfuls, and also of the fishes.
44And they that ate the loaves95 were five thousand men.
The account of the feeding of the multitude on the shores of Lake Gennesaret possesses a particular significance in the framework of Mark’s Gospel. Its elaborate introduction (Ch. 6:30–34), the extended dialogue with the disciples (Ch. 6:35–38), as well as subsequent references to this occasion (Chs. 6:52; 8:17–21) and its sequel in the feeding of the four thousand (Ch. 8:1–10), show that the evangelist regarded this event as crucial for understanding the dignity of Jesus. Its position in the Marcan framework after the account of Herod’s feast juxtaposes the sumptuous oriental aura of the Herodian court with the austere circumstances in which Jesus satisfied the multitude with the staples of a peasant’s diet. In spite of the tetrarch’s pretensions to royalty, the people are as leaderless as sheep who possess no shepherd.96 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.
35–38 The disciples felt compelled to call Jesus’ attention to the lateness of the hour and the scarcity of provision for the evening meal which was close at hand. They may have sensed a particular responsibility for the people who had followed them from the several villages in which they had ministered. From the perspective of their need it was imperative that the people be dismissed to find food in the surrounding countryside and villages. The norms of practical judgment appeared to support their proposal, although the impracticality of so large a company flocking to the neighboring towns seems not to have been considered. They were utterly unprepared for Jesus’ instruction to provide for the needs of the multitude. This is evident from the astonishment expressed in their question about purchasing bread, which is disrespectful in tone, but points unmistakably to the impossibility of complying with Jesus’ order. Two hundred denarii was roughly equivalent to the entire year’s wage of a day laborer,97 and it is clear that the Twelve did not have such a sum at their disposal. Jesus’ refusal to let the issue rest by insisting that they count their reserves of bread forces the recognition that the situation was beyond human resourcefulness. Five small barley loaves and two salted or roasted fish were insignificant in the presence of such need, and the disciples might have echoed Moses’ cry of anguish in the wilderness: “Where shall I find meat to give to all these people?… Shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them, to satisfy them?” (Num. 11:13, 22).
The extended conversation of Jesus with his disciples concerning bread is the distinctive element in the Marcan account of the feeding of the multitude. Jesus, in contrast to the circumstances depicted in all of the other miracles, appears deliberately to create the situation in which the people must be fed. His instructions to the disciples to feed the people and to count their reserves of bread signify unambiguously that the food had to be provided through the disciples, not from the multitude. Jesus knows from the beginning what he will do and the exchange with the Twelve moves toward a well-defined end. His instructions to the disciples, which perplex and baffle them, are intended to lead them to understanding. The Twelve, however, display an increasing lack of understanding; their attitude of disrespect and incredulity declares that the conduct of Jesus is beyond their comprehension. This dialogical structure of the Marcan account gives to it a particular tone and provides the basis for the criticism that the disciples did not understand because their hearts were hardened (Ch. 6:52).98
39–40 At the command of Jesus the vast gathering was constituted into table-companies in preparation for the meal.99 Two details of the Marcan account are narrowly related to the wilderness motif noted in verses 30–34. (1) The reference to “the green grass” is not in contradiction to the description of the locale as “wilderness.” The concept of the wilderness is broad enough to include pastures sufficient for the grazing of flocks, particularly after the winter rains. Yet the vivid description is most intelligible when read in the larger context provided by the introduction to the feeding narrative. The transformation of the desert into a place of refreshment and life through the power of God is an aspect of the wilderness tradition which is prominent in the prophets. By divine intervention the land of curse will become fat pastures where the sheep will be gathered and fed by the true shepherd (Ezek. 34:26f., 29). The Lord who causes his people to recline in green pastures (Ps. 23:1) evokes the shepherd imagery of verse 34 and implies that the wilderness is already being changed into the land of fertility and rest.100 (2) The arrangement of the crowd into field-groups of hundreds and fifties recalls the order of the Mosaic camp in the wilderness (e.g. Ex. 18:21). This detail is particularly striking because the documents of Qumran use these subdivisions to describe true Israel assembled in the desert in the period of the last days.101 If this concept is presupposed in verse 40, the multitude who have been instructed concerning the Kingdom is characterized as the people of the new exodus who have been summoned to the wilderness to experience messianic grace. Through these elements of the wilderness complex Mark portrays Jesus as the eschatological Savior, the second Moses who transforms a leaderless flock into the people of God.
