1 The introductory formula, “and he was saying to them,” indicates that Jesus’ solemn affirmation is the conclusion to a larger discourse of which only the most salient point has been preserved (see on Ch. 2:27). Ch. 9:1 serves an important function in the structure of Chs. 8:34–9:1. The call to responsible commitment (Ch. 8:34) is followed by the contrast between a man who secures his own existence through denial and one who is killed because of his unwavering confession of Jesus and the gospel (Ch. 8:35). The statements which follow explore the consequences of denial (Ch. 8:36–38), but refer only by implication to those whose commitment will lead to their death. Absolute allegiance to Jesus demands response, and this is provided in Ch. 9:1. In context, Jesus’ prophecy is a word of comfort addressed to those who heed his call to follow him in spite of the cost involved. The Semitism “taste death” alludes to the harsh reality of violent death contemplated in Ch. 8:35b; men who are faithful to Jesus and the gospel will lose their lives. But they are given the assurance that this anomalous situation is for a determined period of time and they shall see an open manifestation of God’s sovereignty “with power.” The solemn introduction with which Jesus prefaces his words, “Amen, I say to you,” guarantees their truthfulness. His promise is grounded upon absolute certainty.1
It has been shown that in the Gospel of Mark the Kingdom of God and the person of Jesus are so integrally bound together as to be inseparable.2 This has important bearing on Ch. 9:1. The concept of “the Kingdom of God come with power,” like the concept of the Son of Man coming with glory (Ch. 8:38), has a strictly Christocentric orientation. It refers to an event which provides an open manifestation of Jesus’ dignity. Jesus’ solemn affirmation expresses from a different perspective the fundamental surprise enunciated in Ch. 8:38: the ambiguity of the situation in which God’s sovereignty may be questioned, his anointed emissary treated with contempt, and his people exposed to shame will be resolved in a revelation of definitive power. Essential to both Ch. 8:38 and Ch. 9:1 is the contrast between concealment and revelation which expresses the tension between the hidden character of Jesus’ earthly ministry and his manifestation in glory and power at the consummation. The function and the perspective of these two passages, however, is not the same. Ch. 8:38 served to warn those who choose to stand with the world in its contempt for Jesus that his apparent weakness and openness to humiliation will be reversed in an awesome manifestation of his glory as the eschatological Judge. The function of Ch. 9:1, with its reference to “the Kingdom come with power,” is to provide certainty that the Son of Man will indeed come with glory, and that those who now share his sufferings will also share in his exaltation.3 Its reference is to an event sufficiently near that certain individuals present will be privileged to see a manifestation of the sovereignty of God in a triumphal unveiling of Jesus’ dignity.4 Nothing short of this can satisfy the expectation prompted by Jesus’ promise, which is intended to strengthen the people of God for their coming ordeal. The tension of their own “hiddenness” in a world which seeks to lead them to denial and which heaps abuse upon them when they are steadfast is acute, and requires an open manifestation of God’s sovereignty.
The immediate sequel to Jesus’ solemn promise is the account of the transfiguration (Ch. 9:2–8). This indicates that Mark understood Jesus’ statement to refer to this moment of transcendent glory conceived as an enthronement and an anticipation of the glory which is to come.5 It is instructive to compare 2 Peter 1:16–18, which speaks of “the power and the parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Peter made known to his churches the power that was to be revealed at Jesus’ coming in terms of the glory which had been revealed in the transfiguration. This expresses precisely the relationship between Ch. 8:38 (parousia) and Ch. 9:1 (transfiguration). The transfiguration was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus’ sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the parousia, when he will come “with power and glory” (Ch. 13:26).6 The fulfilment of Jesus’ promise a short time later (Ch. 9:2) provided encouragement to the harassed Christians in Rome and elsewhere that their commitment to Jesus and the gospel was valid. The parousia is an absolute certainty. The transfiguration constituted a warning to all others that the ambiguity which permits the humiliation of Jesus and of those faithful to him will be resolved in the decisive intervention of God promised in Ch. 8:38.7
3. The Transfiguration: the Glory of the Son. Ch. 9:2–8
2After six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured8 before them;
3and his garments became glistening, exceeding white, so as no fuller9 on earth can whiten them.
4And there appeared unto them Elijah with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5And Peter answereth and saith to Jesus, Rabbi, it is good for us to be here: and let us make10 three tabernacles,11 one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah.
6For he knew not what to answer; for they became sore afraid.
7And there came a cloud overshadowing12 them: and there came a voice out of the cloud, This is my beloved Son:13 hear ye him.
8And suddenly looking round about, they saw no one any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
In Mark, the transfiguration is a dramatic indication of the resplendent glory which belongs to Jesus as God’s unique Son. As a revelation of the concealed splendor of the Son of Man, the event points forward to the advent promised in Ch. 8:38, when Jesus’ status as the eschatological Judge will be manifested to the world. The episode provides a personal and preliminary revelation that he whom the disciples follow on a way marked by suffering and humiliation is the Son of Man whose total ministry has cosmic implications. Ch. 9:2–8 serves as a prelude to Chs. 14:1–16:8 and corresponds in function to Isa. 52:13–15 in relationship to Ch. 53:1–12: it offers assurance that despite apparent abandonment by God, Jesus is the Lord’s Servant who prospers in the task he has been sent to accomplish. The revelation of Jesus’ mysterious, transcendent dignity serves to confirm Peter’s acknowledgment that Jesus is the Messiah (Ch. 8:29), and Jesus’ own prophecy of his impending passion and vindication (Ch. 8:31). The event is oriented toward the disciples (Ch. 9:2 “before them,” 4 “appeared to them,” 7 “This is my beloved Son: listen to him”) to strengthen them in their commitment and to prepare them for the sufferings which they must share.
The theory that the transfiguration is a misplaced account of a resurrection appearance of the Lord continues to find support14 in spite of the solid objections which have been marshalled against such an interpretation.15 It is necessary to recognize in the narrative the presence of details which ground the event in history: the precise time reference (Ch. 9:2), the designation “Rabbi” and the proposal of verse 5. Mark clearly believed that he was reporting a factual event which had primary significance for the disciples as a disclosure of Jesus’ transcendent sonship. While the language used to describe the event was supplied from the vocabulary of theophany in the OT and in Jewish apocalyptic, the actual content of the revelation finds its closest parallel in the witness of the heavenly voice at Jesus’ baptism with its attendant cosmic overtones (Ch. 1:9–11). There is room for discussion concerning the form of the event (i.e. it is possible that the disciples saw a vision of Elijah and Moses and heard the heavenly voice within the scope of that vision) but the transfiguration as an entity must be regarded as an act of revelation for which God was responsible.
The desire to find the Feast of Tabernacles implicitly in the background of the transfiguration account is based on details within the text, especially the reference to the “booths” in verse 5.16 The Feast of Tabernacles, like the Passover, had come to have significant reference to the final deliverance promised by God. The several elements in the account, however, can be traced back to the reports of Moses’ ascent to Sinai and his vision of the glory of God (Ex. 24:12–18); a more decisive influence seems to have been exerted upon the narrative from this tradition rather than from any other.17 The transfiguration scene develops as a new “Sinai” theophany with Jesus as the central figure.
2–3 The precise temporal reference (“after six days”) is unusual in Mark and indicates that the evangelist attached special importance to this episode.18 The six days appear to refer back to the whole complex of teaching which followed Peter’s affirmation of Jesus’ messianic dignity, and more particularly to the solemn promise of Ch. 9:1. The unveiling of Jesus’ glory in the presence of the three disciples corresponds to the assurance that some will see. The transfiguration is presented in the terminology of a theophany which reveals the powerful coming of the Kingdom of God. Understood in this light, the precise time reference in verse 2 recalls Ex. 24:16f. where six days designates a time of preparation for the reception of revelation. Mark evidently regarded Jesus’ announcement of his approaching suffering as the preparation required for witnessing the disclosure of Christ’s true character. In this way the suffering and glorification of Jesus are as intimately associated at the beginning of the narrative as at its close when Jesus speaks of the Son of Man as an object of contempt (Ch. 9:12).19 The choice of Peter, James and John to see the transfiguration corresponds to the privileged relationship these three disciples shared with Jesus on other occasions (Chs. 5:37; 13:3; 14:33) and served to qualify them as witnesses to the event after Jesus’ resurrection (Ch. 9:9). The “high mountain” recalls the theophanies on the mountain of God (Sinai, Ex. 24; Horeb, 1 Kings 19) where Moses and Elijah received a vision of the glory of God. In the choice of location Jesus was not merely seeking solitude. In order to bring the feeling and thoughts of the disciples closer to the significance of the hour he used the evocative significance of the mountain in the wilderness tradition of the OT.20
Before the eyes of his most intimate disciples the human appearance of Jesus was perceptibly altered in accordance with the splendor of the transfigured world. For a brief moment the veil of his humanity was lifted and Jesus’ body presented itself in the form of tenuously material light. In the OT the glory of God is always conceived as shining brilliance or bright light. The reference to the glistening character of Jesus’ clothing reflects this concept and the language of apocalyptic where the image of radiance and resplendent light is borrowed to describe the glory of the Messiah.21 As a revelation of the hidden quality of Jesus’ life the transfiguration was an anticipation and guarantee of an eschatological reality: the glory of the Consummator. The disciples thus saw a disclosure of the mystery of the parousia (Ch. 8:38), when there will be a vindication of the glory of God superseding all previous revelations of that glory, at Sinai or elsewhere.
4 It was appropriate that Jesus, whose work was inaugurated in the wilderness at his baptism and whose way through the desert was directed by the Spirit (Ch. 1:9–13), should be accompanied in this moment of high revelation by the eminent prophets of the wilderness who stand by his side to testify to his character and mission. Jesus is the one in whom the promise of the second exodus becomes a reality. Moses appears as the representative of the old covenant and the promise, now shortly to be fulfilled in the death of Jesus, and Elijah as the appointed restorer of all things (Chs. 1:2f.; 9:11). The stress on Elijah’s presence at the transfiguration22 indicates that the fulfilment of “all things” has arrived (Ch. 9:12). The transfiguration is the prelude to the passion, and Elijah is there to testify to the ultimate importance of the impending events in an historical sequence which culminates in consummation. The presence of Elijah with Moses thus has eschatological significance in the specific sense that they proclaim the coming of the end.
5–6 Peter’s impulsive response is in keeping with his character and the numinous nature of the incident. He recognizes two of the most eminent figures in the history of revelation and feels that it is good that he and the sons of Zebedee are present so they can serve Jesus and his heavenly attendants. His proposal to build three tabernacles evidently rests upon a misunderstanding of the significance of the situation. The desire to erect new tents of meeting where God can again communicate with men implies that Peter regards the time of the second exodus as fulfilled and the goal of the sabbath rest achieved.23 He is anxious to find the fulfilment of the promised glory now, prior to the sufferings Jesus had announced as necessary. His comment reflects a failure to appreciate that the transfiguration was only a momentary anticipation of the glory of the consummated kingdom. The blessings of the new age, which will be shared by all the people of God (Ch. 13:26f.), cannot be secured until Jesus has accomplished the sufferings which are integral to his appointed task, culminating in his death. Mark’s explanatory comment indicates that the three disciples were quite unable to grasp the messianic significance of what they had witnessed. The direct involvement of God in sending Moses and Elijah and the character of the glory of Christ were tokens of the eschatological judgment announced in Ch. 8:38. The fear that the disciples manifested is understandable in this context. At the same time, the occurrence of the transfiguration between Jesus’ announcement of his approaching passion (Ch. 8:31) and the conversation with the disciples on the way down the mountain (Ch. 9:11–13) indicates that Peter’s words in verse 5 reflect the same erroneous concept of God’s intention as his response in Ch. 8:32.24 The way through the wilderness has not been terminated by the disclosure of Jesus’ unique glory.
7 The response of God to Peter’s proposal discloses the real significance of this event. The appearance of a cloud enveloping Jesus, Moses and Elijah served to distinguish the witnesses from the participants in the unveiling of Jesus’ parousia glory. This prepared the disciples to hear the solemn admonition addressed to them. The theophany is depicted in the language of the OT where the cloud is frequently the symbol of God’s presence and protection (e.g. Ex. 16:10; 19:9; 24:15f.; 33:1). It is particularly significant that the correlation of the cloud and the voice is limited to the exodus accounts of the Pentateuch, as in the instance of the theophany on Sinai (Ex. 24:16). The cloud is God’s tabernacle, the pavilion which both reveals and conceals his glory. The one whom God hides within his pavilion bears a special relationship to him (Ps. 29:5). In the case of both Moses and Elijah the epiphany of the glory of God served to vindicate their mission during their respective ministries in the wilderness. This is also the function of the cloud and the heavenly voice on this occasion. When Jesus began his mission in the wilderness of Judea the voice of God declared him to be the beloved Son, the object of his elective pleasure (Ch. 1:11). Now on the wilderness mountain the voice is heard again, reaffirming the Father’s approval and confirming Jesus’ dignity as the transcendent Son, although he has assumed the role of the rejected, suffering Servant of Isa. 53. Jesus’ obedience to his messianic vocation is vindicated by God, precisely at the point where Jesus has announced what obedience entails (Ch. 8:31). The presence of the cloud and the solemn declaration of the voice affirm the same truth: Jesus is the unique Son of God who enjoys the unbroken presence and approval of the Father.
The spoken content of the revelation deserves careful attention. The first clause affirming Jesus’ unique filial relationship to God provides the immutable ground for the solemn admonition in the second clause. Because Jesus is God’s only Son the disciples are exhorted to hear and obey him. The stress upon Jesus’ present status as the Son of God indicates that the transfiguration is more than an enacted promise of future glory. The unchanging fact of his transcendent sonship is the constant presupposition of his words, which reveal the will of God. The command “listen to him,” which reinforces this insight, contains an allusion to Deut. 18:15 and serves to identify Jesus as the eschatological Prophet like Moses to whom Israel must listen because he is the final bearer of the word of God. The exhortation has bearing upon all of Jesus’ words, but has particular relevance to the new instruction Jesus had been giving to his followers concerning the necessity of his sufferings and of their participation in his humiliation. There can be no doubt that Mark intended his congregation in Rome to take this word to heart.
8 When the cloud lifted, Moses and Elijah had vanished. Jesus alone remained as the sole bearer of God’s new revelation to be disclosed in the cross and resurrection. Moses and Elijah had also followed the path of obedience, but having borne witness to Jesus’ character and mission, they can help him no more. The way to the cross demanded the submission of the Son and Jesus must set out upon it alone. The transfiguration, however, has disclosed a new aspect of God’s truth: Jesus is himself the new Tabernacle of divine glory. His word and deed transcend all past revelation. This was the truth with which the disciples were confronted when they realized they were once again alone in the presence of Jesus.