41 In Judaism it was a stringent rule that nothing should be eaten without thanking God before and after the meal.102 On this occasion Jesus performed the duty of the host in pronouncing the blessing over the loaves and the fish. Mark’s sequence of words describes the characteristic procedure at ordinary Jewish meals103 and indicates that Jesus faithfully followed the accepted form: he took the bread in his hands, pronounced the blessing, broke the bread into pieces and distributed it. The only deviation from normal practice was that while praying Jesus looked toward heaven rather than downward, as prescribed.104 This is not an ordinary meal, and it is proper to see in Jesus’ prayer not only the customary praise and thanksgiving but a reliance upon the Father for the extraordinary power necessary to meet the people’s need. The object of the blessing pronounced was not the loaves and the fish, but “the Lord,” since every prayer before a meal began with the blessing of the name of God: “Praise unto thee, O Lord our God, King of the world.” The continuation of the prayer depended on the nature of the food involved; in the case of bread, blessing was invoked on God, “who makes bread to come forth from the earth.”105 This recognition that the bread was God’s provision was confirmed by those who were present with their “Amen.” In the act of blessing God the few loaves and fish were consecrated to the service of the Kingdom. The actual fact of the miracle is not recounted and cannot be described. Whether the bread increased in the hands of Jesus or in the hands of the disciples who distributed it was not considered important in the tradition. Here the Kingdom of God was functioning. The God who gave manna in the wilderness and who made startling provision for his servants Elijah and Elisha106 now gives to the people their daily bread, visibly and yet in a hidden manner.107
42–44 The text is emphatic that the loaves and fish were miraculously increased. In sharp contrast to the deficiency of funds and the scarcity of food at hand Mark poses “all” who “eat and are filled” with much left over, in spite of the vast size of the gathering. In contrast to a sacramental meal in which the people receive only a morsel, Mark emphasizes that their hunger was fully satisfied. When they returned to the wilderness in response to the mission of the Twelve the Galileans met the Lord who “opens his hand and satisfies the desire of every living thing” (Ps. 145:16). Reflecting the traditional respect for bread as the gift of God, it was a regulation that scraps which had fallen upon the ground during a meal were to be gathered.108 The fragments were collected in the small wicker baskets109 that every Jew carried with him as a part of his daily attire. Each of the disciples returned with his basket full. The quantity of the remaining fragments witnesses to the fulness of the meal and confirms the satisfaction noted in verse 42. The arrangement of the multitude in table companies and field groups would permit a quick estimation of the number present. Five thousand men was an immense gathering since large neighboring towns like Capernaum and Bethsaida had only 2000–3000 inhabitants each.
The miracle took place before the multitude, but there is no indication in the Marcan text that they had any realization of what was taking place. The simplicity of the meal Jesus provided is congruous with his general reluctance to perform miracles and give signs; there was nothing extraordinary in the peasants’ fare which would call attention to itself. The messianic meal remained hidden from the thousands. The event is intended to be revelatory to the disciples alone. They are the ones who prompt the action, who bring the loaves and fish, who distribute the meal and who gather the fragments. In contrast to their usually passive stance Jesus actively involved them in the total proceeding. His extended discussion with them prior to the event baffled them, while his wordless disclosure of his divine power through the event exceeded all understanding. In the eyes of the people Jesus remained an enigmatic prophetic teacher (cf. Ch. 6:14 f.), but he should have been recognized by the disciples as the Son of God at whose disposal are all of the riches of his Father. The people fail to perceive who Jesus is and they do not understand him. The disciples do not understand him although they were given an abundant opportunity to see his glory. That is why they alone are reproved for their hardness of heart and their failure to grasp the meaning of the miracle of the loaves in the subsequent narrative (Chs. 6:52; 8:17–21).
It is appropriate to see in the feeding of the multitude a fresh affirmation of the promise that the Messiah will feast with men in the wilderness (Isa. 25:6–9).110 The austerity of the meal, however, is more reminiscent of the manna in the wilderness than of the rich fare promised for the eschatological banquet. Moreover, the absence of an enduring relationship between Jesus and the people indicates that the fellowship which they shared was essentially that which exists between a host and his guests. The meal was eschatological to the degree that the people experienced rest in the wilderness and were nurtured by the faithful Shepherd of Israel, but it pointed beyond itself to an uninterrupted fellowship in the Kingdom of God. In the center of the event stands Jesus, who creates the situation and arranges everything that pertains to the meal. He orders the camp in their groups, takes and breaks the bread and divides the fish, and through his hands the miracle unfolds for those who have eyes to see. If the crowd has been described as sheep without a shepherd, Jesus is presented as the Shepherd who provides for all of their needs so that they lack nothing.