4. The Coming of Elijah. Ch. 9:9–13
9And as they were coming down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, save when the Son of man should have risen again from the dead.
10And they kept the saying,25 questioning among themselves what the rising again from the dead should mean.26
11And they asked him, saying, How is it that the scribes say that Elijah must first come?
12And he said unto them, Elijah indeed cometh first, and restoreth all things:27 and how is it written of the Son of man,28 that he should suffer many things and be set at nought?29
13But I say unto you, that Elijah is come, and they have also done unto him whatsoever they would,30 even as it is written of him.
9 The terse conversation during the descent from the mountain was provoked by Jesus’ instruction to tell no one what had taken place until after his resurrection. The clear implication of this statement is that the period of concealment is to be followed by a time of open proclamation when his status as the transfigured Son and eschatological Judge is to be announced to all (cf. Chs. 13:10; 14:9). This exhortation is of special interest, however, because it is the only instance in the Gospel where Jesus sets a limit to the silence enjoined. William Wrede seized upon this injunction and found in it the keystone to Mark’s theological attempt to explain why Jesus had remained unrecognized as the Messiah during his earthly career.31 What Wrede failed to perceive was the intention behind the injunction, which must be viewed within the larger context of Chs. 8:29–9:13. The fundamental misunderstanding of Jesus’ messianic vocation reflected in Ch. 8:29–33 is still evident in Ch. 9:6–10. Peter is deeply impressed with Jesus’ stature as the Messiah and the transfigured Son of God, but he and the other disciples find the necessity of the passion completely incomprehensible (Chs. 8:32 f.; 9:5 f., 30, 32). Jesus prohibits the telling of what they had seen and perceived because their enthusiasm was based on a superficial preconception of what messiahship and sonship signifies. Jesus’ injunction in verse 9 is actually a challenge to perceive and proclaim the exalted Son of Man within the context of his historical ministry marked by suffering and rejection, culminated by death on the cross. The unaltered presupposition of Jesus’ reference to his resurrection from the dead is the theological necessity to accept the passion in all of its dimensions. Within the will of God Jesus can be the exalted, resurrected Son of Man only as he is the suffering, rejected Son of Man (Ch. 9:12b). The reference to his resurrection is appropriate because this event is already a first realization of the majesty of the Son of Man at his parousia. The reality of his exaltation as the transfigured Son, however, can be appreciated only when the significance of his sufferings has been grasped. The response of the disciples in verse 10 implies that Jesus’ resurrection will itself be the precondition for the disciples to understand this fact.
10 The disciples obeyed Jesus’ injunction, but were puzzled concerning its meaning. It can be assumed that they were thoroughly familiar with the concept of the resurrection of the dead as the climactic event of the last day (cf. Chs. 6:14, 16; 12:18–27). What perplexed them was what this rising from the dead of the Son of Man could mean. This is explicit in the textual tradition supported by Caesarean and Western manuscripts, where the precise form of Jesus’ reference in verse 9 is repeated in verse 10, and it is the necessary implication in the text followed by the ASV or RSV as well. The disciples’ real question is, What have death and resurrection to do with the Son of Man? They possessed no categories by which they could distinguish between Jesus’ statements concerning his resurrection and those concerning his parousia, and the relationship between these two distinct events remained obscure. Jesus’ reference to his death and resurrection after three days may have led them to expect a duplicate of Elijah’s experience of translation (cf. Ch. 8:31 with 2 kings 2:17), or some similar experience of exaltation following humiliation. The place of Jesus’ passion and death, together with his resurrection, was the unexpected and incomprehensible middle term between the present and the magnificent future assured by the transfiguration. What bothered the disciples specifically, then, was the phrase “from among the dead,” together with the implication that time would yet remain before the consummation for the proclamation of what they had seen.
11 The disciples’ question concerning Elijah is relevant at this point in the discussion. The presence of Elijah at the transfiguration (Ch. 9:4f.), as well as Jesus’ reference to the resurrection,32 suggested that the consummation was imminent. But if this is true, where is Elijah who must prepare the people for the searching judgment of God (cf. Mal. 3:1f.; 4:5f.; Ecclus. 48:10)? It is probable that this question actually masks an objection to Jesus’ announcement of his suffering and death, for the restoration Elijah is to effect just prior to the end makes messianic suffering unnecessary.
The reference to scribal teaching sheds light on a polemic use of the biblical teaching concerning the return of Elijah before the day of the Lord to discredit the impression created by Jesus’ authoritative word and deed. In the earliest sources the primary task of Elijah is to prepare the people of God for the reception of salvation through repentance.33 An early tradition, however, links the prophet’s return with the restoration of the flask of anointing oil (Mekilta to Ex. 16:33), and this conception is presupposed in the later scribal objections to Jesus’ messiahship as expressed by Trypho in Justin’s famous Dialogue: “The Messiah—if he has indeed been born and exists anywhere—is unknown and does not even know himself, and has no power, until Elijah comes to anoint him and make him known to all” (Dial. 8, 4; cf. 49, 1; Jn. 7:27). If this is the general scribal concept to which the disciples refer, it serves to reinforce their objection to Jesus’ tacit allusion to his death in verse 9. The appearance of Elijah with Jesus upon the mountain of transfiguration could only be the anticipated return. What room for sufferings remains?
12 Jesus acknowledged that the affirmation that Elijah must come first and restore all things was certainly correct (cf. Mal. 3:23 LXX=4:5f. M.T.). The fact that the Scripture also affirms that the Son of Man must experience suffering and rejection, however, indicates that Elijah’s task as the restorer cannot signify what the disciples apparently believe it to mean. The reference to the sufferings of the Son of Man is undeniably abrupt, but serves to qualify the facile assumptions of the disciples as well as the scribes34 and responds to the more fundamental, unexpressed question concerning the necessity for suffering which lies hidden in the question of verse 11. In verse 9 Jesus had spoken of his resurrection from the dead; his suffering and rejection is introduced in verse 12b by way of explanation. The allusion to Isa. 53:3, where the Servant experiences rejection and is treated as an object of contempt, reinforces Jesus’ insistence that his sonship is misunderstood unless it is perceived that his exaltation is inseparably bound up with his humiliation. The response to the disciples’ question concerning Elijah by a further question concerning the rejection of the Son of Man has a deeper intention, however. Basic to Jesus’ understanding of Elijah’s function is the restoration through repentance promised in Mal. 4:6, and fulfilled in the prophetic ministry of John the Baptist. Verse 12b serves as a warning that the sufferings of John and his shameful rejection do not disqualify him from fulfilling the role of Elijah nor do Jesus’ sufferings discredit him as the transcendent Son of Man.
13 Jesus’ veiled affirmation implicitly identifies John the Baptist as the eschatological messenger promised in Mal. 4:5f. John is the Elijah sent by God because he fulfilled the function expected of Elijah, leading the people to renewal through repentance and forgiveness. His sufferings at the hands of Herod and Herodias (Ch. 6:14–29), which are indicated by an idiomatic expression denoting absolute and arbitrary power (cf. 2 Macc. 7:16), strengthen the identity of John with Elijah, who in his own ministry was harassed by a wicked woman and a weak king (1 Kings 19:2, 10).35 The startling character of this identification needs to be appreciated. The secret of Jesus’ messianic vocation, conditioned by suffering as well as exaltation, leads to the disclosure of John’s vocation as Elijah.36 That the identification is not made explicit is consistent with the restraint Mark has exercised elsewhere when dealing with Jesus’ identity. Thus in Ch. 1:2–8 the Baptist’s resemblance to Elijah is simply suggested without comment and his ministry is placed under the rubric of Mal. 3:1 rather than Mal. 4:5f. The failure of the disciples to understand Jesus’ teaching about his own sufferings (Chs. 8:32f.; 9:6, 10, 11, 32) undoubtedly extended to their comprehension of the sufferings of Elijah as well. John’s identity, like that of Jesus himself, remains hidden until after the resurrection. Paradoxically, the vindication of John’s ministry comes through his death and the violation of every human right. He participates in God’s sovereign purpose which triumphs in apparent defeat. John’s obscurity and ignominious death express all the ambiguity and suffering of Christian existence in the interval before the parousia. In this sense, John provides an example for the persecuted Christians in Rome. What they (Antipas and Herodias) did to him, they (men hostile to God) will do to men whose allegiance to Jesus and the gospel is unwavering (Ch. 13:9–13).37 The significant point, however, is that he suffered as Elijah and his ministry demonstrated that the fulfilment of “all things” was at hand. The ambiguity between his true dignity and his hiddenness in the world will be resolved only at the parousia when the people of God will be vindicated by the Son of Man who shared their sufferings and rejection. The reference to Elijah’s sufferings thus underscores the point made in verse 9: glory comes only after humiliation.
5. The Healing of a Possessed Boy. Ch. 9:14–29
14And when they came to the disciples, they saw38 a great multitude about them, and scribes questioning them.
15And straightway all the multitude, when they saw him, were greatly amazed, and running to him saluted him.
16And he asked them,39 What question ye with them?
17And one of the multitude answered him, Teacher, I brought unto thee my son, who hath a dumb spirit;
18and wheresoever it taketh him, it dasheth him down: and he foameth, and grindeth his teeth, and pineth away40: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast it out; and they were not able.
19And he answereth them and saith, O faithless generation,41 how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you? bring him unto me.
20And they brought him unto him: and when he saw him, straightway the spirit tore him grievously; and he fell on the ground, and wallowed foaming.
21And he asked his father, How long time is it since this hath come unto him? And he said, From a child.
22And oft-times it hath cast him both into the fire and into the waters, to destroy him: but if thou canst do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.
23And Jesus said unto him, If thou canst!42 All things are possible to him that believeth.
24Straightway the father of the child cried out, and said,43 I believe; help thou mine unbelief.
25And when Jesus saw that a multitude came running together,44 he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I command thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
26And having cried out, and torn him much, he came out: and the boy became as one dead; insomuch that the more part said, He is dead.
27But Jesus took him by the hand, and raised him up; and he arose.
28And when he was come into the house, his disciples asked him privately, How is it that we could not cast it out?
29And he said unto them, This kind can come out by nothing save prayer.45
Mark’s account of this incident is vivid and detailed: verses 14b–16, 21–24 and 26–27 have no parallel in Matthew or Luke. The impression conveyed is that the episode has been reported from the point of view of one of the disciples who returned with Jesus from the mountain. The return from the glory of the transfiguration to the reality of demonic possession serves to reinforce the theme that Jesus enters into his glory only through confrontation with the demonic and the suffering this entails (cf. Ch. 9:19). The relationship between Ch. 9:2–13 and Ch. 9:14–29 corresponds to that between Jesus’ baptism, with its theophanic note, and the trial in the desert where he confronted Satan (Ch. 1:9–13). The stress upon the powerlessness of the disciples is an element not found elsewhere in the evangelical tradition, but this is closely related to their failure to understand Jesus or the power released through him.46 The episode exhibits the disaster which occurs when men from whom the power of faith may be expected are proven to be void of power when it is needed. The healing of the possessed boy demonstrates what faith expressed through prayer could have accomplished, even though Jesus was absent from the disciples. There are pastoral overtones throughout the account, which has pointed relevance for the community of Rome, which felt itself to be powerless and defeated in the absence of the Lord at a critical moment in its own experience.
14–15 The scene at the base of the mountain is vividly sketched. The dispute, in which the disciples, the scribes and certain of the by-standers were taking part, had so engrossed the crowd that they had not seen Jesus and the other three men approaching. The presence of the scribes may indicate witnesses sent out by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem to gather evidence against Jesus, who was suspected of misleading the people.47 The prescribed procedure, which demanded a thorough investigation by official envoys, offers an explanation for the presence of scribes from Jerusalem at other points in Jesus’ ministry (Chs. 3:22–30; 7:1–5). If this supposition is correct, the dispute undoubtedly concerned not only the failure of the disciples but the more basic question concerning their authorization to attempt an exorcism.
Verse 15 has the character of a marginal note, presenting Mark’s comment on the fact reported: in seeing Jesus, the people were astonished. The astonishment of the crowd was occasioned by the presence of Jesus, rather than by any particular aspect of the event (such as his unexpected arrival at a critical moment).48 In the Gospel expressions of fear and astonishment serve to emphasize the revelatory content and christological significance of many incidents. The evangelist wishes to stress that the person of Jesus himself provokes astonishment (cf. Ch. 10:32). This is the only instance where the respectful salutation of Jesus, presumably with the word of greeting “peace to you,” by the multitude is reported. It is appropriate to the notice that the people were astonished when they saw him.
16–18 Jesus’ question was probably addressed to the scribes, who had taken advantage of his absence to embarrass the disciples still further. He was answered, however, by a man from the crowd—the one who was most deeply concerned—the father of a possessed boy who had brought his son to Jesus for healing. His respectful address “Teacher,” which carries the same nuance as “Rabbi” in Ch. 9:5, together with the emphatic declaration “I brought my son to you,” indicates an expectation of deliverance based upon conviction. Without answering the question of verse 16 directly, he explained the situation which had erupted in the intense dispute between the disciples and the scribes.
The description of the destructive energy released at unexpected intervals by the demonic spirit indicates the seriousness of the boy’s condition. Violent convulsions, foaming at the mouth, involuntary gnashing of the teeth, rigidness followed by utter exhaustion, resemble the symptoms of the major form of epilepsy.49 The reference to a dumb and deaf spirit (Ch. 9:17, 25) implies that the child’s situation was aggravated by an inability to speak or hear. What was involved, however, was not simply a chronic nervous disorder but demonic possession. The violence of the seizures, and the reference to repeated attempts to destroy the youth by hurling him into a fire or water (Ch. 9:20, 22, 26), indicate that the purpose of demonic possession is to distort and destroy the image of God in man. That this destruction should be heaped upon a child only serves to indicate how radical the issue is between demonic power and Jesus, the bestower of life (Ch. 9:27).
The father had appealed to the disciples to exercise the power known to belong to Jesus because the principle basic to discipleship was that “the messenger of a man is as the man himself.”50 In Jesus’ absence the disciples stood in his place and were regarded as he is. It was therefore legitimate to expect that they possessed the power of their master. For their part, the disciples had good reason to believe that they could cast out the demon because they had been commissioned to expel demons in the context of their mission, and they had been successful (Ch. 6:7, 13). They undoubtedly tried in various ways to heal the boy, but they were inadequate to the resistance they encountered. They possessed the power of God only in personal faith, but during Jesus’ absence an attitude of unbelief and self-confidence, based on past success, had exposed them to failure. Their inability appears to have shaken the father’s confidence in Jesus’ ability to do anything (cf. Ch. 9:22 “if you can”). He appealed for Jesus’ help directly only after another violent convulsion, and then with doubt and hesitation.