5. The Lord of the Sea. Ch. 6:45–52
45And straightway he constrained his disciples to enter the boat and to go before him unto the other side to Bethsaida,111 while he himself sendeth the multitude away.
46And after he had taken leave of them, he departed into the mountain to pray.
47And when even was come,112 the boat was in the midst of the sea, and he alone on the land.
48And seeing them distressed in rowing, for the wind was contrary unto them, about the fourth watch of the night he cometh unto them, walking on the sea, and he would have passed by them:
49but they, when they saw him walking on the sea, supposed that it was a ghost,113 and cried out;
50for they all saw him, and were troubled. But he straightway spake with them, and saith unto them, Be of good cheer: it is I; be not afraid.
51And he went up unto them into the boat; and the wind ceased; and they were sore amazed in themselves;
52for they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened.
The second occasion when Jesus demonstrated his sovereignty over the sea, like the stilling of the storm (Ch. 4:35–41), is connected with the Sea of Galilee. The earlier event focused attention on the authority of Jesus’ word; here his whole person is involved as he walks across the rough water. On both occasions the disciples fail to understand who Jesus is and experience stark fear and amazement.114 The incident is more firmly welded into the context than most of the paragraphs belonging to the Galilean ministry. The dismissal of the crowd, the hurried departure of the disciples under constraint, and the reference to the loaves in verse 52 inseparably link the narrative with the feeding of the multitude.115 When the third person plural of the narration is transposed to the first person plural of direct discourse the section reads like the excited report of one of the Twelve who had experienced terror upon seeing the Lord of the Sea.
45–46 The abruptness with which Jesus constrained the disciples to return to their boat and directed them to Bethsaida Julias in the territory of Herod Philip suggests a crisis which is unexplained in the Marcan narrative. The wilderness plays a prominent role, however, in the several messianic uprisings of the first century, and Jn. 6:14 f. states that the people recognized Jesus as the promised eschatological Prophet (cf. Mk. 6:14 f.) and determined to proclaim him king. The tension of messianic excitement was dangerously in the air after the meal in the desert. The hurried dismissal of the disciples prevented them from adding fuel to the fire by revealing to the people the miraculous character of the evening meal. Jesus remained to pacify and dismiss the unruly crowd. His retreat to the hillside for prayer and the subsequent withdrawal from Galilee are the direct result of the outburst of enthusiasm which followed the feeding of the multitude. Jesus refused to be the warrior-Messiah of popular expectations.116
This analysis is confirmed when the reference to Jesus in prayer is seen in the context of Mark’s structure. The evangelist speaks of Jesus’ withdrawal to a solitary place for prayer after the excitement of the sabbath activity in Capernaum (Ch. 1:35–39), after the miracle of the loaves (Ch. 6:45 f.), and following the Last Supper (Ch. 14:26–42). In each case it is night and Jesus finds himself in a moment of crisis prompted by the enthusiasm of the crowds or the impending passion.117 On this occasion it was the threat inherent in irresponsible excitement which prompted Jesus to retreat from the people. As at the beginning of his ministry (Ch. 1:12 f.), Jesus’ presence in the wilderness provoked the renewal of temptation: refusing the acclaim of the multitude he gave himself to a long period of solitude in order to affirm his obedience to the Father.
47 By the time Jesus had finished praying it was the dark hours before dawn and the disciples were well out to sea. The observation that the boat was on the sea and Jesus was alone on the land seems labored until it is seen as an element in a recurring pattern in Mark. Whenever the master is absent from the disciples (or appears to be so, as in Ch. 4:35–41), they find themselves in distress. And each time they experience anguish it is because they lack faith (Chs. 4:35 ff.; 6:45 ff.; 9:14 ff.).118 This is clearly the case in this episode where the physical exhaustion of the disciples was aggravated by stark terror when they encountered what they believed to be a night spectre. Mark’s notice indicates that the crowd has dispersed and brings into focus the principals in the drama which unfolded on the sea.