19 Jesus’ poignant cry of exasperation is an expression of weariness which is close to heart-break (cf. Chs. 3:5; 8:12). This is brought into sharp relief when his exclamation is seen to be a personal word addressed to the disciples, who alone had failed at the crucial moment. Although they had been privileged to be with Jesus and possessed the charism of healing, they had been defeated through unbelief when they stood in his place and sought to exercise his power. The lack of faith and hardness of heart reproved on other occasions (Chs. 4:40; 6:50, 52; 8:17–21) continued to characterize the disciples and betrayed a costly failure to understand the nature of their task and of the relationship that they must sustain to Jesus. The qualitative overtones in “unbelieving generation” suggest that the disciples remain indistinguishable from the unregenerate men who demand signs but are fundamentally untrue to God (Ch. 8:12, 38). The rhetorical questions, “how long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?” express the loneliness and the anguish of the one authentic believer in a world which expresses only unbelief. The opposition expressed between “I” and “you” in these statements is seen in its true character only when it is recognized that what God says of his relationship to faithless Israel (cf. Isa. 63:8–10), Jesus now says of his relationship to the future community of faith. It is a measure of Jesus’ infinite patience that he continues to instruct the Twelve and prepare them for the day in which they will stand in his place and continue his work (Chs. 3:14f.; 9:28f.; 14:28; 16:7).
20–22 The antipathy between Jesus and the demonic realm is evident in the violence of the seizure the boy experienced when he was brought before the Lord. By reducing the son to complete helplessness the unclean spirit betrayed his malicious intent to destroy the child and his utter contempt for Jesus. It is evident that the Lord was deeply moved. His question concerning the length of time the boy had been subject to such attacks shows his deep humanity and concern, for the source of the question is compassion. The father was deeply alarmed and saw in this new convulsion one more incident in a series of near-fatal seizures which could only end in disaster if help was not forthcoming. His distress is well expressed in the desperate cry, “If you can do anything, have compassion on us, and help us.” At the same time, his words contain a concealed accusation against the powerlessness of the disciples, which has led him to doubt Jesus’ ability to offer real assistance to his son.
23–24 Jesus seized upon the father’s words at the point where they were most tempered with doubt: “if you can.” Verse 23 can be paraphrased, “As regards your remark about my ability to help your son, I tell you everything depends upon your ability to believe, not on mine to act.” By this reversal of intent, Jesus indicates that the release of the man’s son from possession is not to be a response to the conditional “if you can,” as if his power were something to be elicited through challenge. What is to be tested in the arena of experience is not Jesus’ ability, but the father’s refusal to set limits to what can be accomplished through the power of God. In its struggle with temptation, faith must always free itself from the disastrous presumption of doubt, in the certainty that with God nothing is impossible (Ch. 10:27), and that his majesty becomes most visible when human resources have become exhausted. Jesus thus calls for that faith which bows its head before the concealed glory of God (cf. Chs. 5:36; 11:23f.). The parallel in expression between Ch. 9:23 and Ch. 10:27 indicates that through faith the believer shares in the sovereign rule of God and therefore, either actively or passively, experiences miraculous power.51 In this instance, healing is to be the response to radical faith in Jesus, through whom the power of God is released.
The father’s response indicates that he understands Jesus’ words in this light, for he immediately relates the solemn declaration concerning faith to himself. His cry expresses humanity and distress at being asked to manifest radical faith when unbelief is the form of human existence. At the same time that he affirms his faith, he associates himself with the rebuke addressed to the disciples: this generation is always unbelieving. The ambivalence in his confession is a natural expression of anxiety in the earnest desire to see his son released, but it is also a candid plea for help at that point where his faith is ready to fail. The exchange between Jesus and the father established the personal relationship necessary for the accomplishment of the release.
25–27 The statement that Jesus acted because he saw that a multitude was rapidly gathering is consistent with the reserve he exercised on other occasions when exorcising malignant spirits. The reference to the crowd, however, is puzzling. It is natural to think of the crowd mentioned in verse 14, although there has been no mention of withdrawal from the people, as in Chs. 7:33; 8:23. It is possible that others began to converge upon the spot as word of Jesus’ presence spread. The reference, however, must remain obscure. The release was effected through Jesus’ authoritative word. The expression of the command both positively and negatively served to make it clear that the attacks were now to be a thing of the past.52 The double rebuke of the unclean spirit may have been prompted by the display of contempt for Jesus exhibited in the severe convulsion reported in verse 20. That malicious action was repeated at the moment of exorcism with such violence that the boy took on the appearance of a corpse—so much so that most of the people said he was dead. The expression “became as one dead” implies that he was not dead, although there was clearly room for discussion concerning this (cf. Ch. 5:39–42). But the accumulation of the vocabulary of death and resurrection in verses 26–27, and the parallelism with the narrative of the raising of Jairus’ daughter, suggest that Mark wished to allude to a death and resurrection. The dethroning of Satan is always a reversal of death and an affirmation of life. There is a nuance in this instance, however, which must be appreciated. There appears to be a definite heightening of demonic resistance to Jesus which can be traced in the sequence Ch. 1:23–27—Ch. 5:1–20—Ch. 9:14–29. In this instance the disciples are powerless before the demon’s tenacious grip upon the child and Jesus is successful only by the costly means of death and resuscitation.53 The healing of the possessed boy thus points beyond itself to the necessity of Jesus’ own death and resurrection before Satan’s power can be definitively broken.
28–29 These verses have the character of an epilogue to the account, which ends with verse 27. Without the epilogue, the theme of the powerlessness of the disciples would remain incomplete and unexplained. A withdrawal to a house where Jesus may be questioned in private by the disciples is recorded in Chs. 4:10; 7:17; 9:28 and 10:10, and on each occasion these conversations provide supplementary teaching reserved for the disciples alone. In the house Jesus emphasizes the theological point of an incident. In this instance the final conversation relates to the central theme of the unit, for the epilogue qualifies the faith of verse 23 as the faith that prays.
In response to the inevitable question of why they had failed, Jesus explained to the disciples that such malign evil spirits can be expelled only by a full reliance upon the unlimited power of God expressed through prayer. This response contains at least the implicit criticism that the disciples had failed because they had not acted in prayer and sincere faith. The stress that prayer alone is efficacious, however, is striking because in Judaism the recitation of the Shema (Deut. 6:4–6), and of Psalms 3 and 91 was considered a powerful agent against evil spirits.54 In the early Church the efficacy of fasting was championed and this emphasis has left its mark upon almost the entire manuscript tradition of verse 29. Jesus, however, spoke only of prayer as the source of faith’s power and the means of its strength. The disciples had been tempted to believe that the gift they had received from Jesus (Ch. 6:7) was in their control and could be exercised at their disposal. This was a subtle form of unbelief, for it encouraged them to trust in themselves rather than in God. They had to learn that their previous success in expelling demons provided no guarantee of continued power. Rather the power of God must be asked for on each occasion in radical reliance upon his ability alone. When faith confronts the demonic, God’s omnipotence is its sole assurance, and God’s sovereignty is its only restriction. This is the faith which experiences the miracle of deliverance.
6. The Second Major Prophecy of the Passion. Ch. 9:30–32
30And they went forth from thence, and passed through Galilee: and he would not that any man should know it.