48–50 The reason that Jesus came to the disciples across the rough sea about 3:00 A.M. was that he had seen his disciples exerting themselves against a strong wind which blew presumably from the north or north-east and drove them off their course. Because the text stresses that Jesus’ coming to the disciples was the direct result of his perceiving their distress, the explanation that “he meant to pass by them” seems enigmatic, if not alien to the context. Among the several proposals that have been offered three are worthy of serious consideration. (1) The words record the impression that the disciples had at that time that the spectral figure intended to pass by them. The complex of verses 48–50 becomes intelligible when transposed into the first person: “He meant to pass by us, but when we saw him walking upon the sea we thought it was a ghost, and cried out; for we all saw him and were terrified.”119 (2) The several modern translations, which create the impression of an independent and more or less isolated statement, fail to represent Mark’s intention. The text should be rendered, “for he intended to pass their way.” The initial particle is to be understood in an explicative sense rather than as a coordinating conjunction; it introduces a subordinate clause clarifying why Jesus came walking on the water. Verse 48 thus forms a composite whole: when Jesus saw that the disciples were wearing themselves out, he already felt the desire to reveal his presence to them by passing their way. This proposal is grammatically feasible and introduces cohesion and balance into the account.120 (3) For Mark the event is a theophany, a manifestation of the transcendent Lord who will “pass by” as God did at Sinai before Moses (Ex. 33:19, 22) or on Horeb before Elijah (1 Kings 19:11). The text simply uses the language of theophany familiar from the Septuagint.121 It is possible that the evangelist intends his readers to recognize an allusion to Job 9:8, 11: “he walks upon the waves of the sea … If he goes by me, I will not see him, and if he passes by me, I will not recognize him.” In this instance the divine appearance occurred for the very purpose of being seen. In wonderful fashion Jesus put his authority at the disposal of the disciples and passed by to assure them of his presence with them.
The disciples reacted to Jesus’ appearance with terror, convinced that they had encountered a water spirit. The popular belief that spirits of the night brought disaster is illustrated by a tradition preserved in the Talmud: “Rabbah said, Seafarers told me that the wave that sinks a ship appears with a white fringe of fire at its crest, and when stricken with clubs on which is engraven, ‘I am that I am, Yah, the Lord of Hosts, Amen, Amen, Selah,’ it subsides.”122 When Jesus perceived the terror of the disciples he allayed their fears and corrected their delusion with a summons to courage. The emphatic “I” in verse 50 is ambiguous. It can be understood as a normal statement of identity (“it is I, Jesus”), but it can also possess deeper significance as the recognized formula of self-revelation which rests ultimately on the “I am that I am” of Ex. 3:14. Not only the immediate context of the walking upon the water but the words with which the emphatic “I” is framed favor the theophanic interpretation. The admonitions to “take heart” and to “have no fear” which introduce and conclude the “I am he” are an integral part of the divine formula of self-revelation (e.g. Ps. 115:9 ff.; 118:5 f.; Isa. 41:4 ff., 13 ff.; 43:1 ff.; 44:2 ff.; 51:9 ff.). In the darkness, when the disciples are deceived by their eyes, Jesus affirms his identity with the words “I am he; fear not.” But the emphatic overtone should not be missed and is confirmed by the evangelist’s continuation in verse 51f.123
51–52 Jesus assured the disciples with his word and his presence. When he joined them in the boat the wind suddenly died down. Since the abatement of the wind may be ascribed to natural causes it is unnecessary to find here an additional demonstration of Jesus’ sovereignty. The disciples, however, were utterly astonished. They were undoubtedly physically drained from their rowing against a strong head-wind and emotionally drained from their experience of terror. They had no categories for understanding Jesus’ presence with them in the boat. Mark alone explains that they had failed to understand about the loaves and that their hearts were hardened (verse 52; cf. Ch. 8:17). The disciples certainly realized that the multitude had been fed with five loaves and two fish, but they had failed to grasp that this event pointed beyond itself to the secret of Jesus’ person. Because they were not truly open to the action of God in Jesus they had missed the significance of the miracle of the loaves for them, and saw only “a marvel.” That is why they displayed not confidence and joy in Jesus’ unexpected presence but faithless panic.124 Mark’s concluding explanation is important in three respects: (1) it indicates that some events in Jesus’ ministry are “parabolic” in that they provide the key to other events.125 If the disciples had understood the miracle of the loaves they would have recognized Jesus’ identity as the sovereign Lord who walks upon the waves of the sea. (2) The problem of understanding is not intellectual, but existential; it is a matter of faith. The disciples did understand Jesus’ incidental instructions and they understood that the multitude had been fed. But their confused reaction to Jesus indicates that they failed to recognize that God was acting in history through him. Their misunderstanding reflects unbelief. (3) The disciples’ reaction to Jesus’ actions (as well as his teachings) throughout Mark’s Gospel is characterized by non-understanding. In tracing this lack of understanding to “hardness of heart” Mark indicates that at this stage in Jesus’ ministry the disciples are not essentially different from his opponents, who also fail to recognize his unique character and exhibit hardness of heart (cf. Chs. 3:5; 10:5).