31For he taught his disciples, and said unto them, The Son of Man is delivered up into the hands of men, and they shall kill him; and when he is killed, after three days he shall rise again.
32But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask him.
30 The re-entrance into Galilee marks a return to familiar territory, but the public ministry which had stirred the province was not to be resumed. This was simply the first leg of the journey from the territory of Herod Philip through Galilee and Perea to Jerusalem. The subject of the brief section covering the return to Galilee (Ch. 9:30–50) is Jesus’ instruction of the Twelve, first concerning his destiny, and then their responsibility toward one another and toward men of faith beyond their immediate circle. Jesus’ intention that his presence in Galilee should be unrecognized reflects not only the desire to instruct the disciples without interruption but a sense of compulsion to press toward Jerusalem where his messianic mission is to be fulfilled.
31 The three prophecies of the passion are distinct in narrative setting and formulation, and should be regarded as separate utterances.55 The second major prophecy differs from the first (Ch. 8:31) in not speaking of a divinely imposed necessity, but of a fact so certain it can be described as accomplished (“is delivered”). It is also briefer in formulation, referring to abandonment to the will of men, violent death and resurrection. The stress on suffering and rejection is absent, perhaps because these aspects of Jesus’ humiliation were re-emphasized in Ch. 9:12b. The element which is new is the notice that the Son of Man will be delivered up (or handed over) into the hands of men (cf. Ch. 14:41). “To deliver up” or “hand over” is an important concept in the context of lawsuits and in the Jewish theology of martyrdom. More than simply the coming of an individual into another’s power, the term connotes the actual fulfilment of God’s will as expressed in Scripture. Particularly in martyrdom, God is the one who permits (or hinders) the handing over in fulfilment of his deeper purposes. “Into the hands of men” reinforces the concept of abandonment, as is evident in Jer. 33 (M.T. 26):24 where the full phrase occurs: “given over into the hands of the people to be put to death.” After the betrayal by Judas and Jesus’ arrest, it was natural to associate the terminology of “handing over” with that act of treachery (cf. Chs. 3:19; 14:41). The background of the term in Scripture, however, indicates that the thought is more profound: Jesus will be delivered into the hands of men by God, and what takes place on the level of historical occurrence has ultimate significance because it centers in the eschatological action of God. The precise wording of verse 31 may have been influenced by Isa. 53:6, 12 (LXX), where the expiatory death of the Servant is prominently in view. Jesus’ statement indicates that God’s redemptive will provides the key to understanding his passion.
32 The failure of the disciples to understand Jesus’ meaning (cf. Ch. 9:10) and their fear of discussing it with him combine to suggest their apprehension and Jesus’ essential loneliness on the way to Jerusalem. They cannot penetrate his meaning, and they are afraid to do so because they suspect that to know more would be painful. The text of verse 31 is not obscure, but Jesus may have used an ambiguous Aramaic expression which can mean exaltation or crucifixion.56 This may explain both the fear of the disciples to inquire more precisely concerning his meaning and their readiness to be preoccupied with questions of precedence in Jesus’ Kingdom (Ch. 9:33f.; 10:35–37).
7. True Greatness. Ch. 9:33–37
33And they came57 to Capernaum: and when he was in the house he asked them, What were ye reasoning on the way?
34But they held their peace: for they had disputed one with another on the way, who was the greatest.
35And he sat down, and called the twelve; and he saith unto them, If any man would be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.58
36And he took a little child, and set him in the midst of them: and taking him in his arms, he said unto them,
37Whosoever shall receive one of such little children in my name, receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me.
The instruction given to the disciples “in the house” in Capernaum extends through verse 50. It consists of a group of sayings which appear to have been built up primarily through catchword-association, in which one saying is linked to another through a related expression.59 Ch. 9:38–42 seems to have been joined to Ch. 9:33–37 through the recurring phrase “in my name” (verses 37, 38, 39, 41). The warning against offending “one of these little ones” in verse 42 was prompted by association with “one of these little children” in verse 37, while the formulation “whoever shall offend … it were better for him” in verse 42 attracted the sayings concerning the offending hand, foot and eye where the symmetry in phrasing is particularly evident (verses 43, 45, 47). The reference to the unquenchable fire of hell in verse 48 served to recall the proverb that everyone shall be salted with fire (verse 49), which is itself linked to the final thoughts by the key word “salt.” The series of catchwords and recurring phrases were aids to memorization and it is probable that teaching given historically on several occasions was brought together for catechetical purposes. At the same time, there is an appropriateness to the material in this context which must be recognized. The unity of Ch. 9:33–50 is imposed through the Semitic device of inclusio, in which there is a return to the beginning of a section at its conclusion. The final word in verse 50 (“Be at peace with one another”) has pointed relevance to the strife reported in verses 33f., while the material introduced within the section has direct bearing on the missionary character of the Twelve—and of the Church.
33–34 When Jesus asks a question of the disciples, his intention is to provide new teaching (cf. Ch. 8:27, 29, 31). The direct question concerning the heated discussion on the way to Capernaum proved embarrassing to the disciples. It was difficult to be honest that the point of the dispute had been who was the greatest among them. Their silence recalls the silence of Jesus’ adversaries before his pointed question in the synagogue at Capernaum (Ch. 3:4). The question of greatness could be posed from the vantage point of understanding, as in Logion 12 of the Gospel of Thomas: “The disciples said to Jesus, We know that you will go away from us. Who is it that will then be great over us?” In Mark, however, the dispute over greatness indicates the degree to which the disciples had failed to understand Jesus’ solemn affirmation concerning his abandonment to the will of men (Ch. 9:31f.). It also shows how impregnated they were with the temper of their own culture where questions of precedence and rank were constantly arising.60
35 The question of precedence was resolved on the authority of Jesus: he who wishes to be first must determine to be the servant of all. This surprising reversal of all human ideas of greatness and rank is a practical application of the great commandment of love for one’s neighbor (Ch. 12:31; Lev. 19:18) and a reaffirmation of the call to self-denial which is the precondition for following Jesus (Ch. 8:34, where the formulation “whoever wishes to come after me” is parallel to “whoever wishes to be first” in Ch. 9:35). The order of life for the disciples in their relationship to each other is to be the service of love. By transforming the question of greatness into the task-orientation of service, Jesus established a new pattern for human relationships which leaves no occasion for strife or opposition toward one another.61 The disciples’ thoughts were upon the period of glory, when questions of rank seemed appropriate (cf. Ch. 10:35–37); Jesus redirected them to his insistence that the way to glory leads through suffering and death. The point of suffering is here located in the service to be accomplished, where service means specifically sacrifice for others. The disciples cannot order their relationships as they please but are to recognize in one another men under whom they place themselves as servants. Jesus thus decided their question in a way which is in keeping with his proclamation of his own messianic vocation (cf. Ch. 10:43–45). This was clearly recognized in Polycarp’s exhortation to the men whose task was to discharge the office of servants in the church at Philippi: “Likewise must the deacons be blameless … walking according to the truth of the Lord, who was ‘the servant of all’ ” (ad Phil. 5:2).
36–37 Taking an illustration from life, Jesus set a young child from the home among the ambitious disciples. The taking of the child into his arms recalls Ch. 10:13–16, where Jesus’ love for children is evident. His action on this occasion, however, introduces an enacted parable. The child is set before the Twelve as an example of discipleship, and the fact that the same Aramaic word means “child” and “servant” lends to his presence the character of a dramatized play on the affirmation in verse 35.62 The disciples are to identify themselves with children and become “the little ones” who have no basis for pretensions to greatness. The statement that to receive a little child is equivalent to receiving Jesus (verse 37a) must, therefore, be interpreted of the disciples.63 This is confirmed by the vocabulary of the formulation and by the immediate context. “Receive” must be understood in the same sense this word has in Ch. 6:11, where it refers to the welcome extended to the disciples because they come as Jesus’ representatives. The mission context of Ch. 6:7–13 provides the key to verse 37 where “the child” comes in Jesus’ name, as his representative. “The child” only represents Jesus if he has been sent by him, in accordance with the legal principle that the emissary of a man is as the man himself. Because he comes in Jesus’ name, invested with his authority, he is to be received. The vocabulary of hospitality appears in verse 41 as well, where Jesus speaks of the cup of water extended to the disciples because they come “in the name of the Messiah.” In verse 42, a follower of Jesus is in view when he speaks of “one of these little ones who believe in me,” and the image of the child is once more invoked. There is thus a clear progression in thought in verses 35–37: the admonition to become “the servant of all” in verse 35 is reinforced by the parabolic action of verse 36. But with the admonition to fulfill the disciple’s vocation by becoming “one of these children” is linked the assurance of identification with Jesus. The Lord says, in effect, whoever receives you, receives me and the Father who sent me (verse 37). This provision lends to the servant’s task the greatest dignity. At the same time Jesus associates himself with the posture of the servant, in anticipation of the startling declaration of Ch. 10:45.
8. Exorcism through Jesus’ Name. Ch. 9:38–42
38John said unto him, Teacher, we saw one casting out demons in thy name, and we forbade64 him, because he followed not us.65
39But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me.
40For he that is not against us is for us.
41For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink, because ye are Christ’s,66 verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.
42And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me67 to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone68 were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
38 The assurance that a special and intimate relationship exists between Jesus and the Twelve (verse 37) prompted John to call Jesus’ attention to an unsuccessful attempt to prevent an unauthorized use of his power and name by an anonymous exorcist. This is the only time when Mark calls attention to John alone. It is striking, however, that after each of the three major prophecies of the passion the evangelist inserts the response of one of the three disciples who were closest to Jesus: Peter (Ch. 8:32f.), John (Ch. 9:38), and James, with John (Ch. 10:35–37). Mark shows in this way that even the most privileged of the disciples failed to understand what the passion signified for their life and mission. The use of the first person plural (“we saw … we forbade him … not following us”) indicates that John was speaking for all of the disciples.
What had disturbed the Twelve was the exercise of Jesus’ power and name by a stranger who had not been authorized to do so. He was not even a member of Jesus’ company; yet he had refused to listen to the disciples when they sought to restrain his activity. John’s complaint is significant, for it reveals an awareness that only the Twelve had been commissioned by Jesus and were authorized to act in his name, i.e. as his representatives and with his power. The irony of John’s disclosure, at this point in the narrative, is that in Ch. 9:14–18 the disciples themselves had been powerless in a situation involving demonic resistance to exorcism. The action of the Twelve toward a stranger who was effective in exercising Jesus’ power only points to their own ineptness and lack of understanding (cf. Num. 11:27–29, where Joshua wishes to forbid the unauthorized exercise of the gift of prophecy). The Twelve had an unduly narrow perspective toward the work of God. The man had grasped that an essential dimension of Jesus’ mission was the confrontation and defeat of Satan. The use of Jesus’ name (i.e. “I command you to come out in Jesus’ name!”) shows an awareness that it was Jesus who ordered the action, which was accomplished by his sovereign will. In the light of the experience of Jewish exorcists who misused Jesus’ name, without understanding (Acts 19:13–16; cf. Mt. 7:21–23), it is necessary to affirm that the name of Jesus discloses its authentic power only when a man joins Jesus in faith and obedience to the will of God.69 The fact that Jesus’ power was active in the man, bringing release to men who had been enslaved to demonic possession, marks him as a believer. His action was an effective witness to the imminent Kingdom of God.
39–40 Jesus opposed the narrow exclusivism of the Twelve with an open and generous spirit. The disciples’ action was an abuse of their authority, for they had presumed to speak for Jesus where they had no competence. Qualifying the prohibition “Do not forbid him” is the recognition that a mighty work was being done and that Jesus’ name was being proclaimed. The proverbial statement “he will not lightly speak evil of me” entails subtle humor, to which there are formal parallels in Jewish sources.70 With this remark Jesus gently contrasts the effectiveness of the unknown exorcist with the ineffectiveness of the Twelve. Concurrently, it expresses the important point that the use of Jesus’ name involves a recognition of his authority. It was not necessary to be a direct follower of Jesus to share in a conflict which has cosmic dimensions; opposition to Satan unites the man to Jesus in his distinctive mission (cf. Ch. 3:27). The real ground of the prohibition is provided in the epigrammatic statement in verse 40.71 The sharp recognition of only two sides (“against us” and “for us”) radicalizes the demand to welcome participation in the mission, even from unexpected quarters. If anyone is working for the cause to which Jesus and the Twelve are committed, he cannot work against it at the same time.
41 The reference to the person who gives a drink of water to a disciple on the ground that he belongs to Jesus concretely illustrates the principle of verse 40 and indicates how wide is the range of participation in the mission which Jesus envisions. The offering of a cup of water to quench the biting thirst induced by the burning heat of the eastern sun is an act of hospitality (cf. verse 37) as well as an example of the humble service commended to the disciples in verse 35. It becomes a significant act when the drink is offered to a man because he is a disciple and belongs to Jesus. This statement presupposes the same frame of reference integral to verse 37, that the emissary of a man is as the man himself, and what is done to the emissary is done to the one who sent him. Jesus thus recognizes that the cup of water is extended to himself, and that this act of kindness is actually a token of faith and obedience. That is why he solemnly promises that the one who declares himself “for us” by this tangible action will not lose his reward. He will have a place in the Kingdom of God with the disciples and with Jesus, with whom he has identified himself in this small way. The reference to “his reward” carries no thought of deserving or of merit, for there is no way in which a cup of water may be conceived as meriting participation in the Kingdom. It serves rather to stress God’s awareness of all who share in the extension of Jesus’ work, and to emphasize that there are no distinctions between “trivial” and “important” tasks. There is only faith and obedience, shown in devotion to Jesus, and wherever these qualities exist they call forth the approval of God.
42 The relationship of verse 42 to the larger discussion introduced by John’s reference to an unknown exorcist in verse 38 is not generally recognized.72 It receives no support from the parallel in Mt. 18:15, the paragraphing in the critical editions of the text or in any modern translation of the Scripture. There is, nevertheless, good reason to believe that in Mark’s intention verse 42 provides the final comment on the disclosure that the disciples had tried to prevent a man from exorcising demons in Jesus’ name. The warning against causing “one of these least ones” to stumble in their faith follows naturally upon verse 41, with which it shares an introductory “whoever” clause (“Whoever gives to you a cup of water … And whoever causes one of these little ones who believe on me to stumble …”). The explicit reference to those who believe in Jesus looks back upon the concrete action described in verse 41, and presumably in verses 38f. as well. The stern warning has immediate relevance for those who had sought to prevent the exercise of faith in Jesus’ name, and corresponds in severity to the word addressed to Peter when he sought to turn Jesus from the path of obedience (Ch. 8:33). Verse 42 performs the same function as Ch. 8:33: it serves to expose a grievous misconception and by graphic language to impress the seriousness of the matter indelibly upon the disciples’ hearts.