The proper framework for understanding this unusual episode is provided by the OT. There the power of the Lord over seas and rivers, storms and wind, is repeatedly proclaimed. As the creator of the sea God subdues it and treads upon the waves in demonstration of his majesty. Because he is the Lord men do not need to be afraid no matter how the sea may rage or the wind blow. Jesus’ appearance on the Sea of Galilee must be appreciated as a reality and a sign that the living God has come nearer to men in the revelation of the Son. Jesus had no intention of simply passing by his disciples in a display of enigmatic glory. His walking upon the water proclaimed that the hostility of nature against man must cease with the coming of the Lord, whose concealed majesty is unveiled in the proclamation “I am he.” At an early date this episode was interpreted as a pledge of Christ’s aid; it provided the martyrs with the assurance of Jesus’ saving nearness to all who believe and obey him.126
6. Healing in the Region of Gennesaret. Ch. 6:53–56
53And when they had crossed over, they came to the land unto Gennesaret,127 and moored to the shore.128
54And when they were come out of the boat, straightway the people knew him,
55and ran about that whole region, and began to carry about on their beds those that were sick, where they heard he was.
56And wheresoever he entered, into villages, or into cities, or into the country, they laid the sick in the marketplaces,129 and besought him that they might touch if it were but the border of his garment:130 and as many as touched him were made whole.
53 The account of healing in the region of Gennesaret is the evangelist’s summary of Jesus’ activity just prior to his departure for the coastal cities of Tyre and Sidon (Ch. 7:24). It is tied to its context as the natural sequel to the account of the storm at sea which subsided when Jesus joined his disciples in the boat (Ch. 6:51). Although the disciples had rowed toward Bethsaida, a short distance from the northeast corner of the lake, the strong head-wind appears to have driven them severely southward. The fertile plain of Gennesaret extended for about three miles between Capernaum and Tiberias along the western shore of the Sea of Galilee, and in the first century was thickly populated.131
54–55 Though the people were not expecting Jesus, he was immediately recognized. He was well known from his ministry at Capernaum and reports of his healing power had penetrated the entire region (cf. Ch. 1:28). The presence of Jesus created an immense excitement. Mark’s picture of the people hastening from place to place as reports of his presence were received, carrying their sick on mattresses, graphically conveys the impression of a determined effort to seize an unexpected opportunity for healing. The healing of a paralyzed man who had been carried to Jesus on a mattress (Ch. 2:1–12), as well as of others who had been brought to him (Ch. 1:32–34), undoubtedly had been the subject of bazaar conversation in many towns and cities and created the climate of expectation which greeted Jesus in Gennesaret.
56 Whenever Jesus entered villages, cities or hamlets the report that he was coming had preceded him. He found the sick assembled in the marketplace or any open space where they could be carried in anticipation of his arrival, convinced that if they could only touch the fringe of his garment they would be restored to health. The statement that as many as touched him were healed is to be understood in the light of Mark’s treatment of this mutual relationship between Jesus and the afflicted in Ch. 5:25–34. What was involved was not simply material contact with Jesus’ clothing, but the touch of faith. At the same time, this vignette is reminiscent of other crowds which had clamored to touch Jesus in a feverish mood of excitement bordering on hysteria (see on Ch. 3:7–10) and recalls an earlier situation when Jesus found it necessary to avoid towns and cities altogether (Ch. 1:45). The works of Jesus appear to be an epiphany of divine power and the people treat him as a miracle worker or divine man whose power is released through touch.132 In this connection the absence of any reference to preaching or teaching activity is significant. The people are not prepared for Jesus’ proclamation of the word, and the public ministry interrupted in Ch. 6:31 has not been resumed. They understand only that power is channeled through his person. Jesus patiently bears with their limited insight and graciously heals those who reach out to him from the bed of affliction.