In verse 37 Jesus had designated the disciples as “the children” who were to be received in his name. Here the designation “the little ones” is extended to other followers whose allegiance to Jesus is no less exemplified in their own spheres of labor (exorcism, hospitality) than is true of the Twelve. The description points to the secret that they bear a concealed or future dignity because they believe in Jesus and act in his name. The parallel designation underscores the irony that those who are to be received because they belong to Jesus (verse 37) should be the occasion of causing to fail in their faith others who equally belong to him. In such an eventuality, Jesus implies, the punishment incurred will be so severe it would have been better for a man if he had been drowned before he could have committed so grievous an offense. The graphic reference to the millstone around the neck and being cast into the sea would not have been lost upon the disciples, who undoubtedly had heard of the punishment inflicted by the Romans in Galilee on some of the leaders of the insurrection under the early Zealot leader, Judas the Galilean (cf. Acts 5:37).73
9. The Demanding Requirements of Discipleship. Ch. 9:43–50
43And if thy hand cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed, rather than having thy two hands to go into hell,74 into the unquenchable fire.75
45And if thy foot cause thee to stumble, cut it off: it is good for thee to enter into life halt, rather than having thy two feet to be cast into hell.
47And if thine eye cause thee to stumble, cast it out: it is good for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell,
48where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
49For everyone shall be salted with fire.76
50Salt is good: but if the salt have lost its saltness, wherewith will ye season it? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace one with another.77
43–48 These verses constitute a call to concrete obedience which renews the radical demands of discipleship enunciated in Ch. 8:34–38. In contrast to verse 42, where Jesus spoke of causing someone else to fall away from him, these stern warnings relate to the ensnaring of oneself in sin. The issue remains the same, however. In the specific context, the offense is in the question of decision for the Kingdom of God, which cannot be divorced from the person of Jesus himself and the exercise of faith. It is particularly important to appreciate the eschatological framework of Jesus’ words concerning radical self-punishment of an offending member of the body. The sharp contrast between departure (or, being cast) into hell and entrance into life (or the Kingdom) presupposes the situation of the final judgment in which the decision of God (or the Son of Man, cf. Ch. 8:38) concerning each man is irreversible and entails eternal consequences.
It was not a Palestinian custom to refer to an abstract activity but to the specific member of the body which is responsible for it.78 For this reason, Jesus speaks of the offending hand, foot and eye, all members which have highly important functions to fulfill. They characterize a man concretely as one who acts and who is responsible for his actions. The representation of the members as the acting subject (“if your hand leads you to offend”) belongs to the realism of Jewish thought. The radical demand that the hand or foot should be hacked off or the eye plucked out if they expose a man to the danger of final rejection juxtaposes the relative value of physical life with the absolute value of that authentic, imperishable life which is bestowed by God alone. Jesus did not hesitate to call for the renunciation of possessions (Ch. 10:21), family (Ch. 10:28f.) and of life itself (Ch. 8:34f.) if these things stood in the way of following him; here he demands the complete sacrifice of the sinful activity of the member. This was not a demand for physical self-mutilation, but in the strongest manner possible Jesus speaks of the costliest sacrifices. For the sake of the unconditional rule of God the members of the body must not be placed at the disposal of sinful desire. The sinful member must be renounced in order that the whole body be not cast into hell. Conversely, concern for the preservation of a hand, a leg or a foot must not lead a man to denial of the sovereignty of God or his allegiance to Jesus. This thought found heroic exemplification in the history of Jewish martyrdom (e.g. 2 Macc. 7:2–41, where the sacrifice of limbs and life is accepted in order to be true to God and to receive life from his hand) and was to play a crucial role in the martyr Church as well. Whatever in one’s life tempts one to be untrue to God must be discarded, promptly and decisively, even as a surgeon amputates a hand or a leg in order to save a life.79
What is designated “life” in verses 43 and 45 means specifically “life with God,” as the parallel with “the kingdom of God” in verse 47 indicates. In the related context of Ch. 10:17–31, this reality is qualified as “eternal life” (Ch. 10:17, 30). In contrast with entrance into life Jesus speaks of “departure into hell, to the unquenchable fire” (verse 43). The final phrase does not appear in verses 45 and 47; it may represent Mark’s explanation of the word “Gehenna,” which would be unfamiliar to Gentile readers, on the basis of Isa. 66:24 (cited in verse 48). In Jewish sources Gehenna was associated with the eschatological fires of hell80 and conveyed an image of extreme horror. Entrance into hell indicates spiritual ruin in the starkest terms. This thought is reinforced with the citation of Isa. 66:24 in verse 48, which speaks of the punishment of the sin of rebellion against God. As the final word of the prophecy of Isaiah the passage was thoroughly familiar to the disciples as a vivid picture of a destruction which continues endlessly.81 The contrast drawn between spiritual life and spiritual death in Ch. 8:35–37 is here redrawn in concrete, tangible terms to sharpen the issue of radical obedience in the context of costly sacrifice.
49 This brief logion, which is preserved by Mark alone, speaks of a different kind of fire—the fire of purification. While verse 48 applies to the rejected, verse 49 has reference to those who are true to God in a hostile world. The thought of the sacrifice of an offending member of the body (verses 43–47) is here carried a step further: every disciple is to be a sacrifice for God (cf. Rom. 12:1). In the OT the Temple sacrifices had to be accompanied by salt (Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:24; cf. Ex. 30:35). The salt-sacrifice metaphor is appropriate to a situation of suffering and trial in which the principle of sacrifice cultivated with respect to the individual members of the body is now severely tested. The disciples must be seasoned with salt, like the sacrifice. This will take place through fiery trials (cf. 1 Peter 1:7; 4:12), through which God will purge away everything contrary to his will.82 Understood in this way, Jesus’ word is a challenging pronouncement on suffering which shed light on the experience of the Church in Nero’s Rome. Its preservation in “the teaching manual” of a community facing persecution is fully intelligible.
50 The reference to salt in verse 49 supplies the dominant note for verse 50. Here, however, the associations of salt are no longer cultic, but domestic. Two observations on Palestinian life furnish the background to Jesus’ pithy comments. The maxim that “the world cannot survive without salt” (Tractate Sopherim XV. 8) is a vivid reminder that salt was a necessity of life in the ancient world because it preserved food from putrefaction. On the other hand, Pliny the Elder had already observed that the salt from the Dead Sea can lose its savory quality and becomes insipid (Hist. Nat. 3, 31, 34).83 Jesus’ words presuppose these two truths. The logion concerning salt, however, must be interpreted by the context, which sets forth the demanding requirements of discipleship. The disciples have an eschatological responsibility toward men in a world which is subject to the judgment of God. Jesus warns them that they can lose that salt-like quality which can mean life for the world. Here salt typifies that quality which is the distinctive mark of the disciple, the loss of which will make him worthless. This can only be his allegiance to Jesus and the gospel (cf. Ch. 8:35, 38). The exhortation to guard their salt-like quality in order to be at peace with one another has direct bearing on the situation of strife which provoked the conversation in verses 33ff. What is to set one man apart from another is not distinctions of rank or worth, but the quality of “saltness.” Strife is resolved and peace restored when men recognize in one another a common commitment to Jesus and the gospel, and to the servant’s vocation.